4 ms·
Americans don’t travel. If we did, we wouldn’t buy the myth of American exceptionalism. But then, we are largely becoming a country controlled by global financ
by exelius 8y ago
Americans don’t travel. If we did, we wouldn’t buy the myth of American exceptionalism.
But then, we are largely becoming a country controlled by global financial interests rather than the population. Money is the deciding factor in our elections, and the most concentrated forms of wealth out there are sovereign wealth funds and large multinational corporations whose executives are largely above the law. Which means you don’t need to be an American citizen to have a voice in the political process that affects the quality of life for hundreds of millions of us.
We need publicly funded elections. Otherwise, corporate and foreign money with zero interest in the wellbeing of American citizens will dominate the politics agenda (just like they have for the last 20-ish years).
- jlawson 8y agoMoney is not the deciding factor in American elections. Hillary Clinton spent twice as much as Donald Trump during the 2016 campaign.
- ihaveajob 8y agoThat's one exception to the rule. A big one, being the most important election that happens every 4 year, but that doesn't negate the importance of money in campaigning.
- JackFr 8y agoBeto O’Rourke outspent Ted Cruz $79MM to $45MM. Another exception?
- exelius 8y agoThere are always exceptions that prove the rule — Texas is in a weird place in that the shifting demographics (higher birthdate among non-whites) will eventually flip the state blue in the late 2020s, so I think the DNC was optimistic they could steal a senate seat on a wave of popular support. One could also argue the DNC was investing in raising the national profile of one of its rising stars in advance of the 2020 campaign even knowing his chances were slim.
- lesdeuxmagots 8y agoMoney is a deciding factor in shaping elections - the narratives, the length of the election season, what candidates decide to run, how policy choices look. By the time the general presidential election happens, 90% of the impact is already baked in.
- warcode 8y agoFrom what I have learned it is the money you don't hear about that matters the most.
- carlmr 8y agoCampaign spending is not the whole picture. How many outside interests contributed otherwise to HC and DT in the last election? You can start an ad campaign against a candidate you don't like without that showing up in the campaign fund.
- freshm087 8y agoHC factically started her campaign right after the first Obama's term, had support of party leadership, and therefore major party donors, and having sympathies of the press. DT started his campaign a year before elections, was rudiculed by mainstream Republican opinion-makers until May 2016, was (and is) in a conflict with major donors (like Koch brothers), and had/has generally unfriendly relations with press. So unless you imply some very big conspiracy theory I don't see how he could have even a chance to outspent HC.
- carlmr 8y agoI'm not saying that. I'm just saying that campaign finances are only a partial picture. I also think HC had much more backing.
- pgrote 8y ago>Money is not the deciding factor in American elections. Hillary Clinton spent twice as much as Donald Trump during the 2016 campaign. I understood the comment to reference the special interest money behind elections not so much the total amount of money. Corporations vs. individuals.
- username223 8y agoHow does that follow? A charismatic demagogue won against a singularly uninspiring lifetime politician, despite receiving fewer votes (because Electoral College). Money isn't the only factor, but it's still one of the largest.
- jlawson 8y ago"One of the largest" is different from "the deciding factor"; let's keep those goalposts pinned down please.
- agrippanux 8y agoTrump got billions of free media exposure https://www.thestreet.com/story/13896916/1/donald-trump-rode-5-billion-in-free-media-to-the-white-house.html https://www.thestreet.com/story/13896916/1/donald-trump-rode.... He didn't have to outspend Hillary with that kind of advantage.
- exelius 8y agoI’ll agree it didn’t matter in the most recent presidential cycle, though I would argue the real damage is done further down the ballot in the house and senate. People just don’t do as much homework on those candidates and are more responsive to messaging.
- lr4444lr 8y agoWe have publicly funded elections in NYC. It doesn't the change the overall system very much.
- exelius 8y agoIt doesn’t work because the entire system above it takes massive amounts of private money, which influence downballot races. The parties spend a lot of money to raise the profile of a few candidates in a state (people can only remember a few names anyway), then leverage their popularity to endorse candidates in downballot races. In practice, whatever local candidates supported by the largest party-sponsored get-out-the-vote operation wins. In NYC, that means a figurehead celebrity mayor and most of the lower positions filled by a political machine.
- lr4444lr 8y agoWell what are you going to do, give out the tens of thousands to anyone who shows up and fills out a form to run for office? There has to be a minimum threshold for the relevant managing agency to determine which candidates are serious. Meeting that minimum takes money and influence.
- JackFr 8y ago> Americans don’t travel. If we did, we wouldn’t buy the myth of American exceptionalism. That’s some serious middle school wisdom. I’ve travelled a fair amount, and I find the myth of American exceptionalism to be no more prevalent that the myths of French, Moroccan, Swiss and Japanese exceptionalism. The thing about the belief in American exceptionalism, is that it’s not exceptional at all. When you travel and you get to know people all over it’s eye opening to discover that no single country has a monopoly on ignorance and chauvinism. I’m most familiar with it in the US, cause that’s where I’m from, but it’s certainly not unique to the US.
- alexandercrohde 8y agoThat's probably true, but it doesn't rebut the central thesis that travel makes one realize how not-exceptional their own country is and how people everywhere are the same. In fact, you're kind of agreeing.
- microcolonel 8y ago> Americans don’t travel. If we did, we wouldn’t buy the myth of American exceptionalism. The U.S. is huge, if you count travelling states (as you would with India or China), I don't think U.S. rates of travel are all that strange.
- frontloadpro 8y agoI hate traveling. I lift weights and going to Europe was the most physically draining experience. Going to a restaurant paying 12 Euros and getting 700 calories of carbs was awful. And having to pay for water... I felt physically terrible. By the end of the trip, I'd order 6 tuna or egg sandwiches. I don't travel because I find learning more interesting than looking at buildings.
- close04 8y ago> Going to a restaurant paying 12 Euros and getting 700 calories of carbs was awful That's a strange and out of context example. I live in one of the more expensive European cities and for 12E still get to eat a pound of meat in a restaurant. Of course it will always depend on what you order and which restaurant. But your comparison is like saying the average rent in the US is $3000/mo (which it actually is, is some parts).
- rorykoehler 8y agoSurely you’d take a protein shake after lifting?
- linuxftw 8y agoWe need more representation. There's no reason to have the same number or representatives in the lower house of congress as we did at the turn of the 20th century. We should also repeal the 17th amendment and popular elections for president.