16 replies to this topic

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

2016 is a presidential election year in the United States, and although Election Day itself is still nearly two years away (I year, 8 months, 19 days to be precise) the pre-race race has already started. Hillary Clinton, of course, is the odds-on favorite for the Democratic nomination. The Republican side is wide open, and will be decided through a series of televised debates and impromptu media moments interspersed with occasional primary voting; this process will ruin occupy most of the first six months of 2016.

If you were born in the United States chances are someone has told you that you could be president one day. But while that is technically true (the Constitution stipulates only that the president must be a natural-born American citizen 35 years of age), the reality is that there are really only a tiny number of people, maybe two or three dozen, who have a realistic shot at becoming president. For one thing, you need the support of one of the two major parties, which is a pretty high bar. Birth helps too, quite a lot.

 

Consider: The most likely nominees of their respective parties, Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush, both come from wealthy, established political families boasting at least one former president. Two more serious contenders, Rand Paul and Mitt Romney, are also scions of political families. Think about that. Of the infinitesimally small number of Americans alive today who have an actual, realistic shot of becoming president, at least four come from prominent political families. And all of them are rich.

Is it still democracy if we're only choosing from among a wealthy, privileged elite? That sounds more like aristocracy to me.

 

[Manoka]

You have to be popular and be able to campaign despite not having a job, so it basically necessitates being rich. 

 

The good honest guy who takes care of his family and works 8 hours a day for a moderate budget just doesn't have the time or energy to run for president, the decades needed building up his often low budget political career. The idea that government jobs shouldn't pay much just means that someone who doesn't need to worry about it stands a better chance. It's not an aristocracies, since poor people can run, and not all aristocracies are run by rich people. In communism, they were aristocratic, but in general they didn't get too much money in their positions, although they did usually get some benefits. A society could be ruled by a high class group of people, who don't make a lot of money. 

 

Not to mention, an aristocracy means that they rule the country. Even as president in America, you are not a dictator, with unlimited powers. You still have to follow the will of the people, and do what they want in general. So, even if only rich people become politicians, that doesn't mean they're in control of everything. xP

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

No, but the rich effectively rule the country by means of their domination of the political process. No, we don't have titled aristocrats and landed gentry, but the difference is semantics. In America today most of our highest elected officials (governors, congressmen, senators, presidents) come from a small group of wealthy, white families who are part of the same greater social circle. They went to the same schools, joined the same clubs, worked at the same law firms, hedge funds, lobbying firms, and nonprofits. Yes, it is possible to work one's way into this group, but as much as we cherish the rags-to-riches story the truth is that it is very, very rare. Most often wealth begets wealth. In 21st century America, do you know what is the single biggest predictor of success in life? Socioeconomic level at birth. Class counts for a lot. We are not as classless a society as we like to believe.

[Manoka]

No, but the rich effectively rule the country by means of their domination of the political process. No, we don't have titled aristocrats and landed gentry, but the difference is semantics. In America today most of our highest elected officials (governors, congressmen, senators, presidents) come from a small group of wealthy, white families who are part of the same greater social circle. They went to the same schools, joined the same clubs, worked at the same law firms, hedge funds, lobbying firms, and nonprofits. Yes, it is possible to work one's way into this group, but as much as we cherish the rags-to-riches story the truth is that it is very, very rare. Most often wealth begets wealth. In 21st century America, do you know what is the single biggest predictor of success in life? Socioeconomic level at birth. Class counts for a lot. We are not as classless a society as we like to believe.

Let's assume that's the case. 

 

The fact of the matter is, in a democratic society, the elected officials do not have absolute control over any single function of the government. It's not like an aristocracy in that that people still rule, even if those who represent them are rather rich. Obama's not a dictator, so even if the rich are more likely to become politicians, they're not more likely to rule all of us with an iron fist.

 

 

If they were all mini-dictators, then, the problem would rest in anyone, poor or rich, having absolute control over us, and not really who was in absolute control, at all.

Edited by Manoka, 20 February 2015 - 03:31 PM.

[King Biscuit]

Sanders / Warren 2016

[CeltSoldierKev]

Sanders / Warren 2016

Oh God (Great One, Buddha, Allah, Steve Jobs, Lizard Overlord), please let this be the Democratic ticket in 2016!

[CeltSoldierKev]

No, but the rich effectively rule the country by means of their domination of the political process. No, we don't have titled aristocrats and landed gentry, but the difference is semantics. In America today most of our highest elected officials (governors, congressmen, senators, presidents) come from a small group of wealthy, white families who are part of the same greater social circle. They went to the same schools, joined the same clubs, worked at the same law firms, hedge funds, lobbying firms, and nonprofits. Yes, it is possible to work one's way into this group, but as much as we cherish the rags-to-riches story the truth is that it is very, very rare. Most often wealth begets wealth. In 21st century America, do you know what is the single biggest predictor of success in life? Socioeconomic level at birth. Class counts for a lot. We are not as classless a society as we like to believe.

 

Bill Clinton?

 

Also, shouldn't this be in the Politics Sub-Forum?  Are going to have to start calling you Manoka?

[The Dark Empire]

2016 is a presidential election year in the United States, and although Election Day itself is still nearly two years away (I year, 8 months, 19 days to be precise) the pre-race race has already started. Hillary Clinton, of course, is the odds-on favorite for the Democratic nomination. The Republican side is wide open, and will be decided through a series of televised debates and impromptu media moments interspersed with occasional primary voting; this process will ruin occupy most of the first six months of 2016.

If you were born in the United States chances are someone has told you that you could be president one day. But while that is technically true (the Constitution stipulates only that the president must be a natural-born American citizen 35 years of age), the reality is that there are really only a tiny number of people, maybe two or three dozen, who have a realistic shot at becoming president. For one thing, you need the support of one of the two major parties, which is a pretty high bar. Birth helps too, quite a lot.

 

Consider: The most likely nominees of their respective parties, Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush, both come from wealthy, established political families boasting at least one former president. Two more serious contenders, Rand Paul and Mitt Romney, are also scions of political families. Think about that. Of the infinitesimally small number of Americans alive today who have an actual, realistic shot of becoming president, at least four come from prominent political families. And all of them are rich.

Is it still democracy if we're only choosing from among a wealthy, privileged elite? That sounds more like aristocracy to me.

 

My boy Abraham Lincoln tho

[Manoka]

No, but the rich effectively rule the country by means of their domination of the political process. No, we don't have titled aristocrats and landed gentry, but the difference is semantics. In America today most of our highest elected officials (governors, congressmen, senators, presidents) come from a small group of wealthy, white families who are part of the same greater social circle. They went to the same schools, joined the same clubs, worked at the same law firms, hedge funds, lobbying firms, and nonprofits. Yes, it is possible to work one's way into this group, but as much as we cherish the rags-to-riches story the truth is that it is very, very rare. Most often wealth begets wealth. In 21st century America, do you know what is the single biggest predictor of success in life? Socioeconomic level at birth. Class counts for a lot. We are not as classless a society as we like to believe.

 

Bill Clinton?

 

Also, shouldn't this be in the Politics Sub-Forum?  Are going to have to start calling you Manoka?

Shhhh! 

 

Don't let them know that we're Jorost D:

[King Biscuit]

Sanders / Warren 2016

Oh God (Great One, Buddha, Allah, Steve Jobs, Lizard Overlord), please let this be the Democratic ticket in 2016!

 

I'm writing them in.

 

#ThirdPartyOrNoParty

[Shokkou]

My boy Abraham Lincoln tho
 

Dat suspension of habeas corpus tho

[Daniel P]

No, but the rich effectively rule the country by means of their domination of the political process. No, we don't have titled aristocrats and landed gentry, but the difference is semantics. In America today most of our highest elected officials (governors, congressmen, senators, presidents) come from a small group of wealthy, white families who are part of the same greater social circle. They went to the same schools, joined the same clubs, worked at the same law firms, hedge funds, lobbying firms, and nonprofits. Yes, it is possible to work one's way into this group, but as much as we cherish the rags-to-riches story the truth is that it is very, very rare. Most often wealth begets wealth. In 21st century America, do you know what is the single biggest predictor of success in life? Socioeconomic level at birth. Class counts for a lot. We are not as classless a society as we like to believe.

 

Bill Clinton?

 

Also, shouldn't this be in the Politics Sub-Forum?  Are going to have to start calling you Manoka?

 

I moved it and anything related to the political sub-forum.

 

EDIT: Also I moved Manoka and the other Jorost Topic into the sub-forum.

[Manoka]

My boy Abraham Lincoln tho
 

Dat suspension of habeas corpus tho

Fuck habeas corpus.

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

I didn't write this in the politics subforum because 1) I think we have too many subforums, and 2) it's not really about "politics," it's more than that. When you say "Politics" I think of bickering over partisan nonsense, or left-right stuff. This has nothing to do with left and right. Both the Tea Party and the Occupy Movement are a result of it, this concentration of power in fewer and fewer hands. People of all ideologies see the dangers in this.

 

As for Bill Clinton, yes, he was born poor, even arguably white trash, and climbed to the highest echelons. But he is one of the exceptions. Most modern presidents have either been born into wealth or else were already very wealthy by the time they got to the White House.

[Thrash]

Well guess what dude.. cuz of this topic, you're now on the list.

[Justavictim82]

Sanders / Warren 2016

Flip this and maybe then we can talk

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

Elizabeth Warren is not ready for play at that level. Trust me, she's my senator. She barely beat Scott Brown, even with everything being arrayed against him. She's awkward on the stump, and can be thrown off-balance in debates way too easily. The Republicans would eat her alive. Bernie Sanders is too old and too crazy. Don't get me wrong; I love the guy. But what appeals to me and what appeals to most of the rest of the country are often quite different. Bernie Sanders will never be president. But what he will do is stand onstage next to Hillary Clinton and talk about awesome stuff. His presence in the race will drive Hillary Clinton to the left. And if the Republicans nominate an unelectable far-right nutbag, which is not unlikely, she will be free to move even further in that direction. There is an outside chance of a Clinton/Warren ticket (I think the idea of the first all-woman ticket would have appeal), but I would not bet on it.