 |
| Can we have this same statement directed against billionaires who spend millions to alter electoral outcomes? |
During the past half decade the United States lived under a new Russia panic. It began when Donald Trump was accused of receiving aid from Vladimir Putin. I ventured into the territory by summarizing the Mueller report in So You Want to Read the Mueller Report. After reading Volume I, on Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election, I came to a few conclusions. One, Russia was interested in helping Trump become President. Two, a number of Trump connected associates met with Russians interested in helping Trump win the election. Three, most of these Trump associates and Russians detailed in the report obfuscated or refused to be interviewed. Four, because of Three, it was not, and never will be, clear what happened, except for minor interference by Russia that wasn't necessarily coordinated with Trump.
A direct results of the report was that Democratic politicians (like Hillary Clinton) and Democratic aligned pundits (like James Carville) smeared anyone they disagreed with as Russian sympathizers. It even became a trend on Twitter for Republican voters and Leftists to be called Russian Bots.
Let's ignore the rest, and return to point, One. Russia wanted Trump to be President. For the four years of the Trump Presidency, Trump voters were repeatedly harangued with the following argument; “Russia supports Trump. If you support Trump you support Russia. How dare you support a mortal enemy of the United States?” Setting aside the Republicans infamously depicted at a Trump rally with shirts that said, “I'd Rather Be A Russian Than A Democrat,” this argument is deficient logically, while also failing to persuade. The caption smears all Republicans as traitors, based off the actions of two deranged supporters at a rally. Generalizations about the other, even when backed by polling data, always lead to demonization. They are unfair to the people they don't apply to, and create an barrier which prevents conversation between different factions.
The argument has a key problem. There is nothing wrong with supporting a politician that foreign nation likes.
The claim may be a lie, perpetrated by the FBI, the CIA, or another intelligence agency for political purposes. This is not conspiratorial thinking. The publicly documented misdeeds of the FBI and CIA are a reminder that they need radical transparency, or to be abolished and rebuilt. When Bernie surged in the Democratic Primary intelligence officials leaked that Sanders' campaign was being helped by Russia. Though they produced no evidence, and Sanders denounced the supposed support, the media criticized Sanders for at least a week. Bernie supporters on Twitter were accused of harboring Russian sympathies, with an obvious implication; traitors.
If it isn't a lie, it could be misdirection. Because the Russia story became such a prominent part of the last half decade, any contact would smear the target. Russia could pretend to help a candidate, with the purpose of discrediting them. A foreign country, more interested in chaos than picking a particular winner, might aid a number of candidates, to sow confusion.
More importantly, it doesn't matter. A candidate isn't ineligible because a foreign nation prefers them. Even if Russia helped Trump it didn't disqualify him from office. It was the collusion, and the cover-up, which did.
Readers who disagree should recognize that labeling every political enemy a Russian,Taliban, or Chinese sympathizer is unproductive. It distances the recipient, demonizes them, and doesn't persuade. A false label pressures the target to surrender to the mob.
The media and political figures insist that the public's interest can't align with a foreign country. The public is told by multimillionaire dollar TV hosts, they are told in ads paid for by triple digit millionaires, and they are told by Super Political Action Committees funded by billionaires. They are told by newspapers owned by men who have more money than 150 million Americans. The wealthy tell the abominable lie to the average American that their vote is wrong, or evil, or illegitimate. The real enemy isn't the foreigners that aren't aligned with the interest of the public, it's the elevated elite within.
Every reader knows that Boris Johnson, Vladimir Putin, Angelica Merkel, Xi Jinping, and Emmanuel Macron don't live in the United States. Who else lives in a different country? The super wealthy, those with fortunes of hundreds of millions or billions of dollars. They include the pundits who spew propaganda for the super wealthy, like double digit millionaire and Trumpist, Tucker Carlson or billionaire, radical centrist Thomas Friedman. The super wealthy earn the title of philanthropist if they donate 1% of their wealth, accumulate awards for their donations and deeds, and then pressure politicians to enact policies favorable to them.
Everyone knows Republicans are funded by billionaires, like Adelson (recently deceased), Charles Koch, the Waltons, the Mahons, and the Wynns. Former Republican Michael Bloomberg and Thomas Steyer were famous before they self-funded their Democratic primary campaigns with their billionaire fortunes. But Democratic voters overlook less prominent billionaire donors, especially among their party's elite. Biden was backed by forty-four billionaires, while Kamala Harris received cash from forty-seven. They placed in the third and first respectively for donations by billionaires in the Democratic Primary. We don't even mention millionaires anymore, because there millions of them. At least 11 to 20 million, while 65 million don't own anything, 18 million children don't have enough to eat, and a half million people are homeless. The solution? Lower taxes.
These people don't live in the same country. Tech barons, hedge-fund managers, healthcare executives, and venture capitalists, unknowns (to me) like Donald Sussman and Phillip Ragon donated $12 million combined to Joe Biden's presidential campaign. Donors like Seth Klarman split their fortunes, giving ammunition to both sides, so no matter who wins, they receive favors. Do these people have the interest of the average American in mind, any more than a foreign individual?
Janet Yellen, Biden's Treasury Secretary, is worth $16 million. She made $7.2 million of that over the last two years, delivering speeches to Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, and other Wall Street banks. Did she release the speeches? No. Does she live in the same universe as a family of four making $90,000 a year?
As Elizabeth Warren's campaign foundered in February, Karla Jurvetson donated $14.6 million to Warren's PAC Persist. This was immediately after the February debate where Warren said she was one of two candidates (with Amy Klobuchar) to not accept Super PAC cash. Does Karla Jurvetson have the same interests as a family of three making $68,000?
These are American citizens, but they live in a different country than the mass of Americans. They have different interests than the majority but, they shape the majority. What are their qualifications? They acquired millions or billions of dollars from marriage or inheriting it from deceased parents. If they made their own way, they obtained it from an non-productive executive job overseeing minimum wage workers, or working at hedge funds. If they did “earn” their money by developing a product, they still created it with the cheap labor of United States citizens, or by shipping jobs overseas to create it in the sweatshops of Asia.
Republicans under Reagan began dismantling a system to help the everyday Americans, and Democrats never did enough to stop them. Both parties rule through might, the might of the almighty dollar. Until the United States redistributes power to the people, in the form of economic power, and curbs the abominable crush of corporate and private cash in politics their recipients can't be trusted. Anyone funded by billionaires and millionaires and approved by the mass media, is reliable as if they were funneled foreign cash.
You may agree with one political candidate, more than another, see policies you prefer, but their power stems from the same source. They've acquired power through money, money through violence, and they are intent on using it for their interests.
Recent:
Relevant:
The Presidential Events: December 2020
Charlie Baker's Coronavirus Conceit
The Supreme Court Case that Made Trump (And The Justice to Remake Money in Politics)
Comments
Post a Comment