Why does the left despise your freedom so? The left is in an uproar over the Supreme Court’s decision to protect political speech in Citizens United, with some comparing the decision to Dred Scott. Before we join the chorus against “too much money in politics”, we should recognize that the problem is “too much money in government” (Washington and elsewhere). The answer is less government, not less freedom.
Our problem is too much government for sale. When government regulates the buying and selling of things, says P.J. O’Rourke, the first thing for sale is the lawmakers. Complaining that there is too much money in politics is like complaining that we are overcrowded with whores because there is too much money in the whorehouse. As Ronald Reagan said, “It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first.” If you want fewer whores, build a smaller whorehouse.
The left’s attack on the decision and Chief Justice John Roberts is pure Saul Alinksy. They are attempting to marginalize Roberts, comparing him to Dred Scott‘s Justice Taney. This deception obscures the fact that the “swing voter”, libertarian Justice Anthony Kennedy, penned the majority opinion (not Roberts). The comparison to Dred Scott is Orwellian (“Freedom is slavery”) in that Citizens United protected freedom, while Dred Scott protected slavery.
We have less to fear of enslavement from corporations than we do from government. The left has relentlessly expanded the problem of “too much money in government”, with the Obama administration massively expanding its size and reach. Obama and the Democrats have socialized the auto industry (to benefit their union allies), enriched their Wall Street friends (Goldman Sachs, AIG), and quadrupled the debt, putting future generations in servitude. Their mock outrage at “too much money in politics” is a Big Lie.
If you want to “take the money out of politics”, take the money out of government. And, remember that the left’s answer is always more state power and less freedom.
Obviously business decided it was cheaper to buy justices than lawmakers. Folks love having their choice of doctors dictated by corporations so why not their political decisions – makes it a lot easier. Watch out for that next “security” update from Microsoft – it’ll probably be for their security.
& so the continual legitimization of America’s third parties.
http://www.newswithviews.com/Brownlow/david3.htm
Your whole thesis breaks down when one examines how the “free market” reacted to having some very real, very significant freedoms when it comes to the financial market. It invented and twisted a whole set of get rich quick, short-term-sighted financial instruments (OTC derivatives, etc.) that were virtually unfettered by meaningful regulation and look where it got us.
Should we become socialists? No. But that were becoming so is just a straw man argument anyway. But by the same token, we MUST be aware that the free market is run by human beings…and sometimes, when you give human beings unfettered freedom, they do bad things with it. The free market is not a morally-benign force.
And as long as this country keeps swinging back and forth between extremes of political ideology, we’ll never find the balance that fosters a healthy economy.
#3, no one “runs” the free market. that is impossible. It is the voluntary decisions made on behalf of buyers and sellers. The free market does not promise anything. It is rather the only practical way of distributing scarce resources.
IrvineReporter,
If you don’t think that laissez-faire, free-market economics is a very PARTICULAR approach to the market, led by human beings, then there’s really nothing I can say about that level of naivete.
And on top of all the practical implications of the Supreme Court ruling, can anyone explain to me how overturning several precedents and parts of an act of Congress could be called anything except a case of judicial activism.
Your post suggests a naiveté that borders on the absurd. Many nation-states that have “larger” governments have citizens that enjoy freedoms equal to those in the US, and many states with smaller governments are despotic and brutal. To suggest that bigger government necessarily equals less freedom is nonsensical and shows an understanding of politics driven purely by ideology.
Secondly, it was Regan and Bush Jr. that were responsible for the largest increases in government spending since WWII, not democrats (not that I am a fan of them either). To break this down along partisan lines is disingenuous at best, and further suggests an inability to analyze policy through anything other than crude ideology.
Obama is well on his way to joining this group, but to suggest that bigger government equals less freedoms is to then suggest that Regan and Bush Jr. took away more liberty than most? Which is it?
Thirdly, to link the concern over the most recent SCOTUS decision mainly to the (albeit hypocritical) Obama administration is a sleight of hand that ignores the criticisms of numerous legal scholars and other “centrist” Republicans. Corporations are legal entities, and by and large have enjoyed “limited” legal rights similar to those enjoyed by individuals. This ruling pushes the envelope towards the idea that corporations have inalienable rights that supersede the ability of congress to regulate them in this area – a concept that corporate lawyers have pushed for almost 150 years, but one that has more or less been tempered with the understanding that corporations are fundamentally distinct from individuals in important legal and practical ways. The founding fathers certainly had no such concept in mind, and there was little precedent prior to Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad (1886) to recognize corporations as “legal” persons. Your post suggests that anyone who questions this ruling must be a left-wing nut job; while nothing could be further from the truth. This is a controversial decision in many legal and political circles. You may not agree with those that criticize it, but you (again) are being disingenuous to suggest there is not a legitimate and dynamic debate that exceeds partisanship over this ruling.
Finally, as for “putting future generations in servitude,” this is laughable. We already have THIS generation in servitude to the tune of about 2 and a half trillion dollars of total consumer debt. To suggest that this is not somehow linked to the financial “deregulation” of the “free-market” is absurd. While you wax on about the threat that Obama and his flunkies may pose to “future” generations, the average American family is now carries an average of over 120k in debt. That is servitude of the worst corporate variety. This too must be the fault of Democrats, I suppose.
You have it backwards. Being a lawmaker is the oldest profession. A few days later hookers were born to service the lawmakers. Makes sense right?
Thank you Rogue. A very thoughtful and informative piece. I might add that as much as Leftists rail against corporatism, companies don’t care about the left or the right. They care about profits. That’s why all the talk about Wall Street greed or Insurance greed is so silly. They are always greedy. That’s why we’re so successful. And they want to continue to do well and make more money than yesterday. The only time we have a problem is when government starts telling corporations what to do. (you have to give THESE people loans. THOSE people we won’t worry about.) If people think they are going to mitigate up and down cycles by getting government involved, all they are doing is promising one long downward spiral.
Thanks again for the article.
“The only time we have a problem is when government starts telling corporations what to do.” ]
In the face of one huge corporate scandal after another – Enron, Tyco, Adelphia, AES, Arthur Anderson, Citigroup, Duke (the list goes on and on), this quote is pure farce. These companies, and dozens more like them, did what they did as a result of so called “deregulation.” Enron is the classic example, which bilked the taxpayers of California for billions of dollars.
Even in the face of an entire financial system that has collapsed and been temporarily revived through massive infusions of (socialized) capital, in the face of one scandal after another that has shown companies unable or unwilling to police themselves, in the face of trillions of dollars of bad loans – you people still call for less regulation! Simply and utterly amazing. No wonder we are in the mess we are in today.
The only time we have a problem???? WHAT THE HELL DO WE HAVE NOW?
ww,
Keep in mind, you’re writing to folks who’s ability to analyze objective reality has been overtaken by adherence to ideological purity. That is the very definition of a political hack. Balance just is not in these people’s vocabulary.
If I have equal free speech to a corperation then I should be able to go down to the local TV station and run a political ad everytime a corperation pays for one. OOPs I forgot, that I do not have the money to have free speech like a corperation or large group with money.
So now only those with deep pockets can have free speech on the airwaves? I can stand on a corner with a sign, but does that really equal an ad that reached millions.
So now does that mean that the amount of free speech a person can have is equal to his checking account?
Is that really a true defination of free speech? It is now more than ever after this ruling.
Like I said before, I understand how one could reason to support the ruling based on prior law. But it goes against everything that I beleive free speech is.
The amount of money you have should not have anything to do with you recieving an equal amount of free speech.
Public financing must be enacted, to save our democracy