3 ms·
Agreed today: but it could be that the wealthy will LEARN to be more controlling. Meg Whitman was a failure: but what if she's backed someone who was a great po
by redwood 16y ago
Agreed today: but it could be that the wealthy will LEARN to be more controlling. Meg Whitman was a failure: but what if she's backed someone who was a great politician instead. And perhaps this is precisely how much of our politics already works.
I don't fear this as much as some because I know that elites have always held undue influence, and that has been generally a good thing, with some bad apples throughout. Small numbers of people have always had extraordinary sway in societies. It's just that today, with media and technology, the ratios are larger than ever before.
An interesting article on the subject: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/26/business/26excerpt.html?_r=1&hp http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/26/business/26excerpt.html?_r...
- jacoblyles 16y ago>" Meg Whitman was a failure: but what if she's backed someone who was a great politician instead." It would be illegal, unfortunately. The amount of money you can spend on your own campaign is unlimited, the amount you can spend on others is capped. >"It's just that today, with media and technology, the ratios are larger than ever before." If you mean that more people can exert political influence, then I agree with you. Something like the Tea Party would have been impossible a few decades ago. The internet allows citizens to organize and exert pressure on politicians like never before. That said, 99.9% of the bureaucracy is unelected. Changing the thin film of politicians layered on top doesn't have as large of an effect on actual policy as we think.
- rdl 16y agoClearly the solution is for a politician to marry into wealth...