3 ms·

You are mixing up two different groups of people. > money is speech and there are no values higher The people (Federalist Society, etc.) who make this argumen

You are mixing up two different groups of people. > money is speech and there are no values higher The people (Federalist Society, etc.) who make this argument are the ones who want Saudi/Russian/Chinese/Israeli/... propaganda to dominate or subvert American discourse (with the same subversive power also granted to homegrown plutocrats), as long as they can take a cut or they perceive the resulting public confusion to advance their ideological agenda. And yes: this is a very short-sighted and dangerous road to travel down, eroding republican norms and civic trust and concentrating power among the unaccountable.

antt 8y ago
This is an incredibly incendiary,shortsighted and ultimately self defeating point of view. People can fundamentally disagree with you without being evil, stupid or duped. One only need to look at how universal healthcare was not implemented in the US because the USSR had it as a pithy example of how damaging this way of thinking is.
- jacobolus 8y ago
  I agree this is incendiary, for the reason that it cuts to the heart of these groups’ deeply contradictory self-image / self-proclaimed values. Nobody likes being told publicly that their actions have led and will continue to lead to serious harm for many people. I didn’t say they were evil or stupid or duped. Just short-sighted and self-interested with a practically anti-republican ideology (though I might also add: often disingenuous in public discussion, and largely unwilling to take public responsibility for the side effects of their discourse and policy). > how universal healthcare was not implemented in the US because the USSR had it Universal healthcare was not implemented in the USA because the GOP and allied corporate interests have thrown everything they can against it for 75 years, typically sidelining serious policy debate in favor of slogans and cheap attacks. “Because the USSR has it” has little to do with it, except as a disingenuous excuse.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - antt 8y ago
    Republicans and Democrats have both conspired in equal degree to remove everything the new deal stood for in the last 80 years. Were that not the case you wouldn't have the worst homeless epidemics in the bluest cities. The only choice you get is if you put the stars and stripes in your Hummer or the rainbow flag on your Tesla. It's sad that my generation who made fun of the culture wars of the 90s has taken the culture wars of the 10s seriously enough to vote for Obama not once but twice.
munk-a 8y ago
Honestly, even just using this to concentrate power in the hands of few domestically is a dangerous erosion of societal norms. Dis-empowering a populace tends to end badly and result in some pretty strong (usually violent) pressures to restore democracy.
NeedMoreTea 8y ago
No, I don't think they are mixing them up at all. We either stop believing in free markets or we let everyone play. Maybe there's an untried middle road before returning to isolationism and protectionism. Mercantilism 2.0? China and Indian companies are just doing exactly the same as the US did last century, and the Japanese and Koreans did a few decades back, or Hong Kong a little before that. With all the same worthless complaining points the US often complains about China now, like espionage, lack of IP protection, propaganda, values, poorer quality, they're good for manufacturing but they'll never design etc, as 19th century Europeans were complaining about the US when they were playing catch up at all cost. 200+ years of history proves it will always happen, aided by those currently leading, and biggest countries (wallets) win in the end. Each and every time someone's culture was "being eroded". The only ideological agenda is some of their views and norms are different to yours. Newsflash: American mores were different to the Japanese and European too so why weren't they "a very short-sighted and dangerous road" too?
- jacobolus 8y ago
  > We either stop believing in free markets or we let everyone play. The people who “believe in [unregulated and unaccountable] free markets” and the ones who don’t want to “let every [plutocrat] play [at unlimited anonymous propaganda at the expense of ordinary local citizens]” are not the same. These two groups are more or less independent and have been ideological enemies for generations, and it makes no sense to conflate them.

antt 8y ago

This is an incredibly incendiary,shortsighted and ultimately self defeating point of view. People can fundamentally disagree with you without being evil, stupid or duped. One only need to look at how universal healthcare was not implemented in the US because the USSR had it as a pithy example of how damaging this way of thinking is.

jacobolus 8y ago
I agree this is incendiary, for the reason that it cuts to the heart of these groups’ deeply contradictory self-image / self-proclaimed values. Nobody likes being told publicly that their actions have led and will continue to lead to serious harm for many people. I didn’t say they were evil or stupid or duped. Just short-sighted and self-interested with a practically anti-republican ideology (though I might also add: often disingenuous in public discussion, and largely unwilling to take public responsibility for the side effects of their discourse and policy). > how universal healthcare was not implemented in the US because the USSR had it Universal healthcare was not implemented in the USA because the GOP and allied corporate interests have thrown everything they can against it for 75 years, typically sidelining serious policy debate in favor of slogans and cheap attacks. “Because the USSR has it” has little to do with it, except as a disingenuous excuse.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- antt 8y ago
  Republicans and Democrats have both conspired in equal degree to remove everything the new deal stood for in the last 80 years. Were that not the case you wouldn't have the worst homeless epidemics in the bluest cities. The only choice you get is if you put the stars and stripes in your Hummer or the rainbow flag on your Tesla. It's sad that my generation who made fun of the culture wars of the 90s has taken the culture wars of the 10s seriously enough to vote for Obama not once but twice.

munk-a 8y ago

Honestly, even just using this to concentrate power in the hands of few domestically is a dangerous erosion of societal norms. Dis-empowering a populace tends to end badly and result in some pretty strong (usually violent) pressures to restore democracy.

NeedMoreTea 8y ago

No, I don't think they are mixing them up at all. We either stop believing in free markets or we let everyone play. Maybe there's an untried middle road before returning to isolationism and protectionism. Mercantilism 2.0? China and Indian companies are just doing exactly the same as the US did last century, and the Japanese and Koreans did a few decades back, or Hong Kong a little before that. With all the same worthless complaining points the US often complains about China now, like espionage, lack of IP protection, propaganda, values, poorer quality, they're good for manufacturing but they'll never design etc, as 19th century Europeans were complaining about the US when they were playing catch up at all cost. 200+ years of history proves it will always happen, aided by those currently leading, and biggest countries (wallets) win in the end. Each and every time someone's culture was "being eroded". The only ideological agenda is some of their views and norms are different to yours. Newsflash: American mores were different to the Japanese and European too so why weren't they "a very short-sighted and dangerous road" too?

jacobolus 8y ago
> We either stop believing in free markets or we let everyone play. The people who “believe in [unregulated and unaccountable] free markets” and the ones who don’t want to “let every [plutocrat] play [at unlimited anonymous propaganda at the expense of ordinary local citizens]” are not the same. These two groups are more or less independent and have been ideological enemies for generations, and it makes no sense to conflate them.