I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country.
Lincoln:
The money powers prey upon the nation in times of peace and conspire against it in times of adversity. It is more despotic than a monarchy, more insolent than autocracy, and more selfish than bureaucracy. It denounces as public enemies, all who question its methods or throw light upon its crimes. I have two great enemies, the Southern Army in front of me and the Bankers in the rear. Of the two, the one at my rear is my greatest foe.. corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money powers of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until the wealth is aggregated in the hands of a few, and the Republic is destroyed.
1 comment:
Jamie, excellent post! I could go on and on about this topic.
It's not just corporate money though. It's money, in general, that has infected election campaigns, and hence, the laws that these politicians enact when elected.
It first came clear to me years ago when Jessie Helms ran for one of his re-elections for Senate. I recall him being behind by 10 or more points in the polls at one point. Then money flooded to his campaign from the Republican Party and, perhaps, corporations who may had originally thought his re-election was safe. Then, he pulled ahead of his challenger and won. It got me to think, how could millions of dollars change the opinion of the majority of voters what an absolute scum he was, and that, all of a sudden, the challenger didn't even deserve a chance to be the senator?
From that point on, it was clear it was mostly about money. Granted, there is plenty of responsibility on the voters' part to allow themselves to be sheep. But clearly the corporations and the other holders of the big money exploit this.
This has been made especially clear with the health care debate. Frankly, I don't know what should be done, but it's clear to me what we almost ended up with was some half-a$$ed measure. And I understand that there are good arguments against it. But that's not what this was all about. It had almost nothing to do with what was best with our nation regarding health care, but more with how can we best appease doctors organizations, and insurance and pharmaceutical companies.
I could go on and on about this, but I'll put it to a rest for now.
Post a Comment