3 ms·
> Democracy turned out to be easily manipulatable with large sums of money and media control. Is it, though? Establishment interests spend huge sums of money a
by dkarl 4y ago
> Democracy turned out to be easily manipulatable with large sums of money and media control.
Is it, though? Establishment interests spend huge sums of money and often lose. The Republican party was an elite country club party, but when evangelicals emerged as a political force, the party had to jump on that wave, no matter how distasteful the old party elites found it. Then Trump came along, giving blatantly shallow lip service to religion, and now the party is beholden to him. That wasn't in anybody's plan except Trump's, and his personal wealth was paltry next to the Republican Party's resources.
But maybe the elites who do the manipulation are happy to pander on a few issues if they get what they want on the issues that are really important to them. Let's think about that. If there was one core tenet of the GHWB-era Republican Party that its elites would have wanted to protect above all else, what would it be? If there was one core tenet that united all American economic elites, one thing above all others that they would want to instill in voters' heads, wouldn't it be economical liberalism? More specifically, free trade? Well, they've failed at that. NAFTA was a banner achievement for the Republicans. Now Trump calls NAFTA a Clinton disaster and promotes trade war with China, and he runs the Republican Party, because it does matter what the voters want, and you can't outright buy their belief in anything.
We blame voters for being bought and manipulated when someone speaks to them in a way they find compelling but "shouldn't" according to our worldview. We assume that the superiority of our worldview gives us a natural advantage, and we look for special reasons why our views don't prevail. "What's the matter with Kansas?" in other words. What's the matter is that Trump's voters really do care more about Trump licking their wounded egos more than they care about anything else.
- ben_w 4y agoWrong country. Despite the joke, the UK isn't an American state.
- dkarl 4y agoDo you think it doesn't apply to the UK? I drew on a US example because it was something I could explain in enough detail. Maybe UK economic elites have mastered control of their voters in a way that US elites have not. Although, you'll have to explain which economic elites in the UK decided that Brexit would be to their advantage and how they stole a march on the UK finance industry.
- ben_w 4y agoThe UK "establishment" is approximately Oxbridge, the Conservative party, the Queen, and the Church of England. These groups are not quite the same thing as economic elites. The UK also has much stronger spending (and content) limits on electoral campaigns compared to the US.
- pjc50 4y ago> Although, you'll have to explain which economic elites in the UK decided that Brexit would be to their advantage The press. For a time, Johnson himself was both a minister and a "journalist" for the Times. He was paid more for writing one article a week than for being a minister. Eventually he was forced to give this up. But Brexit is to a great extent a media project, backed by sensational but misleading claims, and supported by the media/politics revolving door. The Sarah Vine/Michael Gove couple had quite an effect too.
- dkarl 4y agoIf that's the best answer, I think it tends to show that money didn't buy Brexit. The media doesn't care what circus they're covering, as long as there are plenty of clowns and dancing bears. The people who had the money and motivation to buy public opinion on the issue lost out, and it all happened because some politicians found a message that resonated with voters and kept on it as long as it kept working.
- Apocryphon 4y agoSounds like an explanation Adam Curtis would approve of. I wonder if he's made a film that's explored this in full yet? I know he's certainly mentioned Brexit.