- Joined
- Apr 22, 2019
- Messages
- 59,945
- Reaction score
- 30,611
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
People think that a politician decides how to vote based on their own opinions. They're largely wrong.
Rather, a politician decides who they will serve, and that determines their votes. Politics is arguably more than anything about which interests get more and which get less. Society has many groups, and politicians pick which to help.
When I say 'many groups', that's technically correct, but of course there's only one 'main' group that is dominant, the very wealthy.
So, a politicians decides, facing election, do they want to try to get votes by voting how they think voters will like? That means facing an opponent who is well financed by those wealthy interests. Or, do they support the wealthy interests to get the money for a strong advertising campaign to persuade voters instead - fool them?
It's an easy call for many politicians, and practically a required one for Republicans. And once politicians decide to support the big money interests and rely on the money to 'buy' voters with powerful ads promoting them and demonizing their opponent to win, it's a huge threat to democracy. Democracy is threatened and often defeated for those voters.
That second biggest problem is the power of that advertising industry, where money buys votes and buys politicians. The first biggest problem is related, because it's plutocracy - that small wealthy group having so much money that they can cause the second problem. And they've cemented the power to do it, by buying the Supreme Court to say they can. The only remedy seems to be taxing the rich to reduce the fuel they have for buying government.
Unfortunately, the idea of the 'rational informed voter' is mostly a myth. Focus-group tested advertising that tells voters what they want to hear from a candidate, shows them in positive pictures, with effective slogans, and smother their name so it's almost the only name in voters' heads, while even more effectively the opponent is made to look like a monster voters can't stand to vote for, is what really determines most elections I suspect.
And that means, money wins. It's why Republicans are in lock-step to suppress voting by Democrats as much as they can, it's all part of the same 'game'. As powerful as the advertising and money are, there are limits as there's a backlash to the results - $50 trillion shifted to the rich more than normal - and so they look for even more. But the corruption is essentially locked in. All voters hear from those politicians is 'spin', propaganda, talking points.
It's almost like herding cattle. Thousands of times, repeating things like 'stop socialism', keep the cattle herded, supporting the bought and paid for politician, feeling they are patriotic and defending the country by 'stopping the socialists', and countless more issues weaponized to get their votes, with a lot of money used to buy those votes. It's similar to the result in a dictatorship, with money replacing brutal secret police to secure power.
Rather, a politician decides who they will serve, and that determines their votes. Politics is arguably more than anything about which interests get more and which get less. Society has many groups, and politicians pick which to help.
When I say 'many groups', that's technically correct, but of course there's only one 'main' group that is dominant, the very wealthy.
So, a politicians decides, facing election, do they want to try to get votes by voting how they think voters will like? That means facing an opponent who is well financed by those wealthy interests. Or, do they support the wealthy interests to get the money for a strong advertising campaign to persuade voters instead - fool them?
It's an easy call for many politicians, and practically a required one for Republicans. And once politicians decide to support the big money interests and rely on the money to 'buy' voters with powerful ads promoting them and demonizing their opponent to win, it's a huge threat to democracy. Democracy is threatened and often defeated for those voters.
That second biggest problem is the power of that advertising industry, where money buys votes and buys politicians. The first biggest problem is related, because it's plutocracy - that small wealthy group having so much money that they can cause the second problem. And they've cemented the power to do it, by buying the Supreme Court to say they can. The only remedy seems to be taxing the rich to reduce the fuel they have for buying government.
Unfortunately, the idea of the 'rational informed voter' is mostly a myth. Focus-group tested advertising that tells voters what they want to hear from a candidate, shows them in positive pictures, with effective slogans, and smother their name so it's almost the only name in voters' heads, while even more effectively the opponent is made to look like a monster voters can't stand to vote for, is what really determines most elections I suspect.
And that means, money wins. It's why Republicans are in lock-step to suppress voting by Democrats as much as they can, it's all part of the same 'game'. As powerful as the advertising and money are, there are limits as there's a backlash to the results - $50 trillion shifted to the rich more than normal - and so they look for even more. But the corruption is essentially locked in. All voters hear from those politicians is 'spin', propaganda, talking points.
It's almost like herding cattle. Thousands of times, repeating things like 'stop socialism', keep the cattle herded, supporting the bought and paid for politician, feeling they are patriotic and defending the country by 'stopping the socialists', and countless more issues weaponized to get their votes, with a lot of money used to buy those votes. It's similar to the result in a dictatorship, with money replacing brutal secret police to secure power.
Last edited:
