242 on 6/8/2012 at 16:27

---

Would you prefer if it was like here where all nation-wide channels are always pro-current power. Then you would definitely learn for whom to vote, it would always be the current president.

mgeorge on 7/8/2012 at 03:51

---

While I've never really watched these shows before, I've been hearing this same old shit my whole life with and without the aid of the boob tube. Blah blah blah de fuckin blah. I haven't even voted in the last two elections I've gotten so cynical about the whole political process. Both candidates always promise the world and say anything to get a vote. Once there're in, nothing changes.

In the past I've tended to lean more towards the left mostly because of idiots like Rush and Hannity, however now that I've seen the likes of Rachel Maddow and Ed Lawrence, I'm not so sure.

I have registered this year and still not sure who to vote for, (I mean there're both zipperheads) but I will continue to be entertained by these two networks.

demagogue on 7/8/2012 at 05:03

---

Interesting you mention that case, since in the case of Rwanda "democracy" was actually (edit: well, arguably) part of the problem (since race-hate became part of the political rhetoric; the former Yugoslavia in the 90s is an even clearer case), and in that case it might have been much better to let the "rich" or "established" people rule than let the unestablished group have more of a voice... Since when they gave themselves a voice, and got on the radios, that voice was: We need to kill the Tutsi (or Bosniaks) before they kill us. That's the "J-Curve argument" (Democracy actually makes the situation worse as a country develops, until it gets over a hump of development, then it improves again, like a letter J-shaped curve). Burma's nascent democratic openings now is terribly fraught, and ethnic violence has been on the rise, not unexpectedly.

Going back to US/UK democracy, of course now we're way up on the top of the J curve. (I was thinking of things in a general perspective, not so much making a "grass is greener" argument per se.) Now the question is more like: Is rich people having more political say actually injustice or is it just unfair? There's a difference. There will always be people richer than others, and rich people will always have more options and a higher profile than others... So it seems unfairness is built into the human condition. But injustice? Yes there need to be checks so that vulnerable groups are not exploited by the well-off, but does that mean we should change the rules of "democracy" so that it's not really about what people in the public say (since people with means can say more), but what we enlightened-ones legislate from our up in our ivory tower in the "the public interest". There's still a balance here how far you can restrict political speech just to keep it "purified" from rich or established people.

.........................

Edit: From what I've read and studied, two problems that practically come up on this are, one, when you try to give more political voice to a marginal or vulnerable group, sometimes you end up just giving a voice to their main interest group, which may not always have the best interests of members in mind, or only the interests of some in the group but not others.

The second common issue is, often an industry or technocrats may have the most knowledge about how an issue should be rationally regulated, because they have so much experience with it, and when you undermine their contribution and hand the regulation over to marginal outsiders that don't know how the issue works, they end up with very irrational policies that can be quite perverse, making things worse. You definitely want their (marginal groups) voice at the table, and you definitely want to keep the self-interest incentives of the industry groups in mind, but at the end of the day you also are trying to rationally regulate some issue and you need to know how it works on the ground, and the usual place you get that information is from the industry groups themselves, for better or worse.

Just trying to get some devil's advocate thoughts in here.

Jason Moyer on 7/8/2012 at 11:10

---

Actually, many saturdays.

http://cache.virtualtourist.com/15/977040-Zipperhead_Philadelphia.jpg

faetal on 7/8/2012 at 13:10

---

Demagogue: Way to split hairs.

Let's call it unfair then, since by injustice, I meant in essence, an unfairness upheld by government.

The points about technocracy don't really apply here since I am talking about using money to directly influence politics. It is pretty well known that in US politics, campaign coverage is EVERYTHING and that this needs to be paid for, so in the rush to get the most coverage, candidates are going to be promising favours left, right and centre in order to secure funds. Now that there are no limits, that's it - game over - the super PACs more or less own the campaigns and will be selling their unrivalled weight for favours commensurate with the amount of money they provide. This even rules out the need for extensive regulatory capture by having the senate and white house full of ex industry types like Cheney, though I dare say it'll still happen.

The UK government is filled with industry leaders and a great deal of policy developments occurs in tandem with industry think tanks and working groups. We like to think that this means using expertise to make the most efficient system, but in reality, it just amounts to giving industry direct involvement in finding ways to increase business subsidies and reduce corporation tax. The best example of this being the UK's relatively recent tax reforms which remove the tax top-up for overseas business while still allowing companies to claim setup of oversees business as a tax deduction. This means that the UK can expect to see a huge increase in off-shoring of jobs since all businesses doing so will in effect get sizeable tax cuts and all businesses not doing it will be at a competitive disadvantage, which usually irks shareholders, who then pressure them to do it anyway.

Not only does money essentially dictate to government, the people in government are most often FROM money, which does little to protect the agenda of the masses.