Although each individual has an equal right to vote, we must recognize that who is incented to vote and how they are incented to vote are determined by their social, political, and financial surroundings. Pessimistically, Noam Chomsky posits in Profit Over People: Neoliberalism & Global Order
that these opinions are heavily influenced by the media. This "malleability" of public opinion was "discovered" during and post WWII as documented by Edward Bernays in Propaganda
. (The concept of propaganda quickly morphed into "Public Relations").If this line of thinking holds merit whatsoever, we find that those with the greatest financial backing can run the most permeating policy campaigns, awarding them the greatest sway over voters and political decisions. Corporate contributions had been previously limited via the so-called McCain-Feingold law, but this law has been subsequently reversed (see NYT article here). The premise of the ruling had to do with the legal "personhood" of corporations and the freedom of speech under the First Amendment.
My intent in this is not to point fingers, but rather to address the structure of incentives. People by and large behave how they are incented to (Freakonomics
is a very fun read on this). As such, we must give adequate thought to creating proper incentive structures.This becomes vitally important when incorporated with the previous few posts. As discussed, capitalism and democracy provide necessary checks and balances (financial power versus voting power). When corporate campaign contributions are substantial enough to influence voters, capitalism begins to tacitly control democracy rather than wrestle with it. Our current incentive structure encourages corporations and special interest groups to lobby for change that is narrowly rather than broadly beneficial. Furthermore, it enables them to do so. This creates a trajectory that is long-term politically unstable.
No comments:
Post a Comment