I applaud the idea of grassroots organizing but what all these "we will take back our liberal democracy" nerds fail to consider is that the "handful of rich oligarchs buys politicians" exchange has a virtue that 38 million smaller donors will never have: a smaller number of people to pay back with much more specific interests.
I just woke up so I'm probably bad with words rn. Allow me to explain. Let's say you can buy a politician for 5 million dollars. 5 rich dudes and they are done for 1 million each. To combat this 500,000 small donors must raise 10 each.
Easy, right? Not so fast.
Now consider the politician. Would you rather owe 5 favors or 500,000 favors? Now consider again that one of the biggest reasons the rich donate is to prevent reform. The system is already working for them. They are paying money so you don't do anything. Medicare for All? That's expensive. Will change big things. Will end as many political careers as it advances. There are 500,000 versions of what that looks like and how long it will take. Etc etc. It will create large and numerous waves of consequences.
Now how about opposing Medicare for All? You gotta do nothing, essentially. You have to maybe face a few reporters when it gets brought up. You make a few comments about reforms you will never earnestly pursue. You don't even have to do your job of crafting legislation. The industry ghouls and goblins will write the legislation and the lobbyists will deliver the bills to your desk. One of your staff will tell you to sign it. You keep five people happy and you keep your job. And most of what you need to do to keep them happy is to do nothing. And people like jobs where they get paid to do nothing.
Now take all of what I just described and add another key ingredient: consequences. How do you reward politicians? Funding them. Getting them the job and keeping them employed. How do you punish them? You take away their money and make them lose their job. Now, how in the name of God's good earth are you going to wave the threat of losing their jobs when your other, parallel political sloganeering campaign is to vote for those politicians and their party "no matter who" because you live under a two party system and the alternative sucks even more?
Can any liberal truly answer me on this question? Because it looks like you, and everyone else, are fucked by this system. And it's not because of this guy here or that guy there or any fiddling of the various dials and levers that can be adjusted on the control panel. The system is broken to the core. It is not designed to do the thing you are trying to force it to do.
That's a really good one to add and you're totally correct. It's also funny (read: depressing*) that even with all those additional costs they still can easily afford it and you can tell that's true because their profits keep breaking records
*or motivating if you realize it vindicates Rosa Luxembourg and we're probably better off doing the whole revolution thing.
You're also never able to meet and strategize with the thousands of other small donors to agree upon a single set of policies you can demand that the politician fulfill, whereas a handful of rich bundlers can get together for one dinner party, raise as much money as you and thousands of your fellow schmucks do, and hash out a cohesive list of policy demands that satisfies everyone at the table while being easy for the beneficiary politician to grant.
Plus those rich donors are few enough in number that they can collectively shut down the politician's money hose over a simple text chain if he/she breaks promises, whereas you won't be able to get the scattered thousands of small money donors together to collectively bargain for anything if the politician's actions leave you all completely abandoned, and if you choose to stop giving they'll be able to go elsewhere to quickly fleece more small money donors.
I applaud the idea of grassroots organizing but what all these "we will take back our liberal democracy" nerds fail to consider is that the "handful of rich oligarchs buys politicians" exchange has a virtue that 38 million smaller donors will never have: a smaller number of people to pay back with much more specific interests.
I just woke up so I'm probably bad with words rn. Allow me to explain. Let's say you can buy a politician for 5 million dollars. 5 rich dudes and they are done for 1 million each. To combat this 500,000 small donors must raise 10 each.
Easy, right? Not so fast.
Now consider the politician. Would you rather owe 5 favors or 500,000 favors? Now consider again that one of the biggest reasons the rich donate is to prevent reform. The system is already working for them. They are paying money so you don't do anything. Medicare for All? That's expensive. Will change big things. Will end as many political careers as it advances. There are 500,000 versions of what that looks like and how long it will take. Etc etc. It will create large and numerous waves of consequences.
Now how about opposing Medicare for All? You gotta do nothing, essentially. You have to maybe face a few reporters when it gets brought up. You make a few comments about reforms you will never earnestly pursue. You don't even have to do your job of crafting legislation. The industry ghouls and goblins will write the legislation and the lobbyists will deliver the bills to your desk. One of your staff will tell you to sign it. You keep five people happy and you keep your job. And most of what you need to do to keep them happy is to do nothing. And people like jobs where they get paid to do nothing.
Now take all of what I just described and add another key ingredient: consequences. How do you reward politicians? Funding them. Getting them the job and keeping them employed. How do you punish them? You take away their money and make them lose their job. Now, how in the name of God's good earth are you going to wave the threat of losing their jobs when your other, parallel political sloganeering campaign is to vote for those politicians and their party "no matter who" because you live under a two party system and the alternative sucks even more?
Can any liberal truly answer me on this question? Because it looks like you, and everyone else, are fucked by this system. And it's not because of this guy here or that guy there or any fiddling of the various dials and levers that can be adjusted on the control panel. The system is broken to the core. It is not designed to do the thing you are trying to force it to do.
One item I’d to that list: billionaires aren’t just shelling out on campaign donations, they’re also shelling out millions on lobbyists.
That's a really good one to add and you're totally correct. It's also funny (read: depressing*) that even with all those additional costs they still can easily afford it and you can tell that's true because their profits keep breaking records
*or motivating if you realize it vindicates Rosa Luxembourg and we're probably better off doing the whole revolution thing.
You're also never able to meet and strategize with the thousands of other small donors to agree upon a single set of policies you can demand that the politician fulfill, whereas a handful of rich bundlers can get together for one dinner party, raise as much money as you and thousands of your fellow schmucks do, and hash out a cohesive list of policy demands that satisfies everyone at the table while being easy for the beneficiary politician to grant.
Plus those rich donors are few enough in number that they can collectively shut down the politician's money hose over a simple text chain if he/she breaks promises, whereas you won't be able to get the scattered thousands of small money donors together to collectively bargain for anything if the politician's actions leave you all completely abandoned, and if you choose to stop giving they'll be able to go elsewhere to quickly fleece more small money donors.