Politicians who are ignorant or unskilled are more likely to be swayed by wealthy groups. We need to know the candidates’ qualifications. If we gave voluntary, standardized tests to candidates and publicized the results, then the voters would have a better basis on which to decide, in addition to news media, political ads, and charm. There are already some standardized tests, such as the ACT, SAT, and the graduate record examination, which could give evidence of education. In the future specialized tests could be developed on the most pertinent subjects, such as economics, political science, international affairs, and public health. An organization or a wealthy philanthropist could take the lead. Let’s encourage the establishment of a voluntary testing system, which could help the well qualified people get elected.
13
Excellent column. I'll know we are finally getting somewhere when I see the first protest sign that says: "Academics for a fairer society." The intelligentsia in this country is way too passive.
11
I wish, with all my being, that young people (of voting age) would not just laugh and make fun of Donald Trump, but would not only REGISTER to vote but would actually SHOW UP at the polls, to vote against this bizarre, vacuous egomaniac. It is truly imperative that we ALL make it our business, or we will be left with this train wreck on our hands for the next 4 years--if our country can survive his policies that long under his policies of hate, racism, misogyny and prejudice.
15
VOTING must be made mandatory in the US and be done via mail ballot. Voters may be given the option of returning a ballot with all the candidates crossed out and their signature to indicate their approval of the ballot. Everyone will have to vote, but not required to cast ballots for candidates. Campaigns must be based either on public funding or free political access to the media as in other countries. If the 1% wish to engage in philanthropy, let them do so for causes unrelated to politics and government. Meanwhile, we can just watch the country continue to go down the toilet.
8
New Law - If you vote you get the day off; along with a receipt that proves you voted. "No tickey, no laundry!"
7
If kristof left out the question mark ? from the headline, would he look too 'left wing?
3
Àttention is (mis)directed at Muslims, or "the federal gummint" very intentionally. Trump os one of the inheritors of advantages to the wealthy, and it's no mistake that he's leading the charge from the right. Also guilty: Rupert Murdoch of Fox News, paymaster and propagandist dedicated to diverting attention and misleasiñg the naive & ignorant. Sanders has diagnosed the problem accurately. Has the Times covered his campaign fairly? Or is The Times a more refined version of Fox? We'll leave it to history to decide.
9
Many Americans understand it is never going to get better, the game is over, the rich few have it all. They live in hope. You think all of a sudden it is going to change and become Australia? Lucky Americans manage to leave.
3
But when neither party fully represents your views and interests, whom do you vote for?
5
Trent Lott and Tom Daschle spoke about their book on NPR, they have witnessed first hand how its possible to get American political system to work again for the citizens. One of the problems they identified is that senators leave DC on thurs and arrive on Tues, so they are physically present only on wednesday to get the job done. What Sen Lott and Daschle note is that sadly there is no time to legislate, the congressmen and women do not bond together, get to know each other and try to resolve our collective issues. They can and should get the job done, but they are just not "there", present in DC.
10
The Flint Water Crisis should be raised as the clear and absolute indicator of how little the bottom 90% of us matter to those in power. Frankly, I would not be surprised when we learn all the details of how this crisis came about, the decisions that were made and reasons for them as well as who made them that there will be a popular uprising by the people of Michigan. They'll come to understand just how little the state officials care about the needs of the many ... and how they care only about the demands of the very few. May be the .1% will begin to care about the needs of the 90%
9
In your next column, why not discuss how this one relates to the subject of Jane Mayer's new book? A tale of two Americans both wily and wealthy who worked behind the scenes for 40 years to gradually subvert how politics works in this country. (Yes, the Koch brothers.)
10
It took the very real threat of public rioting and disorder to end the lopsided power dynamic of the Gilded Age; homeless WW1 veterans clogged streets and had camps near the White House. Today we seem to have nothing but apathy and misdirected anger. Perhaps your next column should explore the 10 best places to become an expatriate.
14
With respect... to those here that admonish their fellow citizens for this awful state of affairs... while democracy does require the responsible engagement of citizens, the article itself demonstrates that the current system is not a functioning democracy... (i.e. “In the United States, our findings indicate, the majority does not rule,” they concluded. “Majorities of the American public actually have little influence over the policies our government adopts.”). Thus, the fault is primarily corrupting influences within the system rather than citizens themselves. It remains to be seen whether we will elect those politicians who have played an active role in constructing (and, likely maintaining) this state of affairs, or whether we will act to affect real change. Pointing fingers amongst ourselves plays into the hands of the status quo. We're smarter than that. It's time we proved it!
6
Your first sentence is clear, "Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders don’t agree on much." It needs follow-up discussion: you dispose of Trump in one sentence, two paragraphs later. Further down you mention Clinton, but Sanders name is forgotten.
Why raise the comparison in the first place? Are we meant to draw conclusions by association and innuendo? You don't need to declare your support for any candidate overtly or surreptitiously, as the NY Times has for Hillary Clinton.
What you owe to your readers is intelligent in-depth analysis of critical issues of concern to the American people, and how they are represented or misrepresented in the candidates' agendas and platforms. Your recitation is mostly academic and theoretical, but could have immediate practical relevance to Bernie Sanders campaign — yet, you avoided it, intentionally or not.
"The Gray Lady" of yore continues to underestimate the intelligence of its readers — and subscribers!
Why raise the comparison in the first place? Are we meant to draw conclusions by association and innuendo? You don't need to declare your support for any candidate overtly or surreptitiously, as the NY Times has for Hillary Clinton.
What you owe to your readers is intelligent in-depth analysis of critical issues of concern to the American people, and how they are represented or misrepresented in the candidates' agendas and platforms. Your recitation is mostly academic and theoretical, but could have immediate practical relevance to Bernie Sanders campaign — yet, you avoided it, intentionally or not.
"The Gray Lady" of yore continues to underestimate the intelligence of its readers — and subscribers!
8
I usually like Kristof's pieces, but this one is just listless and pointless. There is no evidence that we under-spend on education (http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cmd.asp). As with healthcare, we tend to spend a lot and get little. And there is also little evidence that campaign finance reform would make incumbents more vulnerable (quite the opposite, actually) or more responsive to the broader public. Raise taxes on the wealthy? Ok -- but that will never be enough to pay for magic government programs that will solve everyone's problems. It won't even be enough to pay for all of the promises we have already made. Focus less on trying to shut-down or punish rich people and more on how to use these amazing new communications technologies we have to empower and effectively educate more individuals.
3
Why must we blame all America's problems on racism, bad education and guns when there are other fundamental causes for increasing inequality, the decline of the middle class and the high rates of violence? Predictably its because the real root causes are the source of our 1%'s immense profits. Shipping 10's of millions of manufacturing jobs to make goods consumed here overseas, to be done by the equivalent of non rights bearing foreign slaves, greatly reduces the number of "lower rungs on the economic ladder" in the US. But Obama alludes that this is part of the inevitable "change", "change", "change" that we can not question. No one to include Kristof dares propose that it would be logical to require goods bought here to be made here so people could have jobs, that it is the moral obligation of citizens to buy perhaps higher priced goods so their children and neighbors have jobs. Also our leaders cynically import 1-2 million desperate immigrants a year for use by our 1% as low-wage slaves which kills wages for citizens and immigrants. But no one can question that! Doing so gets one branded as racist & xenophobic. One can't really question our media 1%'s brain washing all our youth that violence is the solution to any problem or boredom. We HAVE to blame celebrity seeking murder sprees on gun availability. Teen parents don't teach children discipline at home, so insure dumb students, but we can't question or stop teen pregnancy either. We have to blame ignorance on schools.
9
Unfortunately, we are no longer a nation of shared anything. We don't have shared interests, religions, and our diversity is hardly the bond it truly should be. Everywhere around me I hear people young and old complaining about somebody else's supposed privileges-- welfare, union pay, immigrants getting subsidies. And no one seems to think that anything is their responsibility. Crazy isn't it. And this includes new immigrants and citizens who are doing very well. Many of them got benefits in education and job preference, but they somehow believe they were special, and no one else deserves these same opportunities. It befuddles my mind. It makes me angry. They don't understand democracy, and this includes young people from all walks of life. They don't understand that earlier Americans actually fought for the befits they have enjoyed. They don't care about the Supreme Court or Women's rights. They live in some fantasy world where politics somehow doesn't involve them and they can vote with petulance or not at all. Why not Donald Trump? How is Hilary, that evil bureaucrat, any better? They just don't get it and it really scares me. I don't see a bright future in the short term for this disengaged and selfish bunch of anti- democratic Americans.
6
Thanks again, Mr. Kristof, .
America has always been unfair to somebody or the other.
The fact that we accepted slavery in the first place was an unfair act itself.
It was also a terrible act on the part of the settlers to evict the Indians from their ancestral land where they lived for thousands of years .
As an example, I can quote the Paiute tribe who has lived for 10 thousand years in Malheur National Wildlife Refuge park where a band of terrorists have taken over the Govt. buildings in Oregon .
You're also right that the 'views of the ordinary citizens essentially don't matter in America where 'elected officials are hamsters on a wheel '.
The wealthiest 400 American taxpayers are just paying a mere 23% on their average monthly income of $100 million which is totally unfair.
Actually there are many other instances where we can easily conclude that the rationale of a fair society is missing from our midst , say for example, an average of 535,000 children across the country are suffering from lead poisoning and almost all of them are Black, with majority of them living in Flint, Michigan.
There are other instances where we can draw the conclusion that this country is unfair when we see the top 1% owns more wealth than the bottom 99% of the population but instead all our anger and bitterness is channeled towards the immigrants and the Muslims.
And our education system was not helpful either towards the at-risk children of the minorities . Mainly Black.
America has always been unfair to somebody or the other.
The fact that we accepted slavery in the first place was an unfair act itself.
It was also a terrible act on the part of the settlers to evict the Indians from their ancestral land where they lived for thousands of years .
As an example, I can quote the Paiute tribe who has lived for 10 thousand years in Malheur National Wildlife Refuge park where a band of terrorists have taken over the Govt. buildings in Oregon .
You're also right that the 'views of the ordinary citizens essentially don't matter in America where 'elected officials are hamsters on a wheel '.
The wealthiest 400 American taxpayers are just paying a mere 23% on their average monthly income of $100 million which is totally unfair.
Actually there are many other instances where we can easily conclude that the rationale of a fair society is missing from our midst , say for example, an average of 535,000 children across the country are suffering from lead poisoning and almost all of them are Black, with majority of them living in Flint, Michigan.
There are other instances where we can draw the conclusion that this country is unfair when we see the top 1% owns more wealth than the bottom 99% of the population but instead all our anger and bitterness is channeled towards the immigrants and the Muslims.
And our education system was not helpful either towards the at-risk children of the minorities . Mainly Black.
4
One way to keep politicians from spending too much time trying find donors to get re-elected is to adopt the Canadian election system. The most recent election cycle was 78 days, the longest since 1872, and spending has limits, that increase by 1/37th of the maximum for each day beyond the minimum of a 36 day campaign election cycle. But wait, isn't Canada a socialistic country. Oh well, there goes that idea.
3
In my opinion we are where we are today in politics partly because of who is voting for republicans and why. The voters are mainly poor and religious and they vote republican for reasons like: pro-life (pro-fetus really as republicans dont care after the child is born what happens to them) and of course freedom to buy as many guns (while enriching the gun manufacturers even more) as they want. In reality, it is the republican party who has stymied minimum wage increases (it will hurt the rich business owners) that would improve these peoples lives, they have stalled an infrastructure bill that would put thousands of people to work, and of course they have made reductions in those darn regulations - (you know like the water in Flint). And they get all of their 'news' from Fox and friends.
5
I'll bet 90% of the people who posted comments here know the real score. It's 2016 and America is very close to becoming an oligarchy instead of a democracy. Cristof represents "that the richest one percent own more wealth than the bottom 90%." If that is true, there is no doubt that we are a plutocracy, with power having gone to the wealthiest one percent and the corporations. What can we do at this late stage where most middle class Americans vote against their own interest, which is to push back the oligarchs?
One quick solution would be to advise the middle class to vote against any Republican member of Congress who receives Super Pac monies. This would be similar to Grover Norquist's demand that Republican members of Congress sign the pledge to vote against all tax increases and may, in fact, work for middle class Americans. Maybe we should be reminded of that "great Republican Ronald Reagan" who told the American people that if they were satisfied with the status quo then don't vote Republican.
We need a Democrat leader to say today, "if you are in the middle class and are happy with your static income, then don't vote for Democrats."
We see it playing out in the GOP primary where Jeb Bush, who receives all the Super Pac money, is behind in the polls to Donald Trump, who pledges he will never accept Super Pac money which would obligate him to control by the super rich donors.
One quick solution would be to advise the middle class to vote against any Republican member of Congress who receives Super Pac monies. This would be similar to Grover Norquist's demand that Republican members of Congress sign the pledge to vote against all tax increases and may, in fact, work for middle class Americans. Maybe we should be reminded of that "great Republican Ronald Reagan" who told the American people that if they were satisfied with the status quo then don't vote Republican.
We need a Democrat leader to say today, "if you are in the middle class and are happy with your static income, then don't vote for Democrats."
We see it playing out in the GOP primary where Jeb Bush, who receives all the Super Pac money, is behind in the polls to Donald Trump, who pledges he will never accept Super Pac money which would obligate him to control by the super rich donors.
5
Populism rears its head from time to time in the United States. It then tends to lose elections and fail to deliver. It also has historically contained very unpleasant bigoted elements as well. Also, Mr. Kristof falls into the trap of discussing the top 1%. This would include not just Trump and Gates but lawyers, doctors and accountants. The result is a likely losing political battle. Better to focus on the top .01% who make a lot more money have a great deal more wealth than the rest of the top 1%.
2
I keep reading comments to the effect of, "voters brough this on themselves" ostensibly through failure to follow the issues, or being duped into voting against their own interests, etc.
I thought the whole point is the government does whatever it wants, regardless of whether the voters are angry, or misinformed, or ignorant, or Mensa members. None of us have any effect on policy. Stop blaming voters - it's the politicians who do as they please with little or no regard for their constituents that are at fault.
I thought the whole point is the government does whatever it wants, regardless of whether the voters are angry, or misinformed, or ignorant, or Mensa members. None of us have any effect on policy. Stop blaming voters - it's the politicians who do as they please with little or no regard for their constituents that are at fault.
7
Re: Len Charlap, from my old haunt Princeton....
Len, you put up 5 great ideas that, if implemented, would yield positive results and residuals down the road that will keep on giving.
That's also 5 more ideas than I've seen any Republican offer to date.
Len, you put up 5 great ideas that, if implemented, would yield positive results and residuals down the road that will keep on giving.
That's also 5 more ideas than I've seen any Republican offer to date.
5
Unless and until: We pass a Constitutional amendment for a publically-funded election season of say, 6 weeks, this issue is moot. The tempting opportunities for skullduggery inherent in political office has turned this country into a vast kleptocracy. We must get the money out of our political campaigns.
8
Agreed. With all of it, except one thing. The "If it happened in a white affluent neighborhood".... Not true. It's happening in California in a city called Porter Ranch: a massive gas leak going on for 6 months, sickening affluent white children. That's how much we are controlled by money in politics.
10
I'm not in total agreement that just more money poured into the educational system will make a significant difference in raising minority achievement. In many areas the combination of local and state funding is then supplemented with Federal Title 1 funding for low-income schools which actually results in more per pupil spending than non-Title 1 schools. A more effective strategy, although a difficult one, is the need to work directly with families to help them find ways to encourage, motivate and assist their children before they begin school, and then continue that support ongoing. Recognizing all the difficult social and family issues that will continue to disrupt this approach can't be avoided, but it's all the more reason to find ways to overcome them for the long term benefit of the child.
5
For such an advanced (or so we are told) nation, the American people on average are quite uninformed about important issues. So much of the information that voters get is from PAC sponsored tv ads. Weeding out truth from fiction is time consuming. Media has done a very poor job in bringing truth to the conversation such as fact checking. Sound bites and divisive social issues are a perfect way to bamboozle the American public. This is why so many citizens cast their vote in favor of politicians who never have their voters best interest in mind.
3
As a teacher in an urban district that was once an large industrial hub, I ask myself all the time "I wonder what anyone would say if we tested all of these kids for lead poisoning?"
It's easy to dismiss children of color as flawed but there are some very obvious learning disabilities that aren't being truly address. I would bet a week's salary that we have a higher number of children affected than we know.
Articles like this just tell the sad truth; no one truly cares about them outside of their very small circle of caregivers. America has turned itself on its head and its a national disgrace.
It's easy to dismiss children of color as flawed but there are some very obvious learning disabilities that aren't being truly address. I would bet a week's salary that we have a higher number of children affected than we know.
Articles like this just tell the sad truth; no one truly cares about them outside of their very small circle of caregivers. America has turned itself on its head and its a national disgrace.
6
"just 158 families and the companies they control donated almost half the money for the early stages of the presidential campaign."
The definition of an oligarchy.
Bravo Mr. Kristof! This should be required to be broadcast for the next 52 week news cycles as the lead story! You hit so many truths that the majority of Americans know, but which are completely ignored by those in power - for good reason obviously.
And this is why Bernie Sanders needs to be our next president. He not only stands against this oligarchy, he has ideas that can undo it. Unlike Mr. Trump who is a clear product of that oligarchy - electing him would be like putting a fox in charge of the henhouse. This a truly a transformative moment in our history, and one we must not fail to seize. If we don't change the status quo democratically, it will no doubt be changed by more violent means.
The definition of an oligarchy.
Bravo Mr. Kristof! This should be required to be broadcast for the next 52 week news cycles as the lead story! You hit so many truths that the majority of Americans know, but which are completely ignored by those in power - for good reason obviously.
And this is why Bernie Sanders needs to be our next president. He not only stands against this oligarchy, he has ideas that can undo it. Unlike Mr. Trump who is a clear product of that oligarchy - electing him would be like putting a fox in charge of the henhouse. This a truly a transformative moment in our history, and one we must not fail to seize. If we don't change the status quo democratically, it will no doubt be changed by more violent means.
13
Bernie Sanders/Elizabeth Warren.
Good government begins at the top, it is called trickle down politics.
Good government begins at the top, it is called trickle down politics.
12
I think many republican voters are as tired of the immigrant-job-stealing, obamacare-business-killing, unemployed-work-shirking distractions of the right as the rest of us. Why, just the other day I was in a substantive conversation about this very subject with a trump supporter, but then he heard a commentator on right wing radio shout "Hey, look over there...Obama has a Buddhist trinket in his pocket!" and he lost his train of thought.
7
This is a great column. It summarizes our big problems very well. One way to stoke a will to change is go at the lack of transparency in the system. Once transparent, perhaps the people will stop scapegoating Muslims and Mexicans and those who benefit from social safety nets and focus their rage on the ones with all the leverage and power. The oligarchs love to control the spotlight; transparency shines it right back on them and informs the electorate to vote for leaders that will legislate for the common folk.
2
One of the biggest reasons: Democrats don't vote. In my state in the mid-terms, the fewest Democrats voted in 60 years, and now we have a Republican led house - for the first time in 60 years. Arun Gupta said the same from New Jersey below.
3
How do you know that the non-voters are Democrats?
3
Perhaps if democrats weren't so disgusted by democratic politicians, they would be more inspired to vote.
3
The FCC can take the money out of broadcast time for TV political campaigning. For every broadcasting license, the FCC should require free election campaign ads. FEC recognized candidates would pay for production of ads and choose the broadcasters to show the ads. Allocating broadcast time among eligible candidates will require clear and fair methods, not an easy task. And public campaign funds, from taxpayers, should not go into the coffers of licensed broadcasters. Nancy,s spouse.
2
From the outside looking in, campaign finance reform is the most important issue in the U.S. today. In my opinion, the lack of primarily publicly-funded campaign financing means:
1. The continued two-party stranglehold on the American political system (how can two parties honestly represent the interests of 250 million voters?). The high levels of voter apathy and low levels of voter knowledge should surprise no one.
2. The rich and powerful - including big business - will continue to bend and shape domestic policy to their own benefit, at the expense of the many.
3. The socio-economic make-up of governors and federal legislators (upper-middle to upper class individuals) will not change. The current system, for the most part, shuts-out people from lower socio-economic levels from getting elected from higher office.
Imagine a social worker from a lower-income rural or urban area being able to effectively run for a seat in Congress, because they would no longer need to raise $30,000,000 to even try. Imagine a high school teacher getting elected as a state governor... Publicly-funded campaigns level the playing field so that greater segments of the citizenry have a decent shot at getting true representation. This is why democratic governments (in Canada and elsewhere) have more diverse legislative bodies that better represent the interests of their constituents. Now plug that into the issue of inequality and one can see why campaign reform must come first.
1. The continued two-party stranglehold on the American political system (how can two parties honestly represent the interests of 250 million voters?). The high levels of voter apathy and low levels of voter knowledge should surprise no one.
2. The rich and powerful - including big business - will continue to bend and shape domestic policy to their own benefit, at the expense of the many.
3. The socio-economic make-up of governors and federal legislators (upper-middle to upper class individuals) will not change. The current system, for the most part, shuts-out people from lower socio-economic levels from getting elected from higher office.
Imagine a social worker from a lower-income rural or urban area being able to effectively run for a seat in Congress, because they would no longer need to raise $30,000,000 to even try. Imagine a high school teacher getting elected as a state governor... Publicly-funded campaigns level the playing field so that greater segments of the citizenry have a decent shot at getting true representation. This is why democratic governments (in Canada and elsewhere) have more diverse legislative bodies that better represent the interests of their constituents. Now plug that into the issue of inequality and one can see why campaign reform must come first.
9
So disingenuous. The persons most hurt by unfairness are middle class persons who don't need more early childhood education--they need better jobs and healthcare and less taxation. What we need is tax reform and it's Bernie Sanders who is the candidate most likely to tax the super-rich--they're Hillary's friends.
10
Everyone says Trump attracts those who feel "disenfranchised" and "alienated." I disagree.
"Alienated," yes. Trump supporters harbor grudges, peeves, and prejudices, they don't like the hues now reflected in the American populace, they dream of simpler, more authoritarian, more homogeneous times, and the complexities inherent in a modern technological and multi-cultural age daunt and annoy them. They are alienated from the liberal governing principles that America has long stood for but only much more recently started trying to effect. They are alienated from how we speak in ways to try to be more inclusive and widen the rights of political outsiders.
"Disenfranchised?" No. These are the people who want to disenfranchise others (a practice that has worked well in the US since its inception). Political power given to poor, under-represented, minority, recently-arrived people? This is exactly what Trump supporters oppose. They dream of the "good old days" when white people dictated the terms and popular culture would rally behind that, not stand up to limit it.
Let's not transform a quirky bankruptcy billionaire who says things that appeal to our worst side, slamming the poorer and working classes, and whose "policies" would devastate most Americans, into some "populist" hero. His appeal is the "freshness" of his commentary that resonates with angry people who don't understand history and whose greatest characteristic is a wildly unwarranted sense of entitlement.
"Alienated," yes. Trump supporters harbor grudges, peeves, and prejudices, they don't like the hues now reflected in the American populace, they dream of simpler, more authoritarian, more homogeneous times, and the complexities inherent in a modern technological and multi-cultural age daunt and annoy them. They are alienated from the liberal governing principles that America has long stood for but only much more recently started trying to effect. They are alienated from how we speak in ways to try to be more inclusive and widen the rights of political outsiders.
"Disenfranchised?" No. These are the people who want to disenfranchise others (a practice that has worked well in the US since its inception). Political power given to poor, under-represented, minority, recently-arrived people? This is exactly what Trump supporters oppose. They dream of the "good old days" when white people dictated the terms and popular culture would rally behind that, not stand up to limit it.
Let's not transform a quirky bankruptcy billionaire who says things that appeal to our worst side, slamming the poorer and working classes, and whose "policies" would devastate most Americans, into some "populist" hero. His appeal is the "freshness" of his commentary that resonates with angry people who don't understand history and whose greatest characteristic is a wildly unwarranted sense of entitlement.
4
Being angry over stagnating wages and a "recovery" that only helped the wealthy is being peevish?
1
Two things seem to be at the center of Bernie Sander's campaign, actually three things: better jobs and better pay, increased access to education, and campaign finance reform. Yet his name is only mentioned, with T rump's, casually in the beginning of this piece.
The first thing I saw in today's paper (sic) was the link to Sander's new ad featuring an old song from Simon and Garfunkel "America". It is an inspirational piece of work that shows what America is really like underneath the layers of mistrust, injustice and greed.
Bernie and his revolution are what this country needs most right now. A revolution that gets millions of US off our butts and into the voting booth. So many voters voting that the politicians cannot ignore US and the 1% can't buy US off.
Imagine if the koch bothers and their ilk had spent all that money, time and energy these last 50 years paying their taxes and building something that We the People needed, instead of buying off governors who would allow them to pollute our waters and our politics.
We have one more chance to vote ourselves out of a fascist state and we had better take it. After this election it might take bullets instead of ballots to rid ourselves of the fascist dictator T rump and Cruz seem to be auditioning for.
The first thing I saw in today's paper (sic) was the link to Sander's new ad featuring an old song from Simon and Garfunkel "America". It is an inspirational piece of work that shows what America is really like underneath the layers of mistrust, injustice and greed.
Bernie and his revolution are what this country needs most right now. A revolution that gets millions of US off our butts and into the voting booth. So many voters voting that the politicians cannot ignore US and the 1% can't buy US off.
Imagine if the koch bothers and their ilk had spent all that money, time and energy these last 50 years paying their taxes and building something that We the People needed, instead of buying off governors who would allow them to pollute our waters and our politics.
We have one more chance to vote ourselves out of a fascist state and we had better take it. After this election it might take bullets instead of ballots to rid ourselves of the fascist dictator T rump and Cruz seem to be auditioning for.
19
Historical socialism doesn't work without an empire. Bismarks welfare state as an example. The real revolution is figuring out how to pay for it. Mean while the redistribution of wealth from Empires like the USA and China continue bringing the rest of the world into the 21st century . Or do want to sit on the sidelines like the Europeans do. Ironic that capitalism is doing so much around while socialists can't.
4
“Majorities of the American public actually have little influence over the policies our government adopts.”
Exactly why we should not allow the government to HAVE policies on most topics.
Exactly why we should not allow the government to HAVE policies on most topics.
2
"Mortality rates for young white adults are rising, partly because so many self-medicate with painkillers or heroin. Blacks have been protected from this phenomenon by another unfairness: Studies indicate that doctors discriminate against black patients and are less likely to prescribe them painkillers."
Big Pharma is the #1 lobby in the USA. Legal drugs kill more Americans than illegal drugs. Look at the massive prescribing of amphetamine-like drugs to children. Look at J&J's recent $2.2 billion fine for illegally marketing a drug that kills dementia patients. (Don't worry, J&J made money anyway: do the crime,pay the fine, count profit=Big Pharma business model.)
Look at the massive over-prescription of statin drugs, although there's no proof that they benefit when used for primary prevention. Look at horrific adverse effects--for which many take morphine. (1/4 of Americans over 40 on statins; 1/4 of them report muscle pain.)
https://plus.google.com/102631385922452069974/posts/EAu1sWEBjyX
Big Pharma is the #1 lobby in the USA. Legal drugs kill more Americans than illegal drugs. Look at the massive prescribing of amphetamine-like drugs to children. Look at J&J's recent $2.2 billion fine for illegally marketing a drug that kills dementia patients. (Don't worry, J&J made money anyway: do the crime,pay the fine, count profit=Big Pharma business model.)
Look at the massive over-prescription of statin drugs, although there's no proof that they benefit when used for primary prevention. Look at horrific adverse effects--for which many take morphine. (1/4 of Americans over 40 on statins; 1/4 of them report muscle pain.)
https://plus.google.com/102631385922452069974/posts/EAu1sWEBjyX
4
David X - You are right on the money about BigPharma: It is the #1 lobby in the USA and the reasons are obvious - side effects from its legally prescribed drugs kill more Americans per year than any other category of product. We are only one of two countries on the planet that permit direct-to-consumer advertising of these drugs. And we have evidence (see Eli Lilly Zyprexa documents and Astra Zeneca Seroquel documents - both in the public domain) of drug company executives actively colluding to hide the lethal side effects for the sake of the bottom line. Yet all that happens is large fines on the companies by the U.S. Department of Justice - not one of these executives has ever been indicted for anything. What is the definition of criminal if it is not this?
4
The oppression of the poor is not accidental. An oppressed and downtrodden working class that must continuously struggle to survive has no time left for political action. The 1% know this.
12
Over and over the NYT, myriad other publications (in print and online), their op-ed writers, their editorials, and thousands of commenters complain about how our political system has been corrupted by Citizens United, Super PACs, and billionaires buying and hijacking our political process. Everyone agrees that the corrupted election process and the financial structures that make it possible have to be fixed.
Then others, including some of the commenters to this article, complain about how few voters show up at the polls. What do you expect them to do when the only choices that end up on the ballot have been picked by the bought-out party machines. They are fed up with having to choose between the lesser of two evils. Either choice is still evil.
So now we have an election process underway where we have a billionaire (Trump) and then several others who are all funded by billionaires and Super PACs.
On the other side we have a candidate who is funded by mega-donors, has received millions in "speaking fees", and will not endorse Glass-Steagall (Clinton).
Or a candidate (Sanders) who refuses Super PAC money and clearly states that some of his first priorities are to repeal Citizens United and reenact Glass-Steagall.
I just don't get it. If all you people are so fed up with the corrupt system why do you keep participating in it? It is so simple. Stop voting for the Super PAC candidates and their influence will eventually vanish.
Then others, including some of the commenters to this article, complain about how few voters show up at the polls. What do you expect them to do when the only choices that end up on the ballot have been picked by the bought-out party machines. They are fed up with having to choose between the lesser of two evils. Either choice is still evil.
So now we have an election process underway where we have a billionaire (Trump) and then several others who are all funded by billionaires and Super PACs.
On the other side we have a candidate who is funded by mega-donors, has received millions in "speaking fees", and will not endorse Glass-Steagall (Clinton).
Or a candidate (Sanders) who refuses Super PAC money and clearly states that some of his first priorities are to repeal Citizens United and reenact Glass-Steagall.
I just don't get it. If all you people are so fed up with the corrupt system why do you keep participating in it? It is so simple. Stop voting for the Super PAC candidates and their influence will eventually vanish.
57
“In the United States, our findings indicate, the majority does not rule,” they concluded. “Majorities of the American public actually have little influence over the policies our government adopts.”
If this is in fact a reality, then is it not a call for a real 2nd American Revolution?
If this is in fact a reality, then is it not a call for a real 2nd American Revolution?
3
Left unaddressed, that's where things will lead.
2
In a prospective Trump-Sanders race, will "angry right-wing populists" reject Sanders because he is a member of the billionaire oligarch/plutocrat elite against whom they rail because do not have the Common Man's/Average Citizen's interests at heart?
Economists Thomas Piketty lays it out clearly, Paul Krugman and Robert Reich address it constantly, linguist cum political polemicist Noam Chomsky make it clear constantly, and now Mr. Kristol has nailed it: the Super-rich don't have to buy politicians, it's more practical and cheaper to lease them.
Kudos to the Times for running this column as the same time, the right-leaning Ross Douthat confesses his short-lived romance with Sarah Palin's tenure as Alaska's governorship and bemoans the current attraction and popularity of Trump's campaign to become America's Vladimir Putin. Nowhere in Mr. Douthat's column of today or any day do we encounter even a mention of the leasing of legislators by our American Oligarchy.
Kudos to the Times for running this column as the same time, the right-leaning Ross Douthat confesses his short-lived romance with Sarah Palin's tenure as Alaska's governorship and bemoans the current attraction and popularity of Trump's campaign to become America's Vladimir Putin. Nowhere in Mr. Douthat's column of today or any day do we encounter even a mention of the leasing of legislators by our American Oligarchy.
2
Not to worry - HRC has your back, America. She completely understands the plight of working and middle class Americans. I mean after all, do you know hard she worked to get those speaking engagements at Goldman Sachs? It wasn't like she was just invited you know, and the $200k + /per speech (and what was it? 20 minutes or so behind closed doors?) was hard work! (to put in perspective the median family income in the US is ~50k - so for 20 minutes of a speech which only a select few ever heard, she earned more than 4 years' worth of median income times what? 3 speeches? so 12 years' worth of income? yes, she understands your plight) Then there's the rest of the hardworking Clinton clan, such as Chelsea, recent college grad, only able to command $70k per speaking engagement (how will she ever be able to repay those college loans I wonder)
This country has never been a "fair" place (there's always been some element of my success is predicated on your demise) and it shouldn't be "fair" that somehow we all enjoy the same rewards - but what we have now doesn't even come close to the realm of fairness. With the money the Clinton gang have raised under the auspices of "charity" I don't see them doing anything except to enrich themselves further...
He may be animated at times but Bernie Sanders is the only candidate passionate about setting the ship right again with the idea that we should all have a fair chance at success - and that's about as fair as you can get.
This country has never been a "fair" place (there's always been some element of my success is predicated on your demise) and it shouldn't be "fair" that somehow we all enjoy the same rewards - but what we have now doesn't even come close to the realm of fairness. With the money the Clinton gang have raised under the auspices of "charity" I don't see them doing anything except to enrich themselves further...
He may be animated at times but Bernie Sanders is the only candidate passionate about setting the ship right again with the idea that we should all have a fair chance at success - and that's about as fair as you can get.
8
Mr. Kristof's column strongly reminds me of Warren Beatty's speeches in "Bulworth." (That's a compliment, BTW).
1
Twenty years of rampant Globalism and offshoring of jobs has delivered for the first time in living memory an America where less than 50% of citizens are middle class.... the theory that technology and free markets will delivered sustained prosperity has been shown to be a lie..all through the developed world.. no wonder Trump and Sanders message is resonating.. Maybe they are the dream ticket - an Odd Couple for the Whitehouse.
3
Another disappointing column in the New York Times. Income inequality, and solutions for it, are a centerpiece of Bernie Sanders' campaign for the presidency, but one would never know it here...in today's paper, all we get is an "I'm shocked" column about how younger women are turned off by Mrs. Clinton's past defense of her husband against women who accused him of various sex offenses.
Americans are thrilled to have an honorable candidate come along, one who says what he means and acts on it, never wavering to what a poll might say. Still hoping the New York Times will give honest coverage to Bernie's campaign.
Americans are thrilled to have an honorable candidate come along, one who says what he means and acts on it, never wavering to what a poll might say. Still hoping the New York Times will give honest coverage to Bernie's campaign.
14
l am so sad because the people who born and leave all their life in our country, have no idea how lucky they are, that is go's to from President to a dish washer, we have every thing here, we do not need no arab oil or Putin friendship, our two parties must clean house and bring new faces and ideas for our country, that is why people like Trump is looking good, why we start one year before election to talk about it, why millions dollar needed to be elected, 3 month and a limited buget for or politicion, l am a 81 years old man from middle east,l am an American from 1960 and l am proud of it and l do not talk about my religion because we all know why, this is 21st century and l am hiding my religion for my security , Detroit school teachers do not going to their jobs, because the schools are crumbling and they are un human to leave in, Flint we now about the water, kids dying this will never hapind if the Flint was a white comunity, but we are spending money and time about Mrs.Clinton email, or Mr.Obama or Mr.KRUZ are a real American, and because Mr.Obama is black an his middle name is Hussein, they are calling him a ISIS lower or a traiter, our supreme court is a comedy club, this is a very good country and lots of good people in it, but if we do not open our eyes this will be gone
4
When the majority subjugates the minority, how "fair" is that?
1
The United States should seriously incorporate the UN Sustainable Development Goals into our domestic policies, which would go a long way toward solving our social problems. We should also ratify all UN human rights accords, including especially the Convention of the Rights of the Child.
2
After the Paris Commune proved that a democratically elected Socialist economic system would only be invalidated by military/police overthrow orchestrated by the Capitalists, Karl Marx declared that only a "dictatorship of the proletariat" would ensure the stability of the new regime. This led Mao many years later to declare that "the only true social justice comes from the barrel of a gun". These two commentators sum up all that the social scientists, political scientists and tellers of truth could ever waste prolific words in the news media around the world. The final quote of Marx in the Manifesto says it all: "Workers Of The World Unite!" And you know what he was suggesting they unite to do. It wasn't to lie down in the street, chain themselves to buildings, or peacefully get beat up by skin head thugs in uniform (which Marx properly referred to as "the means of capitalist coercion". Common folk-face it! You either choke it down like the house servants in Downton Abbey, or you kick some rich butt ,(and be prepared to take some casualties)..As Pancho Villa said:'Well Padre, if the Good Lord did not intend for these people to be fleeced, He would not have made them sheep".
Right. And then the same common folks took to the streets in their millions, to end their Marxist Utopias and beg for the return of the "rich exploiters". Have you forgotten the Velvet Revolution? The millions in Moscow who faced down the aborted Communist putsch? Russia is hardly a workers' paradise today but the popularity of Karl Marx there is in the vicinity of the poll numbers for cholera. The Chinese still venerate Mao for kicking the Japanese out but would rather welcome an earthquake than the return of the Cultural Revolution. It's interesting, isn't it, that people who actually tried Marxism are less than enthusiastic about it.
5
Term limits would go along way to limiting those cozy relationships, which are built over time, between lobbyists and politicians.
2
This is news? And why blame Reagan? Richard Fenno in his book "Homestyle" published in 1978 followed Congressmen around in their districts. He found that a core constituency of primary supporters had the ear of the Representative. So essentially, a subset of voters within a party had the greatest impact on a Congressman.
Unfortunately, it is the same of stuff regardless of which party is in control.
Unfortunately, it is the same of stuff regardless of which party is in control.
2
As a professional on 400-500k I'm working very hard and I'm already paying very high taxes, over 50% due to high NYC taxes. Yet, all these proposals basically want me to pay more. I find this unfair, but NY Times never touches on this issue.
The fact is that the top marginal rate hits the upper middle class the most. And it's the upper middle class that makes the economy tick the most. The fact is that there's a minority of people which move things forwards, from art, culture, tech, healthcare and the economy. You'll find these people in the upper middle class. Tax-wise, they also get the biggest hit. How come no one is talking about the top marginal rate being too high? Above 50% you have to start wondering if you're working for yourself or if you're just a slave.
The fact is that the top marginal rate hits the upper middle class the most. And it's the upper middle class that makes the economy tick the most. The fact is that there's a minority of people which move things forwards, from art, culture, tech, healthcare and the economy. You'll find these people in the upper middle class. Tax-wise, they also get the biggest hit. How come no one is talking about the top marginal rate being too high? Above 50% you have to start wondering if you're working for yourself or if you're just a slave.
3
A graduate student from Germany just told me that in democracy you have the dictatorship of the 51%. Interesting comment. Unfortunately today's America has lots of misinformed citizens thanks in large part to the failure of the 4th Estate to do its job. NYT included. The money folks that are buying our politicians have already bought our minds by owning our media. The hundreds of companies that owned newspapers and radio stations and television stations have dwindled down to about 6 companies owning 90% of them. How can the public be informed when the corporations control the information? NYT, heal thyself.
6
Nick-- great column. This is THE issue of our time. How to have people engage productively. My one disagreement is the Oregon event is most assuredly NOT a populist movement-- this is a move by the plutocrats to take over more public lands. The loud mouths are just the messenger of something much larger.
30
"One step toward transparency: President Obama could require federal contractors to disclose political contributions."
No, a non-step. We already have various rules for this, they're called the "Loophole Acts", and the "Oh Yeah, It Was a Paperwork Mistake Resolutiion", and the "Oh, OK, No Harm Done, But Just Don't Do It Again" Referendum.
No, a non-step. We already have various rules for this, they're called the "Loophole Acts", and the "Oh Yeah, It Was a Paperwork Mistake Resolutiion", and the "Oh, OK, No Harm Done, But Just Don't Do It Again" Referendum.
9
This is a very important article but please do not refer to the heroin epidemic as "self medicating." Many heroin users are perfectly healthy but unfortunately stupid. People have known about the dangers of heroin for decades just as we have for tobacco. To turn to heroin use is plain stupid self-destruction. It should not be glamorized.
1
Any acknowledgement here, from anyone, that "everyone" being unhappy also includes the 1% (or, a better way to think about it, most of the middle/upper middle class in the Northeast)? Why do you think that is -- stagnant economy, arbitrary and capricious governmental rules, governmental services that frankly stink (anyone check the conditions of the roads in NY and NJ, or the trains lately), shakedowns for political contributions, vilification in the media or otherwise?
Isn't the real problem here -- for all of us -- is that we actually don't see the pie growing, we don't see any likelihood of that changing, that we'll simply end up paying more, getting less, and that there's very little hope of something better for our children?
Isn't the real problem here -- for all of us -- is that we actually don't see the pie growing, we don't see any likelihood of that changing, that we'll simply end up paying more, getting less, and that there's very little hope of something better for our children?
6
Public schools are supposed to be the ticket for all kids to improve their lives.
Instead of funneling money into more charter schools we should abandon the practice of financing schools locally, and and move to a state wide system instead. Same idea as single payer health care. Schools in poor and rich neighborhoods deserve the same funding. If rich parents want more for their kids there are always violin lessons and SAT prep tutors.
Instead of funneling money into more charter schools we should abandon the practice of financing schools locally, and and move to a state wide system instead. Same idea as single payer health care. Schools in poor and rich neighborhoods deserve the same funding. If rich parents want more for their kids there are always violin lessons and SAT prep tutors.
4
The problem with that idea is that Detroit aside, many poor-quality urban school system actually spend far more per student than their statewide average.
In Boston, for example, while there are many poor students, there are many rich families as well (who don't send their kids to public school but pay property tax) and a strong commercial tax base. Giving Boston the same per student as is spent in the typical decent-to-good quality school in the Boston suburbs would actually reduce resources for Boston schools.
In Boston, for example, while there are many poor students, there are many rich families as well (who don't send their kids to public school but pay property tax) and a strong commercial tax base. Giving Boston the same per student as is spent in the typical decent-to-good quality school in the Boston suburbs would actually reduce resources for Boston schools.
4
I am sure you picked a legitimate example, but if you just google something like funding rich and poor school districts you will find that even the department of education has records to the contrary.
Just google "rich and poor school districts funding" or similar, and you will find that reputable institutions like the Department of Education or the Washington Post confirm what seems like common sense: Poor districts get less money.
A child's education should not be hampered by her parents' zip code.
Just google "rich and poor school districts funding" or similar, and you will find that reputable institutions like the Department of Education or the Washington Post confirm what seems like common sense: Poor districts get less money.
A child's education should not be hampered by her parents' zip code.
4
Nicholas Kristof's article ist most impressive. In Germany we have a strict policy of publishing donations of people or corparates to political parties. In the US, the combination of extremely rich people and the instrument of Political Action Committees that allow donations of unlimited amounts of money anonymousysly proves the system not to be democratic, but blankly plutocratic. For old Karl Marx it is a textbook situation - I am sorry and sometimes frightened - as many Germans are.
2
Well, from the other side of the pond, I see that Germany, despite having many things that go right for it, and having a great reputation and economy, its government has been hijacked.
Its citizens has been overtaken by a Dictator - Merkel. With the help of the police and the media (and a few corporations like Facebook) which censor the news and downplay the negative effect, it has been forced to take in some Syrian refugees and a whole number of illegal Muslim economic migrants from the Middle East and Northern Africa.
If such a major change to a society can happen in one of the most advanced Western nations in the world, without the express consent and vote of their citizens how does any nation have any trust in their politicians and system of government?
Its citizens has been overtaken by a Dictator - Merkel. With the help of the police and the media (and a few corporations like Facebook) which censor the news and downplay the negative effect, it has been forced to take in some Syrian refugees and a whole number of illegal Muslim economic migrants from the Middle East and Northern Africa.
If such a major change to a society can happen in one of the most advanced Western nations in the world, without the express consent and vote of their citizens how does any nation have any trust in their politicians and system of government?
6
While I wouldn't argue with the conclusion, it should be pointed out that the 1,779 policy issues occurred between 1981 and 2002 (https://goo.gl/9hHCHl); and the most important policy issue since that time, the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), was largely opposed by wealthy people and the business class and was adopted.
2
"But the populist frustration is understandable . . .The challenge will be to leverage the populist frustration into constructive postelection policy."
The NYT frequently employs the word "populist," and not infrequently the adjective "angry" preceding it.
Pray tell, what is the opposite of "populist" (other than perhaps "anti-populist" or "non-populist")? Is it "elitist"? Do the elite themselves ever get "angry"? Or do they hardly ever get angry because they can almost always count on getting their way in this country?
The NYT frequently employs the word "populist," and not infrequently the adjective "angry" preceding it.
Pray tell, what is the opposite of "populist" (other than perhaps "anti-populist" or "non-populist")? Is it "elitist"? Do the elite themselves ever get "angry"? Or do they hardly ever get angry because they can almost always count on getting their way in this country?
5
In the days of Carnegie, Schwab, Rockefeller, Morgan, etc. it would be interesting to know share of the national wealth they held.
1
This is why the "dirtiest" word in American politics is socialism, and why statesmen like Bernie Sanders are pooh-poohed or shouted down for talking about fairness, justice and the good of the greater community. It's also why countries like France, Germany, Switzerland, New Zealand, Canada, Sweden, for instance, consistently rank head and shoulders above the US in categories like general happiness, quality of life, education, health care, etc. They care more about the greatest good for the greatest number while "we" care about the much-ballyhooed "individual," which is merely code for the Randian 1%.
5
I agree, but look where that got Germany today. Put a power-mad crazy in charge like Merkel, and see how fast this country goes into the toilet.
3
Sometime in the last 30-40 years we stopped being Americans and started looking out only for ourselves. Where is the sense of community that led Americans to plant victory gardens and to willingly accept rationing as our patriotic duty during WWII? Can you imagine the hatred and outrage today if a president, Republican or Democrat, suggested that we all sacrifice just a little for the betterment of everyone?
We have become extremely selfish and self-serving and it is going to be our downfall.
We have become extremely selfish and self-serving and it is going to be our downfall.
6
The Flint City Council voted 7-1 to temporarily switch the city water’s supply from Detroit to the lead-contaminated Flint River as part of a long-term plan that will eventually link the city to a different water authority. It was a local decision made by local residents. The city’s mayor and seven of its nine councilmembers are black. Although the city elections are nonpartisan, nearly all the elected city officials are affiliated with the Democrat Party. Each of the nine councilmembers represent about 47,000 residents. Flint is 56.6% black, but its elected officials are 80 percent black. It seems probable that the 43.6% of Flint residents—including children—who aren’t black also drink water, but of course they don’t matter to New York Times writers. It seems equally improbable that the Koch brothers pump millions of dollars into Flint city elections. The City of Flint collects a local income tax of 1% from residents and 0.5% for non-residents who work within the city. It’s flat tax with no loopholes. Flint meters water usage and charges all residents the same rate.
7
Government is out of control and thinks they are the "people" and don't have to answer to the others. The Fed's motto is "One for all and all for US!" Regulations, tax rules, health care etc..... At what point did we the people as in "Government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the Earth." become a government for the democrats, by the republicans and no one else in the club mentality take over. Thumper is no good as well as Cruz, but Hillary is a liar and scammer, Bernie is an idealist and out of touch with reality. Lordy help us all. Nixon looks good at this point as did Lyndon.....
4
To in any way equate the criminals who seized Malheur Wildlife Refuge in Oregon with Black Lives Matter or Occupy Wall Street is ignorant at best and surely insulting. Those criminals simply want something for free. The something they want is owned by all of us and should stay that way. They have no principles other than "me first" despite their rhetoric about the Constitution. You owe the other groups an apology.
4
A Congress stonewalling the administration must have an impact on legislation and response to urgent needs. Why must a president find that the only way forward is by executive orders?
1
The separation of powers is one of the core principles of our republic. Congress, whether one likes it or not, is not required to yield to the POTUS, nor is the POTUS empowered to legislate. Obviously, some executive orders are and should be within the province of chief executive -- but not all. Because if a POTUS could do whatever he/she wanted to do whenever he/she wanted to do it, he/she would not be a POTUS; he/she would be a Dictator...
2
Poor people are treated unfairly, it has nothing to do with race, yet Kristof has to lay it out in terms that are literally black and white. The solutions are economic and political not moral, so why the obsession with race?
It is easy. The American people can’t be expected to handle complex ideas and solutions. They are very good at telling people apart by their skin color however and crying racism when things don’t go your way is a simple way to try to get your way. It represents the second thing Americans are expert at, emotional blackmail, who hasn’t seen the commercials of the starving kid or the shivering dog in a shelter and given money to charity. It sure is a hell of a lot easier than trying to figure out the complexities and intricacies of Capitalism and wealth distribution and changing them in a way that is fair to everyone while not destroying what is good in the system or risking your own Middle Class economic position.
Liberalism used to be about questioning entrenched ideas and constantly trying new approaches, but now Liberals have become as close-minded as any evangelical Christian has and more and more people are turned off. Liberals don’t see that as soon as they divide the country by black and white, too many tune out and they only make change impossible.
The rise of Trump as a revolutionary leader of the disenfranchised didn’t happen in a vacuum. It happened because so many people felt they had nowhere else to go, Liberals had abandoned them.
It is easy. The American people can’t be expected to handle complex ideas and solutions. They are very good at telling people apart by their skin color however and crying racism when things don’t go your way is a simple way to try to get your way. It represents the second thing Americans are expert at, emotional blackmail, who hasn’t seen the commercials of the starving kid or the shivering dog in a shelter and given money to charity. It sure is a hell of a lot easier than trying to figure out the complexities and intricacies of Capitalism and wealth distribution and changing them in a way that is fair to everyone while not destroying what is good in the system or risking your own Middle Class economic position.
Liberalism used to be about questioning entrenched ideas and constantly trying new approaches, but now Liberals have become as close-minded as any evangelical Christian has and more and more people are turned off. Liberals don’t see that as soon as they divide the country by black and white, too many tune out and they only make change impossible.
The rise of Trump as a revolutionary leader of the disenfranchised didn’t happen in a vacuum. It happened because so many people felt they had nowhere else to go, Liberals had abandoned them.
3
Trump is the embodiment of solipsistic soliloquies while Sanders of emphatic struggle for the common good. That is the divide in America; the incontrovertible rift between plutocracy and democracy. We need to kick-start the American Revolution, and we have just the man to lead us. Bernie is that man!
4
It is easy for the left to criticize Trump. But try this. Before attacking him, ask yourself two questions:
(1) How may jobs has Trump created?
(2) How many jobs has Sanders created?
Those are easy to easy answer, but the answers are not easy for the left to accept.
(1) How may jobs has Trump created?
(2) How many jobs has Sanders created?
Those are easy to easy answer, but the answers are not easy for the left to accept.
1
The study you cite confirms what many people already know intuitively - that insight is fueling the Sanders surge. Sorry you had more time to notice the xenophobic distractions of Trump. Krugman, who is aware of Obamacare's serious deficiencies, cautioned us the other day that "incumbent players" (nice way to say "big money") are too powerful, so we shouldn't push for single payer/public option. There is a groupthink on the Times editorial page that is sad and disappointing.
3
There is one great truth and one great myth at the center of American politics.
The great truth is that the Republicans don't care about the common folks, especially the poor.
The great myth is the Democrats do.
The great truth is that the Republicans don't care about the common folks, especially the poor.
The great myth is the Democrats do.
3
"Citizens United." The USA Supreme Court didn't help the situation. If they look the other way, all is lost.
I don't see why a company with a federal contract should have to list who they contribute to in politics. Would't that fall under the protection of the first amendment?
1
Right on the money (wince) and thank you always for taking complex subjects and distilling them so average people like me understand them. But we need a list of action points that we can take to make a difference and make our country a democracy and not a plutocracy.. Perhaps you can give us such a list in a Sunday column and check in with readers from time to time to
see how we are following them. Everyone can be an activist.
see how we are following them. Everyone can be an activist.
1
The bourgeois insist the privileges they have apply to all white people. They separated themselves from the rank and file Democrats during the Nixon era. How many of these children of the Ivy league had to take a civil service exam and find out you had ten points deducted because you were white? Where did they get the belief that a white child growing up in the south Bronx or a trailer park have the same opportunities as the upper middle class.
Now the bourgeoisie joins the rest of us saying life is unfair. They no longer can send their to send their kids Harvard , Princeton or Yale. The market no longer brings them the wealth they took for granted. Privilege ain't what it used to be. Neither are the two parties.
Now the bourgeoisie joins the rest of us saying life is unfair. They no longer can send their to send their kids Harvard , Princeton or Yale. The market no longer brings them the wealth they took for granted. Privilege ain't what it used to be. Neither are the two parties.
1
Our government is the best that money can buy and the 99% don't have the money. But the 99% still do have the votes.
The voters need to quit being controlled and manipulated by voting for the traditional party candidates. Those candidates have been scrubbed and corrupted by the political process and that process is owned by the elites. Hillary and Jeb are exhibit A of this process. The Dem vs Rep drama is only a sideshow.
The voters need to quit being controlled and manipulated by voting for the traditional party candidates. Those candidates have been scrubbed and corrupted by the political process and that process is owned by the elites. Hillary and Jeb are exhibit A of this process. The Dem vs Rep drama is only a sideshow.
4
The American democracy was destroyed by the Citizens United decision. This is not just a political opinion or an extreme view. It is an obvious fact. Yet none of our current candidates for President are willing to discuss it, and the media pundits keep prattling on about the candidates as if nothing has happened.
4
The enduring mystery is why the "Republican base" has consistently voted for politicians who rig the system ever-more in favor of the rich.
Perhaps the wheels have finally come off the clown bus ... but I doubt it.
Perhaps the wheels have finally come off the clown bus ... but I doubt it.
1
Who are you to brand as "clowns" people who hold opinions contrary to yours? Check the facts; look at the contributors to the current POTUS, to the Clintons, et a. It's a two-way street... Perhaps people are just sick and tired of being told by a handful of elitists and political theorists what to do and how to live their lives, of being told that they are "clowns" or "uninformed" or "cruel" or "uncaring" because they see things differently than those who fancy themselves the arbiters of morality and decency...
2
Term limits of two terms for Congress and the Senate would go a long way to solve this problem. Knowing, he or she cannot be re-elected makes them much less dependent on the 1%.
3
Consider that those who are most disaffected and flocking to Trump are looking for someone decisive who they believe will be able to singularly make changes; they are looking for an authoritarian solution because they are sick and tired of a feckless and ineffective congress that they feel are bought and paid for by the wealthy at the expense of the average person.
2
Great article.
The only solution to this political inequality based on wealth is for right-minded politicians to present this issue clearly, repeatedly and forcefully to the American people -- and to do everything possible to get them to vote.
We are still a nation that give each citizen one vote. The rich may be able to buy a lot of votes to support their special interests, but they cannot buy enough votes to overcome an informed and motivated American citizenry.
The only solution to this political inequality based on wealth is for right-minded politicians to present this issue clearly, repeatedly and forcefully to the American people -- and to do everything possible to get them to vote.
We are still a nation that give each citizen one vote. The rich may be able to buy a lot of votes to support their special interests, but they cannot buy enough votes to overcome an informed and motivated American citizenry.
2
We spend more per capita for education than any country in the world. Why, well in Japan, Norway and Singapore there is no Teachers Union. How much money actually reaches the child is less than 15 percent. Where does it go? Its not funding, it's doing away with the Education Bureaucracy
3
I guess we should be glad that this article clearly lays out the problem. But why so weak when it comes to proposing solutions? Some suggestions: (1) Repeal Citizens United. (2) Do something about gerrymandering. It seems like I read something about a legal challenge to it in one state, then I never heard anything again. These should be uncontroversial with anyone who cares about "for the people, by the people".
More difficult, but still needed: (3) Close tax loopholes and find a way to prevent individuals and corporations from hiding their money overseas to avoid paying taxes. (4) Raise the minimum wage. (5) Pass single-payer healthcare.
Yes, education is important, but it is not nearly enough if the children are malnourished, unwell, and if their parents are absolutely without hope for any way to get out of poverty.
Let's face it: Republicans have been the driving force behind this unfairness. This "unfairness" (too kind a word) has had devastating and sometimes lethal effects on millions of people. Flint just brought it to the light. I worry that many Republican leaders are thinking "too bad we got caught on that one," instead of reassessing whether it is humane to sacrifice human health for money or politics. Please let this be a wake-up call.
More difficult, but still needed: (3) Close tax loopholes and find a way to prevent individuals and corporations from hiding their money overseas to avoid paying taxes. (4) Raise the minimum wage. (5) Pass single-payer healthcare.
Yes, education is important, but it is not nearly enough if the children are malnourished, unwell, and if their parents are absolutely without hope for any way to get out of poverty.
Let's face it: Republicans have been the driving force behind this unfairness. This "unfairness" (too kind a word) has had devastating and sometimes lethal effects on millions of people. Flint just brought it to the light. I worry that many Republican leaders are thinking "too bad we got caught on that one," instead of reassessing whether it is humane to sacrifice human health for money or politics. Please let this be a wake-up call.
1
I lose confidence in Obama when he declines to require federal contractors to disclose their political contributions and when he promotes trade agreements that include large corporations and their lobbyists as participants, but which exclude unions and public interest groups. Are workers and the public not stakeholders in such agreements? It's just another example of how the American political system is rigged in favor of the wealthy.
3
"In the United States, our findings indicate, the majority does not rule."
My findings indicate that saying this is an understatement is an understatement.
My findings indicate that saying this is an understatement is an understatement.
1
I always hear that there's not much difference between the parties and I beg to differ except on one key, crucial point: Neither party listens to its membership, to its base.
The Republicans see it in the uncontrollable rise of the Tea Party and now Trump.
Among Democrats, OTOH, the response has been apathy, as listless, cookie-cutter candidates who have all the charisma of a wet mop are our only choice. Our embattled Sen. Menendez here in NJ and Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the DNC Chair are perfect examples of constant party failures. 2010 and 2014 were disasters for the party. Is it any wonder that young Progressives are turning to this era's quixotic Eugene McCarthy, ie, Bernie Sanders?
Not being a Republican I cannot speak to how they mistreat their members, but I can speak to how the Democratic Party does the same. Not once has ANYONE in the leadership ever asked me or anyone I know what WE think the party should do in terms of either political strategy or positions. Despite having made significant donations in the past, my voice, and my fellows' have been ignored. Yet everyday my in-box is FILLED with endless exhortations to give more and more and more money. Never am I asked what I think, will I help stuff envelopes, make calls, or, more importantly, will I help register voters and ferry them on election day.
Can this be fixed? Not when this Supreme Court prefers corporate control over the political system to that of real citizens.
The Republicans see it in the uncontrollable rise of the Tea Party and now Trump.
Among Democrats, OTOH, the response has been apathy, as listless, cookie-cutter candidates who have all the charisma of a wet mop are our only choice. Our embattled Sen. Menendez here in NJ and Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the DNC Chair are perfect examples of constant party failures. 2010 and 2014 were disasters for the party. Is it any wonder that young Progressives are turning to this era's quixotic Eugene McCarthy, ie, Bernie Sanders?
Not being a Republican I cannot speak to how they mistreat their members, but I can speak to how the Democratic Party does the same. Not once has ANYONE in the leadership ever asked me or anyone I know what WE think the party should do in terms of either political strategy or positions. Despite having made significant donations in the past, my voice, and my fellows' have been ignored. Yet everyday my in-box is FILLED with endless exhortations to give more and more and more money. Never am I asked what I think, will I help stuff envelopes, make calls, or, more importantly, will I help register voters and ferry them on election day.
Can this be fixed? Not when this Supreme Court prefers corporate control over the political system to that of real citizens.
1
How did we get to thinking that spending more on schools will reduce inequality. Have you been to Chicago or DC? Minnesota spends 52% of the state budget on K-12 and has the highest racial gap in achievement. Sorry, it's not that simple. But then I read that "President Obama could require contractors to disclose political contributions" and I see this for what it is... more liberal soft thinking.
1
Certainly education improvement deserves a high position on the repair list, but then so do infrastructure repair and an increase in work opportunities to name just a few. From the way this pre-election campaigning is forming, money is everything and that throws the issue of "equality" out the door.
Ordinary schmordinry! I would love to think my voice mattered.
Ordinary schmordinry! I would love to think my voice mattered.
1
"Martin Gilens of Princeton University and Benjamin I. Page of Northwestern University found that in policy-making, views of ordinary citizens essentially don’t matter. They examined 1,779 policy issues and found that attitudes of wealthy people and of business groups mattered a great deal to the final outcome — but that preferences of average citizens were almost irrelevant."
The wealthy, unrestrained by the Citizen United decision, are in almost full control of the Republic. Jane Meyer's "Dark Money" presents a compelling case for concluding that the American democracy is owned by the Koch brothers and their wealthy friends whose money buys the politicians only to happy to support their agenda.
The wealthy, unrestrained by the Citizen United decision, are in almost full control of the Republic. Jane Meyer's "Dark Money" presents a compelling case for concluding that the American democracy is owned by the Koch brothers and their wealthy friends whose money buys the politicians only to happy to support their agenda.
2
I was surprised that neither this article, nor the comments I read here, proffered the most obvious solution to this problem...term limits. If a large percentage of congressional politicians were at the end of their terms and ineligible for re-election in each election cycle, there would be significantly fewer "politicians for sale" every election cycle. As it is, every house and senate member is for sale every 2 or 6 years respectively.
2
Yes to the issue of fairness raised in this op-ed, but not without noting that America is a representative democracy, not a direct democracy. As such, the majority never have the final say on any issue. We delegate that authority to those we vote into office. Changing for whom we vote is presumably the way we can change these outcomes. What seems to be more prevalent this election cycle is the realization among a broader swath of citizens that even if we change our votes, the system in which those we elect operates does not change.
1
The system has been corrupted but not by money but by practices that no longer lead to results. For example, legislating used to be like "sausage making". Battles in smoke-filled rooms produced deals.
Legislation didn't belong to any one party or president. It wasn't simply a political tool -- or cudgel -- that it's become today.
Today the legislative process has been hijacked by party leaders (like Reid and McConnell) who use the it to score political points. Even the president has hijacked it by going around Congress when it won't do what he wants.
There's little room for independent thinking. They are expected to stick to the party line (handed down from above), repeat talking points but say nothing else - unless it's to bash the other party. There, creativity and initiative is encouraged.
The legislative process needs a serious overhaul, but the old adage comes to mind, "When the fish stinks, check the head." Maybe it just needs a stronger leader. Left unchecked, large organizations have a way of spiraling out of control.
Legislation didn't belong to any one party or president. It wasn't simply a political tool -- or cudgel -- that it's become today.
Today the legislative process has been hijacked by party leaders (like Reid and McConnell) who use the it to score political points. Even the president has hijacked it by going around Congress when it won't do what he wants.
There's little room for independent thinking. They are expected to stick to the party line (handed down from above), repeat talking points but say nothing else - unless it's to bash the other party. There, creativity and initiative is encouraged.
The legislative process needs a serious overhaul, but the old adage comes to mind, "When the fish stinks, check the head." Maybe it just needs a stronger leader. Left unchecked, large organizations have a way of spiraling out of control.
1
It's way past time to put away the ruse of democratic rule which the elite have been so brilliant at foisting on the "majority". America was founded as a plutocracy with careful planning to keep it that way. I'm not sorry to upset those who felt America was an exceptional experiment in majority rule. They need to lose their childish delusions.
1
One part of the solution is to leverage the visibility with the tools available today. Let's setup a foundation that makes very visible donations by source to each member of congress and the senate and for each bill - the degree of donor impact as well as the vote - or non-vote.
And then on the 10 key topics --- positions
We, as citizens must be active in seeing, sharing, and discussing the records --- peer pressure is an effective tool.
Let's track % of time on fund raising. Steve Israel just published a report indicting that he spent 40% of his time raising $.
And then on the 10 key topics --- positions
We, as citizens must be active in seeing, sharing, and discussing the records --- peer pressure is an effective tool.
Let's track % of time on fund raising. Steve Israel just published a report indicting that he spent 40% of his time raising $.
The solution is Bernie Sanders. Any other vote contributes to the problem, not the solution. Without him, we continue to travel the road of injustices, where average citizens are ignored by all three branches of government. It would be better if America sat the election out than elect another shill for the oligarchy and that includes Clinton. I am optimistic that Sanders will prevail. Americans are ready for a real voice and a seat at the table instead of frustrating, silent servitude. Go Bernie!!
6
Your statistic on Wall Street bonuses should lead one too ask how that's possible. In most business segments huge profits attract competition that tends to compress the extremes. That this hasn't happened for decades tells me that something artificial maintains the spread. Other than slanted politics what could that be?
3
"“I think any candidate seriously aiming to reduce inequality would have a mild increase in tax on the rich to fund higher school spending,” says Nicholas Bloom, a Stanford expert on inequality." Why so tame?
Here's a better proposal: tax all personal wealth over $50 million at 100% and redistribute it directly to those making less than $50,000 annually.
Why funnel redistribution through government programs that may or may not make a difference to economic inequality down the line? Just redistribute the wealth.
Here's a better proposal: tax all personal wealth over $50 million at 100% and redistribute it directly to those making less than $50,000 annually.
Why funnel redistribution through government programs that may or may not make a difference to economic inequality down the line? Just redistribute the wealth.
3
That will solve absolutely nothing--most especially in stemming tide of so many Americans living in poverty-- but fill a larger share of already leaking buckets. Have you checked how much on average a U.S. household reporting an annual income of $250,000 has saved for retirement? Or looked at how widespread home/auto insurance, health and disability fraud is in this country today and at what income groups are filing the largest shares of those claims? It's not the poor or 1%, for that matter. Throwing more tax cuts and money at anyone makes absolutely no sense until we agree on how to get our fiscal house in order and eliminate the deficit.
1
Gee, I wish I had been one of those big Powerball winners. I know exactly what I would do with my many millions.
I would spend a good part of it on politicians in some state. Buy them. Lock,stock and barrel. Here are the laws I want passed. Here is the script. Erect a life-size statue of me in front of the Capitol.
Cynical? Yes,indeed.
I wouldn't be the first to do this but at least my winnings would go to benefit the voiceless working class who are ignored by the politicians today.
I would spend a good part of it on politicians in some state. Buy them. Lock,stock and barrel. Here are the laws I want passed. Here is the script. Erect a life-size statue of me in front of the Capitol.
Cynical? Yes,indeed.
I wouldn't be the first to do this but at least my winnings would go to benefit the voiceless working class who are ignored by the politicians today.
1
Sure, more than ever money runs politics and money buys more money for those who already have it. How does it do this? By catering to the human lust for hate and the votes it brings. Donald Trump is the embodiment of the power and unfairness of money in today's political and economic climate. Yet his poll numbers stay high simply because he is so adept at stoking that lust. He isn't the only one to do this, nor is he anywhere near the first. But really, all that is "broken" in our country today is ours (we the people's) to own.
So its taken an election campaign for Kristof and NYT editorial page to wake up to the fact that America is unfair. Were it that simple! We're not just unfair but as the news pages in recent days will attest, we in the West have a penchant for pointing fingers of culpability for just about everything at everyone but ourselves as a nation. Putin's fingerprints are on a spy's killing but the fact that ours have been attached to those of others gets short shrift. Ditto with Assad, who we are led to believe has slaughtered hundreds of thousands of his own innocent people and, our government insists, should be tossed out of office. Did the world ask us to do that when George W. Bush was responsible for doing the same in Iraq and Afghanistan, after lying repeatedly to get us into those occupation-wars? I also can't be the only one who finds it ironic that our country appears fixated on blaming the 1% and wealth gap for everything that ails us and yet the supposed front-runners from both parties right now are among those very same elites. Mr. Kristof should take a deep breath and look around him, read his own editorial pages and stop pointing fingers. He's part of a generation (as am I) who have made a fine mess of our personal, political and civic lives over the past four or so decades blaming everyone but ourselves for own our moral and ethical lapses. Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are daily reminders of how far we have strayed as a nation.
2
The disenfranchisement of ordinary citizens has increasingly occurred since the presidency of Ronald Reagan. No surprises in this story.
4
There is only one thing that matters more to a politician than campaign contributions and that's a vote.
No billionaire can contribute enough to overcome the politician losing at the polls.
So you don't even need to address campaign finance reform.
Compulsory voting........
If the politicians have to take into account every vote from every sexual, racial, ethnic, educational, and class group in his constituency that would negate any amount that campaign financing, super PACS, and undeclared funding could ever amass.
100% voter turnout = 100% politician attention
No billionaire can contribute enough to overcome the politician losing at the polls.
So you don't even need to address campaign finance reform.
Compulsory voting........
If the politicians have to take into account every vote from every sexual, racial, ethnic, educational, and class group in his constituency that would negate any amount that campaign financing, super PACS, and undeclared funding could ever amass.
100% voter turnout = 100% politician attention
22
US schools simply do not teach enough civics for most of the population to have a clue.
3
The first and essential step is campaign finance reform and short election cycles. It's ridiculous that campaigns start a year and a half before elections. Other more sensible countries have three months of campaigning.
The difficulty is that the current state of affairs is predominantly the result of the actions of politicians and in order to remedy the problem these same politicians must be persuaded to vote against their own interests. But since they have so rigged the electoral process it is likely a Sisyphean task.
8
As the President said, their has to be an end to politicians picking their voters instead of voters picking their politicians.
1
Our system is not perfect. Gosh, point to a system that works better. The average person living in poverty in America has 43x the income (including entitlements and subsidies) of the average resident of the world. Only in America are the poor watching cable television, while texting on their cell phone, while the air conditioner whirrs in the background. Ah, yes our system has inequality but compared to Venezuela and other failed socialist experiments, it's working quite well in the United States.
13
You are right, only in the U.S. are poor people capable of buying useless goods while being denied fundamental rights such as higher education and healthcare. The other countries in the world definitely have other values and considerations for their poor populations...
2
This Times pick shows the moderators try to pick a really complete range of views, even the most unrealistic and outlandish, to show the Times is 'fair and balanced' I guess. Good, we see how the rw thinks.
Fact is, there are dozens of democracies as positive role models,with systems that work better than the US, with more equality as OECD stats show, and wider democratic representation in their politics, due to public funding in elections.
Canada is only a bus ride away---it's had h/c for all since the 1960s and in 2008 didn't have a bank, crash, due to sensible regulations. And that was even with the conservatives in power.
The US creates more lower classes inevitably, with its big money directed politics, and the world's most expensive elections.
Fact is, there are dozens of democracies as positive role models,with systems that work better than the US, with more equality as OECD stats show, and wider democratic representation in their politics, due to public funding in elections.
Canada is only a bus ride away---it's had h/c for all since the 1960s and in 2008 didn't have a bank, crash, due to sensible regulations. And that was even with the conservatives in power.
The US creates more lower classes inevitably, with its big money directed politics, and the world's most expensive elections.
2
This is America. I submit that we are better than the world and much better than Venezuela. We can and should have higher standards than Venezuela. The fact is the gini coefficient is at it's worst point in United States history. On any objective measure of income opportunity, income mobility, share of GDP earned by Labor, minimum wage purchasing power parity, etc etc, we are failing.
We must do better. We must understand that without a thriving middle class, this nation is economically doomed. Wealth Concentration at levels not seen since the European Royalty of centuries ago is present in our current US system. You are now statistically more likely to be born to wealth than to earn it legitimately. More wealth is generated by rent seeking, government monopoly grant and predatory behavior than ever before.
If capitalism is to be saved there are a few things we must realize.
1- Unlimited wealth concentration will destroy free market capitalism. You must have robust wealth taxation or robust estate taxation. Take your pick. You can have reasonable inherited wealth to ensure the viability of a family business legacy without creating royalty.
2- Minimum Wage pegged to the median wage w/ inflation adjustments are essential.
3- Trade must be fair, not free. Poor living standards, slave wages, environmental destruction & currency manipulation are not comparative advantages. Comparative advantages are things like mass education, infrastructure investment & natural resources.
We must do better. We must understand that without a thriving middle class, this nation is economically doomed. Wealth Concentration at levels not seen since the European Royalty of centuries ago is present in our current US system. You are now statistically more likely to be born to wealth than to earn it legitimately. More wealth is generated by rent seeking, government monopoly grant and predatory behavior than ever before.
If capitalism is to be saved there are a few things we must realize.
1- Unlimited wealth concentration will destroy free market capitalism. You must have robust wealth taxation or robust estate taxation. Take your pick. You can have reasonable inherited wealth to ensure the viability of a family business legacy without creating royalty.
2- Minimum Wage pegged to the median wage w/ inflation adjustments are essential.
3- Trade must be fair, not free. Poor living standards, slave wages, environmental destruction & currency manipulation are not comparative advantages. Comparative advantages are things like mass education, infrastructure investment & natural resources.
3
I believe the distorted political landscape is not just that voters do not turn up and vote in their own interest, but also a result of the media's inflated coverage of 25% of the electorate that is unhinged, authoritarian and voting for one of the two demagogues, Trump or Cruz. So a majority is left out and a shrill minority dominates. A recipe for disaster!
1
First, Mr. Kristof, Americans aren't angry at Muslims. They are angry at their government officials for not listening to them and taking their security concerns seriously, which was a point made in your column. Ditto for immigration policy. How many Americans actually support Obama's having weakened immigration enforcement (please, no false claims about increasing deportation)?
As for the theory that the views of ordinary Americans don't matter, true but only up to a point. Americans have the most powerful tool at their disposal -- that is, their votes. If they choose not to use that tool, why blame those who step in to fill the void?
There are plenty of "interest groups" who have nothing to do with business but put plenty of pressure on politicians. Do you also oppose the influence of gay rights' activists and Planned Parenthood?
As for money and politics, I'm not really buying that either. Sure, it incenses people (and is a wildly popular Democratic meme), but all that money hasn't elected a candidate yet whom the American people didn't want. They can spend billions but can only try to influence opinion. Just as our super successful candidates do, like our current president.
As for the theory that the views of ordinary Americans don't matter, true but only up to a point. Americans have the most powerful tool at their disposal -- that is, their votes. If they choose not to use that tool, why blame those who step in to fill the void?
There are plenty of "interest groups" who have nothing to do with business but put plenty of pressure on politicians. Do you also oppose the influence of gay rights' activists and Planned Parenthood?
As for money and politics, I'm not really buying that either. Sure, it incenses people (and is a wildly popular Democratic meme), but all that money hasn't elected a candidate yet whom the American people didn't want. They can spend billions but can only try to influence opinion. Just as our super successful candidates do, like our current president.
7
The big money people now control the whole process INCLUDING who runs for office.
1
Deus02:
Let's see how it turns out for Bernie and Hillary as far as big money picking our candidates.
Let's see how it turns out for Bernie and Hillary as far as big money picking our candidates.
2
As a liberal and longtime Times reader, it's exasperating to me that
liberal politicians and columnists seem to pass up opportunities
to re-frame major issues in ways that would make sense to
conservatives, as well as to the rest of the "masses."
For example: A major concern of Kristof's is early childhood
education. Here he refers to it as a "civil rights" issue.
But it's also a long-term investment in human capital. What
conservative would be against wise investment?
Another: The Keynesian notion of the government going into
debt to stimulate the economy by spending, say, on public
works. At low prices prevalent in a recession, the government
would be getting a bargain. What conservative would be against
getting a good deal?
Another: Immigrants are nearly all hard-working people who
are anxious to fit in to their adopted country. What conservative
would not want to add to the sum of loyalty to the American cause?
And what about income inequality as a power issue? Steeply
progressive taxation should be welcomed by conservatives as a
way to limit centralization of the power of wealth, just as our
federal system limits centralization of government power.
liberal politicians and columnists seem to pass up opportunities
to re-frame major issues in ways that would make sense to
conservatives, as well as to the rest of the "masses."
For example: A major concern of Kristof's is early childhood
education. Here he refers to it as a "civil rights" issue.
But it's also a long-term investment in human capital. What
conservative would be against wise investment?
Another: The Keynesian notion of the government going into
debt to stimulate the economy by spending, say, on public
works. At low prices prevalent in a recession, the government
would be getting a bargain. What conservative would be against
getting a good deal?
Another: Immigrants are nearly all hard-working people who
are anxious to fit in to their adopted country. What conservative
would not want to add to the sum of loyalty to the American cause?
And what about income inequality as a power issue? Steeply
progressive taxation should be welcomed by conservatives as a
way to limit centralization of the power of wealth, just as our
federal system limits centralization of government power.
3
I am very glad Kristof has picked up on the angry mood of Americans. However, more funding for education is not the first answer. First, we need dramatic campaign finance reform, second we need an end to gerrymandered Congressional districts, and third we need very strong ethics/anti-corruption laws that hold both private and public sector individuals with power to standards of fairness and decency. Once we start wringing out the corruption, then we can start discussing what to do next--and expect a rational conversation.
4
No Job No Equality
The distribution of wealth is a bit like IQ and just as hard to change. If your IQ is below 100, higher education is a waste of time. If your IQ is between 100 and 115 you may be attending college to graduate in the bottom of the class (someone has to), burden yourself with student loans (Obama thinks you should try), and guarantee that graduation (even from the mediocre college that accepted you) will be a 50-50 endeavor.
Equality demands that the dumb, the downtrodden and the uncompetitive of society earn enough to support their family. Hard work, even if not so highly skilled, must be rewarded. One should not have to join the military or a civil service union to be appreciated.
Full employment is the only way to raise minimum salaries without the risk of job losses. This can be achieved with guaranteed jobs achieved primarily through two reforms. First, replace the job killing payroll taxes with a 4% VAT and 8% C corporation rate. Second, require charities to create transitional jobs (at a little below private sector rates) as a condition for tax deductible contributions. There is no need to worry about the charities who have acquired eight times the net wealth of the poorer half of the population (and waste much of it). There is no more important work of charity than giving suitable work to someone in need.
The market correction and the soon-to-start Obamacare business penalties will make us all look fondly at the days of 5% unemployment.
The distribution of wealth is a bit like IQ and just as hard to change. If your IQ is below 100, higher education is a waste of time. If your IQ is between 100 and 115 you may be attending college to graduate in the bottom of the class (someone has to), burden yourself with student loans (Obama thinks you should try), and guarantee that graduation (even from the mediocre college that accepted you) will be a 50-50 endeavor.
Equality demands that the dumb, the downtrodden and the uncompetitive of society earn enough to support their family. Hard work, even if not so highly skilled, must be rewarded. One should not have to join the military or a civil service union to be appreciated.
Full employment is the only way to raise minimum salaries without the risk of job losses. This can be achieved with guaranteed jobs achieved primarily through two reforms. First, replace the job killing payroll taxes with a 4% VAT and 8% C corporation rate. Second, require charities to create transitional jobs (at a little below private sector rates) as a condition for tax deductible contributions. There is no need to worry about the charities who have acquired eight times the net wealth of the poorer half of the population (and waste much of it). There is no more important work of charity than giving suitable work to someone in need.
The market correction and the soon-to-start Obamacare business penalties will make us all look fondly at the days of 5% unemployment.
1
It is amazing to me that supporters of Bernie Sanders consistently believe that by electing him all the big problems will be addressed. This is a government in which the President can point to a direction or an action to take, but it is the Congress that has to implement or go along.
Right now, and probably until the 2020 census provides a reason to redraw election districts, our Congress, especially the House, is likely to remain in Republican hands. That means a minimum of four more years of head up their butts climate denial, cost cutting of major social needs, hidden increases in the cost of government by lowering taxes on corporations and the wealthy, infrastructure and governmental support starvation etc.
Only a rejection of Republican representation by big numbers of moderate voters in the states can alter four more years of do-nothingism and antagonism to the needs of average citizens. Barring some revelatory and negative action about the Right (even the Flint poisoning won't change Michigan's state or local governments) this is very unlikely. What I would like to hear is how, exactly, just holding his more liberal views can change the voting pattern in Congress. Let us remember that Presidents are not kings, and even FDR would have accomplished little without both houses of Congress dominated by his own party. I am not sanguine about our future given the mind set of many poorly informed voters.
Right now, and probably until the 2020 census provides a reason to redraw election districts, our Congress, especially the House, is likely to remain in Republican hands. That means a minimum of four more years of head up their butts climate denial, cost cutting of major social needs, hidden increases in the cost of government by lowering taxes on corporations and the wealthy, infrastructure and governmental support starvation etc.
Only a rejection of Republican representation by big numbers of moderate voters in the states can alter four more years of do-nothingism and antagonism to the needs of average citizens. Barring some revelatory and negative action about the Right (even the Flint poisoning won't change Michigan's state or local governments) this is very unlikely. What I would like to hear is how, exactly, just holding his more liberal views can change the voting pattern in Congress. Let us remember that Presidents are not kings, and even FDR would have accomplished little without both houses of Congress dominated by his own party. I am not sanguine about our future given the mind set of many poorly informed voters.
6
Bonnie:
It's not just gerrymandering that has led to republican wins. Rejection is already at work.
Republican gains, in all levels of state governments, can be directly attributed to the policies of this president, starting with the period in which he had a near majority.
It's time for democrats to start looking at themselves. Their outward focus on the evil republicans has left them blind to their own party's significant weaknesses.
It's not just gerrymandering that has led to republican wins. Rejection is already at work.
Republican gains, in all levels of state governments, can be directly attributed to the policies of this president, starting with the period in which he had a near majority.
It's time for democrats to start looking at themselves. Their outward focus on the evil republicans has left them blind to their own party's significant weaknesses.
3
There are many fine suggestions among the comments posted for this article. There are two evolving structural changes to our nation that truly frighten me.
We are on the verge of creating a hereditary upper-class. Some families already managed that; the Rockefellers, Vanderbilts, and DuPonts. Once billionaire elites can pass their wealth along to their children untaxed and intact, Democracy in the USA is all but over. At the moment, one third of all American billionaires inherited their money.
We have also created a professional military class in this country to reduce the political fallout of sending troops to war. These are the best soldiers ever fielded by this country, but they are cut off from the rest of our society and asked to spend decades fighting our endless wars instead of mere months or years. They are then abandoned by those who demanded such sacrifice of them. This group follows orders. Where those orders originate is now in flux. An unscrupulous leader elected by money or populist anger has a ready tool to hand to "set things right." It has happened before, and that is why our nation's founders did not want a professional military.
We are on the verge of creating a hereditary upper-class. Some families already managed that; the Rockefellers, Vanderbilts, and DuPonts. Once billionaire elites can pass their wealth along to their children untaxed and intact, Democracy in the USA is all but over. At the moment, one third of all American billionaires inherited their money.
We have also created a professional military class in this country to reduce the political fallout of sending troops to war. These are the best soldiers ever fielded by this country, but they are cut off from the rest of our society and asked to spend decades fighting our endless wars instead of mere months or years. They are then abandoned by those who demanded such sacrifice of them. This group follows orders. Where those orders originate is now in flux. An unscrupulous leader elected by money or populist anger has a ready tool to hand to "set things right." It has happened before, and that is why our nation's founders did not want a professional military.
2
So where is another Roosevelt - Theodore or Franklin Delano - when we need one? And, please, don't just blame the voters. A choice amongst candidates who are all heavily financed by big corporations is, frankly, little choice at all. No wonder Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump attract so much attention. They are the only candidates in this year's horse race who show any independence from the puppet-string pullers of Big Money. The rest? As our British friends like to say, nothing but a bunch of muppets.
But one thing voters can do is give some good nudges to what's supposed to be representing them in Congress on issues that really count - such as online privacy laws that would finally regulate the now-indiscriminate use of any information on or about you by corporations and other private entities (Such as colleges. In case you've wondered why cyberbullying victims have been known to commit suicide, here's a clue.). And let's also throw in H1-B, the infamous work visa program that's made it hard for our own STEM graduates to find jobs unless they have perfect transcripts from the 'right' schools and look like something out of a modeling or muscle mag. And why do we allow our own government to actually subsidize this ridiculous Gilded Age mentality by throwing money at schools that maintain that favorite corporate weed-out, the abusive so-called 'Greek' system of fraternities and sororities, along with absurd admissions criteria that guarantee only the wealthy a chance? Enough!
But one thing voters can do is give some good nudges to what's supposed to be representing them in Congress on issues that really count - such as online privacy laws that would finally regulate the now-indiscriminate use of any information on or about you by corporations and other private entities (Such as colleges. In case you've wondered why cyberbullying victims have been known to commit suicide, here's a clue.). And let's also throw in H1-B, the infamous work visa program that's made it hard for our own STEM graduates to find jobs unless they have perfect transcripts from the 'right' schools and look like something out of a modeling or muscle mag. And why do we allow our own government to actually subsidize this ridiculous Gilded Age mentality by throwing money at schools that maintain that favorite corporate weed-out, the abusive so-called 'Greek' system of fraternities and sororities, along with absurd admissions criteria that guarantee only the wealthy a chance? Enough!
2
Nicholas, your article was like a musical work that leaves out the final chord and leaves the audience unsatisfied.
You start off by invoking Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders. Then you dismiss Donald Trump, you go on to expand on the dissatisfactions of ordinary people and how our politics does (do?) nothing to help them and finally you refer to constructive post-election reforms, pointing to those that were enacted in the Gilded Age.
Where was your final chord? The more Times columns I read (whether news or editorial), the more it looks like there’s an unspoken – maybe even spoken – rule at the Times that even its more sympathetic columnists will not write Bernie Sanders’ name in a favorable context.
You start off by invoking Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders. Then you dismiss Donald Trump, you go on to expand on the dissatisfactions of ordinary people and how our politics does (do?) nothing to help them and finally you refer to constructive post-election reforms, pointing to those that were enacted in the Gilded Age.
Where was your final chord? The more Times columns I read (whether news or editorial), the more it looks like there’s an unspoken – maybe even spoken – rule at the Times that even its more sympathetic columnists will not write Bernie Sanders’ name in a favorable context.
9
Well, duh! The author would also probably be distressed to find that the U.S. is NOT a democracy; it is a republic. The Founding Fathers knew their history and knew that rule by the mob (democracy) frequently led to poor "what's in it for me" decision making (i.e., voting) by the masses, as opposed to rational, "big picture" voting by their "betters," (viz., property owners and those who had a bigger stake in the outcome of elections.) The metaphoric analogy used in the Federalist is that the passions of the public could be cooled by pouring them into a cup, the cup being the their representatives.
3
You have misread your history. The Founders would be appalled by our descent into oligarchy and would probably find the "mob rule" of democracy as you refer to one man on vote, etc. a marked improvement over what now exists.
1
I thought we tried investing lots of money in education, and the results in terms of reducing inequality weren't that impressive... In any case, I wish the democrats would stop making this issue so unnecessarily complicated. Raise taxes, increase public and private employment. Tax and spend.
Tax the rich more more more. But tax the middle class too. And tax the poor. The weakest among us should be proud to contribute something to the public good. Montesquieu put it best: people living in a true democracy are happy (!) to pay their taxes.
The difference between public versus private efficiency is exaggerated. Any organization, public or private, can be run well or poorly. Moreover, tax dollars can be invested in private enterprise. This socialism versus capitalism thing has everyone confused. Just drop it. The postal service is not a socialist undertaking. Public expenditure has been around a long time before Karl Marx. Tax dollars also support private enterprise, for example investment in medical research.
Democrats have lost the game, because they have conceded the ideological battle and accepted that taxes are bad. My point is that we need a dramatic turn around in the public attitude toward paying tax. It is a duty, it should be on the level of military service in terms of the awe with which we praise it. There is no treason quite as bad, or quite as weakening to American military power, as the treasonous language of tax reduction.
Tax the rich more more more. But tax the middle class too. And tax the poor. The weakest among us should be proud to contribute something to the public good. Montesquieu put it best: people living in a true democracy are happy (!) to pay their taxes.
The difference between public versus private efficiency is exaggerated. Any organization, public or private, can be run well or poorly. Moreover, tax dollars can be invested in private enterprise. This socialism versus capitalism thing has everyone confused. Just drop it. The postal service is not a socialist undertaking. Public expenditure has been around a long time before Karl Marx. Tax dollars also support private enterprise, for example investment in medical research.
Democrats have lost the game, because they have conceded the ideological battle and accepted that taxes are bad. My point is that we need a dramatic turn around in the public attitude toward paying tax. It is a duty, it should be on the level of military service in terms of the awe with which we praise it. There is no treason quite as bad, or quite as weakening to American military power, as the treasonous language of tax reduction.
3
Channeling frustration into constructive public policy may indeed have been done before, and a failure to hope is pointlessly sterile. Still, in today's climate, Mr. Kristof presents us with a very steep challenge.
Iowan GOP voters today have a singular choice between Trump/Palin versus Cruz/Beck. As such will voters favor pandering to the oil and gas lobby or to the ethanol lobby? Ordinary citizens have no place in crafting alternatives to this morbid dichotomy.
"Democracy" has turned into an ugly mutation of itself. Constructive change may be possible, as indeed it must me, but it will be a Promethean task and the process itself will almost surely be ugly, too.
www.endthemadnessnow.org
Iowan GOP voters today have a singular choice between Trump/Palin versus Cruz/Beck. As such will voters favor pandering to the oil and gas lobby or to the ethanol lobby? Ordinary citizens have no place in crafting alternatives to this morbid dichotomy.
"Democracy" has turned into an ugly mutation of itself. Constructive change may be possible, as indeed it must me, but it will be a Promethean task and the process itself will almost surely be ugly, too.
www.endthemadnessnow.org
1
Some commenters seem to think Kristof is proposing "Soak the Rich" as the answer for the country's ills. I don't think he's saying that. All that most liberals want is for wealthy people to pay the same share the rest of us pay. Instead, they are singled out for special favors from a government that increasingly looks more plutocratic than democratic. To have those least in need of government help deciding what government will do turns our republic into one large plantation where those who do the work---while not in slavery---are dependent on the generosity of those who control the bulk of the country's assets. It's true that the super-rich are not monolithically miserly. There are people like Warren Buffett, George Soros, et al. who are willing to pay their fair share toward the common good, but others seem content to wall themselves off from the "rabble" or salve their conscience by serving on a charity board. No one is asking that the very wealthy be stripped of their Lexuses, Rollexes and Learjets. We are simply asking them to forego some of the special benefits our legislators feel obliged to bestow upon them. The majority should not have to go hat in hand to the ruling elite to beg for a living wage, safe drinking water and decent schools.
4
Exactly. The average person buys a car because he needs it to commute to work. There is no lever for him to get depreciation of this vehicle, certainly not accelerated. So why do the wealthy get this very special privilege on something that is not even in the same league of necessity as that regular person's car purchase?
1
The Oregon domestic terror situation that claims to be about ranchers' rights is a symptom a social and economic sickness within that community. It differs from the other examples you cite because it is not about a disenfranchised public railing against the elites. In fact, the Oregon occupation, like the Nevada occupation that preceded it, are more about excluding the citizenry from using lands we all hold in common. The so-called "sage brush rebellion" is a protest engineered by privileged elites who want even more than the disproportionate share of our natural resources with which they are already favored.
6
Once again the media states that the wealthiest pay taxes. This is the biggest lie in the media. The fact is that they pay no taxes. Nearly all of them own 1 corporation which they will not sell, so they pay no taxes. Until these brilliant columinsts understand that, we will never get to justice in the tax system.
2
Although I totally agree that the unequal distribution of assets ipso facto opportunities needs to be balanced, a visit to Mt. Vernon or Monticello might impart a retrospective view of the historical unequal distribution of assets and influence of the wealthy in this country. Indeed, this is reflected in every aspect at those estates from cradle to grave.
2
At the root of the inequality is the absurd belief that stocks must show growth that would have been astronomical only 30 years ago. It's not the health or effectiveness of a publicly held company -- it's the stock price. It's led to corner-cutting on Wall Street, and a take-no-prisoners attitude. Meanwhile, blue collar folks who often times work for the publicly held companies are forced to work more hours, perform multiple jobs, and take fewer and fewer pay increases, in order to bolster bottom lines and spike stock prices. This from a small business owner who works with other small businesses nationwide, watching them struggle to not only feed their families, but protect as many of their own employees as possible. It's so obvious that deregulation messed up Wall Street, I just can't understand why rank-and-file blue collars support Republicans who time after time enact policies that lay waste to blue collar futures.
4
If this post appears below it shouldn't have.
I am glad you, as a small business owner, said this about stocks. I have believed for some time the stock market thing is a huge problem. With the advent of (401)k retirement funds, and the demise of pension funds, more people are now tied to the stock market. They want their retirement funds to expand exponentially, but his requires making less money now so the bottom lines of corporations increase. It's a catch-22.
And the Republicans and financial advisers and Wall Street are in favor of it so they can skim off, rake in, lprobably more truthful, their fees and commissions. Thus the push to privatize Social Security.
And then every time the market tanks, they lose and have to start over.
I am glad you, as a small business owner, said this about stocks. I have believed for some time the stock market thing is a huge problem. With the advent of (401)k retirement funds, and the demise of pension funds, more people are now tied to the stock market. They want their retirement funds to expand exponentially, but his requires making less money now so the bottom lines of corporations increase. It's a catch-22.
And the Republicans and financial advisers and Wall Street are in favor of it so they can skim off, rake in, lprobably more truthful, their fees and commissions. Thus the push to privatize Social Security.
And then every time the market tanks, they lose and have to start over.
2
It's ironic that our largely non-wealthy politicians have been co-opted by wealthy economic interests to perpetuate systems that advance those interests at the expense of the less fortunate. The allure of affluent power has always been more enthralling than the empowerment of the lowly. The formulation of sensible policies and reforms alone, such as academics and think-tankers suggest, cannot break this spell alone. In this age where consciousness seems to have been colonized by mass media, we need more networks and outlets who champion, rather than ignore, denigrate, or scapegoat, the glory of the potentiality of the poor and the strength that derives from a diverse society.
2
Several months ago, in response to a question by John McLaughlin, Mort Zuckerman said he "could live with" either HRC or Jeb! indicating that the then leading candidates of the two parties were acceptable to plutocrats and oligarchs. Regardless of rhetoric, American presidents, from Reagan to Obama, have been within the 40-yard lines in respect of policies.
American politicians have changed greatly since a Republican congressman during WWI said that if people were conscripted, so should capital and income. W. paid for the incursion in, and occupation of, Iraq with income producing debt purchased by the wealthy, and the blood sold for nothing by the enlisted military personnel.
Thucidides may have been correct in a universal manner that he didn't fully foresee when he wrote his history of the Peloponnesian War: the strong do what they can, the weak suffer what they must. Each president, of wither party, since Reagan knew where he made his bed.
Does the body politic have to be reformed with a decapitation, or can it be reformed in a significant and substantial way? Where is Robespierre, or even TR and Sen. Sherman?
American politicians have changed greatly since a Republican congressman during WWI said that if people were conscripted, so should capital and income. W. paid for the incursion in, and occupation of, Iraq with income producing debt purchased by the wealthy, and the blood sold for nothing by the enlisted military personnel.
Thucidides may have been correct in a universal manner that he didn't fully foresee when he wrote his history of the Peloponnesian War: the strong do what they can, the weak suffer what they must. Each president, of wither party, since Reagan knew where he made his bed.
Does the body politic have to be reformed with a decapitation, or can it be reformed in a significant and substantial way? Where is Robespierre, or even TR and Sen. Sherman?
1
I am glad you, as a business owner, said this about stocks. I have thought that for some time. However, now that pension funds have been replaced 401(k)s workers are in a quandary. They want their retirement funds to increase dramatically because they have little left to put in them, but that means they must take less in their pay checks to help the bottom line.
The Republicans, and financial advisers, and Wall Street would love to see more money go into retirement funds so they can skim off ever more for their benefit. Thus the push to privatize Social Security.
The Republicans, and financial advisers, and Wall Street would love to see more money go into retirement funds so they can skim off ever more for their benefit. Thus the push to privatize Social Security.
1
I absolutely believe education is power and would love to see all of our citizens better educated. But the premise that higher spending on education guarantees better outcomes is simply not true.
Here in St. Louis, the district that spends the most per student (funded mostly by property taxes) is also the district that lost its state accreditation and has abysmal rates for graduation, discipline issues and pretty much everything else. Throwing more and more money at the problem has not solved it.
And this is where many liberals need to wake up and face reality. There is an underlying cultural barrier in many poor communities that MUST be addressed in order for the children to succeed. It doesn't matter how much money we pour into urban schools if 70% of the kids are living in homes without fathers, in an environment where education is not valued and parental involvement is not considered important.
I don't know what the answer is, but I've seen first hand that trying to spend away the problem simply does not fix it. Teachers are not social workers, no matter how well they're paid.
Here in St. Louis, the district that spends the most per student (funded mostly by property taxes) is also the district that lost its state accreditation and has abysmal rates for graduation, discipline issues and pretty much everything else. Throwing more and more money at the problem has not solved it.
And this is where many liberals need to wake up and face reality. There is an underlying cultural barrier in many poor communities that MUST be addressed in order for the children to succeed. It doesn't matter how much money we pour into urban schools if 70% of the kids are living in homes without fathers, in an environment where education is not valued and parental involvement is not considered important.
I don't know what the answer is, but I've seen first hand that trying to spend away the problem simply does not fix it. Teachers are not social workers, no matter how well they're paid.
4
That's why early education is so critical. Low income children are the ones that desperately need the jump on early education. By the way, I live in and around some of the most affluent suburbs of Philadelphia and our schools are also directly funded by property taxes and they are excellent! Funding does usually correlate to better student outcomes.
We should spend less energy and money trying to turn schools into "homes" (ex., with meals, extra hours, etc.) and more energy and money trying to turn where these kids live into "homes."
I'll go out on a limb (at least for this paper) and say we should create a national campaign to re-introduce the concept of "personal responsibility". It's the one thing that everyone is capable of acquiring, can lift people out of negative circumstances and which, once learned, can never be taken away.
I'll go out on a limb (at least for this paper) and say we should create a national campaign to re-introduce the concept of "personal responsibility". It's the one thing that everyone is capable of acquiring, can lift people out of negative circumstances and which, once learned, can never be taken away.
3
We need to start with free and readily available contraception, layer that with sex education in school that discusses the economic realities of single parenthood (without demonizing them), and minimize the benefits of having ever more children than you can afford. If every poor family had just one or two children-- and they were adults themselves when the blessed events occurred-- they would have more inclination to actively engage in the schooling of their children from day one, as is the norm for better off and mature families,, and more inclination to volunteer in the schools as is the norm in affluent districts.
3
There are two main reasons the rich can maintain their stranglehold on the elected in office. The first is that there are no term limits to force a change in representative. The second is that the cost of mounting such a challenge has, in some areas become so prohibitively expensive that few have the resources to do so. Thus we see a rate of returning of incumbents to office far higher than what it should be if the people were truly given viable choices. Further, one can count a significant number of millionaires in Congress already, so what do these people know of the average working American? One can also, in similar fashion question the wisdom of the lifetime tenure of the Justices of the Supreme Court, I'm sure they are not without being influenced, especially given their pro-business, anti-labor decisions of recent years.
As the institutions are unlikely to reform themselves, until the people demand a change, we will be stuck with the best government money can buy.
As the institutions are unlikely to reform themselves, until the people demand a change, we will be stuck with the best government money can buy.
9
The cruel income inequalities culminating in the subprime mortgage crisis of 2008 whose collapse was caused by the greed of Wall St. as illustrated in the Academy Award nominated film, "The Big Short" was the message of Occupy Wall St. The tectonic plates that US shadow banking & the deregulation of Glass-Steagall banking laws caused radiated causing entire countries like Greece, Spain, & Portugal's economies to teeter on the brink of complete collapse. The greed of GOP politicians to coerce Clinton into deregulating one of the most corrupt sectors of the US economy continues to this day as every single one of the GOP candidates for President continues to call for more deregulation of this notoriously corrupt institution. We are in a Gilded Age although entire economies are inexorably tied together as witnessed in the jittery stock market due to China's instability. Donald Trump believes that he alone, with or without a supportive Congress, can impose stiff tariffs on Chinese goods or demand that Mexico obey his grandiose orders without considering the ramifications on the international market & the potential for loss of jobs & the risk of damaging trading partner relationships. Bernie Sanders believes we can go back to a Golden Age before global trade agreements to protect American jobs & wages. Unfortunately those days have come and gone & there's no going back. Same thing goes for funding public schooling which has collapsed due to the Charter school movement.
6
There a gaping contradiction in the average American's frustration with the system and their choice of Donald Trump as prospective leader who will give "voice" to their demands. Trump is a product of a corrupt political system, having bribed his way through the system's loopholes to make billions out of developing real estate. Trump's is the least pro-democratic of campaigns. It's very dictatorial and does not have much room for due process. He represents the acme of extreme privatization, a direction toward which America has been traveling for a while now.
Might it be that the rise of the Trump affect is not simply a reflection of "unfair" America, but also a reflection of America gone nativist? There have been some illuminating analyses of the Trump support base, comprised not of the nation's disenfranchised but of the nation's dark, thus-far-hidden, authoritarian impulse. The conditions, some say, are ripe in America, for the emergence of authoritarianism
Might it be that the rise of the Trump affect is not simply a reflection of "unfair" America, but also a reflection of America gone nativist? There have been some illuminating analyses of the Trump support base, comprised not of the nation's disenfranchised but of the nation's dark, thus-far-hidden, authoritarian impulse. The conditions, some say, are ripe in America, for the emergence of authoritarianism
6
Of course we should ensure the future for our children.
When I entered the workforce in 1981, unemployment was higher than the Great Recession, my career income arc bent forever like recent graduates today. Fortunately, the System was not as broken then as now and the recovery was quicker. Still as a young woman I was told I needed to pay my dues and earn moving up that never materialized despite much dues paying on my part. Now 56, the age that when I was young was promised to be my earning lion years from experience and knowledge valuable to the workplace. Now, those opportunities are shunted to younger workers shutting out an entire cohort of workers, hitting women especially hard.
I NEVER see this mentioned let alone taken into account for what needs to be done now. I had a sound retirement plan, had to raided it to avoid homelessmess. Serially un- and under- employed taking the only jobs I can get, still debt grows budget items like utilities, car upkeep to get to work, and medical bills not covered due to high deductibles. I have not been on a vacation since 1998, never had cable TV or current cell phone.
I'm not the type to retire but I had envisioned a more relaxed niche in the working world when older. That won't happen and old age looms in terrifying deep poverty.
We've paid in, worked hard for 30 years and am now betrayed in every way across the board. We deserve to be specifically named and included in the plans for the future too.
When I entered the workforce in 1981, unemployment was higher than the Great Recession, my career income arc bent forever like recent graduates today. Fortunately, the System was not as broken then as now and the recovery was quicker. Still as a young woman I was told I needed to pay my dues and earn moving up that never materialized despite much dues paying on my part. Now 56, the age that when I was young was promised to be my earning lion years from experience and knowledge valuable to the workplace. Now, those opportunities are shunted to younger workers shutting out an entire cohort of workers, hitting women especially hard.
I NEVER see this mentioned let alone taken into account for what needs to be done now. I had a sound retirement plan, had to raided it to avoid homelessmess. Serially un- and under- employed taking the only jobs I can get, still debt grows budget items like utilities, car upkeep to get to work, and medical bills not covered due to high deductibles. I have not been on a vacation since 1998, never had cable TV or current cell phone.
I'm not the type to retire but I had envisioned a more relaxed niche in the working world when older. That won't happen and old age looms in terrifying deep poverty.
We've paid in, worked hard for 30 years and am now betrayed in every way across the board. We deserve to be specifically named and included in the plans for the future too.
15
The reality is that the fairness and equality of our system should be immune to the tides of political change. Education should be equal, across the board, regardless of who is in office. Health care should be offered equally, across the board, no matter who sits in the White House. Voting rights should never, ever be compromised. The same can be said for many other issues that get tossed around for votes, but in the meantime, cause a lot of pain for many Americans. Only when equality is enshrined in law and enforced across the board will Americans feel that their government, local, state or federal, is actually working for them, instead of against them.
9
For Mr. Kristoff, the readers of the NY Times, and Liberals far and wide--this is of course a story about minorities being mistreated by a Republican governor--but in reality, a narrative superficial and misguided.
So many bad things have happened to Flint--with perhaps poison water being the least of it. The city was once a cog in the wheel of an industrial powerhouse--an innovative, wealthy, vibrant city where good jobs were so plentiful, southern Blacks migrated to take factory jobs and participate in the American Dream.
What happened to Flint? In a word, "Liberalism" happened--a story that has become all-too-familar. The UAW strangled the auto companies, the teachers' union ruined the schools, the city's public unions, with an insatiable demand for higher pay and benefits, drove up property taxes, while its Liberal politicians chased jobs and business away with taxes and regulation. Whites fled, the tax base imploded, crime became rampant, drug use exploded, society collapsed--as the Liberal bus followed the predicable roadmap to Disasterville.
What happened next? The State of Michigan had to assume control--because Flint's Liberal politicians proved unable to govern themselves: a smaller version of Detroit.
In my small town of 2,000, we have a water department. It has 3 employees. The water is tested, delivered, and if there are problems, they are fixed. No one blames anyone. Flint failed itself. Liberalism failed the citizens of Flint.
So many bad things have happened to Flint--with perhaps poison water being the least of it. The city was once a cog in the wheel of an industrial powerhouse--an innovative, wealthy, vibrant city where good jobs were so plentiful, southern Blacks migrated to take factory jobs and participate in the American Dream.
What happened to Flint? In a word, "Liberalism" happened--a story that has become all-too-familar. The UAW strangled the auto companies, the teachers' union ruined the schools, the city's public unions, with an insatiable demand for higher pay and benefits, drove up property taxes, while its Liberal politicians chased jobs and business away with taxes and regulation. Whites fled, the tax base imploded, crime became rampant, drug use exploded, society collapsed--as the Liberal bus followed the predicable roadmap to Disasterville.
What happened next? The State of Michigan had to assume control--because Flint's Liberal politicians proved unable to govern themselves: a smaller version of Detroit.
In my small town of 2,000, we have a water department. It has 3 employees. The water is tested, delivered, and if there are problems, they are fixed. No one blames anyone. Flint failed itself. Liberalism failed the citizens of Flint.
7
No government official should be allowed to take money from private citizens. Right now because of this practice what we have is tantamount to two houses of Lords and no house of commons. There is no one who speaks for the common man. The only solution is to take private money completely out of politics. Campaigns should be funded by money from check off boxes on tax forms where people can give a designated amount to the general campaign fund. The funds are divided among the candidates equally. Campaigns are all limited to they six weeks prior to the primary and or election. this can be done at all levels of government even when there may not be local taxes by allowing people to give a fund designated amount to a campaign fund. It is the only way to make sure that our votes are what counts and not our pocketbooks.
4
I am a retired senior citizen. Shortly before the Christmas holidays I received two traffic fines in the mail for not coming to a complete stop at an intersection before making a right turn on red. Apparently a hidden revenue-earning traffic camera installed by our local government caught me committing this dastardly deed. I had to immediately pay a $160.00 fine or lose my license. I paid the fine with money I had planned on sending to my local Veterans hospital for my monthly diabetes and heart medicine. I made the VA payment late and consequently the amount due was immediately deducted from my social security check. That check was for my rent. I managed to pay it by cutting back on my food bill for the month. I also need serious dental work but can't afford it because dental insurance isn't covered by my Medicare A and B.
There are millions of middle class Americans who have much worse problems than mine. But we all share one thing in common. We have absolutely no faith in our current government giving one damn about us.
Yeah, I know. Life is unfair.
There are millions of middle class Americans who have much worse problems than mine. But we all share one thing in common. We have absolutely no faith in our current government giving one damn about us.
Yeah, I know. Life is unfair.
10
The tax code "benefits" the wealthy because tax rates are progressive and gross income deductions for tax exempt expenditures necessarily "come off the top". The way forward is a flat tax with a standard deduction for every individual and for charities only. Capital gains can only be offset by capital losses. Total government tax revenue should be limited to a defined fraction of the GDP and and the maximum individual tax should be limited to a defined fraction of his/her income. And that's the end of it.
2
If you enforce a standard deduction, why do you need a flat tax?
1
Get rid of deductions to simplify the system, fine, but a flat tax punishes the poor.
Applying a flat-rate tax relies on the ability to estimate an individual's income. Once that is done then it is just as easy to levy a progressive tax as it is a flat-rate one, so why not do it? And why not increase the marginal rate on the top end to 90% as it was in the 50's when the economy boomed. Use part of that money to have federal funding of elections - the wealthy still get to contribute the most to campaigns, but everyone gets a fair slice of the pie and the American people are the winners.
Applying a flat-rate tax relies on the ability to estimate an individual's income. Once that is done then it is just as easy to levy a progressive tax as it is a flat-rate one, so why not do it? And why not increase the marginal rate on the top end to 90% as it was in the 50's when the economy boomed. Use part of that money to have federal funding of elections - the wealthy still get to contribute the most to campaigns, but everyone gets a fair slice of the pie and the American people are the winners.
2
Billionaires pay no taxes. That's zero. Nada. Nobody understands that.
They own 1 corporation which they will not sell. So no taxes.
We need a tax system just for billionaires.
They own 1 corporation which they will not sell. So no taxes.
We need a tax system just for billionaires.
The dismal reality of America is that we are a 2 class society. The wealthy privileged class owns America; the so-called middle-class and poor are actually a single class group that is best identified as the serf-class.
Laws are written to benefit and protect the wealthy class; meanwhile government purchased by the wealthy uses laws and policy to keep the serf-class in place with underfunded education and regressive taxes to keep the serfs constantly struggling. Not only is the tax code written to benefit the wealthy and punish the serf-class, but the wealthy are not subject to the same prosecution for crimes or the same punishments: how many wealthy were prosecuted for their crimes that led to the 2008 Great Recession? When white collar crime is prosecuted, they pay a token fine or get their wrists slapped with community service. Meanwhile if a member of the serf-class steals a loaf of bread he is likely to go to prison. How many of the serf-class could get away with drunken vehicular manslaughter based on a defense as absurd as 'affluenza'?
The deck is stacked in favor of the wealthy. We need a revolution with Bernie at the head!
Laws are written to benefit and protect the wealthy class; meanwhile government purchased by the wealthy uses laws and policy to keep the serf-class in place with underfunded education and regressive taxes to keep the serfs constantly struggling. Not only is the tax code written to benefit the wealthy and punish the serf-class, but the wealthy are not subject to the same prosecution for crimes or the same punishments: how many wealthy were prosecuted for their crimes that led to the 2008 Great Recession? When white collar crime is prosecuted, they pay a token fine or get their wrists slapped with community service. Meanwhile if a member of the serf-class steals a loaf of bread he is likely to go to prison. How many of the serf-class could get away with drunken vehicular manslaughter based on a defense as absurd as 'affluenza'?
The deck is stacked in favor of the wealthy. We need a revolution with Bernie at the head!
14
Well said. Unfairness is widespread (certainly not only in the U,S., but more acceptable in poor countries where everybody shares in the lack of resources even if perpetuated by crooks in government). That U.S. political situation is rigged, has been denounced over and over again, but to no avail. The poor, politically speaking, remain invisible and with a muzzled voice, as they cannot contribute to buying elections. Flint has come to the forefront now, with the hope that their plight is heard. And yet, their predicament seems to be echoed in many other communities where poverty, violence and marginalization are dominant. Racism seems to be 'alive and well', a persistent ugly 'blind spot' in our society. We must be educated in this unjust situation, so we can contribute in changing it for the better. But to achieve solidarity, and a spirit of inclusion in our diversity, it will require the will to proceed, as it is the right thing to do. Lest we think it will be easy, think again, as it will need courage, hard work and perseverance...and a unified voice of both parties, where 'compromise' is the name of the game.
2
While I agree with my neighbor's description of the problem, I do not agree with his statement, "...the biggest problem is not a lack of tools but a lack of will." The frustration we're seeing in the electorate is a clear symptom of 'will,' but the Supreme Court "Citizens United" decision and a corrupt Congressional process (so called 'Rules,' bundled legislation and an insensitive Supreme Court) have disabled two branches of our government. Obama, and his successor, must use the Presidential Bully Pulpit, and tools are needed (and might be provided partly by the Press) to show who votes for polluted legislation and who is opposing a Constitutional amendment to overcome a bad Supreme Court decision. The tools that exist are not very effective, but worse still, are not being used. We don't need the bluster from the Right, but we do need focus on tools of the Fourth Estate, as Mr. Kristof often provides.
3
"A basic step to equalize opportunity would be to invest in education for disadvantaged children as the civil rights issue of the 21st century."
I teach in a South Los Angeles public school that serves black and Latino children almost exclusively. While I enjoy and appreciate living in possibly the most liberal state in the country, and one in which the Republican Party is almost non-existent, our state's funding of its school system is nothing short of a disgrace.
To be properly funded to serve the children of the poor, a truly massive amount of money is required, simply for remediation and psychological support for the many stresses imposed on children of poverty. I don't think it will every happen, as the privatizers have the wealth with which to buy public relations flacks and even politicians.
Regarding public education, this country is simply breaking its promise to use it to level the playing field and provide opportunity to all.
I teach in a South Los Angeles public school that serves black and Latino children almost exclusively. While I enjoy and appreciate living in possibly the most liberal state in the country, and one in which the Republican Party is almost non-existent, our state's funding of its school system is nothing short of a disgrace.
To be properly funded to serve the children of the poor, a truly massive amount of money is required, simply for remediation and psychological support for the many stresses imposed on children of poverty. I don't think it will every happen, as the privatizers have the wealth with which to buy public relations flacks and even politicians.
Regarding public education, this country is simply breaking its promise to use it to level the playing field and provide opportunity to all.
2
Because the field that needs leveling isn't education but family life. Schools cannot be 100% responsible for education. The responsibility falls on parents as well.
3
Kristof is right in much of the conclusions he draws, but the missing piece is the JOBS piece. Without decent entry and a chance for jobs and income, any and all programs, including education and minimum wage laws will fail for the average citizen. Illegal immigration is a drag on wages, legal temporary work visas take jobs from Americans, and in many cases high paying, skilled jobs.
Without understanding this crucial piece of how the economy works, all the money in politics or out of it won't provide the necessary component to a successful life for the average citizen.
Without understanding this crucial piece of how the economy works, all the money in politics or out of it won't provide the necessary component to a successful life for the average citizen.
17
A bigger problem with government is the two party system. It has gotten even worse because of the polarization that drives the parties further apart. There are very few cases where a third party or independent gets elected. What happens now is that most incumbents get re-elected, so it doesn't matter much for the incumbent to pay attention to and represent their constituents. All they have to do is spend money to attack the other party. As far as I am concerned, having our representatives being members of a party is tge root problem because we are voting more for party membership than the individual and besides, once in they toe the party line. Better we vote for independents who would represent us on an issue by issue basis. They would be less likely to be beholden to special interests instead of their constituents because their constituents would hold the power to keep them in office or turn them out.
2
I can readily agree that all kids should have access to good educations, but we are going to achieve by this talking about "inequality (of opportunity)", which I read as "envy", one of the seven deadly sins. What other people earn legally is none of my business, or yours. The problem of truly educating all of our children is not going to be solved as long as the focus is on envy of the rich.
4
don,
what is legal is everyone's business in a truly democratic society. after all, slavery was once perfectly legal in this great nation!
what is legal is everyone's business in a truly democratic society. after all, slavery was once perfectly legal in this great nation!
1
Campaign finance reform is mostly futile, due to the fact that the SC regards money as speech. Rather, we should focus on electoral reforms that simultaneously boost turnout and enhance the representativeness of our democracy. These would entail getting rid of the plurality, single-member-district system we currently employ, in favor of some kind of plurality system (as nearly every other democracy does already). We should also enact reforms that reduce the costs of voting, while increasing the benefits. Examples include: making election day a holiday or having it on a weekend, automatic registration, making elections more decisive (filibuster reform), increasing minor party ballot access. Opening up and democratizing the electoral system will help remedy inequality by encouraging less socioeconomic disparity in turnout rates - an aspect that the Gilens and Page research overlooks. Brady, Schlozman, and Verba's 'Unheavenly Chorus' reaches the same conclusion, but identifies different reasons that are better researched - the socioeconomic disparity in political participation.
20
Well, although noble, there are two problems with your approach.
1. Campaign contributions and the whole system is now fully entrenched within the U. S. political system itself and the politicians just want to keep it that way constantly touting the idea that because their competitor is doing it they have to do it too.
2. Certainly, increased voter turnout can help, however, because now of the enormous sums of money just to get in to the game, ultimately, this controls who decides to run and who does not, so, in many ways the big money people now from beginning to end pretty much control ALL aspects of the electoral process.
As I see it, the only option for America is a totally public funded true THIRD party where candidates with the ideas of radically changing the process can run at all levels of government including President and actually get elected to office. Considering what is happening now and in to the future, I see no other alternative.
1. Campaign contributions and the whole system is now fully entrenched within the U. S. political system itself and the politicians just want to keep it that way constantly touting the idea that because their competitor is doing it they have to do it too.
2. Certainly, increased voter turnout can help, however, because now of the enormous sums of money just to get in to the game, ultimately, this controls who decides to run and who does not, so, in many ways the big money people now from beginning to end pretty much control ALL aspects of the electoral process.
As I see it, the only option for America is a totally public funded true THIRD party where candidates with the ideas of radically changing the process can run at all levels of government including President and actually get elected to office. Considering what is happening now and in to the future, I see no other alternative.
1
The world's greatest democracy is in a bind...big money dominance of elections prevents reforms. The mass of citizens don’t get represented since their elected reps must fund raise and work for their sponsor/donors.
Thus the interests of most lawmakers and the majority of citizens are completely opposed. That’s why we’re the only modern nation w/o h/c for all in the 21st century.
I’ve seen reports that there are many groups in various states working to reverse CU. But the media doesn’t cover this interesting development. No mention, even on ‘liberal’ MSNBC!
Thus these efforts can’t build up. And this, in an age of social media and messages going viral--what an irony. We’re back in the 19th C. The broad support throughout America, land of the free, for campaign finance reform is stymied because groups can’t coalesce to form strong opposition to the ruling monied elites who in effect control our govt.
Universal voting doesn’t mean much when our nominees are picked by the elites.
Thus the interests of most lawmakers and the majority of citizens are completely opposed. That’s why we’re the only modern nation w/o h/c for all in the 21st century.
I’ve seen reports that there are many groups in various states working to reverse CU. But the media doesn’t cover this interesting development. No mention, even on ‘liberal’ MSNBC!
Thus these efforts can’t build up. And this, in an age of social media and messages going viral--what an irony. We’re back in the 19th C. The broad support throughout America, land of the free, for campaign finance reform is stymied because groups can’t coalesce to form strong opposition to the ruling monied elites who in effect control our govt.
Universal voting doesn’t mean much when our nominees are picked by the elites.
I tend to be rather cynical about the practical effects of all the hyperbole one hears from candidates as we approach elections – whether it’s from Donald Trump or from Bernie Sanders; and, frankly, I’m not at all sure that whom we elect has a lot of impact on how or even whether we effectively address challenges.
I mean, Bernie Sanders is not a stupid man, and he must realize how absurd his claims are that he will be able to effect the kind of transformations he flogs when resisted by an undivided Republican Congress that disagrees with his views as completely as it does and that controls the purse-strings. In order to be elected he’s pressing emotional buttons without any real hope of delivering … every bit as much as Trump is.
The challenges underpinning “America the Unfair” are structural, and we have yet to hear from ANY candidate a vision and an ACTIONABLE plan for changing the structure to one that will make it MORE fair. That doesn’t mean that such a vision and plans can’t be developed, but merely that we haven’t heard them yet, from ANYONE. So, to many, the objective is to elect those who will do the least damage while we await another FDR or Reagan; and to many others, the objective is to elect those who merely press emotional buttons most effectively.
However, we should look to pressure small, incremental improvements, as, in the absence of an FDR or a Reagan, we’re unlikely to see transformation.
I mean, Bernie Sanders is not a stupid man, and he must realize how absurd his claims are that he will be able to effect the kind of transformations he flogs when resisted by an undivided Republican Congress that disagrees with his views as completely as it does and that controls the purse-strings. In order to be elected he’s pressing emotional buttons without any real hope of delivering … every bit as much as Trump is.
The challenges underpinning “America the Unfair” are structural, and we have yet to hear from ANY candidate a vision and an ACTIONABLE plan for changing the structure to one that will make it MORE fair. That doesn’t mean that such a vision and plans can’t be developed, but merely that we haven’t heard them yet, from ANYONE. So, to many, the objective is to elect those who will do the least damage while we await another FDR or Reagan; and to many others, the objective is to elect those who merely press emotional buttons most effectively.
However, we should look to pressure small, incremental improvements, as, in the absence of an FDR or a Reagan, we’re unlikely to see transformation.
4
Whom we elect DOES matter as you seem to agree when saying that Bernie Sanders has no hope over a Republican Congress. Who elected the Republican Congress? That's right; we did. What is true as Obama discovered is that the President is limited in what he/she can do. Gerrymandering is part of the problem, but that was a result of state elections that put the GOP in power when censuses called for redistricting. The mostly conservative so-called "think tanks" frame the issues, the media spreads the poison, and ill-informed citizens vote themselves servant status. Consider the Paul Ryan proposals for Medicare and Social Security that are billed as "saving" them! The majority rules - against itself. What a coup!
1
MK Lund:
I see little justification for your comment being offered as a response to mine, but suggest that it would be more effective as an in-line comment not associated with anyone else's. It has its own rantish quality that really doesn't address my points, although it claims to.
I see little justification for your comment being offered as a response to mine, but suggest that it would be more effective as an in-line comment not associated with anyone else's. It has its own rantish quality that really doesn't address my points, although it claims to.
2
Perhaps Bernie Sanders is taking a page out of Obama's playbook. Obama was also a serial over-promiser, and Americans never gave a thought to whether he was capable of delivering (in fact, they ignored all warnings). I sometimes think wishful-thinking Americans don't care if results are actually achieved. As long as they hear a promise of something they hold dear, they are validated -- as though their wishes had already been met.
In Trump, you see someone who talks crazily sometimes but can actually "execute". That's an attractive quality, especially now. Each time he's challenged on his proposal to stop Muslim immigration, he repeats, "We have a problem. It needs to be fixed." Hard to argue with that.
In Trump, you see someone who talks crazily sometimes but can actually "execute". That's an attractive quality, especially now. Each time he's challenged on his proposal to stop Muslim immigration, he repeats, "We have a problem. It needs to be fixed." Hard to argue with that.
3
It is obvious that the frustration and anger of much of the electorate is misdirected. Most Americans have been led to believe that wealth goes to those who deserve it, that it is un-American for government to take money from those that have much to help those that have little and that any wealth redistribution will convert the US into the USSR. So other scapegoats have to be found for the fact that they cannot get ahead no matter how hard they work. It is that they are overtaxed, it is that their taxes are used to discriminate in favor of people who do not look like them, it is that immigrants are taking all the good jobs or living on the dole, etc. These prejudices have been deliberately stoked by those running for office to deflect anger at their donors. Only Bernie has been pointing out the obvious but it will be extremely difficult to overcome a mind set so carefully nurtured over generations.
12
What percentage of the population in Flint voted in the last election? How many people volunteered to help elect candidates who would represent their interests? How many people in Flint know the name of the Governor, their Senator? Congressional Rep? Apathy probably plays a major role in these situations -- possibly as much as money -- maybe even more.
9
Sadly, likely not many participated. But apathy may not be the only reason. How about working more than one job so one is so exhausted, all they can focus on is shelter and food? Or not working at all, because they were not educated, so then they have no understanding of how the system works (or that they can affect it)?
Have you spent any time in Flint talking to people there to really understand their situation? I have not. But I know there's often more to it than meets the eye.
Have you spent any time in Flint talking to people there to really understand their situation? I have not. But I know there's often more to it than meets the eye.
Apathetic citizens beget corrupt and/or apathetic elected officials.
1
Mr. Kristof endorses the view that we live in an oligarchy, and then he urges us to adopt policies and enact laws that will convert that system into something akin to a real democracy. How do we move from point A to point B? If elected officials do the bidding of their paymasters, why would they then impose higher taxes on them and pass electoral reforms that would reduce their political influence?
In the Progressive era the partial eclipse of elite dominance owed much to the recognition on the part of some wealthy Americans that the policies favored by their class threatened to inflict serious damage on the country they loved. Symbolized by the career of Teddy Roosevelt, this element mobilized support among middle-class Americans who also feared that oligarchic misrule would provoke a working-class uprising that could threaten the survival of a decent society based on the protection of property rights.
In our day, too, members of the economic elite do not all march to the beat of the same drummer. Whatever one may think of Clinton, she does not reflect the same world view that dominates the GOP. Our democratic institutions still make it possible for an aroused electorate to emulate our ancestors in the Depression era and topple politicians who represent an oligarchy. Money rules politics only if the voters permit it to do so. If the Koch brothers dupe the working class, the fault lies partially with Dems who abandoned one part of their true constituency.
In the Progressive era the partial eclipse of elite dominance owed much to the recognition on the part of some wealthy Americans that the policies favored by their class threatened to inflict serious damage on the country they loved. Symbolized by the career of Teddy Roosevelt, this element mobilized support among middle-class Americans who also feared that oligarchic misrule would provoke a working-class uprising that could threaten the survival of a decent society based on the protection of property rights.
In our day, too, members of the economic elite do not all march to the beat of the same drummer. Whatever one may think of Clinton, she does not reflect the same world view that dominates the GOP. Our democratic institutions still make it possible for an aroused electorate to emulate our ancestors in the Depression era and topple politicians who represent an oligarchy. Money rules politics only if the voters permit it to do so. If the Koch brothers dupe the working class, the fault lies partially with Dems who abandoned one part of their true constituency.
39
"...this element mobilized support among middle-class Americans who also feared that oligarchic misrule would provoke a working-class uprising that could threaten the survival of a decent society based on the protection of property rights."
In other words, the presence of an active and growing Socialist Party, with a charismatic figurehead such as Eugene Victor Debs who regularly ran for President and got real votes, worried them more than a little. And then, after the Russian Revolution, Roosevelt-II was able to save the system from itself and implement his "traitor to his class" reforms amid the sturm und drang, lest things really get out of hand.
In other words, the presence of an active and growing Socialist Party, with a charismatic figurehead such as Eugene Victor Debs who regularly ran for President and got real votes, worried them more than a little. And then, after the Russian Revolution, Roosevelt-II was able to save the system from itself and implement his "traitor to his class" reforms amid the sturm und drang, lest things really get out of hand.
2
This article really outlines what we all have know for a long time. The question is why there are no uniform standards to improve the political situation. I suspect most Americans who are non-partisan could agree with some obvious changes to the system. We could start with the following (which probably requires constitutional amendments):
1. Mostly federal & state funding of elections.
2. Prohibition of all out of district/state money.
3. Term limits for Senators (2), Representatives (6), and Supreme Court (18 years with terms staggered every 2 years).
4. Universal voting registration (no one excluded except incarcerated felons).
5. Prohibition as a felony if any private group or individual provides money or influence as a lobbyist (put K Street out of business). Significant fines and jail time for individuals in corporations that lobby, so there are personal consequences.
6. No private help for Congressmen such as free flights, information gathering junkets, etc. Make them fly coach with their constituents.
7. Mandatory, disinterested, third party consultants to draw political boundaries, so gerrymandering ends (like in most enlightened countries).
8. Election cycle limits to a small window on when you can raise money, spend money, and advertise.
1. Mostly federal & state funding of elections.
2. Prohibition of all out of district/state money.
3. Term limits for Senators (2), Representatives (6), and Supreme Court (18 years with terms staggered every 2 years).
4. Universal voting registration (no one excluded except incarcerated felons).
5. Prohibition as a felony if any private group or individual provides money or influence as a lobbyist (put K Street out of business). Significant fines and jail time for individuals in corporations that lobby, so there are personal consequences.
6. No private help for Congressmen such as free flights, information gathering junkets, etc. Make them fly coach with their constituents.
7. Mandatory, disinterested, third party consultants to draw political boundaries, so gerrymandering ends (like in most enlightened countries).
8. Election cycle limits to a small window on when you can raise money, spend money, and advertise.
14
Jail time for lobbyists? The fraudsters that created the Great Recession got away with ... everything - and Obama was POTUS. Criminals who think small get time; those who think big pay a fine.
1
Just prevent elected officials from becoming lobbyists for a period of "X" years. They will be less open to persuasion when they're not seeking an immediate future job.
Bernie Madoff's SEC investigators wanted a job with his company. How tough do you think they were?
Bernie Madoff's SEC investigators wanted a job with his company. How tough do you think they were?
JFK said, "Life isn't fair". And indeed it isn't. Even for someone of his stature, his political talents, to the manor born, life was unfair. JFK suffered from poor health since a child. Compounded with his war injuries, his dependence upon heavy medications, his cavalier dalliances with other women while married to one of the most sophisticated beautiful women to grace us as First Lady. In the end, when it came to JFK in Dallas, a city he had misgivings about, but needed to go there for a re-election that would never happen, JFK is the epitome of someone endowed with given great gifts as well as burdens to bear.
I don't mind that the rich have so much power, that has always been the case. What I mind is what they do with that power, the choices they make. Many of the them truly believe they are disadvantaged. They can never be too rich. And what do they get from the public? For all their wealth and prestige, they are the Rodney Dangerfield's of the world, they get no respect. On top of that, people hate them for their good fortune, which they also erroneously conclude has been due to hard work alone totally devoid of any outside influences.
Yes, life is unfair. By its very nature, humans being individuals, it can't help but be unfair. What's worse are those who have benefited from the best life has to offer turning their good fortune into absolute disregard for those whom they look down upon as less successful.
DD
Manhattan
I don't mind that the rich have so much power, that has always been the case. What I mind is what they do with that power, the choices they make. Many of the them truly believe they are disadvantaged. They can never be too rich. And what do they get from the public? For all their wealth and prestige, they are the Rodney Dangerfield's of the world, they get no respect. On top of that, people hate them for their good fortune, which they also erroneously conclude has been due to hard work alone totally devoid of any outside influences.
Yes, life is unfair. By its very nature, humans being individuals, it can't help but be unfair. What's worse are those who have benefited from the best life has to offer turning their good fortune into absolute disregard for those whom they look down upon as less successful.
DD
Manhattan
8
Kristof is right - improving the schooling of minority children will give them a needed leg up. That's necessary but not sufficient. A jobs program is needed for out of work minority parents. Miliary schools do quite well with minority students - their parents have a job and parental involvement is a must. All these components are needed for our minority population to do well.
3
Federally financed campaigns of much shorter duration; term limits on all federal offices, including the Supreme Court; and congressional districts selected every ten years by a random, computerized system as opposed to state legislatures. Let's make American democracy work.
8
Very well said Mr Kristof! The US needs to realise not just that it is a democracy, but simply that it is a nation, again. It's very rich need to be reminded of the common humanity they share with even the most vulnerable and wretched of US citizens. They are but an accident or traumatic experience away from being such themselves.
They need reminding, too, of how much the simple fortune of being born into their time and place (their society built and supported by the work of others) is responsible for their success, besides their talent, education and hard work. Greater humility is in order for them.
Entrepreneurship is a valuable and important personal characteristic. But societies require other talents and personality types - such as those geared more towards community service; and others more inclined towards knowledge acquisition rather than wealth acquisition. Not everyone is - or can be - the same.
The various talents and propensities valuable to societies don't all provide for those who have them income and wealth at all as readily as business savvy. If "the market" alone does not provide holders of such traits a decent living then governments have to step up to make it so.
I'd also remind those obsessed with having more and more money that they are somewhat like gambling addicts or hoarders - neuropsychologically somewhat problematic - but that's just me. (:)) It's entirely fair that governments take advantage of their inability to recognise when enough is enough.
They need reminding, too, of how much the simple fortune of being born into their time and place (their society built and supported by the work of others) is responsible for their success, besides their talent, education and hard work. Greater humility is in order for them.
Entrepreneurship is a valuable and important personal characteristic. But societies require other talents and personality types - such as those geared more towards community service; and others more inclined towards knowledge acquisition rather than wealth acquisition. Not everyone is - or can be - the same.
The various talents and propensities valuable to societies don't all provide for those who have them income and wealth at all as readily as business savvy. If "the market" alone does not provide holders of such traits a decent living then governments have to step up to make it so.
I'd also remind those obsessed with having more and more money that they are somewhat like gambling addicts or hoarders - neuropsychologically somewhat problematic - but that's just me. (:)) It's entirely fair that governments take advantage of their inability to recognise when enough is enough.
38
Mr. Kristof,
You are right, of course, in all you say.
The plutocrats know their every action has been, and is being, designed to return our population, and indeed the population of the world to the Feudalism of old, subjugating the people, until serfdom is fully re-established.
Our two party system is wholly owned by the corporate / military / industrial alliance, placing in all governmental agencies, paid employees of the alliance, to continue the process, essentially owning Congress, and reducing the power of the President to such a degree, it can be said his function is entirely titular.
Several decades in the making, and the people are only now waking up to this new world order, their blindness maintained by a complicit mainstream media, and a never ending program of perception management.
Mr. Sanders saw this a long time ago, and his campaign for the Presidency is all about ending the charade.
The fear of him, and his proposals, is causing great angst in the ranks of our masters; they are horrified and shaken at his message and popularity, especially rousing our youth, the future of our once exemplary nation.
It's a tough slog ahead, but it must begin somewhere, and that somewhere is best exemplified by installing Mr. Sanders as our next, and long overdue representative of the wishes of the people.
You are right, of course, in all you say.
The plutocrats know their every action has been, and is being, designed to return our population, and indeed the population of the world to the Feudalism of old, subjugating the people, until serfdom is fully re-established.
Our two party system is wholly owned by the corporate / military / industrial alliance, placing in all governmental agencies, paid employees of the alliance, to continue the process, essentially owning Congress, and reducing the power of the President to such a degree, it can be said his function is entirely titular.
Several decades in the making, and the people are only now waking up to this new world order, their blindness maintained by a complicit mainstream media, and a never ending program of perception management.
Mr. Sanders saw this a long time ago, and his campaign for the Presidency is all about ending the charade.
The fear of him, and his proposals, is causing great angst in the ranks of our masters; they are horrified and shaken at his message and popularity, especially rousing our youth, the future of our once exemplary nation.
It's a tough slog ahead, but it must begin somewhere, and that somewhere is best exemplified by installing Mr. Sanders as our next, and long overdue representative of the wishes of the people.
16
Historically, when things in the States have gotten this out of kilter it's been an enlightened member of the elite who stepped in and re-balanced the scales. Political party really didn't matter, and of course I am thinking of both Roosevelts. Would either Trump or Sanders be able to fill that role now?
I think with Bernie, what we see is what we'd get, and that is indeed reassuring. But let's suppose, just for a minute, that The Donald really is as smart as he professes to be. Maybe his entire campaign is just one Big Act, carefully contrived to get him onto the Republican ticket... recognizing, as he did early on, that he stood absolutely no chance of ever gaining the Democratic nomination. Then, once elected over the "Old News Establishment candidate, Hillary Clinton", he turns out to be another Roosevelt, actually working for the poor schlumpfs who bought into The Act. Oh, the delicious irony!
But no, I am dreaming. Far safer if more of us started to Feel the Bern, even if Bernie comes across as an unlikely successor to Teddy and Franklin.
I think with Bernie, what we see is what we'd get, and that is indeed reassuring. But let's suppose, just for a minute, that The Donald really is as smart as he professes to be. Maybe his entire campaign is just one Big Act, carefully contrived to get him onto the Republican ticket... recognizing, as he did early on, that he stood absolutely no chance of ever gaining the Democratic nomination. Then, once elected over the "Old News Establishment candidate, Hillary Clinton", he turns out to be another Roosevelt, actually working for the poor schlumpfs who bought into The Act. Oh, the delicious irony!
But no, I am dreaming. Far safer if more of us started to Feel the Bern, even if Bernie comes across as an unlikely successor to Teddy and Franklin.
9
Bernie comes across to many of us as closer to Marx than Teddy or FDR.
1
NY Huguenot,
Love to tell you, that Bernie comes across as an honest to goodness man, exemplary in his integrity, fully aware of the entrenched powers opposing him, and ready, willing, and able to restore our Democracy for all Americans.
This is why he will be our next President.
Love to tell you, that Bernie comes across as an honest to goodness man, exemplary in his integrity, fully aware of the entrenched powers opposing him, and ready, willing, and able to restore our Democracy for all Americans.
This is why he will be our next President.
1
Politicians do care about issues that ordinary citizens care about. Look at the effectiveness of the NRA, and the effectiveness of gay marriage advocates.
But who is marching in the streets over the depreciation of intangible assets? If only a small number of people care about an issue, then they're in charge.
The elites tend to be agitated about issues that most people don't care about. Take something like high frequency trading. Yeah, clever traders can make fractions of a cent trading a millisecond ahead of everyone else, and over the years this adds up to a couple of hundred million dollars. But does the general public trade stocks? Do they care about a tenth of a cent? Do they even understand how trading works, and what the spread and the bid and the ask really is? If you took a poll, 90% of the respondents would probably say HFT is bad and should be banned, but in practice nobody cares.
But who is marching in the streets over the depreciation of intangible assets? If only a small number of people care about an issue, then they're in charge.
The elites tend to be agitated about issues that most people don't care about. Take something like high frequency trading. Yeah, clever traders can make fractions of a cent trading a millisecond ahead of everyone else, and over the years this adds up to a couple of hundred million dollars. But does the general public trade stocks? Do they care about a tenth of a cent? Do they even understand how trading works, and what the spread and the bid and the ask really is? If you took a poll, 90% of the respondents would probably say HFT is bad and should be banned, but in practice nobody cares.
1
you're correct. I'm quite ignorant of trading, but pretty clever about most other things. One of those things is the ability to recognize a "trumpted up" candidate when I see (or hear) him. If the icogniscenti insist on electing him president, I'll think seriously about moving the Canada!
Nick, I am so tired of seeing "populism" equated with "fascism." The spirit of the earlier movement of the same name, which -- contradictorily, perhaps -- championed the interests of both rural farming families and urban industrial workers, is lost amidst the know-nothing, nativist, xenophobic cacophony of the current Republican primary campaign.
Huey Long might have been a true populist who actually solved [at least] as many problems as he created. By contrast, Donald Trump panders to the lowest of human impulses among a segment of the electorate which stands to gain nothing more from supporting him than a sounding board to rationalize and resonate its own chronic failings.
I do congratulate you on your reference (final paragraph) to the earlier meaning of "reform," which comprised both an historical era and significant social movements that strove for the betterment of our nation and its people... and not the destruction of our public education, social security, or public welfare systems -- recent targets, all, of latter-day 'reformers.'
What's been happening to the above under the aegis of "reform" has been nothing remotely resembling "improvement." If the oligarchs insist on co-opting our elections, our legislatures, and our courts, could they not -- for pity's sake -- leave our language and its semantics intact?
Huey Long might have been a true populist who actually solved [at least] as many problems as he created. By contrast, Donald Trump panders to the lowest of human impulses among a segment of the electorate which stands to gain nothing more from supporting him than a sounding board to rationalize and resonate its own chronic failings.
I do congratulate you on your reference (final paragraph) to the earlier meaning of "reform," which comprised both an historical era and significant social movements that strove for the betterment of our nation and its people... and not the destruction of our public education, social security, or public welfare systems -- recent targets, all, of latter-day 'reformers.'
What's been happening to the above under the aegis of "reform" has been nothing remotely resembling "improvement." If the oligarchs insist on co-opting our elections, our legislatures, and our courts, could they not -- for pity's sake -- leave our language and its semantics intact?
34
“Reforms were adopted in the first Gilded Age, an era similarly plagued by government dysfunction, political corruption and enormous economic inequality,” Gilens notes." I agree. Although these problems came to a head with the Great Depression, they were resolved mainly by the social programs enacted by FDR and the threat of World War 2. The government needed revenues to implement these programs, which prompted the enactment of a progressive income tax -- with a maximum of 70%-- so that the wealthy paid their fair share of taxes. At that time, the very wealthy were faced with the reality of losing all that they had as a result of a violent revolution, or the prospect of paying more in taxes to keep some of what they had. If there is an "encore" for the situation we face today, it will not be an easy or smooth one, especially with out dysfunctional political system. I fear things will become a LOT worse before they get better. We don't have a strong labor movement (i.e., unions) to help move things in the right direction.
9
Yes, at least in he 1930s, there were the unions, who helped get our gears working smoothly again. Today, though, we're sadly lacking in them.
I realize the wealthy don't like unions, but it takes decent paychecks to those who do the actual work of our economy to keep that economy humming. As Henry Ford was astute enough to realize, he needed to make cars affordable for the people who actually put them together.
I realize the wealthy don't like unions, but it takes decent paychecks to those who do the actual work of our economy to keep that economy humming. As Henry Ford was astute enough to realize, he needed to make cars affordable for the people who actually put them together.
1
We desperately need adult politicians with a keen understanding and extensive knowledge of how government works. Really works, not some fantasy of imposing their will on this large and intricate institution, believing they can make something happen because they wish it so.
A politician with the right values, extensive exposure to the workings, strong experience, and a killer work ethic.
Vote Clinton in 2016.
A politician with the right values, extensive exposure to the workings, strong experience, and a killer work ethic.
Vote Clinton in 2016.
9
We need people to get involved. Relying on politicians and pretending like they can fix everything is what has gotten us to this point in the first place. And we surely don't need a politician who is part of the same brand & community that got us here in the first place. Her own campaign is an example of this system with all the money she is taking from the elite & their corporations. Strong experience and values don't mean much when the experience and values went hand in hand with creating this system. If she really cared, she would be campaigning way more seriously about income inequality and campaign finance reform. Either way, Bernie gets it. He understands that we need a political revolution of people getting engaged in the process and voting in order to change the system. He knows that whoever is elected president is just the beginning of a long battle which he is more the eager to lead and inspire. The option is between a movement of real reform & engagement w/ Bernie or more of the status quo w/ Hillary. Your choice. Hillary simply won't inspire the masses to create the deep change that is necessary. She simply isn't passionate about the issues addressed in this piece and has little to no vision of addressing them while she continues to feed into the same system and try to convince people she cares.
2
Insiders know all too well how our government works. It's hard to get insiders to change an institution. The trick is to pick an outsider with just enough knowledge but plenty of actually skills, not just rhetorical.
Mr. Kristof: America will continue to fall down the rabbit hole of despair unless campaign finance reform becomes the preeminent issue. It has to be: all inequality stems from the flood of funding pouring in from a small group of largely men who are working hard to ensure total control over our electoral process, government regulations, and indeed our entire society.
This pernicious "rugged individualism", libertarianism, or whatever you want to call it, really isn't that. It's nothing more than using wealth to secure privilege. Maybe it should be called, in lieu of oligarchy, "privilegism"--not so much a policy or philosophy as an attitude, a sense of entitlement, and a flat out attempt not to better the lives of Americans as to enrich the position of the wealthy few.
So, sure it's unfair. The privilegists want to keep it that way. To allow any equity to the 99% means forfeiting a slice of their own power. It will not stand.
Americans had better wake up as to who is the real culprit here in the series of injustices done to the common man, as well as people of color. Unless more of us get engaged and work to lessen the power of the elites, the takeover will continue, and in just a few years, we'll all be serfs.
Think this can't happen? Study history. This country is on the downside of it's era of greatness, and it's not the "greatness" Trump is yelling about. It's called fairness, and even he can't promise, or bring about that, from his high perch.
This pernicious "rugged individualism", libertarianism, or whatever you want to call it, really isn't that. It's nothing more than using wealth to secure privilege. Maybe it should be called, in lieu of oligarchy, "privilegism"--not so much a policy or philosophy as an attitude, a sense of entitlement, and a flat out attempt not to better the lives of Americans as to enrich the position of the wealthy few.
So, sure it's unfair. The privilegists want to keep it that way. To allow any equity to the 99% means forfeiting a slice of their own power. It will not stand.
Americans had better wake up as to who is the real culprit here in the series of injustices done to the common man, as well as people of color. Unless more of us get engaged and work to lessen the power of the elites, the takeover will continue, and in just a few years, we'll all be serfs.
Think this can't happen? Study history. This country is on the downside of it's era of greatness, and it's not the "greatness" Trump is yelling about. It's called fairness, and even he can't promise, or bring about that, from his high perch.
44
You anticipate me: my comment has not yet been approved, but I couldn't agree more that addressing campaign finance reform is the root issue. I also agree that we can easily become serfs or worse: almost every lesson of history shows that there is no limit to the barbarity perpetrated against people without power: 10 million starved in Bengal in the 18th century, residents forcibly removed from the Isle of Skye, the plight of Native Americans. One of our problems, especially as the 90-somethings die off, is that very few people alive today have any real understanding of how bad our lives could become.
6
@rareynolds: AMEN. Who studies history anymore, at least the way it used to be taught, along with the research skills required to interpret history through the lens of modernity?
1
Yada, yada, yada. There is in fact no statistical evidence that vast amounts of money affect the outcome of elections. A focus on "inequality", which I see as no more than envy of the rich, distracts from serious problems, such as redistricting reform. Someone needs to develop legal argument that will outlaw gerrymandering.
He's right of course but rather besides the point since the people who are being disenfranchised are voting for the party that is quite open about doing it to them. Let's give the current GOP this: they aren't even trying to hide what they are about anymore. They directly try to keep the non-rich from voting with their voter ID laws, reductions in polling places and hours, blocking people convicted of a felony from voting. The economic policies of the GOP are quite open about doing nothing for anyone but the rich with everyone on the GOP side advocating even more tax cuts. Does anyone, with a straight face, actually even try to argue trickle-down anymore? Yet the majority of white people in America will go against their own economic interests, and the interests of the nation and vote for them. The key word here to understanding this is "white". The white working and middle class has gone insane over the browning of America and having a non-white as president. Better that the ship sinks with everyone drowning rather then see brown people getting a life boat which they feel is unearned. I'm an over 50 year old white guy living in a community that voted over 75% for Romney so the locals think I'm one of them and speak openly to me. When i returned from being away for a couple of months every neighbor i spoke with raised, within 5 minutes, how Obama is ruining the country. For example, it seems he's caused all the Muslim unrest around the world.
57
But they don't want to block those convicted of a felony from having guns. Where's the logic in that.
2
Granting all your points about Republicans and I do what makes you think Democrats are any different. They have their billionaires too, Soros and Steyer to name just two.
They also take money from Wall Street like Hillary and her buddies at Goldman.
They are all corrupt on both sides.
They also take money from Wall Street like Hillary and her buddies at Goldman.
They are all corrupt on both sides.
I am with you one hundred percent we live in a society bought by and created for the rich and the first thing that needs to be done is to have real public funded campaigns of short duration and then hold the feet to the fire of politicians to ensure they make good on promises, they have been doing this in much of Europe for generations; but why aren't you addressing real areas of inequality and what's behind them such as shipping the good paying jobs to China, globalization and the people behind it, the bankers who destroyed the worlds economy, the fed who continues robbing from savers to prop up asset prices and the banks, a public school system, once the finest in the world, that has been eviscerated, unfettered immigration to support cheap labor, but please enough on the diversion of the moment to beat up on painkillers and physicians who administer them this whole subject reeks of side show and had to be lumped together with heroin to pump up the numbers, there are some very addictive painkillers but unfortunately big Pharma had safe generic drugs reclassified as well and generic is the clue, generic means low profit the only statistic these people really care about. The proper use of low level (classified for decades as safe drugs) pain medication allows millions of people( in particular elderly) to lead active lives and avoid unnecessary surgeries of course drug companies and Wall Street owned medical groups don't like this at all it cuts into their profit margins.
2
"Tycoons can’t quite buy politicians, but they can lease them."
A distinction without a difference, Mr. Kristof. Bought or leased, politicians are still available for personal use to the highest bidder.
A distinction without a difference, Mr. Kristof. Bought or leased, politicians are still available for personal use to the highest bidder.
16
Good comments. This is exactly why the framers wanted to have a limited federal government.
6
Don't kid yourself. Most tyranny occurs at the State and local levels. Look at the Flint water crisis. Look at aggressive local policing. Look at towns financing their budgets with an absurd amount of traffic tickets and scofflaw fines. Look at property taxes - which rise way faster than federal income taxes. You need to look much closer to home for the people who most derail your liberty and reach into your pocket.
8
To Common Sense:
Thank you for the comments. I understand about the state/local issues, taxing, funding and the like. But we shouldn't compound it with a bloated federal bureaucracy. It was never intended to be this way. Too much of taxpayer dollars are going to our nation's capital. Reduce the size and scope of government and let the states do what they were designed to: little experiments in democracy and governance.
Thank you for the comments. I understand about the state/local issues, taxing, funding and the like. But we shouldn't compound it with a bloated federal bureaucracy. It was never intended to be this way. Too much of taxpayer dollars are going to our nation's capital. Reduce the size and scope of government and let the states do what they were designed to: little experiments in democracy and governance.
congratulations, this is the first editorial I've liked in a very long time. At least someone is telling the truth. Usually I'm subject to editorials that selectively use information to attack republicans, and completely ignore any negative information regarding the side they dislike. Mainly the worst editorials come from a pseudo scientist who uses the cloak of an objective disciple, economics, to really really distort reality. And I'm a lefty. This blame the other side, and scare tactics just work to entrench the worst of our system. we don't support the best candidate, we support the electable candidate (dubious contention at best) out of fear of what could happen if the other side gets elected. Meanwhile o meaningful reform happens despite what many pundits at the nytimes would also have you believe. Yeah, the right wing media is a disaster, but the nytimes need to take a hard look into the mirror at how they perpetuate the worst of the system . I'm middle aged, this is no longer my parents paper, and seems to have become partisan spin. It also seems to me that most posters here have no ability to be objective either. It's leaving us trapped in a nightmare dysfunctional system that will not end well. which of course truly benefits the top 1%
3
One reason nothing gets done is made plain by your phrase "invest in education for disadvantaged children."
That requires administrators of some ilk to determine which children are "disadvantaged."
Invest equally in the education of ALL children. This will NOT make all education equal; however, it will raise the level of all and mitigate resentment by middle class citizens that we are continually being tapped to support those just below us.
That requires administrators of some ilk to determine which children are "disadvantaged."
Invest equally in the education of ALL children. This will NOT make all education equal; however, it will raise the level of all and mitigate resentment by middle class citizens that we are continually being tapped to support those just below us.
6
"Louis XVI was the king of France
In 1789."
And we know what happened to him and to much of the French aristocracy.
Something similar happened in China, and Pearl Buck wrote, "When the rich are too rich there are ways, and when the poor are too poor there are ways…"
But there is an answer, if the aristocracy doesn't want to be taken to the scaffold (France) or have their mansions looted and burned (China): "the bitterness at America’s grass roots is often channeled in ways that are divisive and destructive: at immigrants, say, or at Muslims."
If the rabble can be convinced to squabble among themselves, and channel their hatred toward each other, toward immigrants and Muslims instead of toward those very few who keep taking a larger and larger proportion of the GDP, nothing like 1789 will ever be a real threat.
(And, as Mr Kristof writes, the American aristocracy is doing a great job of diverting anger in directions that pose them no threat, proving American Exceptionalism once again: America have the cleverest aristocrats of any nation!)
In 1789."
And we know what happened to him and to much of the French aristocracy.
Something similar happened in China, and Pearl Buck wrote, "When the rich are too rich there are ways, and when the poor are too poor there are ways…"
But there is an answer, if the aristocracy doesn't want to be taken to the scaffold (France) or have their mansions looted and burned (China): "the bitterness at America’s grass roots is often channeled in ways that are divisive and destructive: at immigrants, say, or at Muslims."
If the rabble can be convinced to squabble among themselves, and channel their hatred toward each other, toward immigrants and Muslims instead of toward those very few who keep taking a larger and larger proportion of the GDP, nothing like 1789 will ever be a real threat.
(And, as Mr Kristof writes, the American aristocracy is doing a great job of diverting anger in directions that pose them no threat, proving American Exceptionalism once again: America have the cleverest aristocrats of any nation!)
22
Ah, America. The best government money can buy.
19
We have more than one problem. The corruption and influence of huge money is one.
But another is that we want easy answers, and we don't want to pay for anything, at any level.
So our job market can be solved by huge tariffs, and deporting illegal immigrants. There! Done! Oh, we killed our own foreign markets? Oops.
We can pay for schools, free college, new roads, repaired bridges, healthcare, social security, all by increasing taxes on the rich. There! Done! Oh, even they don't have enough for all that? Oops.
We can get rid of odious job killing regulations. There! Done! But, we also need clean water, delivered safely. Oops.
Government is hard because issues and interests are complex. It is not a sport for beginners, even if we are tired of the pros. We need to figure out how to get a better quality of pro.
But another is that we want easy answers, and we don't want to pay for anything, at any level.
So our job market can be solved by huge tariffs, and deporting illegal immigrants. There! Done! Oh, we killed our own foreign markets? Oops.
We can pay for schools, free college, new roads, repaired bridges, healthcare, social security, all by increasing taxes on the rich. There! Done! Oh, even they don't have enough for all that? Oops.
We can get rid of odious job killing regulations. There! Done! But, we also need clean water, delivered safely. Oops.
Government is hard because issues and interests are complex. It is not a sport for beginners, even if we are tired of the pros. We need to figure out how to get a better quality of pro.
82
Len, the candidate who agrees with your suggestions is sidelined, ignored, even derided with snark by our main media. And even by the liberal with a conscience, Krugman, who is concerned with inequality, so he says. See his blog with Sanders in the headline. And the many critical comments.
So what are the suggestions to change the political culture?
Let's talk Citizens United Surely the most Orwellian name ever for a Court decision that increases our political divide so sharply. It's hardly discussed in the NYT opinion pages. That Gilens and Page's study is cited in this column is progress.
So what are the suggestions to change the political culture?
Let's talk Citizens United Surely the most Orwellian name ever for a Court decision that increases our political divide so sharply. It's hardly discussed in the NYT opinion pages. That Gilens and Page's study is cited in this column is progress.
35 years after FDR's New Deal America was humming along quite nicely; building an interstate highway system, putting returning GIs in college and in businesses, sending men to the moon fer cryin' out loud.
We did this because the taxes on extreme wealth were pretty extreme. They had two functions; enough revenue to fund the Nation and keeping a few from keeping too much of their treasure.
Bill O'Reilly has threatened to move to Ireland if the socialist Sanders gets elected, he doesn't want to pay those onerous taxes that will show up for the 1%ers. Sanders' plan is to raise taxes on income over 10 million to 52%. Guess what the tax rates in Ireland are, Billo? 52%.
We did this because the taxes on extreme wealth were pretty extreme. They had two functions; enough revenue to fund the Nation and keeping a few from keeping too much of their treasure.
Bill O'Reilly has threatened to move to Ireland if the socialist Sanders gets elected, he doesn't want to pay those onerous taxes that will show up for the 1%ers. Sanders' plan is to raise taxes on income over 10 million to 52%. Guess what the tax rates in Ireland are, Billo? 52%.
2
"We did this because the taxes on extreme wealth were pretty extreme."
And then JFK cuts them. The economy really really takes off. But then comes LBJ's Great Society &, on the heels of that, the business-killing regulations of the early 70s. Good times gone.
And then JFK cuts them. The economy really really takes off. But then comes LBJ's Great Society &, on the heels of that, the business-killing regulations of the early 70s. Good times gone.
The French nobility did not pay taxes... and obviously, like Leona Helmsley these people believe that only little people pay taxes.
what worries me is when the little people accept or promote tax policies that hurt them... like the VAT or a flat tax. Ah how i long for the days of that great Marxist I mean Republican Eisenhower with the 95% top income tax bracket and the 10% luxury goods tax (repealed to help the Ct. boat business purportedly... Wake up -- when you have billions price is not a consideration... The past two Democrat presidents might be categorized as Republicans of some sort... Reagan, Bush Republicans>> or in the case of Bill Clinton a conservative Republican policywise. Certainly NO ONE running including Bernie are not asking for appropriate taxation of the very rich and their toys. America's grassroots are not as bitter as they are under educated major. The beautiful computer room in the library of Portsmouth, Oh, the former oxycondone capital of the US--now heroin, before those alcohol (moonshine)is empty; even the dreadful romance, western paperbacks simply sit on the shelves. My sympathy only goes so far. My immigrant g-f on welfare waits for the perfect job. Arrogance. and frankly laziness. Some people myself included believe that work is rather noble and good for the soul although I would rather not work in a coal mine.
OTOH my Mexican students (grades1-6) looked forward to summers harvesting crops. GROW UP America. Get to work.
what worries me is when the little people accept or promote tax policies that hurt them... like the VAT or a flat tax. Ah how i long for the days of that great Marxist I mean Republican Eisenhower with the 95% top income tax bracket and the 10% luxury goods tax (repealed to help the Ct. boat business purportedly... Wake up -- when you have billions price is not a consideration... The past two Democrat presidents might be categorized as Republicans of some sort... Reagan, Bush Republicans>> or in the case of Bill Clinton a conservative Republican policywise. Certainly NO ONE running including Bernie are not asking for appropriate taxation of the very rich and their toys. America's grassroots are not as bitter as they are under educated major. The beautiful computer room in the library of Portsmouth, Oh, the former oxycondone capital of the US--now heroin, before those alcohol (moonshine)is empty; even the dreadful romance, western paperbacks simply sit on the shelves. My sympathy only goes so far. My immigrant g-f on welfare waits for the perfect job. Arrogance. and frankly laziness. Some people myself included believe that work is rather noble and good for the soul although I would rather not work in a coal mine.
OTOH my Mexican students (grades1-6) looked forward to summers harvesting crops. GROW UP America. Get to work.
1
"Ah how i long for the days of that great Marxist I mean Republican Eisenhower with the 95% top income tax bracket..."
The world was a far different place then. Today, a wealthy American needn't live in this country in order to still profit from doing business in it.
Institute Ike's plan today & 'poof' (the sound of our tax base suddenly disappearing).
The world was a far different place then. Today, a wealthy American needn't live in this country in order to still profit from doing business in it.
Institute Ike's plan today & 'poof' (the sound of our tax base suddenly disappearing).
A good column.
However, the power of money is strong here
The power of forgiveness is missing.
Forgiveness is the key to all humanity. We're all screwed up.
However, the power of money is strong here
The power of forgiveness is missing.
Forgiveness is the key to all humanity. We're all screwed up.
3
There is a candidate who is not timid about pointing out the unfairness of the system, who isn't taking from the billionaires but taking them on, who unapologetically supports the transfer of money from the .1% to the 99.9%, and who seems to be accumulating voters despite the fact he is "unelectable" and given hardly any credibility by the press. For the sake of the country, he's working to end "...government dysfunction, political corruption and enormous economic inequality"... Your article mirrors his political goals. Mr. Kristoff, it's time to feel the Bern.
48
There have been numerous studies on the effects of money in the making of public policy. That the studies are continuing, might be indicative of an unsettled field.
This current study finds that money influences policy, but economic policy. It is not unreasonable to assume that many Americans, as long as they are working and are able to support their families, may not have economic policy high as an area of interest.
And moreover, an economic policy that benefits business interests must also benefit consumers (all Americans) in better products at lower cost.
The government relies on business interests to create jobs, and if changes in policies are seen by these interests as deliberately punitive, the result could be a rise in unemployment, and that is something feared by governments at all levels. Here, one could raise the issue of companies moving their production overseas, which of course, leads to some level of domestic unemployment. The up side though, is that we are then able to buy products at prices lower than if those products were manufactured here. Americans in large numbers, do not appear to mind this trade off, or perhaps, not yet.
This current study finds that money influences policy, but economic policy. It is not unreasonable to assume that many Americans, as long as they are working and are able to support their families, may not have economic policy high as an area of interest.
And moreover, an economic policy that benefits business interests must also benefit consumers (all Americans) in better products at lower cost.
The government relies on business interests to create jobs, and if changes in policies are seen by these interests as deliberately punitive, the result could be a rise in unemployment, and that is something feared by governments at all levels. Here, one could raise the issue of companies moving their production overseas, which of course, leads to some level of domestic unemployment. The up side though, is that we are then able to buy products at prices lower than if those products were manufactured here. Americans in large numbers, do not appear to mind this trade off, or perhaps, not yet.
2
The typical answers to inequality is to spend and spend some more—much more.
Leaders in the past, as well as today, climbed up the ladder of success by hard work, learning on their own thoroughly about the work they loved to do, long served apprenticeships, and creating a personal network in their industry.
Many of course were encouraged by parents, mentors, or their own initiation—and not being blind-sighted by deadly distractions like alcohol, drugs, immoral sex.
Money is not the wherewithal to success—or happiness.
Satisfaction with achieving one's spiritual and material goals in life are.
Leaders in the past, as well as today, climbed up the ladder of success by hard work, learning on their own thoroughly about the work they loved to do, long served apprenticeships, and creating a personal network in their industry.
Many of course were encouraged by parents, mentors, or their own initiation—and not being blind-sighted by deadly distractions like alcohol, drugs, immoral sex.
Money is not the wherewithal to success—or happiness.
Satisfaction with achieving one's spiritual and material goals in life are.
3
This is exactly the reason that Trump and Sanders are surging. One side (Trump) is using the tried and true "blame the other" method. The other side (Sanders) says, "Enough is enough. This country should be great for all its people, not just a handful of millionaires and billionaires." Sanders has been saying that and working for solutions since before it was obvious to everyone. Is it any wonder that he is gaining in popularity so fast?
29
Some concrete suggestions:
1. Institute an efficient universal government run health care system, say Medicare for All. The data shows we could save over 1.5 TRILLION dollars each year which could better used elsewhere.
http://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/oecdhealthdata2013-frequentlyrequ... (and get better care)
2. Return to much more progressive tax rates to encourage the Rich to leave more of their profits in their companies and their companies to pay their workers more, and to discourage the Rich from wild speculation.
3. Strengthen unions by requiring workers to pay for the union benefits they receive and by enforcing rules on coercion by companies against organization. Follow Germany and require union representation on the boards of large companies.
4. Strongly regulate speculation, e.g. require the buyer of a futures contract to take delivery, require banks to get a court order to sell its end of a mortgage contract, outlaw naked credit default swaps.
5. Stop worrying about the debt and invest in America--fix our crumbling infrastructure, build a better power grid, increase support for education at all levels, fund research, etc. If we grow the economy, the debt will fade into insignificance as in 1946 - 1973. On the other hand we can balance the budget. All 6 times we balanced the budget for more than 3 years, we got a major depression. Shall we go for #7?
Why not try what works instead of what is failing?
1. Institute an efficient universal government run health care system, say Medicare for All. The data shows we could save over 1.5 TRILLION dollars each year which could better used elsewhere.
http://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/oecdhealthdata2013-frequentlyrequ... (and get better care)
2. Return to much more progressive tax rates to encourage the Rich to leave more of their profits in their companies and their companies to pay their workers more, and to discourage the Rich from wild speculation.
3. Strengthen unions by requiring workers to pay for the union benefits they receive and by enforcing rules on coercion by companies against organization. Follow Germany and require union representation on the boards of large companies.
4. Strongly regulate speculation, e.g. require the buyer of a futures contract to take delivery, require banks to get a court order to sell its end of a mortgage contract, outlaw naked credit default swaps.
5. Stop worrying about the debt and invest in America--fix our crumbling infrastructure, build a better power grid, increase support for education at all levels, fund research, etc. If we grow the economy, the debt will fade into insignificance as in 1946 - 1973. On the other hand we can balance the budget. All 6 times we balanced the budget for more than 3 years, we got a major depression. Shall we go for #7?
Why not try what works instead of what is failing?
218
Len Charlap Princeton, NJ:
"Institute an efficient universal government run..."
There's your first problem, as well as the problem with #5. At this point, Americans are not going to support a dime of government spending as long as it's perceived to flow only to political cronies and/or into thin air.
The first thing government has to do is regain credibility.
"Institute an efficient universal government run..."
There's your first problem, as well as the problem with #5. At this point, Americans are not going to support a dime of government spending as long as it's perceived to flow only to political cronies and/or into thin air.
The first thing government has to do is regain credibility.
1. No it will not save money - it will cost much more.
2. There will be less investment into R and D and job losses.
3. Higher wages, more jobs will move overseas. We live in a global economy. This will insulate the US economy and free trade will suffer - prices of daily commodities goes up - less money to save and less pumped into the economy by the middle and lower classes - economy shrinks.
4. Agree with this one to some extent but is complicated.
5. Debt servicing and loan payments could drown the economy as interest rates go up and they will. Debt is very important. Ask the Swedes, Japanese and the Greeks...
2. There will be less investment into R and D and job losses.
3. Higher wages, more jobs will move overseas. We live in a global economy. This will insulate the US economy and free trade will suffer - prices of daily commodities goes up - less money to save and less pumped into the economy by the middle and lower classes - economy shrinks.
4. Agree with this one to some extent but is complicated.
5. Debt servicing and loan payments could drown the economy as interest rates go up and they will. Debt is very important. Ask the Swedes, Japanese and the Greeks...
These are tried and true solutions to addressing the hijacking of our democracy by an oligarchy, but that oligarchy won't allow them to be discussed, let alone implemented as they would diminish their stranglehold on power.
But the "Chosen 158" had better prepare an exit strategy, because if they don't soon relinquish their power, it will be stripped from them, a la Marie Antoinette.
But the "Chosen 158" had better prepare an exit strategy, because if they don't soon relinquish their power, it will be stripped from them, a la Marie Antoinette.
1
This piece is an indictment of AMERICA. It is only natural that a nation built on aggressive capitalism would end up selling it's own government to the highest bidder.
How can you take power away from the wealthy when the entire economy is for sale? The same formula has been used by AIPAC to buy favors from congress for Israel by installing politicians who sell their vote.
If America's aggressive capitalism was balanced by social democracy, citizens would have more protection from being sold out by their elected officials.
How can you take power away from the wealthy when the entire economy is for sale? The same formula has been used by AIPAC to buy favors from congress for Israel by installing politicians who sell their vote.
If America's aggressive capitalism was balanced by social democracy, citizens would have more protection from being sold out by their elected officials.
9
You write "Right now, the bitterness at America’s grass roots is often channeled in ways that are divisive and destructive: at immigrants"
But the collusion of Democrats and Republicans to do nothing outbout 12 million people living in the U.S. in violation of our laws, including our president's anxiousness to ignore existing laws for removing them, is not an outcome of a broken system. It is proof of it. Democrats want voters and some Republican business elites want cheap labor. Don't blame the "grass roots."
But the collusion of Democrats and Republicans to do nothing outbout 12 million people living in the U.S. in violation of our laws, including our president's anxiousness to ignore existing laws for removing them, is not an outcome of a broken system. It is proof of it. Democrats want voters and some Republican business elites want cheap labor. Don't blame the "grass roots."
6
If I was as unhappy as Mr. Kristof is with the current state of America, I would have headed out a long time ago for one of the democratic socialist paradises of Europe, but I, along with the vast majority of Americans of all social classes, including the very poor, remain fervent believers in the proposition that America is the greatest country that ever was or will be.
4
In what way is America "the greatest country that ever was or will be"? In no way that can be tangibly and objectively studied, as research after research proves this to be a fallacy.
When American citizens are able to see the facts objectively, instead of clinging to fairy tales and media brainwashing, maybe the country will be able to rise to greatness. But it started out mired in slavery and lawlessness, and is today an appalling example of corruption and contempt, having passed through few episodes of redemption...
All that glisters is not gold, and Gilded tombs do worms enfold.
When American citizens are able to see the facts objectively, instead of clinging to fairy tales and media brainwashing, maybe the country will be able to rise to greatness. But it started out mired in slavery and lawlessness, and is today an appalling example of corruption and contempt, having passed through few episodes of redemption...
All that glisters is not gold, and Gilded tombs do worms enfold.
3
"that ever was or will be."
Do you care to provide arguments in support of your sweeping statement?
Do you care to provide arguments in support of your sweeping statement?
Where have you been sleeping? Nothing new here, all of this has been hammered and rehammered for the last two years at least.
Well, I'm glad you finally woke up and wrote about it. Now it's time for the people to do something about it.
Electing Sanders will be a first step in the process. Passing a constitutional amendment to pull the big money out of the election process will be another.
If things keep moving in the same direction that we have seen over the last three or four years, we need only wait for our majority to become entranced by some new, radical demagog who will eventually make everybody unhappy as everything goes down the proverbial tube.
Keep stressing fairness, not redistribution.
Well, I'm glad you finally woke up and wrote about it. Now it's time for the people to do something about it.
Electing Sanders will be a first step in the process. Passing a constitutional amendment to pull the big money out of the election process will be another.
If things keep moving in the same direction that we have seen over the last three or four years, we need only wait for our majority to become entranced by some new, radical demagog who will eventually make everybody unhappy as everything goes down the proverbial tube.
Keep stressing fairness, not redistribution.
9
One day, hundreds of years from now, HBO can run the series called "American Game of Thrones." People will find the behavior barbaric.
2
The views of 4 Americans have had an outsize influence on our political discourse.
Lee Atwater, Karl Rove, Grover Norquist, and Rush Limbaugh.
Minus these four and we have a different ballgame.
Lee Atwater, Karl Rove, Grover Norquist, and Rush Limbaugh.
Minus these four and we have a different ballgame.
8
This kind of pitchfork appeal to populist themes is exactly what is wrong with our system. When President Obama commissioned the Simpsons Bowles commission, a bi-partisan group that tacked tax fairness and entitlements, they came forth with a reasonable compromise that increased taxes on the wealthy while tackling unsustainable entitlement spending in a long-term manner that did not impact anyone who is 15 years from retirement. As a fierce opponent to taxation, I was thrilled that a balanced approach and strongly endorsed the approach. Of course, it landed with a huge thud and the President and Congress simply ignored it. Government doesn't need more tax dollars (as populist suggests) because it spends regardless of revenues at increasing amounts. Congress and the President is happy to mortgage our children's future and complain that the rich dont pay their fair share. Politicians have found that they can pass out cotton candy by relegating our children to a poor future and get re-elected. They can also get re-elected by pandering to special interest groups. Blaming the wealthy on not providing adequate resources would be accurate ONLY if the government weren't consistently spending $1T each year they don't have. Instead, follow Simpsons Bowles or other approaches that fix entitlements and I'd be happy to pay more.
3
From one Chris to another, that was one of the best comments I've read in a long time. And I read a lot of 'em.
The vast middle is not represented by either party. Both parties are controlled by the fringes. For decades we had to endure the far right wing nagging, and now we are forced to endure the PC dogma that is dominating the media and educational institutions.
Is it any wonder that Trump, a conservative Republican businessman who claims he is a deal maker, has attracted the middle, the moderates , who simply want our elected officials to stop bickering and do their job. Most Americans are sick of ideologues on both sides who are contemptuous of the opposition party and refuse to govern. Moderates want their voice heard. It has been a long time since we had a deal maker in the White House.
Is it any wonder that Trump, a conservative Republican businessman who claims he is a deal maker, has attracted the middle, the moderates , who simply want our elected officials to stop bickering and do their job. Most Americans are sick of ideologues on both sides who are contemptuous of the opposition party and refuse to govern. Moderates want their voice heard. It has been a long time since we had a deal maker in the White House.
4
Why is it a mystery that the American public has so little influence with respect to lawmaking in this country, which has now resulted in the anger that permeates the Trump campaign. People essentially don't understand the policies that have shaped their lives, dating back to Reagan. Now that we've all drowned in the collective nonsense of the financial meltdown (go see "The Big Short", where we paid out on long odds on the bets of those who bet against the system!), people are feeling the ever tightening financial noose.
In the natural world, the old adage "life feeds on life" is the universally observed rule, maybe better known as "the strong survive." The concentration of wealth and power has had the same effect on our species - those at the top negotiating and influencing law (and the legal system) to feed their insatiable craving for more, creating a Orwellian future where the citizenry are feudal level serfs fighting for scraps. The level of Darwinism in our culture is now not only too real, it's celebrated by those who identify with the apparent victors.
America the Unfair? More like America the Doomed, unless something big happens to curtail, and eventually reverse the pathology of the rich.
In the natural world, the old adage "life feeds on life" is the universally observed rule, maybe better known as "the strong survive." The concentration of wealth and power has had the same effect on our species - those at the top negotiating and influencing law (and the legal system) to feed their insatiable craving for more, creating a Orwellian future where the citizenry are feudal level serfs fighting for scraps. The level of Darwinism in our culture is now not only too real, it's celebrated by those who identify with the apparent victors.
America the Unfair? More like America the Doomed, unless something big happens to curtail, and eventually reverse the pathology of the rich.
6
Well, slap my knee, Mr. Kristoff. I'm amazed. I truly am.
Those smart people up at Princeton and Northwestern put their impressive egg heads together and found - drumroll - please - that the elite, moneyed, upper class control this country and it's policies due in large part to the effects of big money on the political system.
Hush my mouth. I've been wonderin' what was happenin'. Seems like over the last few decades er so, times been gittin' harder n harder fer us little folk and easier n easier fer them richin's. Not that it ain't always been that a way - but just seems ta me ta be gittin' worser an worser.
Now all y'all done figur'ed it out, whatcha goin' do about it, heh? What them big brains gonna come up with? I don'e mean ta be uppity or nothin' but seems ta me that ifin the problem is that ther's too damn much money in the sytem, ya gotta git some out. Also, iffin I'm readin' ya right, ya seem ta be sayin' that most a the monies comin' from jest a few people, and some of em ain't even real people - lawd lawd lawd. Well, seems ta me ya just don't let no fake people put no money in, and ya don't let no rich people give no more than the rest a us, and ya'd be pretty much fixed up.
Now, I'm not presumin' nothin', Mr. Kristol, an I'm sure not as edicated as them them boys (maybe even some girls?) up at Princeton and Northwestern, but may be you could pass this along and they could chew on it a bit n come up with somthin' smartern me. Watcha say?
Those smart people up at Princeton and Northwestern put their impressive egg heads together and found - drumroll - please - that the elite, moneyed, upper class control this country and it's policies due in large part to the effects of big money on the political system.
Hush my mouth. I've been wonderin' what was happenin'. Seems like over the last few decades er so, times been gittin' harder n harder fer us little folk and easier n easier fer them richin's. Not that it ain't always been that a way - but just seems ta me ta be gittin' worser an worser.
Now all y'all done figur'ed it out, whatcha goin' do about it, heh? What them big brains gonna come up with? I don'e mean ta be uppity or nothin' but seems ta me that ifin the problem is that ther's too damn much money in the sytem, ya gotta git some out. Also, iffin I'm readin' ya right, ya seem ta be sayin' that most a the monies comin' from jest a few people, and some of em ain't even real people - lawd lawd lawd. Well, seems ta me ya just don't let no fake people put no money in, and ya don't let no rich people give no more than the rest a us, and ya'd be pretty much fixed up.
Now, I'm not presumin' nothin', Mr. Kristol, an I'm sure not as edicated as them them boys (maybe even some girls?) up at Princeton and Northwestern, but may be you could pass this along and they could chew on it a bit n come up with somthin' smartern me. Watcha say?
14
Re America the Unfair? by Nicholas Kristof:
In the 1930s through the 1960s, rule by tycoons was offset by the countervailing power of unions. Nicholas Kristof's list of programs to serve the now politically powerless again needs the clout of unions. Unions enlighten and unite. Not much can be done without know how, know what, and clout.
In the 1930s through the 1960s, rule by tycoons was offset by the countervailing power of unions. Nicholas Kristof's list of programs to serve the now politically powerless again needs the clout of unions. Unions enlighten and unite. Not much can be done without know how, know what, and clout.
7
Of the many possible solutions that could be proposed to make America a fairer place, two are at the forefront of my mind.
1. Compulsory voting. The Congress represents the 50% who vote (mostly white, mostly middle class, rarely poor). Ergo, 50% of Americans are unrepresented. Think about that.
2. An independent electoral commission to determine federal district boundaries governed by rational, demographic and impartial principles.
The countries that have these two institutions in place are all more equitable and more representative societies than the USA. Without these structural changes, the USA will continue to be the Wild, Wild West.
1. Compulsory voting. The Congress represents the 50% who vote (mostly white, mostly middle class, rarely poor). Ergo, 50% of Americans are unrepresented. Think about that.
2. An independent electoral commission to determine federal district boundaries governed by rational, demographic and impartial principles.
The countries that have these two institutions in place are all more equitable and more representative societies than the USA. Without these structural changes, the USA will continue to be the Wild, Wild West.
136
Compulsory anything is totalitarianism.
1
Compulsory voting? So the state should tell the citizen, “Vote or pay a fine” or “Vote or go to jail”? Surely the freedom to vote must include the freedom not to vote.
also we need to outlaw lobbying and call it what it is: legalized bribery
1
Plenty of people are aware of inequities but have foundered in their attempts to get them addressed by the lack of a big, air-tight case, one that can't be parried or airbrushed away. So cases that lead to publicity and movement, I think, tend to be egregious, because no one is listening to anything less. It's a sad state of affairs. It's terrible that kids get poisoned by their water. We need a more responsive system, for Flint and also for other people with legitimate grievances. I hope we don't just solve the Flint water crisis but also hold onto the issue of making redress through our government work better more generally. As in the private sector, there seems to be a sense that wronged people will just go away eventually if enough obstacles are put in their path to finding justice. We are doing that to each other. We can stop doing that to each other. The systems are not run by somebody other than ourselves.
3
"The systems are not run by somebody other than ourselves."
But that's just it, Diana. The systems (in this case, the government) aren't run by "ourselves" anymore. Government has "gotten away" from us. At all levels. National down to local. It's become like a (really) big private company that doesn't give a care in the world about its customers. Why? Because it doesn't have to. It's the biggest monopoly in the world. It has neither competition nor a compelling reason to "do it better".
This is why I couldn't dread the idea of a Sanders presidency any more than I do. I don't think it's in anyone's best interest that the biggest monopoly in the world (that already doesn't give a hoot about its customers) get even bigger.
But that's just it, Diana. The systems (in this case, the government) aren't run by "ourselves" anymore. Government has "gotten away" from us. At all levels. National down to local. It's become like a (really) big private company that doesn't give a care in the world about its customers. Why? Because it doesn't have to. It's the biggest monopoly in the world. It has neither competition nor a compelling reason to "do it better".
This is why I couldn't dread the idea of a Sanders presidency any more than I do. I don't think it's in anyone's best interest that the biggest monopoly in the world (that already doesn't give a hoot about its customers) get even bigger.
As someone who has watched what has been going on in America since the 1980s I can state that we have brought this on ourselves. We voted in Ronald Reagan, the man who introduced trickle down economics, who peddled idiocies like "Morning in America", but had nothing substantive to say. We voted for ourselves, not for the betterment of America, not for things that would help all of us. We allowed officials to offer tax deals to companies that reneged on job promises but complained about the poor conditions they caused. We allowed ourselves to be blinded by W's "Mission accomplished" while missing the fact that the only mission accomplished was the further diminishing of the middle and working classes.
We now live in a country where we can lose everything if we need medical care. Our children can graduate from college in debt up to their ears with no decent job in sight. Those that can't go to college can't find decent jobs. Anyone who loses a job and is over the age of 40, experienced, etc, can't find a job. In other words, our lives are more insecure than our parents were. Unless something changes (like how we vote or not) many of us will not have a bright future. But then again, it's always easier to blame the unfortunate for their problems until it happens to us. By then it's too late.
We now live in a country where we can lose everything if we need medical care. Our children can graduate from college in debt up to their ears with no decent job in sight. Those that can't go to college can't find decent jobs. Anyone who loses a job and is over the age of 40, experienced, etc, can't find a job. In other words, our lives are more insecure than our parents were. Unless something changes (like how we vote or not) many of us will not have a bright future. But then again, it's always easier to blame the unfortunate for their problems until it happens to us. By then it's too late.
69
I have been following closely as well since the Eighties. The Democrats were little better than the Republicans, both courting big money while basically ignoring their constituents. So in a two-party system where your choice is bad and worse, you blame the voters? I don't see it.
2
It is also true of Republican dominated legislatures in flyover country. Regardless of what the surveys and polls say of public opinion on the larger interests of the day, the legislatures overwhelmingly approve of actions that are barely supported by the public or actually opposed by the majority of the public. As long as they can ignore anywhere from 30-50% of the public (those that didn't vote for them) and another 20-30% of their own supporters who don't pay attention or don't care, they can rule with as little as 20-30% of the public.
96
How can this be enacted?
Well stated, stop continually telling the rest of the planet what a great country and democracy you are while at the same time having the lowest overall voter turnout in the industrialized world. Do you see something wrong with this picture?
The people have none but themselves to blame. When only 40% of them turn out to vote, isn't the politician justified in ignoring at least 60% of them? Voters have to exercise their power at the ballot. If there are 80% turnouts for primaries and elections, and the politicians still ignore the voters' preferences, that would be the time to complain.
149
Right, low voter turnout has tragic consequences, but if elections were held on Sundays, as common sense dictates and is the case in most countries, things might improve quite a bit, I guess. Who can afford to take time off from their jobs on a business day to go stand on a line for hours? And many young people must think, Why can't I vote online, this is ridiculous.
That simple measure - voting on Sundays, or better, on a whole weekend - would go a long way towards improving the democratic process.
That simple measure - voting on Sundays, or better, on a whole weekend - would go a long way towards improving the democratic process.
5
I agree that it is frustrating that more people don't turn out to vote. But, as we move steadily away from democracy toward oligarchy, people, especially the uneducated and disempowered, increasingly feel that their vote is worthless. Take the time between my McDonald's shift and my shift at the local supermarket to go and vote in an election that probably has nothing at all to do with me? Probably not.
2
You are making the assumption the two establishment parties present anything worth voting for. This is particularly true of districts were there is only one candidate which is sometimes true federally and often true of state elections. The farce that money and free speech are equivalent insures that only the establishment is heard.
2
Nicholas Kristoff is very much right. The root cause of all problems is polical funding but who will bell the cat ?
7
Nicholas Bloom suggests that raising the tax on the uber rich and wealthy is a no-brainer. Martin Gilens sees campaign finance reform as the centerpiece of any meaningful reform.
On any given day these two knowledgeable professors would have had the country's ears. But these are different times. Tweets are the new way to communicate. Instant gratification drives people's choices.
Today's right-wing populism fueled by the likes of Trump sees America as being corrupted by liberal social values and immigrants rather than seeing it as a country that was corrupted by slavery and is moving towards a more perfect union.
On any given day these two knowledgeable professors would have had the country's ears. But these are different times. Tweets are the new way to communicate. Instant gratification drives people's choices.
Today's right-wing populism fueled by the likes of Trump sees America as being corrupted by liberal social values and immigrants rather than seeing it as a country that was corrupted by slavery and is moving towards a more perfect union.
14
You leave out the most important conclusion of the Gilens Page study. The US can no longer be appropriately described as a democracy. It is for all practical purposes a oligarchy a point Bernie Sanders the last best hope for reversing this slow motion catastrophe has been making with great impact for some time now. Note as well the NYT has been very late to the party on both recognising the significance of this study and the related rise of Bernie Sanders. The Gilens Page study was published way back in 2014 and while the study not surprisingly received significant coverage in the foreign media the NYT and most US media in their "maintain the morale" function pretty much ignored its unpleasant and inconvenient truths. BTW nice work injecting a friendly Hillary reference into the piece and while we are on the subject of "eye rolling" (Wasn't it HRC in the last debate who said, "I'm the candidate Wall Street fears most.") the "eye rolling" references to Trump as champion of the disadvantaged fails to consider both Teddy the trust buster and FDR who so famously "welcomed" the hatred of the financial elites of his time were both essentially from the tycoon stock of their era and considered traitors to their class. Trump has certainly not shown any evidence of being in their league but one can see how some increasingly desperate people in their dreams would seek to elevate a tycoon rather than the desultory dregs of the tycoon errand boys and girls currently put on offer.
69
America, with 400 plus million people, looks like England in the 18th century when a handful of Lords despised every other english citizen. It is not feudalism, but americans (and europeans) are on their way towards it. America's dream was to escape from the tyranny of the aristocrats of Europe, and americans have built another aristocracy in their country.
156
"..and americans have built another aristocracy in their country."
Aided & abetted by government.
Aided & abetted by government.
1
A good article but the title needs rehabilitation. A wink is good as a nod but a period is better than a question mark for Kristof's title. It is why Bernie is doing so well.
43
Our Oligarchs always want more
With slathers of cash kept offshore,
The Planet they're heating
Is taking a beating
A matter they simply ignore.
The homeless they look on with scorn
Wish Unions had never been born,
Money laden natures
Control legislatures
Paying taxes leaves them forlorn.
With slathers of cash kept offshore,
The Planet they're heating
Is taking a beating
A matter they simply ignore.
The homeless they look on with scorn
Wish Unions had never been born,
Money laden natures
Control legislatures
Paying taxes leaves them forlorn.
76
One of your best!
2
One of your best Larry.
1
Thank you for at last citing on this op ed page Princeton’s Gilens/Page study proving our democracy is not working, that our majorities of citizens have little influence on govt policies, despite universal voting rights.
Their study is just what Bernie Sanders should bring up in the debates. What will Hillary say?
Now, Mr. Kristof, let’s talk Citizens United—also neglected in the columns, yet related to most of the problems they discuss. Even many in both parties want to get rid of big money in elections. As Robert Reich says, no progress is possible until that decision is reversed.
But the S. Court absurdly claimed that limiting big money in elections stifles 1st amendment free speech. So the very thing that undermines our democratic tradition, our high court claims upholds it. This is truly Alice in Wonderland reasoning. Is it considered ‘left wing’ to push for more public funding of elections, so the media avoids it? Public funding works abroad.
Even when there’s no quid pro quo, our legalized corruption has lowered the standards of what our government owes its citizens. Not even clean water—in the 21st C. That’s how we reached this new low in Flint. Today a CNN reporter said there are no grocery stores in Flint.
I saw on cspan that John Nichols of “The Nation” says that 15 states and 600 cities have moved to reverse Citizens United. If news media keeps this dark, how can pressure build up to start restoring representation for the majority of citizens?
Their study is just what Bernie Sanders should bring up in the debates. What will Hillary say?
Now, Mr. Kristof, let’s talk Citizens United—also neglected in the columns, yet related to most of the problems they discuss. Even many in both parties want to get rid of big money in elections. As Robert Reich says, no progress is possible until that decision is reversed.
But the S. Court absurdly claimed that limiting big money in elections stifles 1st amendment free speech. So the very thing that undermines our democratic tradition, our high court claims upholds it. This is truly Alice in Wonderland reasoning. Is it considered ‘left wing’ to push for more public funding of elections, so the media avoids it? Public funding works abroad.
Even when there’s no quid pro quo, our legalized corruption has lowered the standards of what our government owes its citizens. Not even clean water—in the 21st C. That’s how we reached this new low in Flint. Today a CNN reporter said there are no grocery stores in Flint.
I saw on cspan that John Nichols of “The Nation” says that 15 states and 600 cities have moved to reverse Citizens United. If news media keeps this dark, how can pressure build up to start restoring representation for the majority of citizens?
191
The news media are complicit with the Citizens United decision. Where does all that campaign money flow, right to the media outlets. They are never going to denounce the decision.
As usual, follow the money1
As usual, follow the money1
7
Yeah Jeff, right on. See John Nichols book "Dollarocracy" ...explains how big media and local TV stations profit hugely from our overly extended campaigns with deluges of paid ads needing billionaire funding.
These are banned in many other democracies, amazingly, so they allow free media time for all candidates--in 4 month campaigns! That is what democracy looks like.
These are banned in many other democracies, amazingly, so they allow free media time for all candidates--in 4 month campaigns! That is what democracy looks like.
3
This article was very biased, as is most of this newspaper. One positive reference of Clinton, plus one mention of Sanders - lumped in with Trump - in a column about economic inequality and politicians corrupted by money. There must be a secret NYT agenda to promote the friend of Wall Street titans and big-time panderer, Hillary Clinton.
Only one presidential candidate has proposed practical plans to significantly reduce economic inequality and reform campaign finance, and that is Bernie Sanders.
Hypocrisy runs deep at The NYT.
Only one presidential candidate has proposed practical plans to significantly reduce economic inequality and reform campaign finance, and that is Bernie Sanders.
Hypocrisy runs deep at The NYT.
100
This election cycle's silent majority is comprised of those Americans that hate the plutocracy America has become, and that is why Bernie Sanders is going to be riding a wave of Wall Street hatred right into the White House.
39
Instead of spending more money on quality education, what money there is is being privatised by for profit charter schools.
The looting of public school funds here in Floriduh has been led by two Bush brothers. Third! Bush, who corrupted the 2000 election while Governor and his brother Neil whose last raid on the Treasury was the $1.4 billion swindle he perpetrated as a Director of Silverado Savings & Loan of Denver.
The beauty of charters as profit and propaganda centers is clear. They can select the students they take, no trouble makers, no special needs kids.
Their non union slave wage teachers are quite free to teach ideology under the banner of free speech. They can teach the world is 6,000 years old, that men rode dinosaurs, that critical thought is communistic, probably gay, that man made climate change is some god's gift to people in cold climates.
The looting of public school funds here in Floriduh has been led by two Bush brothers. Third! Bush, who corrupted the 2000 election while Governor and his brother Neil whose last raid on the Treasury was the $1.4 billion swindle he perpetrated as a Director of Silverado Savings & Loan of Denver.
The beauty of charters as profit and propaganda centers is clear. They can select the students they take, no trouble makers, no special needs kids.
Their non union slave wage teachers are quite free to teach ideology under the banner of free speech. They can teach the world is 6,000 years old, that men rode dinosaurs, that critical thought is communistic, probably gay, that man made climate change is some god's gift to people in cold climates.
74
I agree with your sentiments, though I would also say that no one has any less duty than another to become a teacher and deal with troublemakers. A real "carrot" to enter the profession, eh?
According to the OECD, we rank in the top 5 or 6 worldwide on per-student spending. And still, we only manage to graduate 8 out of 10 students. If that doesn't point to something other than money as the problem, I don't know what possibly could.
1
Campaign finance reform is the key issue of Bernie Sanders. The current regime allowing unlimited funding of super pacs (why the continued use of quotation marks, NYT?) under Citizens United threatens our very democracy. Not sure why Hillary deserves a mention here, as she unabashedly takes money from wealthy donors and accepts super pac support. She is a darling of Wall Street and big pharma. Bernie is the only one making this a centerpiece of his campaign.
88
Not a Trump supporter, but to be fair, CU is the one thing it'd appear he & Bernie agree on. Granted, the latter's been more vocal on the need to get rid of it.
So making bribery legal works great for those making the bribes - no kidding.
8
A fair enough article. But it seems to imagine that there ever was a perfect democracy. The majority certainly didn't rule in America when women had no votes. The fight for black votes is far from over. And money always dominated.
There have been improvements, but never perfection. The reasons should be analyzed in the context of historical change. The arc of political history began with heads of families and village chiefs, and went on to overlords and warlords. We went to city-states and feudal states. In America, we passed briefly through a semblance of a nation-state, but that is now in disarray, and yes, money and power are the driving forces.
Issue politics facilitates that degeneration. Issues of women, of blacks, of gays, of immigrants, and of the “middle class” are all valid and worthy. But they divide us and distract us from the mechanics of our politics. Put all those issues together, and we see that there isn’t just one gap in our democracy: there is no real democracy. And the media know that, and the new talking heads smirk and chortle their way through the circus of the current election season.
A revolution is needed, and that can’t come at the polls. Because the polls work in the context of the problem. Maybe we’re doomed to sit tight until an asteroid strikes or Yellowstone erupts, so that the survivors can start again. Meanwhile, incremental change in politics is the best we can hope for.
There have been improvements, but never perfection. The reasons should be analyzed in the context of historical change. The arc of political history began with heads of families and village chiefs, and went on to overlords and warlords. We went to city-states and feudal states. In America, we passed briefly through a semblance of a nation-state, but that is now in disarray, and yes, money and power are the driving forces.
Issue politics facilitates that degeneration. Issues of women, of blacks, of gays, of immigrants, and of the “middle class” are all valid and worthy. But they divide us and distract us from the mechanics of our politics. Put all those issues together, and we see that there isn’t just one gap in our democracy: there is no real democracy. And the media know that, and the new talking heads smirk and chortle their way through the circus of the current election season.
A revolution is needed, and that can’t come at the polls. Because the polls work in the context of the problem. Maybe we’re doomed to sit tight until an asteroid strikes or Yellowstone erupts, so that the survivors can start again. Meanwhile, incremental change in politics is the best we can hope for.
2
It's not often I agree with you dEs, but for what it's worth, I think you nail it here.
We need major election finance reform. Without it we will always in one way or another have the presence of the wealthy donor and the beholding politician; we will have have a class of politicians who must spend too much of their time & energy raising money for the next campaign. Beyond financial reform, we ought to shorten our campaign seasons. Other countries have much much shorter election seasons. From the time potential candidates begin to put out feelers (visiting Iowa sites and events) to the election of the POTUS is often in the area of 24 months out of a 4 year election cycle - ridiculous!
26
the only attainable reform is reform of the voters. If voters educate themselves and vote accordingly all will be well. Expecting someone else to save us is how we got in this mess in the first place.
1
"Solutions are complex, imperfect and uncertain, but the biggest problem is not a lack of tools but a lack of will. " - N. Kristof
"But the Sanders plan in a way reinforces my point that calls for single-payer in America at this point are basically a distraction. Again, I say this as someone who favors single-payer — but it’s just not going to happen anytime soon." - P. Krugman
Discuss.
"But the Sanders plan in a way reinforces my point that calls for single-payer in America at this point are basically a distraction. Again, I say this as someone who favors single-payer — but it’s just not going to happen anytime soon." - P. Krugman
Discuss.
50
Paul and my wife argue for gradualism. I say you have to attain escape velocity. Feel the Bern.
11
Willingness is best linked with realism. Bernie is uncoupled from the realities of America. DC and Vermont are not America.
Paul K wants a slot in a Clinton govt.
9
This is the exact time pre-election that matters most, before the primaries. This is when we decide who will run, who will represent or pretend to represent the choices in the general election.
This is not the time to leave problems to post-election. This is the time to make a difference in the upcoming primaries.
Now we can still get Bernie. Later, if we don't, then we can talk about post-election. We'll have to, because if these primaries go wrong, the general election really won't matter anymore.
This is not the time to leave problems to post-election. This is the time to make a difference in the upcoming primaries.
Now we can still get Bernie. Later, if we don't, then we can talk about post-election. We'll have to, because if these primaries go wrong, the general election really won't matter anymore.
163
I agree, Mark. I have wrestled with the electability/issues problem but in the end I decided to follow my heart AND brain and support Bernie as far as he can go. His is the platform I would adopt if in his position. He is making a difference in the primaries, on Hillary and in the general political discourse.
I only wish he would get more media coverage.
I only wish he would get more media coverage.
7
Which is why we need one, same-day primary across ALL states!
5
The policy views of average Americans don't matter because they do not inform their voting choices.
Politicians have learned that voters can be easily distracted from substantive policy issues by so-called "values" issues. And wealthy donors seek out the best at this bait and switch game to shower with their billions in return for some small favors after the election.
Voting based on the best interests of the average American. What a concept!
Politicians have learned that voters can be easily distracted from substantive policy issues by so-called "values" issues. And wealthy donors seek out the best at this bait and switch game to shower with their billions in return for some small favors after the election.
Voting based on the best interests of the average American. What a concept!
250
And voters have learned that politicians are lying about "issues" anyway. No matter what they say, that isn't what they will do. So why should voters pay attention to known lies, carefully parsing the promises that won't be kept?
21
Mark: voters have to pay attention to how politicians actually vote when they are in office. This is what the lobbyists and the wealthy donors do. All of the Democrats in the Senate voted for the Disclose Act and related legislation to get secret money out of politics and to counteract the Citizens United decision that was imposed by the 5 Republicans on the Supreme a court. All of the Republicans voted to block these reforms.
Then, at election time, inattentive cynics say there is no difference between the parties, letting the Republicans get away with their destructive votes.
Then, at election time, inattentive cynics say there is no difference between the parties, letting the Republicans get away with their destructive votes.
113
When the 1% own/control over 90% of the wealth, you basically have a banana republic, with the 99% fighting over the remaining 10% or carcass.
This is not the America the founding fathers fought to create.
We have become more british than the English of King George the V's time (1776). All for the divine-right king; nothing for the rebellious/filthy colonists.
Our Government now deems all of us potential money launderers and terrorists, exerting total control of the population through the banks and omnipresent cameras/surveillance.
You can justify anything in the name of national security!
Freedom and justice are dead. Unfairness rules the land: might/$ makes right.
It's survival of the fittest/(1%). The rest - all expendable. Is this the predestined course of history? Is this the America that our Government wants the rest of the world to emulate?
Where is Buddha, Lao-tzu, Christ - a true savior, a new avatar?
Was Dante right? Abandon all hope ye who enter here (no, not hell; the modern world, that is).
But, let the 1% not forget that banana republics are by nature self-destructive.
Beware you onepercenters! Beware of karma/retribution!
This is not the America the founding fathers fought to create.
We have become more british than the English of King George the V's time (1776). All for the divine-right king; nothing for the rebellious/filthy colonists.
Our Government now deems all of us potential money launderers and terrorists, exerting total control of the population through the banks and omnipresent cameras/surveillance.
You can justify anything in the name of national security!
Freedom and justice are dead. Unfairness rules the land: might/$ makes right.
It's survival of the fittest/(1%). The rest - all expendable. Is this the predestined course of history? Is this the America that our Government wants the rest of the world to emulate?
Where is Buddha, Lao-tzu, Christ - a true savior, a new avatar?
Was Dante right? Abandon all hope ye who enter here (no, not hell; the modern world, that is).
But, let the 1% not forget that banana republics are by nature self-destructive.
Beware you onepercenters! Beware of karma/retribution!
20