10 ms·
Why is it healthy for American democracy to have an oligarch purchase the U.S. Presidency like a shiny, new yacht?
by jdkee 7y ago
Why is it healthy for American democracy to have an oligarch purchase the U.S. Presidency like a shiny, new yacht?
- takeda 7y agoYeah it's really sad, Bloomberg essentially is Democratic version of Trump.
- Loughla 7y agoNot really. He's the centrist/right leaning version of Trump.
- takeda 7y agoI was referring to his current party. He was in Republican party when he was a mayor and only changed his party affiliation in 2018 (most likely after noticing 2018 election results)
- brightstep 7y agoIn some ways he's far more dangerous. He implemented a truly scary authoritarian police state during his term as mayor of New York City.
- ColanR 7y agoThis is the allure of libertarianism - since a free democracy can't predict the quality of its leaders, representatives, and lobbyists, the government should be given as short a leash as possible to prevent things like a "truly scary authoritarian police state".
- arrosenberg 7y agoOf course, the flip side is that such a government can't accomplish anything positive either.
- ColanR 7y agoComparable to a library of unix programs - would you rather have small tools (/ organiziations) that are limited to a single job - which they are often optimized for - or a single behemoth which tries to do everything, and may not do it very well? ...and now the systemD vitriol makes sense.
- arrosenberg 7y agoThe federal government is far more comparable to the first situation than the second. And most of the departments are extremely effective when they have leadership that believes in the mission of the agency. Michael Lewis' the Fifth Risk highlights this pretty well.
- brightstep 7y agoLibertarianism just replaces one tyranny with many. A powerful state is replaced by powerful corporations and individuals.
- three_seagrass 7y agoAnarcho-Capitalist libertarianism maybe. They're the ones who want a smaller government at all costs, even if that means creating a power vaccuum for some other (potentially bad) actors to fill. Maximizing-liberty libertarianism would say that an impartial government is necessary to enforce rights for all citizens, even if that's the right to information to vote efficiently.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- uoaei 7y agoExactly. The only thing preventing Trump from being more successful in implementing his ideas is that he's so brash and offensive to people's tastes in character. If Bloomberg can put on a nice mask, he can (and if the past is anything to go by, will) enact much worse than Trump did, and I wouldn't be surprised if mainstream media outlets announce his policies with fanfare.
- dagw 7y agoIn what way, other than both being old, white, rich and from New York. Trump wanted to tack hard away from the center and to tear down the Republican establishment and rebuild it with a more populist vision. Bloomberg is running to stop the Democrats from tacking away from the center and to 'protect' the party from those threatening to tear it down and rebuild it with a more populist image. Trump ran as an outsider populist, Bloomberg as an insider technocrat.
- huebomont 7y agoBloomberg is a Republican, a lot of people have just forgotten what a more centrist Republican looks like. He's also like Trump in his racism, sexism, authoritarianism, etc. Ask New Yorkers about him.
- arrosenberg 7y agoDifferent flavors of dictator. Confederate Fascism where the leader rules based on tribal loyalty vs. an Octavian-style emperor who rules by controlling everyone who matters behind the scenes. Neither candidate believes in compromise or their own fallibility. In either case, we would be choosing to forfeit the ability to decide for ourselves going forward.
- deburo 7y ago>Neither candidate believes in compromise or their own fallibility There are no candidate that signals fallibility and or possibility of compromise. Why should they, anyway?
- reroute1 7y agoIt's not, but hasn't money always played a big role in politics? It's hard to define where a wealthy persons legitimate advantage lies and when it becomes purchasing the presidency. I'm all for a meritocracy, but getting money out of politics doesn't seem like anything easily solved.
- avmich 7y ago> It's not, but hasn't money always played an important role in politics? I guess it's a rhetorical question. In other words, let me rephrase: why money has always played an important role in politics? In 2016 Lawrence Lessig tried to attack this problem, with little success. In this election there seemingly is another candidate, somewhat more practical than Lessig, with somewhat stronger systematic approach than others, so we can hope for some progress.
- brightstep 7y agoThe amount of money Bloomberg can/is using to buy this election is unprecedented in a Presidential candidate. The simple definition for attempting to buy the presidency is "any money you control", including your bank account, your business, dark money groups, etc. Elections should be funded entirely by donations from individuals.
- reroute1 7y agoOk but I'm saying even with these rules wealthy people will have an advantage in many ways. Funding for a campaign is just one element of an elite wealthy candidates advantages, this guy has his own press and no one can do anything about that. But like I also said I agree that in an ideal system it's a pure mertirocracy for the jobs qualifications, that in practice is very hard to get though.
- JMTQp8lwXL 7y agoIt would be relieving to see this effort fail. The popularity of platforms should be based on the merit of the ideas, not money spent.
- tropo 7y agoThe alternatives are worse. The choices: 1. purchase it with their own money 2. purchase it with money from bribes 3. blackmail party insiders for the nomination and support Using their own money is the cleanest and most honest way to do things.
- omegaworks 7y agoYou're forgetting 4. Convince millions to give just a little bit of time or effort because you spent your entire political career fighting for working people. Which, in my view, is even better.
- brightstep 7y agoYou're missing a key alternative here which is, you know, asking voters to donate
- tryitnow 7y agoNot really. So far the biggest fundraiser in the Democratic primary has been Bernie Sanders and he has raised most of his money from small money donors. So it's absolutely possible to raise money without using one's own money or taking bribes. And even if a candidate raises money from a 100 billionaires, that's better than one billionaire. The more people you raise money from the more likely it is that those people have conflicts with one another that can then balance one another out. A single billionaire financing their own campaign is just too much centralized power for my tastes, even if I trust that billionaire and generally like his policies. Power corrupts.
- jdkee 7y ago4. Fund federal elections with federal dollars.
- a_tractor 7y agoYou mean with tax-payer dollars? Through a federal government which is currently $21+ Trillion in debt running deficits of around a trillion dollars annually? Would this funding involve new taxes or borrowing since it is new spending, requiring either current or future taxpayers to finance the program? Meanwhile, small donor fundraising has become much easier and much more successful than in the past, and imho, the entire problem revolves completely around the amount of power that has been centralized and expanded to the Federal Government. Part of the whole idea behind, you know, the principle of limited government... is to limit the amount of power that could be bought in the first place and therefore limit the incentive to corrupt the process, but obviously that ship has sailed a long time ago... I would think that in a free society, people are not forced to give their money to support political activity they would otherwise not support. For me, it’s that simple. As Thomas Jefferson put it, “To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves is sinful and tyrannical.”
- hooande 7y agoin fairness, there are two billionaires running on one side and a near billionaire (trump) on the other side. at least one (Ross Perot) has run in the past. having a lot of money makes it easier to run, but there's no guarantee of success
- 12xo 7y agoHealthy? No. But its as American as apple pie. Everything these days,in America is based on money. The entire political process is based on money (fundraising determines whether you're even on the ballot or a debate or able to be on a ticket) and controlled by money as there is a direct correlation between media spend and campaign success. The worst part is that the "media" is the one sector in our country that has the most to gain from chaos and they're the ones who for the most part, control the dialog and the direction and worse, the cost. Frankly, I am more shocked by the fact that people dont understand that its all about money.
- gremlinsinc 7y agoThat's why we need public funding of elections... Bloomberg can spend a billion, and who benefits the most? MSNBC, CNN, Facebook, so of course when he's not paying they STILL prop him up because the longer he stays in the race the more $$ they collectively make, who cares if it destroys America in the process as long as there's a paycheck.
- AcerbicZero 7y agoWhen I look at politics and government in general, my immediate take away isn't "Boy, I'd sure like to pay even more for that". That said, I agree that money in politics is an issue, but since getting money out of politics is impossible, perhaps we should just get politics out of money. A government which is not empowered/encouraged to waste the publics money would be a nice starting point.
- anthm1988 7y agoJust say you want poor people to die you fucking scumbag.
- AcerbicZero 7y ago:(
- ColanR 7y agoWhat is healthy, is that an American spent his money how he liked, the American media is free enough to have reported on it, American citizens are now well-informed enough to know that some of the folks they talk to online are paid, and the American election will be based on the interactions of a free people. He's not purchasing anything - as long as Americans care enough to be informed, he's blowing hot air that no one will believe.
- gremlinsinc 7y agoRight the media is 'free' enough to report on it... Krystal Ball, Cenk, TYT, sure they HAVE talked about it, but the major netwroks like CNN and MSNBC? Not really, if they did he might not get so far, and then would stop literally throwing cash at them by buying ads. Public funding of elections needs to end, and Bloomberg is literally showing what's possible.
- ColanR 7y agoYou make it sound as if the problem is a media that is disinterested in publishing real stories. Maybe we need new mainstream media organizations?
- animalnewbie 7y agoThat's because TYT has a really smart lady host, you wouldn't find everyone reporting on it.
- vojta_letal 7y ago> is that an American spent his money how he liked Caps on campaign spending are there for reasons. A campaign should contribute to meaningful public discourse. Nothing more. > the American media is free enough to have reported on it Private media can be biased. Either explicitly (lying to peoples faces), or implicitly (self-censorship on stuff related to the owner). Surprisingly, in several countries - such as Britain or Czech Republic - state-owned media are the one sticking to higher values. > American citizens are now well-informed enough to know that some of the folks they talk to online are paid, and the American election will be based on the interactions of a free people Well, there are multiple studies in several countries which show the opposite. Quick google search yields one such https://thehill.com/homenews/media/392870-pew-study-finds-americans-cant-tell-fact-from-opinion https://thehill.com/homenews/media/392870-pew-study-finds-am...
- polly5 7y agoCause after the oligarch looses then Zuckerberg, Kushner and other sundry mindlessly ambitious people might rethink their future plans to run. At least for a few years.
- jimbokun 7y agoAsk the Supreme Court justices who decided money is speech and deserves the same protections under the Constitution.
- 0x8BADF00D 7y agoIt’s always been for sale, you’re just aware of it now.
- ordinaryperson 7y agoGeorge Washington lost his first campaign to the Virginia House of Burgess in 1755, 271-40. When he ran again 3 years later he gave away 28 gallons of rum, 50 gallons of rum punch, 34 gallons of wine, 46 gallons of beer, and two gallons of cider royal — "nearly enough for a half-gallon per voter." And guess what, he won. Considering we wouldn't even declare independence until 18 years later, it's safe to say that buying influence in an election has been American since the beginning, and even before. [1] https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/12384/swilling-planters-bumbo-how-george-washington-won-votes-campaign-ads https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/12384/swilling-planters-...
- uoaei 7y agoThis comment carries the implication that because this practice is American, it's OK if we continue doing it. I heartily disagree and thinks it's abominable to consider something as consequential as this election in such stark, cynical terms.
- scarmig 7y agoFor some reason, say the words Founding Fathers and too many Americans' brains seize up, even though they were a motley assembly of, among other things, tax cheats, drunks, and racists. Nor were they particularly great political scientists: all of their main goals (no political parties! Congress acting on a check on the President!) fell by the wayside, and the rickety mess that is the Constitution has only survived because of a lack of threatening national competitors within a couple thousand miles of our borders.
- dennisgorelik 7y agoPolitics being strongly influenced by money is healthy, because the most successful people have the most money. The more influence successful people have on politics - the better it is for the country overall. Countries that try to manage themselves by poor majority - quickly deteriorate into chaos or into dictatorship.
- ourmandave 7y agoLet's see who is actually sworn first in before we start declaring the Presidency is for sale.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- SamReidHughes 7y agoThat individuals can shake up the system, but only if they can convince voters to vote for them, is a sign of health in a democracy. The alternative is deeper two-party stagnation.
- austhrow743 7y agoPeople are still voting to choose him. He is making his case for why he should be president, people are deciding they like his more than others, so they vote for him.
- NotSammyHagar 7y agoIt is not healthy.