Comment by ergot_vacation | Hacker News Reader

Comment by ergot_vacation | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

There is no "selection process." The only people eligible to participate in federal "democracy" are already rich, powerful, and well-connected. The voters then "choose," in primaries and elections, based mostly on who has the best marketing, which is again a function of wealth and power. Occasionally participants in this process will throw ordinary citizens a bone as part of the marketing, but even these gestures are largely emaciated and performative. There's not some solemn exercise of civic duty going on.

2,000 years ago people born into wealth and power fought amongst each other for leadership and control while the population simply learned to live with the results. The only thing that has changed since is that the process has been optimized: less bloodshed, less constant dramatic upheaval, the hills and valleys leveled a bit. This benefits everyone, including those on top. But let's not pretend we're engaged in some grand experiment for the betterment of mankind. We're living in a plutocracy. Always have, always will.

> 2,000 years ago people born into wealth and power fought amongst each other for leadership and control while the population simply learned to live with the results.

2,000 years ago even the plebeians had the right to vote.

> We're living in a plutocracy.

Agreed.

>2,000 years ago even the plebeians had the right to vote

2,000 years ago they voted in meaningless elections while the emperor was nondemocratic. And before that when the elections weren't meaningless, the plebians of Rome could vote while anyone outside if Rome was barred.

> And before that when the elections weren't meaningless, the plebians of Rome could vote while anyone outside if Rome was barred.

They voted with their daggers

> 2,000 years ago even the plebeians had the right to vote

By what measure?

>2,000 years ago even the plebeians had the right to vote.

and 20-something percent of the population were slaves.

The idea that politics is a function of wealth, power, and marketing is cheap cynicism.

Also, the idea that being rich is bad pervades your post. I see this idea expressed more and more commonly. The truth is that, unlike you, the populace doesn't view politics as class warfare. Middle class American does not feel that only a middle class politician can represent them. As far as I'm concerned, this is a good thing.

> Middle class American does not feel that only a middle class politician can represent them

I've been hearing about the destruction of the middle class from middle class Americans since the Clinton era. In many ways, they were right, as I can look at some of those same people 30 years later and see how housing and medical debt, wage stagnation and the restructuring of the economy post-2008 have put those once middle class Americans into the lower class.

Are middle class Americans given a choice between being represented by people from their social and economic strata, versus representation from upper classes? Most middle class Americans have to work, they don't have the time, money or connections for effective political campaigns, especially at the national level.

Clinton and Obama were both middle class presidents.

You're adopting this class warfare perspective and it's simply not how normal people look at things. To a man on the street, being rich is not bad, it doesn't mark one as an exploiter. Normal people have also not accepted this theory, oh-so-common on internet message boards, that rich people are responsible for everything bad.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com