3 ms·
A lot of people don't vote because they feel that in our American plutocracy, no matter who wins the elections, the elected leaders always cater to the needs of
by lapcat 2y ago
A lot of people don't vote because they feel that in our American plutocracy, no matter who wins the elections, the elected leaders always cater to the needs of their financial benefactors rather than to the needs of their constituents. The outcome is never good for the public. This is not to say that the candidates are exactly the same but rather that the candidates are simply different forms of corruption, controlled by competing factions of the wealthy. The voters are merely pawns in their game.
The fact that Jeff Atwood can make $8 million in political donations just underlines the fact that I am powerless compared to him. We may have equal say on election day, but people like Atwood have vastly disproportionatal say on legislation days. Putting money into politics is the problem, not the solution to the problem.
If the "American Dream", according to Jeff Atwood, is to become much wealthier than one's fellows, that's inherently anti-democratic.
- fifilura 2y agoSeeing it from the outside, i can understand. There was a lot of Musk/Thiel billions here, Kamala spending surge there, George Clooney, Taylor Swift. (And now this guy who will spend more millions) Wasn't the intention that you could not buy a democratic election? The real winners here must be Ad providers (google/facebook) and television networks.
- zephyrfalcon 2y agoTaylor Swift didn't donate anything to either party. (as far as we know)
- jongalloway2 2y agoThe post specifically calls out wealth concentration (e.g. becoming wealthier than one's fellows) as a major problem, and the donations are focused on working against that. Review the list of dentations, as you may have missed that these are organizations that help people in need rather than, say, recent examples of billionaires buying votes.
- lapcat 2y agoAtwood's conception of the "American Dream" is profoundly individualistic, selfish, inegalitarian: "Programmers all over the world helped make an American Dream happen in 2008 when we built Stack Overflow" "I was rewarded handsomely for a combination of hard work and good luck. That's what the American Dream promises us." "I earned millions of dollars. I thought that was the final part of the American Dream." [He goes on to talk the final part as "sharing" the American Dream, but I question why earning millions of dollars is the first part, or indeed any part, of the American Dream.] "It was only after I attained the dream that I was able to fully see how many Americans have so very little. This much wealth starts to unintentionally distance my family from other Americans." "I grew up poor in America, inspired by the promise of the American Dream that I could better myself and my family" In other words, Atwood is committed in principle to a system of inequality, despite complaining about the current historic levels of inequality. One wonders, what level of inequality would be acceptable to him? Atwood started making political posts only after Trump was elected, but wealth concentration was already a huge problem before then. Moreover, Atwood's only "solutions" to our problems seem to be charity from the ultra-wealthy and voter turnout. Implicitly, he appears to be blaming people poorer than him for our problems, for not voting "correctly", or not voting at all, as if there were anyone to vote for who would do anything about wealth inequality. Certainly not Harris, financially backed by a bunch of billionaires herself who were essentially writing her policies along with their checks to her campaign. A system that relies essentially on charity, especially on the charity of the ultra-wealthy, is fundamentally dysfunctional, broken. Charity should not be necessary if the government does what it's supposed to do and protects its citizens. I'm not impressed by philanthropy, because the need for it is already a sign that something is very wrong. It presumes a system that disproportionately benefits a few and impoverishes many, perhaps just so that the philanthropists can feel good about themselves.