GameBanshee Forums

Cuchulain82 wrote:Fable, Jefferson was the principal architect of the private system of wealth in the US. The "Jeffersonian System" of property was based on chopping up the commons so that private individuals, the farmer-philosophers (my term) he put so much stock in, could use the resources of the commons and embetter the nation. If you think Jefferson was anything other than an eloquent capitalist you're sadly mistaken. If you agree with him, then you agree with me.

I quoted Jefferson's insight, which disagrees with your own observation. You then turn around and claim Jefferson regularly agrees with you, and completely ignore what I just quoted. I'm not going to make the mistake of getting into an argument with you over somebody's idea Jeferson's so-called system; let's stick with the thread's issue, and with his specific remarks I quoted. The comments still stand as a very apposite comment upon the plutocracy you've espoused, here.

Fable, who are you to judge? Do you know enough to assume that you can fix this system, wave the Gamebanshee wand and instill [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_(Plato)"]Justice[/url] where all has been lost to heathens from Texas? I'm a big believer in the American system, and I hate GWB, but the fact is that somewhere along the line, someone made that money, through ingenuity, timing, luck... whatever.

A person's getting mugged, and I'm standing with some friends. We can't interfere, and stop the mugging, because we don't have the power to do so, so we have no business declaring that those who are causing it are muggers. Have you understood you correctly?

Politics isn't a zero-sum game! I want a leader who looks out for me, but so does everyone. A rising tide floats all boats- a leader doesn't have to rob from the poor to feed the rich. And if the only problem is that phrase, does that mean you agree with everything else?

I would suggest that each party's tide floats only their own, partisan politics is as old as Livy's endless discourse on the rich and poor factions in the Roman Republic, and leaders in reality play one side off the other to get more people out to vote, and reward their own flock. Silver-spoon aristocrats like the three Kennedy brothers making their concerns the poor and discriminated are very, very few. Or do you disagree with this?

And of even greater importance, what of non-wealthy national leaders, ones who never went into business to make a ton of money, and never did? Vaclav Havel, Nelson Mandela, Harry Truman: few of them, to be sure, but were they, in your opinion, less successful but having lacked the important experience that comes from making a fortune?

fable wrote:Bait and switch: I quoted Jefferson's insight, which disagrees with your own observation. You then turn around and claim Jefferson regularly agrees with you, and completely ignore what I just quoted. I'm not going to make the mistake of getting into an argument with you over Jeferson's so-called system; let's stick with the issue, and with his specific remarks I quoted. The comments still stand as a very apposite comment upon the plutocracy you've espoused, here.

It's not a bait and switch because you quoted someone who, unfortunately, doesn't jive with your argument. You quoted Jefferson, without a citation I might add, and so now he's fair game. So, she quote says one thing, but Jefferson's actions say otherwise. I could go get my Property book and start quoting ad infinitum, but it wouldn't get us anywhere. Jefferson believed in private holdings for property (the source of all wealth in his time)- think of it as Locke with a twist. He thought people earned wealth and land through labor, and dreamed of a society of individual, privatized farmers. These people would make the nation stronger through their individual labor. If that doesn't fit your argument, then pick your quotations differently next time- I have not doubt you can even find another founding father if you're so inclined.

fable wrote:A person's getting mugged, and I'm standing with some friends. We can't interfere, and stop the mugging, because we don't have the power to do so, so we have no business declaring that those who are causing it are muggers. Have you understood you correctly?

The problem is that it isn't a mugging- it's a democracy. You and I both voted. I know my guy lost. Now I'm stuck with GWB. There is more I should have done, but I don't think it's because the system is broken. I think it's because the participants would rather bemoan fate than be proactive.

fable wrote:Where does it state anywhere in the Constitution that wealth is the determining factor for holding office? Wealth is never discussed at all in terms of how it will influence or purchase office, is it? So how do you work the Constitution into all this?

Free speech. The root of money and politics is the right to spend that money on a political message. Political speech is the bedrock right of the Constitution- it's Amendment #1, and has been one of the most protected rights in legal history. Time after time, limits on political spending have been found unconstitutional. As much as I hate the fact that rich people have the right to spend their money on dumb things, I don't know how to regulate it in a Constitutional way.

fable wrote:I would suggest that each party's tide floats only their own, partisan politics is as old as Livy's endless discourse on the rich and poor factions in the Roman Republic, and leaders in reality play one side off the other to get more people out to vote, and reward their own flock. Silver-spoon aristocrats like the three Kennedy brothers making their concerns the poor and discriminated are very, very few. Or do you disagree with this?

We're jamming together International relations/macro-economic theory with domestic political processes and philosophies. I didn't mention this in the last post, but this has the potential to get really messy.

I think that most people are self-concerned, and that sometimes people pick a goal and spend their time and money on it. Warren Buffet, the Kennedys, Bill Gates, Gandhi, Betty Ford, Jimmy Carter- they are all people with tremendous political and/or economic capital who chose to spend it for a cause. I can't really answer your question any better than that.

Edit- You know, I don't know if I'd go so far as to call the Kennedys "Silver Spoon". Joe Kennedy (the father of Robert, John, and the other siblings of that generation) was a mobster and bootlegger who was largely a self-made man. His grandparents were off-the-boat Irish Cathloics at a time when WASP culture was the only culture in politics. Does it really support my argument or yours to cite a family who went from rags to riches in a few generations?

Fair note: I'm cutting drastically on your reply, because I want to keep this thread focused on the issue discussed in the first post. So please don't get upset that I'm only answering part of what you write. You're not being picked on.

Cuchulain82 wrote:It's not a bait and switch because you quoted someone who, unfortunately, doesn't jive with your argument. You quoted Jefferson, without a citation I might add, and so now he's fair game.

I quoted Jefferson, so now his quote is fair game. If we're discussing politics and you throw in an amusing piece of wit by Oscar Wilde, I won't suddenly begin discussing the suit between Wilde and the Marquess of Queensbury, because it's irrelevant. Nor will I claim you brought up Wilde first, and therefore I can discuss anything of his I want.

As for the Arcadian Ideal, which you seem to think belongs to Jefferson, we can certainly discuss that, Rousseau, Madison, Randolph, etc, in another thread. It's fascinating stuff, and I suspect Chanak might like to join in. Like I noted, though, I felt Jefferson's specific comment was pertinent, here, so please, let's stay focused on it:

"Money and not morality is the principle of commerce and commercial nations... Justice, honor, faith, must yield to the necessity of keeping themselves in place. The question whether a measure is moral is never asked, but whether it will nourish the avarice of their merchants, or the piratical spirit of their navy, or produce any other effect which may strengthen them in their places... This is the true character of [such governments] in practice, however different [their] theory; and it presents the singular phenomenon of a nation, the individuals of which are as faithful to their private engagements and duties, as honorable, as worthy, as those of any nation on earth, and whose government is yet the most unprincipled [ever] known."

What does this say to you about the nature of a "govenrment by merchants?" Was Jefferson correct? Was he trying to stem an inevitable tide in a fast industrializing nation? Are we then stuck with rule by the rich; and is it necessarily better?

Free speech. The root of money and politics is the right to spend that money on a political message. Political speech is the bedrock right of the Constitution- it's Amendment #1, and has been one of the most protected rights in legal history. Time after time, limits on political spending have been found unconstitutional. As much as I hate the fact that rich people have the right to spend their money on dumb things, I don't know how to regulate it in a Constitutional way.

The fact that we have legally imposed limits on funding and kinds of funding for federal, state, and regional political races would seem to contradict your statement. Is money, then, the deciding factor in who gets elected, in your opinion?

I think that most people are self-concerned, and that sometimes people pick a goal and spend their time and money on it. Warren Buffet, the Kennedys, Bill Gates, Gandhi, Betty Ford, Jimmy Carter- they are all people with tremendous political and/or economic capital who chose to spend it for a cause. I can't really answer your question any better than that.

But there's a problem, here. We're in agreement, I think, that political clout can substitute for financial wealth in getting someone elected, such as Havel or Mandela. However, on another level, they fly in the face of what you wrote, earlier, regarding your own preferences for rule: Most of the time I don't think national leaders can be poor. Nor should they be. Any national leader should be smart and capable enough to make a fortune.

So what of Havel, Mandela, Truman, and the like? Are they exceptions you'll approve, or do you not like their rule, because they were (and those alive still are) relatively poor among the ruling elites?

fable wrote:Fair note: I'm cutting drastically on your reply

Hey, it's your thread. You ducked Hugo Black and Learned Hand. Keep picking your spots and we'll keep moving forward.

fable]What does this say to you about the nature of a wrote: The quote is nice. It's poetic. It says something important. And, for sure, the views in the quote are enacted in the US today. Jefferson wanted to get rid of nobility and hereditary systems of property/wealth control. He was largely successful. However...

Jefferson wasn't trying to stem an industial tide because he didn't see it coming. If the industrial tide is a metaphor, then he was standing in the way of a tsunami, trying to plant a few sandbags. Jefferson believed an agrarian, rural society would be the ideal form of government. That was what he hoped the US would become. He's a lot smarter than I am so I hesitate to say I know more, but I will say that he didn't anticipate industrialization very well. And his style of government isn't possible without slavery, another modern faux pas.

I don't think we're in a system of merchants. We're in a system of individuals, each of whom has a vote. Going after the system is fine, but if you do so, you should have a suitable substitute. I have quotes from Plato, Demsetz, Bentham, more Learned Hand... the list goes on and on. All the quotes come on one side of democracy or the other. But I don't think a quote really speaks to the issue- you seem to be unhappy with the current leadership, so you think the system is broken. I think my team just got beat, plain and simple, like the Republicans got beat for most of the latter part of the 20th century.

And, I'll ask again- where is the Jefferson quote from?

fable]Is money wrote: I think money is the most important factor in who gets elected, at least today in the US. It's hard to quantify this sort of thing, so if it isn't #1, it is a major, major factor.

fable]The fact that we have legally imposed limits on funding and kinds of funding for federal wrote: Let's just stop that one right now- really. I'm saying this because the regulations on campaign spending and limitations on political speech are, legally, so ridiculously narrow that we should just agree that you can say whatever you want on TV about if you have the money to pay for the spot. I've got you beat on this one, or maybe we're in agreement. I'm not trying to be a jerk- I just want to cut this off at the pass and keep the issue narrow.

I don't really understand what you're getting at. I don't know anything about Havel, but Mandela and Truman ended up doing well for themselves by the latter parts of their lives. A little more specificity would help me answer.

Also, I would like nothing more than to discuss Rousseau, Locke, Hobbes and a variety of other philosophers. I tried to get people interested when I first came to GB, but no one replied to my threads. Please please please start a thread about the First Discourse or Humanistic Marxism- I'm begging you.

A side note: I think such politicians as Havel, Mandela, Walesa, or Castro cannot be viewed as traditional Western politicians (first of all, they are not Western). They were dissidents and came into power riding the crest of a respective social revolution wave, so to speak (I say that in a positive sense); both Mandela and Havel were imprisoned for a long time.
BTW, Mandela belongs to a royal family (not that it has much to do with his remarkable political career, just a fact).

Cuchulain82 wrote:Hey, it's your thread. You ducked Hugo Black and Learned Hand. Keep picking your spots and we'll keep moving forward.

Far from ducking them, I urge you, once again, to start up other threads discussing the issues they raise, since they aren't identical to the content, here. Just as I have on the issue of the Arcadian Ideal. I like a lot of subjects, too. Just not all at once.

The quote is nice. It's poetic. It says something important. And, for sure, the views in the quote are enacted in the US today. Jefferson wanted to get rid of nobility and hereditary systems of property/wealth control. He was largely successful. However...

Jefferson wasn't trying to stem an industial tide because he didn't see it coming. If the industrial tide is a metaphor, then he was standing in the way of a tsunami, trying to plant a few sandbags. Jefferson believed an agrarian, rural society would be the ideal form of government. That was what he hoped the US would become. He's a lot smarter than I am so I hesitate to say I know more, but I will say that he didn't anticipate industrialization very well. And his style of government isn't possible without slavery, another modern faux pas.

Jefferson would smile at your praise, but probably believe--he was incredibly vain. However, we don't have Jefferson handy, and you're showing yourself to be an intelligent communicator. So you'll do. I think we'll both agree that Jefferson believed social equality was only possible when wealth wasn't the goal but simply the byproduct of one's own work, diligence, and intelligence. Do you think increasing inequality of wealth and power are the necessary byproducts of industrialization, along with its benefits?

And, I'll ask again- where is the Jefferson quote from?

I missed your previous request for that quote's origin. It comes from one of Jefferson's innumerable letters--in this case, from 1809, and sent to Larkin Smith. We really need a good, modern, thoroughly annotated and scholarly edition of these.

I think money is the most important factor in who gets elected, at least today in the US. It's hard to quantify this sort of thing, so if it isn't #1, it is a major, major factor.

And we're in agreement, again. The parallels throughout Western history are striking. Juvenal, that snobbish Roman aristocrat who happened to write wonderfully funny satire, repeatedly condemned the way money brought entry to the homes of the elite and the halls of power. Petronius depicted both the lack of taste and the enormous energy of the selfmade tycoon who has gained a foothold among the powerful. In the late Middle Ages, traveling priests, abandoning their churches, crafted and circulated an extremely funny mock holy service to Mammon, god of money, in good Latin, and following the real one all too closely.

But what's interesting here is that these voices raised in traditional protest over the way money became ruling power came from the conservative element of society. Juvenal and Petronius were conservatives, and the mock service was a strong cry to return to the poverty of the One True Faith. Where and when, do you think, did the protest against wealth controlling government become exclusively a "liberal" matter? And why?

Let's just stop that one right now- really. I'm saying this because the regulations on campaign spending and limitations on political speech are, legally, so ridiculously narrow that we should just agree that you can say whatever you want on TV about if you have the money to pay for the spot.

You made a factually incorrect statement. I corrected it: The fact that we have legally imposed limits on funding and kinds of funding for federal, state, and regional political races would seem to contradict your statement. I'd love to stop, just to please you, but as I haven't started anything nor had any desire to do so (campaign reform is not a thicket in which I've ever desired to tread; leave it to attorneys), in a thread I want to keep focused, I'm afraid I can't oblige you. You'll have to look somewher else for something to stop.

I don't really understand what you're getting at. I don't know anything about Havel, but Mandela and Truman ended up doing well for themselves by the latter parts of their lives. A little more specificity would help me answer.

What I mean is, that they lacked the sharp, aggressive business instinct that you prefer ("Most of the time I don't think national leaders can be poor. Nor should they be. Any national leader should be smart and capable enough to make a fortune."), but they all became national leaders. Do you believe each did well? If so, do you think they did well in spite of their lack of fortune-making? Or is it possible to lead nationally, successfully without this skill?

Also, I would like nothing more than to discuss Rousseau, Locke, Hobbes and a variety of other philosophers. I tried to get people interested when I first came to GB, but no one replied to my threads. Please please please start a thread about the First Discourse or Humanistic Marxism- I'm begging you.

Do it! I don't have to, and my time is limited because of our upcoming move. So feel free! Really. I think it might go over very well.

A side note: I think such politicians as Havel, Mandela, Walesa, or Castro cannot be viewed as traditional Western politicians (first of all, they are not Western). They were dissidents and came into power riding the crest of a respective social revolution wave, so to speak (I say that in a positive sense); both Mandela and Havel were imprisoned for a long time.
BTW, Mandela belongs to a royal family (not that it has much to do with his remarkable political career, just a fact).

Western in the sense of European "inspired" nations. As opposed to mainland China, Bhutan, or Japan, for example. I also mentioned Truman, but following your mention of revolutionaries, we could add Lenin, Mao, Saint-Just, Robespierre, and a number of others to this list. With the exception of Truman (who was an aberation), they all shared a single common factor, appearing at the start of a major shift in government. Does this mean, do you think, that the less wealthy can only rise to the top in national politics after sharp regime change?

@Fable

Western in the sense of European "inspired" nations. As opposed to mainland China, Bhutan, or Japan, for example. I also mentioned Truman, but following your mention of revolutionaries, we could add Lenin, Mao, Saint-Just, Robespierre, and a number of others to this list. With the exception of Truman (who was an aberation), they all shared a single common factor, appearing at the start of a major shift in government. Does this mean, do you think, that the less wealthy can only rise to the top in national politics after sharp regime change?

Modern "European 'inspired' nations" on a brink of major political and social revolution did not, as a rule, have a wealthy middle class or a legally rich "upper class" due to the system that would not allow for personal wealth. What was considered "being well-off" over there wouldn't come even close to a modest income in the US. The dissidents were mainly writers, college professors and trade union activists who became politicians after being persecuted for many years.
Besides, the totalitarian countries did not have a long-standing tradition of democratic elections. Those dissidents had a zero chance to become national leaders before revolution. They were in prisons.

The totalitarian regimes have a potential to change only after the death of a dictator. China made a lot of progress after Mao died. Political renaissance in "European inspired countries" became possible only after Brezhnev's death and the subsequent political reforms in Russia. We shall see changes in Cuba soon.

However, all these new regimes are as corrupted as any, if not more. And there is no transparency due to (once again) the absence of long-standing democratic traditions. So, I assume the new politicians are not currently as poor as we may think (unless their countries lack any natural resources). The "romantic rebels" fulfilled their purpose and gave way more pragmatic and more aggressive leaders.

So, answering your question, yes, I believe the less wealthy can only rise to the top in national politics after sharp regime change.

Cuchulain82 wrote:You're commiting a classic fallacy. I don't mean to say that "If a person is rich, they are qualified for politics." I'm saying that "If a person is qualified for politics, they should have the ability to make money."

Please, read your own comments before accusing others of committing fallacies. You stated previously that only rich people should be national leaders, it's quite natural to assume this means you think rich people in general possess qualities that makes them better suited for leadership.

If this was not the case, and you only mean to say that if you possess all qualities required to be a good leader you would also be able to succeed in business, then I would have to ask what relevance this have for the thread.

It's not really as awful as everyone seems to think, and I'm not endorsing a kleptocracy.

Imo it is. Any obstacle for political position that does not strike evenly and that does not significantly increases the chance of a merited contender is awful because it severely reduces the "democratic" part of democracy.

Lady Dragonfly wrote:So, answering your question, yes, I believe the less wealthy can only rise to the top in national politics after sharp regime change.

But I already stated that this is not the case. Many of Sweden's top politicians have been less wealthy.

------

To continue on fables original question:

I believe a key factor in decreasing the importance of money in politics is to move away from personal elections. Since you vote for a party rather than an individual you usually get higher political posts by being engaged in politics from an early age. It's more common that ministers here have backgrounds in their party's youth movements or local offices, rather than in business.

Dottie wrote:Please, read your own comments before accusing others of committing fallacies.

The key to my first statement was "Most of the time." If I could write it out in crayon I would.

Dottie wrote:You stated previously that only rich people should be national leaders, it's quite natural to assume this means you think rich people in general possess qualities that makes them better suited for leadership.

But if you did that... you'd be commiting a classic fallacy: [url="http://www.cuyamaca.edu/bruce.thompson/Fallacies/formalfallacies.asp"]Affirming the consequent[/url]. My point is that "If a person is qualified for public office, they usually have what it takes to be rich." From that you and Viscun read, "If a person is rich, they have what it takes to be in public office." I said P-->Q; you found Q, and affirmed P. That's affirming the consequent.

FYI- Stepping on a fallacy isn't a bad thing. It happens, and when I said that to Viscun it wasn't any sort of personal attack. He's a smart person and usually adds demonstrable value to any conversation. The fallacy is actually a classic fallacy- as in, it goes back to the ancient Greeks. It's a proper, formal, Logic 101 fallacy.

Dottie]what relevance this have for the thread.[/quote] At the very least it started a conversation wrote:Imo it is. Any obstacle for political position that does not strike evenly and that does not significantly increases the chance of a merited contender is awful because it severely reduces the "democratic" part of democracy.

How would you change it? Everyone in the US has the same rights. Period. They are born with the same potential in the eyes of the law. I'm sure you don't want someone in the government teling you how to spend your money because they've decided it was less democratic, right? So how do you "evenly" regulate political speech? The more restrictions the government places on speech, the greater the reduction in democracy.

Dottie wrote:But I already stated that this is not the case. Many of Sweden's top politicians have been less wealthy.

Sweden's a bad comparison. It's a relatively homogenous state with a miniscule population, and they have some of the most agressive income redistribution in the world. It's apples to oranges, kind of like saying that because the state system in Vermont works well, every state should adopt it.

Dottie]I believe a key factor in decreasing the importance of money in politics is to move away from personal elections. Since you vote for a party rather than an individual you usually get higher political posts by being engaged in politics from an early age. It's more common that ministers here have backgrounds in their party's youth movements or local offices wrote: Don't you think that would put too much power in the hands of one branch of government?

fable wrote:Far from ducking them, I urge you <snip>I like a lot of subjects, too. Just not all at once.

Deal. We can try to stay on target. Learned Hand and Hugo Black are related because of the speech issue. Rousseau and the Arcadian Ideal (I don't even know what that is), alas, are not. I'm done with the semester now, so I can get more creative with my posts. The last time I started a [url="http://www.gamebanshee.com/forums/speak-your-mind-16/for-the-love-of-wisdom-please-no-spam-59196.html"]thread about philosophy[/url], it went out with something less than a whimper.

fable wrote:However, we don't have Jefferson handy, and you're showing yourself to be an intelligent communicator. So you'll do.

*waiting for the follow up punch...*

fable wrote:I think we'll both agree that Jefferson believed social equality was only possible when wealth wasn't the goal but simply the byproduct of one's own work, diligence, and intelligence. Do you think increasing inequality of wealth and power are the necessary byproducts of industrialization, along with its benefits?

Okay... that's two big points. Lemme see:
(1) I don't know if we agree about the Jeffersonian ideal. I think he was an part of the upper social heirarchy who dreamed lofty dreams from a mansion on the hill. With that said, I don't believe he had such contempt for wealth. I think he only cared about potential, and that everyone started out on the level as far as government rights were concerned. I think he was fine with people pursuing wealth primarily. His beef, if I understand it, was with the English system, where everyone was born into life knowing how far they were from the monarch. If you weren't lucky to be born into a household with land holdings, you were going to live a life of poverty. That is why he wanted to abolish the [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fee_tail"]fee tail[/url] system of property. (I keep coming back to property because it was the primary form up wealth until very recently)

(2) I don't have a good answer for the second question. I really don't. I believe Marx and Rousseau when they say that fungible currency creates a system of slave-wage labor; that's more Marx than Rousseau, but Rousseau is his precursor (look- I did get them into the thread! :speech: ). With that in mind, I don't think they necessarily follow, I just think they have. The Carnegies and the Rockefellers were capitalists of the highest order, and of their own volition they established some of the most influential charities to date. Warren Buffet and Bill Gates are attempting to do something similar right now. Generally though, these guys are the exceptions and not the rule. It does seem that in capitalist societies, income inequality follows because those who have the ability to make money also have the ability to find ways to (a) make more money, and (b) keep others from making more money.

fable wrote:Where and when, do you think, did the protest against wealth controlling government become exclusively a "liberal" matter? And why?

I think in the US the wealth-controlling nature of liberals starts with the coopting of the term by republicans. Somewhere between McCarthy and Reagan, "liberal" became "welfare-mommy-loving, crack-whore-supporting, good-money-after-bad, bleeding-heart, save-the-trees, sissy." Part of the reason I like Rahm Emanuel so much is that he is an absolute pit bull for the democratic party- he plays hard for his team and does what he thinks is right.

If you look backwards it's not hard to see the evolution- more big business endorses republicans because they are generally laissez faire, so when republicans get elected, they demonize wealth redistribution, saying things like "the government should cut taxes because the American people know how to spend their money better than the federal government." Does that help?

fable wrote:You made a factually incorrect statement. I corrected it: The fact that we have legally imposed limits on funding and kinds of funding for federal, state, and regional political races would seem to contradict your statement. I'd love to stop, just to please you, but as I haven't started anything nor had any desire to do so (campaign reform is not a thicket in which I've ever desired to tread; leave it to attorneys), in a thread I want to keep focused, I'm afraid I can't oblige you. You'll have to look somewher else for something to stop.

Well, I am training to be an attorney, so I'm supposted to know something about this. I'll keep the answer as short as possible:

I said I had you beat because of the law in this area. The law, while it does regulate spending, does so in such a limited fashion that there are essentially no practical limits on spending. There's "Soft Money" and "Hard Money", and the "Magic Words Test", but don't worry about that. What really matters begins with one Supreme Court decision: [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckley_v._Valeo"]Buckley v. Valeo[/url]. What you need to know about this case is that an action of a legislative body limiting campaign spending was overturned on the basis of speech. This is what matters: campaign contributions= free speech.

You see, in the case the court had to choose between considering contributions to be speech or conduct. The government can regulate conduct a lot more than it can regulate speech. So, you can't buy sex anywhere (except Nevada)- it's illegal. That's the government regulating conduct. We're all okay with that. But if you couldn't talk about politics anywhere (except for Nevada, to continue with the theme), we'd all be up in arms because the first amendment guarantees our right to not have the government regulate speech.

In the case the court draws a distinction between contributions and expendatures, but the simple fact is that there are so few restrictions on campaign spending, and they are so easily circumvented, that there are essentially no practical restrictions on political funding. That's why, for better or worse, we're closing in on the first ever $1 Billion presidential election.

The court upheld this ruling recently in the case of [url="http://www.law.duke.edu/publiclaw/supremecourtonline/certGrants/2005/ranvsor.html"]Randal v. Sorrell[/url]. I know about that case because it was a Vermont case, and the two sides of the case actually came to my Con Law class and argued it for us.

Okay, I'm pooped. I can't type anymore. I'll respond to new posts, but don't really have any more gumption for this one right now.

Cuchulain82 wrote:The key to my first statement was "Most of the time." If I could write it out in crayon I would.

...

But if you did that... you'd be commiting a classic fallacy: [url="http://www.cuyamaca.edu/bruce.thompson/Fallacies/formalfallacies.asp"]Affirming the consequent[/url]. My point is that "If a person is qualified for public office, they usually have what it takes to be rich." From that you and Viscun read, "If a person is rich, they have what it takes to be in public office." I said P-->Q; you found Q, and affirmed P. That's affirming the consequent.

I think the misunderstanding stems from the wording of your original post, which came out a little stronger than what you intended, as far as I can read your intentions based on your subsequent posts. You said "Most of the time I don't think national leaders can be poor. Nor should they be. Any national leader should be smart and capable enough to make a fortune."

The implication of the italicized part being that national leaders should be rich, since our leaders should be smart and smart people have no problems amassing wealth. The problem that I have with this reasoning is that amassing wealth is merely one way in which intelligence can be manifested (and, is in itself no proof of intelligence - luck, and a certain dose of sociopathy can also be conductive to getting rich) - requiring candidates to have composed masterpieces or contributed to science would be just as fair, since our leaders should be smart and capable enough to do so.

My point is that since making money is only one way intelligence can be demonstrated, having a barrier to entry that cuts off those who aren't wealthy would be detrimental since not all gifted individuals are rich.

Cuchulain82 wrote:But if you did that... you'd be commiting a classic fallacy: [url="http://www.cuyamaca.edu/bruce.thompson/Fallacies/formalfallacies.asp"]Affirming the consequent[/url]. My point is that "If a person is qualified for public office, they usually have what it takes to be rich." From that you and Viscun read, "If a person is rich, they have what it takes to be in public office." I said P-->Q; you found Q, and affirmed P. That's affirming the consequent.

If you want to be correct then I read "If a person is rich, they are more likely to have what it takes to be in public office." From

Nor should they be. Any national leader should be smart and capable enough to make a fortune.

and

It's not an implicit assumption- it's explicit. Generally, and there are exceptions, smarter and more driven people make more money and are more successful than less driven, less intelligent people.

If this was incorrect interpretation on my part then I apologize.

How would you change it? Everyone in the US has the same rights. Period. They are born with the same potential in the eyes of the law. I'm sure you don't want someone in the government teling you how to spend your money because they've decided it was less democratic, right? So how do you "evenly" regulate political speech? The more restrictions the government places on speech, the greater the reduction in democracy.

My response was directed towards the value that leaders should be generally rich. You don't seem to think that this value is problematic, and I explained why I do.

Maybe I should also mention that I have a very high acceptance towards government telling me what to do as long as it has positive effects for the population as whole. You certainly don't have to agree, but please don't assume we have the same values.

Sweden's a bad comparison. It's a relatively homogenous state with a miniscule population, and they have some of the most agressive income redistribution in the world. It's apples to oranges, kind of like saying that because the state system in Vermont works well, every state should adopt it.

It wasn't a comparison at all, it was a case where politicians doesn't need to be rich. I saw nothing in fables first post to suggest he was only speaking about USA, and the possibilities there. Quite the contrary actually. If you only want to discuss the USA, or maybe the state you live in or only the area around your house, then by all means tell me and I can adjust my response accordingly.

Don't you think that would put too much power in the hands of one branch of government?

I'll think about this for a while and reply later.

@All: From what I could read on recent UK prime ministers it seems that a deciding factor there is whether they manage to get an education, either paid by the parents or by a scholarship. Does anyone know more about their wealth, or how you make political career in the UK?

@Dottie

But I already stated that this is not the case. Many of Sweden's top politicians have been less wealthy.

I don't quite catch what "less wealthy" means in Sweden where the per capita GDP was estimated at $25,400 (minus 50% taxes?) and "the income of currently living prime ministers averaged 300 000 € yearly, including income from wealth, which is quite a lot". Everything is relative.

Small countries with pro-socialism system, high taxes and extensive welfare (Big Brother "welfare states") are not doing very well politically and economically, according to Forbes. Apparently, local politicians are not up to snuff: I heard that the Swedish government is among the countries with the lowest degree of trust between citizens and politicians. :devil:

Anyway, my answer you quoted, was to Fable replying to my side note about his example of "poor" politicians (Havel and Co)...um, I hope you understood what I've just said...

Besides the notion that in totalitarian states (which I was speaking about in my previous post) dictators stay in power until death do us part, I still have a few remarks about the correlation between ability to be successful in business and ability to become a worthy national leader.

People who inherited money do not automatically become good leaders (far from it), but have a better chance to become A leader due to their family connections and yes, practically unlimited financial resources to buy priceless advisors and all needed support. Bush is a good example. He would've never had a chance to climb that high without his family money and connections. He himself was a mediocre C-student and a lousy failure as a businessman, if you recall. Is it a coincidence that he bankrupted the US? I don't think so.

On the other hand, any self-made financially successful person (a professional) could be a better choice for this country than Bush. People like that are usually highly motivated, hardworking, smart and no-nonsense. A lot of them are well-educated. Of course, it is impossible to please everybody, even for an experienced political prostitute.

It wasn't a comparison at all, it was a case where politicians doesn't need to be rich.

Not "politicians" in general; we are talking about politicians becoming national leaders if am not mistaken. I think "personally poor" should be clarified by Fable. Where is the benchmark when a person is not considered "personally poor" any more? What is "rich"? What income are we talking about? Which country? As I said, everything is relevant. You have to take into consideration the median income, demographics, politico-social situation, level of development, cultural aspects of a country etc.

Otherwise, it is difficult to avoid sweeping statements.

Lady Dragonfly wrote:Anyway, my answer you quoted, was to Fable replying to my side note about his example of "poor" politicians (Havel and Co)...um, I hope you understood what I've just said...

Havel and Mandela had political power, but they weren't part of the standard ruling elite; and poor they are, both by comparison to the wealthy that rule most European style democracies, and by lacking the contacts due to wealth that spans nations. I think that it is easier for a person like Cheney to understand to a Saudi prince than it is for him to understand an unwed mother of two in Miami, or an Iowa farmer, or a printshop owner in Peoria, Illinois. Would you agree that there is a multinational culture of wealth and power?

And my question still stands for any who are interested: is it possible to become a national leader and still be personally poor? You've already answered it, so you're excused.

People who inherited money do not automatically become good leaders (far from it), but have a better chance to become A leader due to their family connections and yes, practically unlimited financial resources to buy priceless advisors and all needed support. Bush is a good example. He would've never had a chance to climb that high without his family money and connections. He himself was a mediocre C-student and a lousy failure as a businessman, if you recall. Is it a coincidence that he bankrupted the US? I don't think so.

Cleveland Amory wrote a book 40 years ago analyzing USian wealth in families. He came to the conclusion that extremely rich families usually go through three generations with differing approaches to their wealth. First are the pioneers, the ones who make it ruthlessly, adversarily, no holds barred in securing what they wish. Then come the consolidators, more socially acceptable individuals who manipulate the system to increase wealth as part of a group, rather than as the quintessential loner. Finally, there are the squanderers, the ones who live to enjoy that wealth, concluding the arc of the rise and fall of the rich family. Given that scenario--broad as it is, still workable--most world leaders would appear to fall into category #2: respectable consolidators, more comfortable in their wealth than their ancestors, but focused on power rather than dissipating what they have in luxury. Does the political status quo naturally favor the rise of wealthy consolidators?

On the other hand, any self-made financially successful person (a professional) could be a better choice for this country than Bush.

I think we might agree that a slightly brain-damaged chipmunk would better for the country than Bush.

Not "politicians" in general; we are talking about politicians becoming national leaders if am not mistaken. I think "personally poor" should be clarified by Fable. Where is the benchmark when a person is not considered "personally poor" any more? What is "rich"? What income are we talking about? Which country? As I said, everything is relevant. You have to take into consideration the median income, demographics, politico-social situation, level of development, cultural aspects of a country etc.

Otherwise, it is difficult to avoid sweeping statements.

Cuchulain believes this thread should take on a variety of other issues, and you want it more narrowly defined than the deliberately vague terms I've used to encourage debate. I'd still like to find the answer to my question, and see how individual members frame this discussion by their own understanding of such terms as "personally poor" and "wealthy."

Still, let me see if this helps. By "poor," I could have simply said "not among the wealthy elite." I prefer to leave this as it stands, since the terms defining that wealthy elite must differ from nation to nation, and period to period. As for what is rich: in this thread, it means to have a large personal fortune amassed by the standards of the time and place, and one which provides access to the confidences and friendships of other very wealthy members of society.

Truman was never rich, nor Mandela. Washington, who left an enormous load of debt, was nevertheless rich in property and material goods. Neither Lincoln nor Davis were wealthy. Clinton was self-made, but is rich. Bush is self-ruined, yet is rich thanks to daddy. He has the connections. He also has his father's vicious streak and stubborness, without his sense of reality or brains. But that's beside the point. Wealth helped Bush Sr open the doors to political power, and that combination of wealth and power made his vastly inferior son rich and powerful.

No one seems to want to discuss the T word. Truman. Notice, I didn't ask, "Can national leaders be elected from the personally poor?" but "Can national leaders be personally poor?" By the standards of the elite that have ruled in the US since the 1880s, Truman was personally poor enough to be completely off the radar. He was a bit part player in Boss Prendergast's Kansas machine, a typical political apparatus in all its well-oiled effiicency. For reasons that have never been explained, his name came to the fore when FDR's handlers were seeking a vice-presidential candidate. And as for leading, he seems to have done a creditable job of that. So doesn't he demonstrate that it's possible to lead effectively from the most powerful office, without having all the connections, and the easy manner of command, and the other benefits that belonging to the wealthy elite club can bring?

I think we might agree that a slightly brain-damaged chipmunk would better for the country than Bush.

We do agree. But I recall you were once regarding him as a shrewd politician pretending to be a moron.

I think that it is easier for a person like Cheney to understand to a Saudi prince than it is for him to understand an unwed mother of two in Miami, or an Iowa farmer, or a printshop owner in Peoria, Illinois. Would you agree that there is a multinational culture of wealth and power?

Indeed I would. But I don't think particularly high of any professional politician's, both wealthy and less-wealthy, moral principles (with perhaps a few exceptions) anyway. This profession (and this is a profession after all) requires a high degree of cynicism politely called "social skills" and "the art of political manipulation" (Riker) to get a coveted job and hold onto that job as long as possible.
Unwed mothers and printshop owners are important for such professionals as long as they vote. I don't believe running for a high office baby-kissers when their voice is trembling with emotion. It is their job interview.
The longer a politician stays in power, the more corrupt he becomes. By the time he is ready to make his National Leader bid, he is a hard-boiled ringleader. The expression power=corruption is so trivial; I am embarrassed even typing it.
I don't want to elaborate any more because it is off topic.

The things I expect from a national leader are competence and a measure of honesty (as much honesty as it can be reasonably expected from a ringleader).

No one seems to want to discuss the T word. Truman. Notice, I didn't ask, "Can national leaders be elected from the personally poor?" but "Can national leaders be personally poor?" By the standards of the elite that have ruled in the US since the 1880s, Truman was personally poor enough to be completely off the radar. He was a bit part player in Boss Prendergast's Kansas machine, a typical political apparatus in all its well-oiled effiicency. For reasons that have never been explained, his name came to the fore when FDR's handlers were seeking a vice-presidential candidate.

According to the official documents, Truman was elected Vice President of the United States on the Democratic ticket with Franklin Roosevelt in 1944, and was inaugurated on January 20, 1945; upon the death of President Roosevelt on April 12, 1945. With all due respect, that was a stroke of Fate. As you say, he was chosen for reasons never explained. What you call “a bit part player” other call “a puppet” though.

So doesn't he demonstrate that it's possible to lead effectively from the most powerful office, without having all the connections, and the easy manner of command, and the other benefits that belonging to the wealthy elite club can bring?

It is possible, of course. The trick is to get on top without money. Do you really think it is possible today, here?

Lady Dragonfly wrote:We do agree. But I recall you were once regarding him as a shrewd politician pretending to be a moron.

His downfall isn't due to a lack of manipulative cunning or dicatorial will. There have been enough reliable books by insiders, former members of the Bush team, to show that he is forceful, shrewd, and authoritarian behind the scenes. But his power, his popularity with his base, the way history will regard him, are all tied to an international PNAC policy, and a national neo-con agenda. If he doesn't follow that path, he loses all of the above, and admits in addition to being incompetent. In the end, he's doing what nearly all politicians will do, when push comes to shove: put what they perceive as their own self interest above the good of the people they claim to lead. And in a real way, Iraq has come to symbolize, to him (and to the Washington pundits who slavishly follow him) his entire administration. Where that's concerned, he's like the person who loses nearly all their life savings in a casino, and keeps insisting to the rest of their family, "One more throw. I know I can make a killing with one more throw."

According to the official documents, Truman was elected Vice President of the United States on the Democratic ticket with Franklin Roosevelt in 1944, and was inaugurated on January 20, 1945; upon the death of President Roosevelt on April 12, 1945. With all due respect, that was a stroke of Fate. As you say, he was chosen for reasons never explained. What you call “a bit part player” other call “a puppet” though.

Puppet's too strong, IMO, and perhaps bit player is too weak. The Republicans and Republican papers at the time (this was a time when the media was fairly divided between Democratic and Republican, along with some very well known Independent outlets) did everything they could to find any dirt in Truman's years as first a county, and then a presiding judge under Prendergast. The same applies to more recent biographers, especially Richard Lawrence Miller's excellent Truman: The Rise to Power. Nobody before Miller ever found anything, and Miller, a meticulous researcher, could only find that Truman sometimes lightened the laws for Prendergast's people. Most of the time he didn't deal with the boss' "clientele," and was noted for an upright administration in a city where it was said "sin came as easily as barbecue."

But yes, I'm inclined, like you, to see Truman as a fluke, an exception to the rule that national government is the field of the exceedingly wealthy outside of major regime changes. The myth that anybody can make it to the top office of a democratic nation is just that, a myth. That is in large part one of the basic problems of national governments built along the "democratic" model: the wealthy who lead them have talents and vision limited to their life goals and class. They are frequently the worst people for the job, and the ones who invariably hunger after it, the most.

Lady Dragonfly wrote:I don't quite catch what "less wealthy" means in Sweden where the per capita GDP was estimated at $25,400 (minus 50% taxes?) and "the income of currently living prime ministers averaged 300 000 € yearly, including income from wealth, which is quite a lot". Everything is relative.

With less wealthy I meant that they were no part of a wealthy business elite, and in some cases had no wealth at all, although they have almost always held political positions before being given the prime minister post, so they certainly don't starve by then.

Small countries with pro-socialism system, high taxes and extensive welfare (Big Brother "welfare states") are not doing very well politically and economically, according to Forbes. Apparently, local politicians are not up to snuff: I heard that the Swedish government is among the countries with the lowest degree of trust between citizens and politicians. :devil:

You may think whatever you want about Swedish politicians, they certainly aren't my favourite people either, and if you wish to discuss that I would be happy to post in another thread. However, there is no denying that they are leaders of Sweden which is a "developed" country.

@Fable&Lady Dragonfly:
I realize I'm starting to sound like a broken record, but as tiring as it is to listen to my nagging as tedious is it to constantly be told that the problems of USA are the worlds problems. We have a lot of problems over here as well, however they aren't always the same problem and I believe this is one such case. The party you are representing finance propaganda and provide advisors, you need no personal wealth for this. You don't need connections within any business elite either, you need connections within the party which you get by starting a political career within that party early in life.

Sorry, I was out of town for several days.

@Dottie

You may think whatever you want about Swedish politicians, they certainly aren't my favourite people either, and if you wish to discuss that I would be happy to post in another thread. However, there is no denying that they are leaders of Sweden which is a "developed" country.

I think it is an interesting idea.

In regards to the US, I think this is an impossibility due to the nature of the political machine.

I caught an excerpt from Al Gore's latest book, and I found his analysis of the current political situation here rather interesting. It has to do with the expense of attaining political office, and the medium which dominates nearly all of the average American's free time: television. USians (I like fable's term) spend more time in front of the tube than people in other parts of the world.

Television, a passive form of engagement for the viewer, relies primarily on imagery to convey messages. Television air time is horrendously expensive compared to shares in other mediums, such as print, radio, and even the internet. However, since much of the US is planted in front of their television sets when they aren't working, this avenue is the medium of choice for the political machine.

As I stated above, it is terribly expensive. More and more, political parties seek multi-millionaires who are able to at least partially foot the bill (or use their fund-raising contacts) for television advertising. A perusal of figures relating to the ratio of millionaires in political office bears this assertion to be true: only the wealthy are supported by the political parties.

This raises other issues which are outside of the topic of this thread.....such as the lack of substance and content in political television ad campaigns, and the fealty politicians evidence towards those who finance their campaigns vs. those who voted them into office...but in a nutshell, you just don't find USians of average income occupying political office.