The Brittle Grip, Part 3 (Click here to read more)
Josh
Marshall
April 3, 2014
.
There
is a level of vilification that is not appropriate in politics.
Having someone make fun of your name does not reach that high
threshold.
.
We
can have some fun with billionaire Charles Koch's Perkinsesque cri de
coeur about attacks on him, his political giving and his "vision
for a free society" as he puts it. But it is in line with, part
of, the Perkinsonian vision of contemporary American political
economy in which the extremely powerful nonetheless feel embattled
and threatened. I see it as part of the larger story I wrote about
here as the "brittle grip."
.
Extremely
wealthy people - enabled by a series of key Supreme Court decisions
as recently as yesterday - want to be able to spend gargantuan
amounts of money in the political process and remain essentially
private persons who don't get knocked around or criticized like
everyone else in the political arena.
.
This
is frankly ridiculous.
.
The
Kochs, Sheldon Adelson, to a lesser degree George Soros (since his
political giving does not approach the scale of these men and has
declined in recent years) are massively influential players in our
political process. Under the current system of lax or non-existent
restrictions on political spending, billionaire givers are at least
as influential as any individual member of the House or Senate,
probably a bigger deal than the chairmen of the two major political
parties. In the GOP today, the role of the Kochs and Adelson and a
few others is likely greatly understated by those comparisons.
.
The
same issue has come up recently with demands from mega-givers not to
have to disclose their giving on the argument that they're likely to
be criticized or "vilified" or "intimidated."
Again, creeping Perkinsism. So intense political participation --
intense "speech" -- without having to enter the political
arena and become a political entity who like everyone else in this
democracy thing can be supported and criticized.
.
It
doesn't work that way. There's no reason why it should. Free speech
is freedom to speak. Not freedom to speak and not have anyone
disagree with anything you say.
No comments:
Post a Comment