4 ms·
No, it's not just that. CF is not the only mechanism through which the wealthy can exert their influence: - think tank funding - ad spending - lobbying (CF w
by Futurebot 11y ago
No, it's not just that. CF is not the only mechanism through which the wealthy can exert their influence:
- think tank funding
- ad spending
- lobbying (CF will not fix that)
- the potential of future jobs / revolving door
Most importantly, cultural deference does not go away with CF reform; people respect the monied and the powerful for more than their campaign contributions. They also respect people "like them" (http://time.com/373/congress-is-now-mostly-a-millionaires-club/ http://time.com/373/congress-is-now-mostly-a-millionaires-cl...), which means similar socio-economic backgrounds, elite schools, clubs, etc.
They buy influence indirectly by simply having wealth and power concentrated with them. You can only reduce that by reducing the distance between the bottom and the top. You have to reduce "vertical social distance."
Nothing is a silver bullet here, but reducing wealth inequality is the most direct route to equalizing political power.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elite_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elite_theory
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_law_of_oligarchy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_law_of_oligarchy
I especially recommend reading "The original problem of social distance" in "Twilight of the Elites."
- argonaut 11y agoI explicitly mentioned "(and other reform for areas outside of politics like higher education, etc.)" So all those things you've mentioned are the real direct causes (that should be fixed) of the problems you blame on wealth inequality.
- Futurebot 11y agoI'm sorry, I don't follow. You cannot reduce social distance without reducing income inequality. If those other things include "reduce income inequality", then yes, we're in agreement. If those other things do not include that, then we're not in agreement - those things are ultimately eating around the edges (and we should do them. 100% we should do them because they matter, too) and not attacking the core problem. Income inequality is both a symptom (policy preferences that favor low taxes, loopholes, etc.) and a cause of the problem (inequality itself causes vertical social distance, causing unresponsive elites, causing people to get elected that favor the preferences of other elites, which causes..) It's self-reinforcing. You can't fix "vertical social distance" without reducing inequality. Read my links to find out why. Here's another: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_inequality_in_the_United_States#Effects_on_democracy_and_society https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_inequality_in_the_Unite...
- jamiequint 11y agoYou're confusing proximate and ultimate causes. > Income inequality is ... a cause of the problem (inequality itself causes vertical social distance, causing unresponsive elites, causing people to get elected that favor the preferences of other elites, which causes..) It's self-reinforcing. You state the problem is elites in office who have biases in their preferences, and claim that inequality causes this. The links you provide list political polarization, class warfare, etc. as "effects" of income inequality. However, nowhere do you show this is the ultimate cause of the problem rather than a proximate cause. A better use of time would be to suggest ways that one might limit undue political influence in the presence of inequality, rather than eliminating inequality itself (which would have many deleterious effects as addressed in the original post).