Uncle T.,
Edwards obviously doesn't agree with you, and doesn't equate corporate lobbying with labor union lobbying. I can't think of any liberal or progressive who does agree with you on that. So you can't accuse him of "playing politics" just because he has an ideological disagreement with you.
If you believe that unions have the same lobbying power as corporations, you've definitely been drinking the Republican kool-aid.
There is a big difference between corporate lobbying and labor unions lobbying. First, the corporations have way more money to spend on lobbying -- money that comes directly from the wealth created by the workers and the corporation. Labor unions depend on working-class folks contributing their salaries to the union. By contrast, executives don't pass the hat around; they don't pay for the corporation's lobbying out of their own pockets.
Second, the labor unions are dependent on one party, the Dems, to support their interests, hence their influence is severely limited, esp. when the Dems aren't in power. Supporting unions is considered "liberal" and the GOP takes every opportunity to hurt the unions and discourage membership. By contrast, corporations donate liberally to both parties, and supporting Big Business is considered "bi-partisan."
He's not a corporation, but
Lobbying, per se, is not evil. In fact it's vital to democracy -- unless you believe that the populace's job is done when it votes a politician into office, i.e. we should trust politicians to make all the right decisions for 2-6 years, without hearing our opinion. That is George W. and Dick Cheney's philosophy of governing: "You voted for us, now shut up and do what we say until we're not in power anymore."
Again, there's a huge difference between pressure groups which represent large voting blocs -- like the NRA, NOW, AARP, NAACP -- and lobbying groups which simply represent large financial interests. The former groups' power is not in the amount of money they can donate, but in the number of votes and good/bad publicity they can bring. Mothers Against Drunk Driving, for example, is not rolling in cash, but they're a pretty powerful lobby in the sense that no politician wants to be on their bad side: "What, you're in FAVOR of drunken driving?!"
Finally, unions in general represent a broad class of people -- working class -- and not some narrow, selfish business interest. Similarly, pressure groups like the AARP represent millions of people from all over the country of different political persuasions.
None of this is new in your lifetime. And progressives of the Progressive Era were the first to decry Big Business' undue influence on our political process. It goes in waves. And I think people are once again worried that the fox (big business) is in charge of the hen house (government). But just because these things aren't new doesn't mean they are inevitable. Edwards is right to try and change things, just like Teddy Roosevelt and Grover Cleveland were right to rein in the corporations. But even if Edwards is not a true believer but simply a political opportunist, i.e. he's trying to ride a wave of progressive anti-corporate sentiment, so what?? Why should we progressives care, as long as we get somebody in office who will enact needed reforms?
On Nov 21, 2007 9:21 PM, Uncle T. wrote:
I don't disagree with the sound bite, per-se: I disagree with the implication that this is something new and different and is limited to big corporations. It's called lobbyism. The labor Unions are the king of the lobbyist. We also know how strong the NRA is, along with AARP ,NAACP and NOW. There are probably all kinds of strong and influential lobbying groups out there that I know nothing about. I whole heartedly acknowledge that the big corporations are doing this and are influential. But please tell me something new that hasn't been going on during my entire lifetime.
What I would totally disagree with is the impact. Today's communication revolution has made lobbyism less significant. I think that big corporations influence is less today than it was previously when information wasn't so readily available and when there weren't so many exposes. Yes, money still buys power and influence and is still significant and does get legislation passed. I just think that it is less today than it was in previous years when there were even more secrets and even more behind closed doors negotiations.
I also think that John Edwards is campaigning on this issue, not because it is the greatest issue of our time ( or he would have to include all of the "progressive" lobbying groups in his rants and he would also have to campaign on election reform to take the big money out of the picture) but is simply putting an issue out there in which to rally his base. (He's telling them what they want to hear) If he would include all lobbying groups and get the big money out of elections, then I'd be for him.
At the moment, all he is doing is playing the game of politics.
From: Jay
Sent: 11/21/2007 11:19 AM
Subject: Edwards not perfect, but he gets the 'central issue' of our time
Thought you might like this comment by progressive writer David Sirota, with a link to a short film clip of John Edwards:
No comments:
Post a Comment