If meta-lesson #1 of Obama's historic victory last night is that statisticians like Nate Silver know what they're doing - see Hats Off to Nate Silver - then lesson #2 is surely that money doesn't buy elections.
I've been making this point as soon as my progressive colleagues got into an uproar about the Citizens United decision. So what if corporations could vent their spleens and bank accounts and hundreds of millions of dollars in backing their favorite candidates? That wouldn't move me, in the slightest, to vote for them if I didn't already support them or their political positions. Would it move you?
I think not. Neither did Thomas Jefferson, who thought that as long as there was some truth out there in the playing field, human beings would be able to recognize it. This came from Milton's Aeropagetica, and was a very profound and accurate view of human nature and mentality. Applied to politics, it means that people can separate truth from falsity, and vote their self-interests.
Romney had an op-ed in The New York Times that said "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt". True, he didn't write that headline, but neither did he howl in protest when the Times published his article that way. And so, when he later denied that that was his intention - when he claimed he actually loved cars and wanted to save the American auto industry - anyone who was not already strongly in support of Romney, and was wearing blinders, saw right through that lie. Jefferson and Milton called it right. People, presented with a lie and the truth, saw through the lie.
The fulfillment of Jefferson's vision does not mean that money has no impact on elections. It obviously can buy ads, and hire campaign workers. But, in the end, as long as the truth is available in any corner of the country, it will get out. Whether via a waiter who captures on his smartphone Romney's professed disdain for the 47%, or an op-ed in the New York Times, or Romney's statements all over the map, this way and that, about women's rights, the truth will come out.
So let the corps spend their money. We don't need or want the government to regulate them or counter their propaganda. We can do it ourselves, jus fine, as we did last night.
I've been making this point as soon as my progressive colleagues got into an uproar about the Citizens United decision. So what if corporations could vent their spleens and bank accounts and hundreds of millions of dollars in backing their favorite candidates? That wouldn't move me, in the slightest, to vote for them if I didn't already support them or their political positions. Would it move you?
I think not. Neither did Thomas Jefferson, who thought that as long as there was some truth out there in the playing field, human beings would be able to recognize it. This came from Milton's Aeropagetica, and was a very profound and accurate view of human nature and mentality. Applied to politics, it means that people can separate truth from falsity, and vote their self-interests.
Romney had an op-ed in The New York Times that said "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt". True, he didn't write that headline, but neither did he howl in protest when the Times published his article that way. And so, when he later denied that that was his intention - when he claimed he actually loved cars and wanted to save the American auto industry - anyone who was not already strongly in support of Romney, and was wearing blinders, saw right through that lie. Jefferson and Milton called it right. People, presented with a lie and the truth, saw through the lie.
The fulfillment of Jefferson's vision does not mean that money has no impact on elections. It obviously can buy ads, and hire campaign workers. But, in the end, as long as the truth is available in any corner of the country, it will get out. Whether via a waiter who captures on his smartphone Romney's professed disdain for the 47%, or an op-ed in the New York Times, or Romney's statements all over the map, this way and that, about women's rights, the truth will come out.
So let the corps spend their money. We don't need or want the government to regulate them or counter their propaganda. We can do it ourselves, jus fine, as we did last night.
4 comments:
While I agree with you in general, it worries me that dark campaign money was able to convince 48% of voters to go for a Romney candidate who lied repeatedly, who refused tax record transparency, who maintained secrecy on the fine details of all his policy proposals, and who refused to stand up against the racists and mysogynists in his party. I also would like to see how dark money has affected downticket elections. Did Democrats win nationally but lose locally?
Well, the country has been split politically 50/50 since long before Citizen's United - since 2000. So there's no reason to think that Romney money bought him even a single vote. As for local elections, the candidates would have to be better known than national candidates to the voters - better known through more direct knowledge - so I'd think ads would have even less impact.
You're right - apparently what wins elections is promising people money, specifically free (read: other people's) money in the form of "benefits" and other government handouts, than scaring them by saying that the mean old conservatives are going to take away all their free stuff. This is how liberals have won elections for the last 80 years. What are you going to do when you run out of my money?
I haven't the slightest interest in your money - or in anyone's money, unless I earn it from my work (in my case, as an author and professor).
But if you don't want the government taxing and spending money, then you probably should move to some other planet. Every country on the face of this Earth raises taxes to spend on authorized government activities. In most countries, that includes heath care.
If you disagree with that and other policies, you're free to vote for people who will change them. In yesterday's election, the candidate who wanted to change the government's involvement in health care lost by a big margin in the electoral college, and clearly in the popular vote. You know why? Not because anyone wants your money. Not because anyone wants freebies. Not because anyone was frightened (the Republican candidate was laughable not frightening). But because a majority want the government to tax and spend those revenues on the common good, as indicated in the Constitution, in laws, and Supreme Court decisions.
Post a Comment