|
|
|
|
|
|
by indubitable
3132 days ago
|
|
|
Right, though I'm not sure what this has to do with our discussion? The issue was on the inherent conflict of interest for individuals who make their way to the top of politics through the system - through the experience that's supposed to be valued. In many ways the product is tainted before it even 'ripens.' |
|
|
I think your argument is a perfect summary of the conventional progressive view. I'm progressive and very sympathetic to the argument you make.
But I think there's a lot more going on in politics than this neat narrative spells out.
I pulled out the Trump thing, because it's a great example of a person who spent a lot less than his opponents but won anyway.
https://www.vox.com/2016/2/9/10941690/campaign-finance-left (which was written prior to Trump) has a lot more details on this.
To pull a quote: research on lobbying suggests that lobbyists are not the omnipotent power brokers that voters sometimes imagine them to be. Further, it suggests that insofar as they matter, they matter for reasons that are hard to regulate away.
I think campaign finance is important, but more than that I want to see progressive candidates win.
I don't think the nihilist argument that "politics is broken" is correct. Nor do I think there is anything which implies an inherent conflict of interest in politicians. A pro-NRA candidate will be supported by the NRA, and if they win they will listen to people they already know. The same with a pro-environmental issues candidate.
This isn't simply being beholden to special interests - there is a strong interdependence between the group and the candidate and it runs both ways.