2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumJimmy Carter: U.S. Is An 'Oligarchy With Unlimited Political Bribery'
forest444
(5,902 posts)It basically means the same thing, of course; but conveys it in a more graphic way.
Plus, many of our fellow Americans have no idea what an oligarch is; but everyone knows (and pretty much hates) lobbyists.
Skwmom
(12,685 posts)Patent it before someone else does!
How sad we even have to speak in these terms. So many men and women gave so much to build this great nation, only to see it sold off bit by bit to vultures and hyenas.
Betty Karlson
(7,231 posts)I'll vote for its reversion as soon as I can cast a primary vote.
Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)and it ain't the candidate with the right-pointing red arrow.
Babel_17
(5,400 posts)But his comments are uniquely striking. Thank you President Carter.
senz
(11,945 posts)Indepatriot
(1,253 posts)when I use it......
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)and clearly Jimmy Carter was no different by stating the U.S. is an oligarchy.
Doesn't matter that he hasn't been in elected office for 35 years.
AZ Progressive
(3,411 posts)lovemydog
(11,833 posts)who knows politics and history.
I don't know why anyone is arguing over this word.
Can anyone please clue me in?
I don't care if he calls it 'oligarchy' or 'powerful interests' or 'Star Wars.' The point is the same, and he is correct.
demwing
(16,916 posts)IMO, the people who argue against this word are the people that know it applies to their candidate, and have the character to understand it's a shameful badge to carry, but lack "something" (courage? common sense?) to actually act on that understanding.
Either that, or they themselves are oligarchs (or desire to be) and, naturally, wish to defend themselves against the criticism.
lovemydog
(11,833 posts)It could also be that they are a bit shocked by the use of the word. Last year a college professor told me she polled her political science class about whether we live more in an oligarchy or a democracy. The majority said oligarchy. I was a bit shocked at first. Then the more I've thought about it, I think they are correct.
The debate is one I find pretty fascinating. It's an important word, with serious ramifications. One I would not use lightly. But I think it's truly worthy of a good discussion. Frankly I feel we have some forms of democracy and some forms of oligarchy. Like we have some forms of capitalism and some forms of socialism. I'd like to see our forms of socialism geared much more toward help out the large majority of us, instead of primarily helping the special interest lobbyists and uber rich.
wildeyed
(11,240 posts)that people use this word to smear a certain candidate and her supporters for having opinions that differ from their own.
I got no problem with the word, per se. Nor do I disagree with the usage when used to describe our political system. But it is used as an all-purpose ad hominem attack these days and people are rightfully tweaked about it.
demwing
(16,916 posts)and demonstrate that the weight of evidence showing that said candidate belongs to, or supports the oligarchy, is false.
wildeyed
(11,240 posts)choice: If you object to the word, it is either because your candidate is an oligarch or you are an oligarch.
It is narrow and insulting to assume that anyone who holds a view counter to your own does so because they are an oligarch. Silly actually.
John Lewis is an oligarch? Hmmmm.... Howard Dean? Um, Julian Castro? Oh look, Tammy Duckworth is an oligarch!
And now you move the goal posts. Instead of defending your silly statement, you make a new demand. And what will be enough "weight"?
I can prove that no Democrat would support the oligarchy if they want to stay in power, because of the way demographics are trending in this country. More voters in, big money out is always good for Dems. They all want that to happen. But since the real oligarchs are in control of the Supreme Court right now, if they want to win, they play be those rules.
But the math might be too complicated for you. Seems like many here are impaired in that way.
Better? No? Breathe again... there you go!
I responded to a question with an opinion. IMO, opinions are fair game. You could have asked me to support my opinion, but you chose not to. Instead, you offered an opinion of your own. You claimed that using the term "oligarch" is a smear.
That's your opinion, but what you call "moving the goalpost" was just me challenging that opinion. As I wrote, opinions are fair game.
However, there has been a mountain of evidence posted on DU that Clinton (let's drop the silly "said candidate" bullshit - everyone knows we're talking about Clinton) is part of a group of wealthy elites that govern the country primarily for the benefit of that elite group. I have never seen anyone successfully refute that evidence.
So now is your chance. Show that the weight of evidence (not all the evidence, just most of the evidence) is false.
wildeyed
(11,240 posts)Do you even know any Hillary supporters in the real world?
And you never answered my other question. Do you think John Lewis, who endorsed Hillary Clinton, is an oligarch or supporter of oligarchs?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lewis_(Georgia_politician)
Cut and paste from another post:
It is true that corporate money has completely distorted the political process. But that is because every time we pass a decent law, the freakin' Supreme Court overturns it.
I support public financing of campaigns.
Limited time frame for campaigning.
Instant Runoff voting (enables third-party candidates in ways that our system cannot) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting
Automatic voter registration of 18 year olds.
MANDATORY voting for all adults.
I think the two party system is played out, decadent, FUBAR and ready for the trash heap of history.
I am as far left as you can get on these issues. Most people don't know what I am talking about, I am so far off the left side of the bell curve.
I have spent hundreds of unpaid hours over the period of a decade, with people of all ages, races and economic levels, trying to bring this vision to fruition.
Yet I support Clinton. Because I can get most of this passed with any Democrat in office if we get the right mix on the Supremes for a long enough time period.
We did it in NC. Passed some of the most liberal election law in the entire country with a bunch of corrupt DINOs running the show. True story. Too bad about the GOP redistricting, it is all gone now.
That tells me everything I need to know abut who the true enemy is, too.
My first point: Even the most conservative Dems will not stand in the way if there is the political will and organization to get good campaign finance laws passed. I know because I did it.
And here is the why of it:
This is an infographic from 538 modeling 2012 turnout on current the population.
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-swing-the-election/
The Democratic coalition is educated white/black/asian/latino. Our heavy hitters are educated white and black. The x-axis is percent of population that turns out to vote. The y-axis is party preference.
Now pull the x line on non-college whites (GOP base) to the very top and see what it does to the electoral college. Does not flip. Educated whites are pretty maxed on turnout, so you would have to simultaneously persuade several percentage points of that group to the red column to actually win a Presidential election. Unlikely based on trends and on the type of candidates the GOP runs these days.
Now look at black/asian/latino boxes. They all have headroom to grow on the x-axis. None are likely to flip for GOP.
Now play and see what will flip the electoral college to a GOP win.
If I depress the black vote and push the non-college white and latino a few points farther into the red, voila! I get a GOP win! And that is likely what the GOP is planning too. Voter ID plus shorter early vote and longer lines in AA neighborhood, angry whites and a latino GOP candidate might do it.
My second point: ALL DEM candidates benefit from higher turnout.
- Dems benefit from higher turnout, more voters and less campaign money, as long as ALL CANDIDATES are limited in spending. This is not a moral issue. This is just smart. But when campaign money is NOT limited by the courts, then it DOES NOT benefit Dems to fall way behind GOP on the principal of the thing. Because then we lose. And a full loss is worse than a conflicted win when it comes to policy issues.
- Reps can only depress the turnout of our voters and spend more and more money. They are the ones who truly benefit from the money in politics because they have maxed their potential voter pool and can ONLY spend more money and disenfranchise Dem voters to win.
You understand?
First: I have actually volunteered with groups who got great finance laws with conservative Dems in power. They could have blocked but they didn't. Why? Because they ARE NOT OLIGARCHS. (Liberal Dems CANNOT win statewide here yet because the state is fairly conservative overall. What some call a DINO is the best we can realistically do.)
Second: The electoral math for Dems favors higher turnout and LESS campaign money. Follow the money right? Who benefits from more? GOP! So Dems are NOT OLIGARCHS.
Third: Unless you are prepared to call one of our greatest living social justice warriors and a veterans rights activist oligarchs, then you are disproved right there.
You know, it IS possible for good and moral people to simple have a different opinion than yours.
I doubt anyone actually read this, but hey, I tried......
demwing
(16,916 posts)"IMO, the people who argue against this word..."
I don't see anything in your post about Lewis arguing against this word, nor did I ever imply that everyone who supports Clinton is an oligarch.
Your post states that if the word 'oligarch' bothers you when applied to you or your candidate, it is because either YOU are an oligarch OR your candidate is an oligarch.
So John Lewis supports Hillary Clinton. According to your logic, Lewis supports an oligarch.
John Lewis has fought harder than almost any living American for social justice and progressive values. He paid with his blood and almost lost his life. He has been an exemplary public servant ever since. And yet, according to your logic, he is supporting an oligarch.
I call bullshit.
Let me restate, the word oligarch, when applied to myself OR the candidate I support, bother me because it is a NOT TRUE. Your "opinion" is divisive and rude. And I stand by my statement that it is a dog whistle ad hominem attack used to dis Clinton supporters that has no basis in reality. Again, it is possible for someone to hold a different political opinion and still be a good and moral person.
So again, is John Lewis an oligarch, or does he support the oligarchy? Just give me your opinion.
Do you know any Clinton supporters in the real world? Fair question, because I don't think you would talk like you do if you did.
And curious, did you even look at the Electoral College math I posted? I don't want to fight about it, just curious if it made sense to you.
demwing
(16,916 posts)"IMO, the people who argue against this word are the people that know it applies to their candidate, and have the character to understand it's a shameful badge to carry, but lack "something" (courage? common sense?) to actually act on that understanding."
As far as Lewis is concerned, I believe his net worth has actually decreased while in office, at least recently. He's even less wealthy than Sanders, and that's no easy feat. I hold the man in pretty high esteem, despite his support of an oligarch. Give him time. He dropped Hillary in 2008 when Obama looked viable, he may do the same this year when Bernie meets those same expectations.
wildeyed
(11,240 posts)the people who argue against this word are the people who think it is NOT TRUE.
demwing
(16,916 posts)Hint: when trying to scold people for what you think they wrote, first scroll up the thread and reread the text. Use Copy and Paste. It's a simple way to avoid obvious mistakes of memory.
wildeyed
(11,240 posts)If someone calls you an oligarch and it make you mad, Hillary Clinton IS an oligarch. But if someone calls you an oligarch and it DOES NOT make you mad, Hillary Clinton IS NOT an oligarch.
Hillary Clinton is simultaneously both and oligarch and NOT an oligarch. A quantum superposition of oligarchness...... Deep.
demwing
(16,916 posts)Her position on any given controversial issue is considered (according to quantum triangulation politics) to be simultaneously both "for" and "against" said controversial issue, until the candidate is elected and the actual position is observed...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251625709#post50
wildeyed
(11,240 posts)A politician can vote against your position, but still be supporting you in the background. They did not have the political cover to vote yes, but they did not block the bill up in committee and they made sure, behind the scenes, that you had the votes to pass it anyway.
Happens ALL THE TIME.
Or you can say pretty words that make the base all rah-rah, but not have the political muscle or acumen to actually get anything done.
Skwmom
(12,685 posts)after leaving office......
closeupready
(29,503 posts)Ichingcarpenter
(36,988 posts)A corrupt network of wealthy elites has hijacked our government, ex-GOP staffer and best-selling author tells Salon
http://www.salon.com/2016/01/05/controlled_by_shadow_government_mike_lofgren_reveals_how_top_u_s_officials_are_at_the_mercy_of_the_deep_state/
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1016&pid=141294
The Devils Chessboard: Allen Dulles, the CIA, and the Rise of Americas Secret Government
https://theintercept.com/2015/11/02/the-deepest-state-the-safari-club-allen-dulles-and-the-devils-chessboard/
CharlotteVale
(2,717 posts)libdem4life
(13,877 posts)Definition of kleptocracy. i.e. the Beltway/Congress
: government by those who seek chiefly status and personal gain at the expense of the governed; also : a particular government of this kind
Ivan Kaputski
(528 posts)EndElectoral
(4,213 posts)Uncle Joe
(58,112 posts)Thanks for the thread, INdemo.
vkkv
(3,384 posts)"Take down those solar water heaters Mr. Carter!"
- Ronald Reagan ( sort of)