4 ms·
> Yeah, those people are called "voters". That's how it's supposed to work. We want congresspeople to feel beholden to them. No it's not. It's to the people wi
by cjslep 7y ago
> Yeah, those people are called "voters". That's how it's supposed to work. We want congresspeople to feel beholden to them.
No it's not. It's to the people with money which let's them get to the voters. Because otherwise that money is going to an alternate candidate that plays ball. Have you ever wondered where the blue-collar Democrats of the 1970's went, for example? Businesses and those with money instead financing better campaigns in return for business representation, won. It's why both Democrats and Republicans have generally represented corporate interests since Reagan.
> Isn't this just motivation for more cronyism?
No, it's motivation for making the existing cronyism even more transparent. Or, incentivizing those who did their terms to return to the communities they helped represent and move on with their non-political life.
- hannasanarion 7y agoSo if your real problem is with money in politics, why not get money out of politics instead of targeting this weird, roundabout, more difficult to implement, and antidemocratic method that may not have any actual impact on the problem?
- cjslep 7y ago> weird Term limits already exist for other positions. It is not a strange concept. > roundabout My problem is not with "money in politics", it is with career politicians. > more difficult to implement Forgive my laughter, setting a term limits is way easier than your abstract idealism of removing money from politics. > antidemocratic Everyone can still vote and is still emancipated. The America after the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution is no less a Representative Democracy than before. I'm all for honest and open discussion but it is clear this is not one of them.