Santa Barbara
27-04-2005, 17:29
I think that like Church and State, the Market should be separate. Government should try very much to avoid controlling it. But more than that - and this may surprise and shock some - I don't think money should have a place in the way elections, campaigns and political parties are all run.
Trouble is coming up with a system that can do this without being repressive.
Details aside, I still believe that currently, whoever has the most "political capital" wins, because they can do the most successful political advertising campaign. All that is apparently fine from the perspective of free market: you can donate to your party, your party can donate elsewhere, etc etc. But the problem is this is ALL it has become.
In the "olden days," George Washington did not become President by doing the most television interviews and talk shows. Lincoln did not become President by having the most successful TV commercials. But now you can arguably define the political process as indeed, advertising. And what makes advertising successful for a corporation is successful management combined with a suitable product. But what makes advertising successful for a political party or candidate? Same thing? No. Because while the corporation uses it's own profits to improve its advertising, therefor feeding back only on its own success, the party and candidate succeeds on the basis of publicity alone, since quality parties or candidates are completely excluded.
In short there is no "political market." What happens to the runners-up? They get absolutely jack shit. The government is a monopoly, and the multi-party (so to speak) House and Senate can only try to cover up that simple truth. Meanwhile, anyone not in the majority is screwed over, time and again, and largely because they didnt have enough 'political capital,' the ultimate arbiter.
In market terms, you can point to McDonalds as a sign of a (near) monopoly, but it isn't. A true monopoly has no other alternatives. You can always eat at Jack N the Box, In N Out, Burger King, Wendy's... the list goes on. In the case of the Presidency, it's a little like if McDonald's became the largest share of the market and it was suddenly illegal for anyone else to eat at any other restaraunt. Only the most popular is allowed. Similarly, there is CERTAINLY not anyone else allowed to be President. There is no representation for the minority whose viewpoint is lost to the minority - unlike with the market, where the minority can still eat at places other than McDonald's despite it's being, surely, one of if not the most popular of its kind.
And instead of parties 'pulling themselves up from their own bootstraps,' like a corporation does by nature, parties receive mysterious "funding" from - well, from who? Random people? Dead people? Supporters, yes. Also "incumbents." This is like allowing McDonald's to vote on whether to have the other corporations in the DJIA at all - and having the biggest vote of course. No surprise you'll see McDonald's competitors fade away...
They do anyway, but due to market forces. There is no political market forces other than the intent - and money - of those already in politics.
Money should have no place in politics. Market and state should be separate.
...that said, as long as we have old money deciding elections, we should allow legitimate and legal vote-selling. Why not? Free the market, if you think its a market. But no - the left AND the right will be against this, because it will ruin their monopoly. Even though the left can certainly see benefits in having half the population earning money where before they were just apathetic wastes. Even though the right can certainly see that vote buying is a logical extension of the free "political market." They both disagree because they know - much like the Catholic Church knew when Elizabeth I took the throne - that their illegitimate monopoly is threatened by freedom.
Trouble is coming up with a system that can do this without being repressive.
Details aside, I still believe that currently, whoever has the most "political capital" wins, because they can do the most successful political advertising campaign. All that is apparently fine from the perspective of free market: you can donate to your party, your party can donate elsewhere, etc etc. But the problem is this is ALL it has become.
In the "olden days," George Washington did not become President by doing the most television interviews and talk shows. Lincoln did not become President by having the most successful TV commercials. But now you can arguably define the political process as indeed, advertising. And what makes advertising successful for a corporation is successful management combined with a suitable product. But what makes advertising successful for a political party or candidate? Same thing? No. Because while the corporation uses it's own profits to improve its advertising, therefor feeding back only on its own success, the party and candidate succeeds on the basis of publicity alone, since quality parties or candidates are completely excluded.
In short there is no "political market." What happens to the runners-up? They get absolutely jack shit. The government is a monopoly, and the multi-party (so to speak) House and Senate can only try to cover up that simple truth. Meanwhile, anyone not in the majority is screwed over, time and again, and largely because they didnt have enough 'political capital,' the ultimate arbiter.
In market terms, you can point to McDonalds as a sign of a (near) monopoly, but it isn't. A true monopoly has no other alternatives. You can always eat at Jack N the Box, In N Out, Burger King, Wendy's... the list goes on. In the case of the Presidency, it's a little like if McDonald's became the largest share of the market and it was suddenly illegal for anyone else to eat at any other restaraunt. Only the most popular is allowed. Similarly, there is CERTAINLY not anyone else allowed to be President. There is no representation for the minority whose viewpoint is lost to the minority - unlike with the market, where the minority can still eat at places other than McDonald's despite it's being, surely, one of if not the most popular of its kind.
And instead of parties 'pulling themselves up from their own bootstraps,' like a corporation does by nature, parties receive mysterious "funding" from - well, from who? Random people? Dead people? Supporters, yes. Also "incumbents." This is like allowing McDonald's to vote on whether to have the other corporations in the DJIA at all - and having the biggest vote of course. No surprise you'll see McDonald's competitors fade away...
They do anyway, but due to market forces. There is no political market forces other than the intent - and money - of those already in politics.
Money should have no place in politics. Market and state should be separate.
...that said, as long as we have old money deciding elections, we should allow legitimate and legal vote-selling. Why not? Free the market, if you think its a market. But no - the left AND the right will be against this, because it will ruin their monopoly. Even though the left can certainly see benefits in having half the population earning money where before they were just apathetic wastes. Even though the right can certainly see that vote buying is a logical extension of the free "political market." They both disagree because they know - much like the Catholic Church knew when Elizabeth I took the throne - that their illegitimate monopoly is threatened by freedom.