Harry Reid is right
in calling the Koch brothers un-American, because they are, and here is why. As
I have explained before in several posts on this web site, they are using “their” money to corrupt our democracy for their own
purposes. I am going to explain again because this morning Joe Scarborough
on MSNBC went “off the rails” spewing all of the Republican talking points
about how it was below the dignity of Reid’s office to call them un-American. Clearly,
he does not understand what they are doing; he is blinded by the fact that their
money seems to be benefiting his party. He, like most Republicans, is quick to
point out—with a big dose of self-righteousness—Democratic billionaires doing
the same thing; the objective of this post is to explain that is not true. There
are democratic billionaires donating money just as there are Republican
billionaires donating money to political causes. Many more billionaires that
are Republican donate money simply because there are more of them. Likewise,
many more $3 donations come form Democrats because there are more of them. That
is just the name of the game; to given money to political campaigns is a legitimate
thing to do; it is one of the many “freedoms” this country was built on. That is
not what the Koch brothers are doing.
As Joe said this morning, it is their money and they can use
it as they chose; thus, Joe was trying to put words in Senate Majority Leaders
Reid’s mouth; Reid is not saying and never even implied that it was not their
money. The first response to any thing a Republican gets caught doing that
seems off-color or illegal is that Democrats do it too. This is the basis for
much of right wing criticism of Reid. Everyone has heard the tired old rhetoric,
it is bipartisan; and so, it must be all right. For example, 100 percent of Republican
congressional representatives voted for the farm bill that cut food stamps, and
two blue dog democrats (4% of democrats); therefore, it is just as much the Democrats
fault as the Republican fault that the food stamp program was decimated—suddenly
it is 50:50. We hear this about gerrymandering, voter suppression, racism, many
other things, but especially about not increasing taxes, with the proviso that they
leave out taxes on whom.
We could argue that the money Republican billionaires have been
ill gotten like the John D. Rockefellers, Cornelius Vanderbilt, or other robber
barons of the past. That would not be true. Koch industries are wide spread but
as far as I know, are no more corrupt then Bill Gates’ and his Microsoft Empire.
Of course, it is
their money; of course Democratic billionaires donate money to political
campaigns; of course it is legitimately earned, so then what could possible be
un-American about the Koch brothers giving large sums of money to political
purposes.
Our ancestors built American on one principle above all
others; we are a democracy; the first in the world. We live in a country where
one person has one vote. It was not planned; it just happened as woman’s suffrage
and freeing slaves shows. We abandoned royalty and religious dictatorships, which
often went hand in hand. A startlingly frank book, if you want to read it that
way, Albion’s Seeds: Four British Folkways in America written by historian David
Hackett Fischer in 1989 reveals the complexities of the birth our political
thinking and clearly makes this point.
That basic principle was upset by our Supreme Court, the
Robert’s court, as the result of a perfect storm of political malfeasance. Judicial
activism, Karl Rove’s campaign for supreme court and federal justices, as well
as, as increasing political power in the hands of the economic elite due to the
devastation of Reaganomics. The precise ruling was the Citizens United Ruling
and most recently, the McCutcheon et al. v. federal election Commission ruling.
The part of these ruling that hurt democracy the most was declaring that corporations
were people. One person one vote now
means one corporation has all the votes: still that is not the problem with
Koch brothers that Harry Reid is fighting.
As Reid points out, the problem with the Koch brother giving
is deeper than that. Republicans, such as Joe and his followers fail to see
what they are doing because they seem to be supporting their cause, which is creating an America ruled by the economic elite.
To many of us, that is bad and un-American, but what the Koch’s are doing is worse than that. First, they are using
K-Street to influence legislation with huge campaign donations. This falls under
the category of both parties are doing it so it is all right; no, it is not all right. In addition,
they are buying influence the same way gang members in poor neighborhoods buy influence;
they are running a protection racket.
If they say to an elected representative, “you vote the way we want or we will
primary you”. People like #Joe Scarborough might say that is just plain old
democracy in action until they say, as they can now say with the Supreme Court rulings,
that, “we will spend more money to do it
than you could collect in a million years”. Money that does not come from the voters in their congressional districts
and spend it on a candidate they hand pick that does not represent the views of
the people in that district. That is
not all right. That is not democracy!
Think about this; Koch
brother are on the verge of becoming the most powerful people in the United States.
Do you know about the way they were raised by their father Fred Koch? If you
don’t, maybe it is about time you do. With the help of communist hating Ted
Cruz, and Marco Rubio and working class hating Paul Ryan, Eric Cantor, and
Kevin McCarthy among other Ayn Rand ideologues, they have control of the United
States Congress. As soon as they primary these people, there so call friends,
with people like Michelle Bachman, Louie Gohmert, and other people “who are not
witches”, they will have a free hand to
do what ever they want to do.
Let me pose the
question; “What if the Koch brothers were communists, or Moa supporters, or
supporters of any other dastardly form of dictator ideology and were on the verge
of controlling the United States Congress; would it bother you?” Maybe you think what I have written here is
all nonsense and that they do not have the power I have ascribed to them or
worse yet think we still have a “one man one vote Democracy”. Proceed at
your own peril.
URL: firetreepub.blogspot.com
Comments Invited and not moderated
I'm picking up on some passion in your post... your are certainly consistent, same message, different day. Did you read my re-post to "CHRISTIE'S DIRTY LAUNDRY"? If so, I suppose it was too weak an argument to influence your opinion. Not claiming to be RIGHT :-) , like Rush, but there is a strain on the many in order to support the vast wealth of the few, and the party politic, IMO, has no preference for which billionaire's money they are hoarding into their war chests.
ReplyDeleteSo why cast stones at just one source of what I consider to be a national problem, when it exists in both parties? In your own words in this post, "There are democratic billionaires donating money just as there are Republican billionaires donating money to political causes." The wealth held by these $few$ is ever-increasing through political manipulation and moral corruption. In the short book 'God Bless You, Mr. Rosewater, or Pearls Before Swine' by Kurt Vonnegut, Jr., Eliot, the main character and philanthropist was a artistic contrast to reality. The greater point being that power people don't do things for emotional reasons. They have pragmatic lawyers, financial advisors and public relations firms to guide them. Financial donations to SUPER PACS are not without some ROI consideration.
In a flight of fantasy, suppose our government wasn't for sale. Then suppose that "Rider" was a word only describing a person on horseback; earmarks are just the dots left behind by earrings; that actual citizens' votes were counted rather than some district based electoral representation; that judges were elected rather than appointed; and so on.... some fantasy stuff, huh? But then, some group of billionaires couldn't buy these things. Well, according to your post only the R team would ever do that!
John:
DeleteYes, I carefully read your second comment. Yes, this post is a repeat of the previous post. I cannot explain why you think the way you think, nor why you feel the way you do but I cannot live with the idea that all men and women are corrupt—politicians are people. I understand and respect the century old, what I often refer to genetically based, political affinities upon which we align our political support. Even with that in mind, I cannot explain the undeniable as you seem to do, which is that the Republican Party embraces the Koch brothers while the Democratic Party does not when what they do is so clearly “against” the principle of “one man one vote”. All I can do is ask you to Google TED.com and watch Lawrence Lessig: The unstoppable walk to political reform.
My philosophy is that all of existence is constructed from elements that are both beneficial and harmful "at the same time" though in any instance they may not be in equal parts; yet always both are present. On the other hand, some cerebral constructs tend to simplify a world model into simply good or evil that would deny my view.
DeleteIn my point of view I choose not to focus on either part as representative of the whole. I can simply recognize that both properties exist. So in the very nature of how I model all men and women, I believe that "all people" contain the necessary elements to make choices that can be considered to be corrupt.
So I do not agree with you that somehow a great genetic rift exists between Rs and Ds such that the Rs have somehow a preponderance of harmful element. I would propose, rather, that each person on either team chooses to respond based on their individual view of the elemental characteristic of the objective and to their own natural mix that will bias their choice.
You have a consistent method of argumentation I call "changing the subject". Nothing in any of my posts has ever embraced the conduct of our political system and the manner in which it actually functions. Quite the opposite. It is laughable that you would propose that I somehow deny that politicians lick the Koch brothers' shoes. My point is that all of our political parties trade and deal with billionaires to achieve the kind of gratification that egomaniacs and sociopaths need... these same people who have chosen a political career based on good looks, family connection, wealth, or all three.
In the world view you propose, the Ds and Rs are divided into two camps by some mystical genetic magnets that leave the humanitarians in one and the human exploiters in the other. Perhaps you are right and choices are based in genetics. (Have you met any Übermensch lately? My understanding of the concept is a genetic mechanism having a basis very much as yours.) [Sorry for the jab, I got emotional. Enjoyed the opportunity to respond.]
I agree with you but feel you somehow have missed the point I have made repeatedly: Total greed or selfishness on one end and total altruism at the other. Being at either end of the spectrum by its self is bad because we could not survive as individuals if were all greedy nor survive as a species if we were all altruistic; most hover in between but some tend toward one end or the other, which the genetic “R” and “D” gatherings. Test your self to find out at which end would you find the Republican and at which end would you find the democrats, the humanitarians at one and the human exploiters at the other. I know you know the answer even if you will not admit it!!!!
DeleteWhen you say that nothing in your posts embrace our political system, I also agree. However, I do not agree, at least from the way I read your posts, that all politicians equally lick billionaires boots for money; obviously they don’t. Look at the Sheldon Adelson spectacle and the Koch brothers meetings in Las Vegas—not one democrat at the meetings nor can you point to a similar disgusting circus other than a few fund raising dinners for Democrats; but nothing even close to these affairs.
By the way, understanding Übermensch is beyond the limits of my understanding; there for you will have to explain why you think that was a jab.