- Jul 31, 2006
- 1,202
- 18
- 81
Presidential elections don't seem to me to be by any means a process by which the popular sentiment is reflected considering several decidedly undemocratic processes. First, primary candidate selection is in most cases determined by political clout and personage with those party committees that determine the candidates, not through a direct primary. Second, a candidate's popularity depends largely on the coverage they are given by the increasingly consolidated corporate monolith we call the 'news media,' meaning the ability to consistently disseminate information on a mass scale is more important in choosing who is president than any sort of popular vote. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concent...edia_ownership) Incidentally, how much money you have determines this ability of dissemination. As in the first case, the problem lies more in candidate selection than the final choice between the two party candidates. Another problem is that it requires millions and millions of dollars in corporate donations to ever become president. It is hardly a democratic system where the primary means by which candidates are put on the final ballot is one in which political clout and money ties play the primary role. Still another problem lies in the barriers to entry perpetrated by the two ruling political parties, which creates a system whereby the individual doesn't vote on the candidate that actually fits his views, but rather must compromise and choose between what he sees as the lesser of two evils. There is a reason why the two major party candidates always have an air of demagoguery about them, why the choice is always between two evils, rather than a truly good candidate.
Nobody can truly call the election process in any way democratic or representative of the will of the masses. It is more characterized by wealth's undue influence on its outcome and a fundamentally centralized candidate selection system. The result is the selection of candidates which are utterly beholden to moneyed interests, meaning that policy, whether in the name of consumer protection, more equitable distribution wealth, charity, etc., is almost always biased in favor of these interests.
The corruption in our system is not incidental. It is an inevitable result of growing government power that that power be exploited for the benefit of those who can afford to exploit it. Power itself is what corrupts. Government power is the means by which those unscrupulous members of society who would choose to take advantage of others are empowered to do so. Any addition to this power is irresponsible and it is unreasonable to believe it to be used fairly or according to popular desire.
The whole idea of government successfully and fairly regulating is predicated on there being a ruling apparatus responsive to the public interest. How is it possible that in a world where money controls everything in politics and all of the above mentioned improprieties exist, people still call for government action, expecting it to be beneficial to the public?
Nobody can truly call the election process in any way democratic or representative of the will of the masses. It is more characterized by wealth's undue influence on its outcome and a fundamentally centralized candidate selection system. The result is the selection of candidates which are utterly beholden to moneyed interests, meaning that policy, whether in the name of consumer protection, more equitable distribution wealth, charity, etc., is almost always biased in favor of these interests.
The corruption in our system is not incidental. It is an inevitable result of growing government power that that power be exploited for the benefit of those who can afford to exploit it. Power itself is what corrupts. Government power is the means by which those unscrupulous members of society who would choose to take advantage of others are empowered to do so. Any addition to this power is irresponsible and it is unreasonable to believe it to be used fairly or according to popular desire.
The whole idea of government successfully and fairly regulating is predicated on there being a ruling apparatus responsive to the public interest. How is it possible that in a world where money controls everything in politics and all of the above mentioned improprieties exist, people still call for government action, expecting it to be beneficial to the public?
Last edited: