Media Bias of Conservatives

[Pliny]

I have re-read the thread now and I believe there are some basic political concepts that we have not made clear to each other, we have hardly made a clear distinction between left and right, what constitutes liberalism and conservatism, their interests and how the preservation of the "establishment"

concerns the "apparently" polar political parties that the average voter sees as liberal and conservative. The average voter is not having an in depth political discussion about ideology and, I think, has many confusions about what conservatism and liberalism, left and right are all about, instead preferring to yell communist or fascist at those they perceive to be partisan to opposing political parties. Basically, the average person is very superficial in their understanding of politics and will perhaps cast their vote based upon a few policies presented in party platforms that appeal to them as being proper or a benefit to society or a "cost" for their protection and most consider government as a necessary evil and important for the maintenance of social order, catching criminals and ensuring protection for the individual - although I feel the latter is being eroded and replaced with a concentration on the protection of the common good, a symptom of progressive socialism or socialist progressivism, whatever is preferred.

It is obvious you and I have different views of what comprises the political spectrum and we can argue until we are blue in the face about "left and right". We will make no progress until we clearly understand each others concept. I am getting a better understanding of yours and I can encapsulate mine in a few paragraphs.

Basically, political forces, in order to be a "force", need backing, firstly by numbers of people and secondly by financing. Communism does not just happen spontaneously, and nor does Fascism. Power, that is, the influence government exercises on society must first be concentrated to some degree and people must agree that the goals it promises are first, desirable and second, can be achieved by the prescribed political methods. In my view, what is common to both "far left" communism/socialism and "far right" fascism is public support of the State and belief in it's capability to bring about the desirable socio/economic objectives. The perception to achieve immediate results must include the idea that force will be necessary to bring about the changes. Power, the ability to use force, must therefore exist in a concentrated, centralized form prior to any Statist movement to mobilize and seize it. The popularity of State ideology, that is, the state could provide better social conditions and maintain order if it were unfettered by any restraints, was increasingly a popular idea. Communism/socialism and fascism are borne out of that basic idea that the State can and should provide the essentials of life more equally, fairly and abundantly than society would be able to without the State. The fault in both extreme ideologies of left and right lies in the fact that it is the State that decides the winners and losers. Fascist ideology defines clearly who the winners and losers are.

Communism/socialism declares all are winners, we know it breeds discontent in the division of labour and some are decreed more equal than others in sharing from the totally "publicly" owned property.

Essentially, statist ideologies, of the extreme left or right exist out of the public's perception that the State can give it what it wants and certain factions of the current "establishment", perceived to be corrupt, need to be forced to participate.

Communism and fascism are totalitarian states, both enforcing a totally government engineered social structure. Socialism is different only in the means of attaining the total state. It's ultimate goal is also enforcing a totally government engineered social structure. It achieves its totality "progressively", evolving over time. There are now international influences that are overriding national sovereignty. It used to be that national interests of powerful nations would override the interests of other nations. This inversion is indicative of a progressive concentration of power - from powerful nations, of course - on a global level. A totally government engineered social structure on a global level being the objective. The people, in general, don't seem to mind this, and are conditioned to see a necessity for it.

I do not see that fascism/Nazism is a far right phenomenon. I look at it as a Statist phenomenon. You have obvious determinations of what is right and what is left based upon the differences in their prescribed end structure. The total state, in my view, cannot be anything but totalitarian and dictatorial, that the hierarchical socio/economic structure is different is not of much concern and will only vary according to the individuals holding power and their personal perception of society and how the State can maintain its power.

From my perspective, there is nothing that exists politically that could be called the "right". I agree with you that Hillary Clinton and John McCain hold quite similar "establishment" views. They will both contribute to a growth in the State because that is what is important to them. The mainstream Democrat and Republican parties both hold establishment views and a lot of them could change their labels without changing any of their political views.

I do not understand your position that the Tea party is far right. It proposes limits to government which are not conducive to any far right ideology of a dictatorial totalitarian State, unless you feel the absence of State intervention is actually itself dictatorial, perhaps a capitalist/corporate dictatorship. I don't see that as a possibility without the enforcement of the State to maintain it as the "establishment" - regulating and overseeing it's ascertainment. People won't support or tolerate corporations that exercise governmental powers. They can buy things but they cannot force things upon the public without losing favour and being condemned. It's a short-lived corporation that oversteps public opinion - unless it has government protections that override public opinion and support corporate interests.

I am pressed for time right now so will have to continue this outline later. Perhaps you can see from what I have said what I consider left and right. Conservatism, considered right wing is about the preservation of the status quo and is defined as simply whatever the status quo is at the time. If the status quo is Stalinist communism then conservatism within that structure would be Stalinist communism.

This is why, at least in my view, a confusion between liberalism as left and conservatism as right exists.

*Edited for typos.

Edited July 7, 2011 by Pliny

[bloodyminded]

Pliny,

Thanks for your post. I agree with much of it, including the first bit: in a sense, we have been talking past each other. Some of it undoubtedly is due to genuine differences, but I feel a lot of it was confusion, maybe even distraction. So this post of yours is useful. (I'm not suggesting the confusion rested on your shoulders, and not mine...just to clarify.)

I agree there is a lot of confusion about terms: "liberal," "conservative," "left," right," "fascism," "socialism." I'm not totally confident about them myself, and prefer to use them as convenient shorthand...with the awareness that they are not sufficient.

also, as you know, we have had some dispute over differences between "liberal" and "leftist"..profound differences in my view, but you're right that such matters keep coming back to issues of definition, and how we might use it on a given day.

You say that the protection of the individual, an enshrined responsibility of government, is being eroded in favour of a sort of collectivism. I'm not so sure; I rather get the feeling that a more collective-focussed experiment is on its way out, and overall I'm not thinking the direction is such a good one.

However, this specific matter is one I haven't much considered--and it appears you have; so I'll take it seriously and try to think on it as disinterestedly as I can. I could undoubtedly use some insights, if you have anything in brief you can point me to (but cite a whole book and it's unlikely I'll ever get to it). Or you could expand slightly on this theme yourself, maybe offering some examples of the change to collectiveness, from there to here. (I understand it won't be a straight-up progression, but a spiky line: I'm not going to hijack you with some "gotcha" remark based on trivial aberations in an overall trend.)

And yes, our differing ways of seeing right/left, especially perhaps as manifested in views of media bias, will continue to be at issue, I imagine. But we'll see.

I don't remember saying that the Tea Party was "far right.' But again, I might have, using the shorthand, and leaving that factor unaddressed. I imagine the Party could conceivably have some far right elements, but I also happen to know (personally, I mean) that there are social conservatives who are NDP voters. So your point is taken.

Rather, I think the Tea Party was a loose federation of genuine and committed activists, and Power brokers and Establishment conservatives who are committed to the principle of co-opting potential support for their own statist concerns. Also, i think the latter force is winning out, if they haven't already. Time might prove me dead wrong.

You are quite on the money with your assumption about my concerns for limits on State intervention. It's an uncomfortable position, I concede, because State power can be intrusive and self-perpetuating; as you no doubt agree, achieved power does not easily give itself up, and seeks to expand influence. But unregulated economic power is, of course, also power, also by an elite minority...without even the ameliorative effects caused by mandated representation of the populace. I agree it cannot maintain its influence without the State; but I have yet to see libertarian-minded people, including Tea Party leaders, spokespeople, columnists, pundits--any single one of them--tackle this issue. So deregulation can occur, giving the big corporate entities more leeway...while the state still protects and enforces for them. that's an increase in privatized, minority, unelected power, not an expansion of personal freedoms for everybody.

And people most certainly will accept a certain amount of the corporate/government power nexus. It's not really concealed. Presidents go on record stating that military force can and will be used to "protect interests and markets," not exactly a veiled threat. PR agencies with clients specifically geared towards the Middle East are the same ones used by the government to sell wars to the public. If the public will not accept it, how do we account for the Business interests meeting with governemnt officials to carve up Cuba (in the 1950s) or Indonesia (in the 1960s)? No doubt still going on...certainly, lots of face-to-face meetings with oil company executives and various other firms before the Iraq War...again, not a hidden conspiracy, but a normaloccurence, practically uncommented upon. That is tremendous corporate influence; in fact, it's sometimes difficult to distinguish between the two entities, the State and Big Business.

[Pliny]

Pliny,

Thanks for your post. I agree with much of it, including the first bit: in a sense, we have been talking past each other. Some of it undoubtedly is due to genuine differences, but I feel a lot of it was confusion, maybe even distraction. So this post of yours is useful. (I'm not suggesting the confusion rested on your shoulders, and not mine...just to clarify.)

I agree there is a lot of confusion about terms: "liberal," "conservative," "left," right," "fascism," "socialism." I'm not totally confident about them myself, and prefer to use them as convenient shorthand...with the awareness that they are not sufficient.

also, as you know, we have had some dispute over differences between "liberal" and "leftist"..profound differences in my view, but you're right that such matters keep coming back to issues of definition, and how we might use it on a given day.

Well, I've covered my concepts of the totalitarian ideologies and how I perceive they come about or can establish themselves.

A social democracy cannot but help to be politically progressive. Power, entitlements, position, and structure won over time and enshrined by law creates the establishment and will not easily be given up.

I haven't read much of Chomsky but I agree with his analysis of how the "establishment" maintains itself

and no one is allowed to be a part of the establishment unless they are saying and doing the correct things. That's what I got out of his article about "What makes the mainstream media mainstream." - the person hired as a representative of the mainstream media must already hold the views of the establishment and be saying the correct things or he doesn't get hired.

Obviously, ignoring political left/right concepts and looking at it entirely from an "establishment" point of view , Fox news is an anomaly, is not saying the correct establishment things, and the establishment mainstream media tends to vilify it or tries to ignore it.

I don't know but you, yourself might consider that Fox news is a part of the "establishment" with it's own corporate backing, political and special interests that are within the "establishment" but ignoring that and keeping within the parameters of television news "media", it stands alone. It's existence is indicative of a splintering in the establishment hierarchy.

You say that the protection of the individual, an enshrined responsibility of government, is being eroded in favour of a sort of collectivism. I'm not so sure; I rather get the feeling that a more collective-focussed experiment is on its way out, and overall I'm not thinking the direction is such a good one.

As I mentioned above there does seem to be a splintering in the upper echolons of power, at least in the US and being the leftist you are I understand your concerns about it's direction. Globally, I don't think you are witnessing the same thing. I believe there is a push to centralize power and there is no real opposition to that. There is only the struggles of position for power, status and entitlements among the sovereign national governments but the direction is clear - engineering of the people and resources of the planet from a centralized power base.

Emerging economies such as China and India are, I believe, due to their own shifts in national economic policies and they are finding themselves with a stronger global position as a result and are smelling blood on what has been US global economic dominance.

However, this specific matter is one I haven't much considered--and it appears you have; so I'll take it seriously and try to think on it as disinterestedly as I can. I could undoubtedly use some insights, if you have anything in brief you can point me to (but cite a whole book and it's unlikely I'll ever get to it). Or you could expand slightly on this theme yourself, maybe offering some examples of the change to collectiveness, from there to here. (I understand it won't be a straight-up progression, but a spiky line: I'm not going to hijack you with some "gotcha" remark based on trivial aberations in an overall trend.)

It's expressed in the concepts of "creeping socialism". But basically it relates to the necessity of the State to maintain it's legitimacy to justify an increase in the extraction of money from the economy and spend it to support itself and fund it's ever increasing social liabilities.

And yes, our differing ways of seeing right/left, especially perhaps as manifested in views of media bias, will continue to be at issue, I imagine. But we'll see.

I have yet to outline my perception of the varied views of those on the left side of the political spectrum. I will probably have to get to those tomorrow as I am running out of time.

I don't remember saying that the Tea Party was "far right.' But again, I might have, using the shorthand, and leaving that factor unaddressed. I imagine the Party could conceivably have some far right elements, but I also happen to know (personally, I mean) that there are social conservatives who are NDP voters. So your point is taken.

Rather, I think the Tea Party was a loose federation of genuine and committed activists, and Power brokers and Establishment conservatives who are committed to the principle of co-opting potential support for their own statist concerns. Also, i think the latter force is winning out, if they haven't already. Time might prove me dead wrong.

It could be that the establishment Republican/Conservative forces will win out and you will be right but we'll see. There may be some revelations in the works.

You are quite on the money with your assumption about my concerns for limits on State intervention. It's an uncomfortable position, I concede, because State power can be intrusive and self-perpetuating; as you no doubt agree, achieved power does not easily give itself up, and seeks to expand influence. But unregulated economic power is, of course, also power, also by an elite minority...without even the ameliorative effects caused by mandated representation of the populace. I agree it cannot maintain its influence without the State; but I have yet to see libertarian-minded people, including Tea Party leaders, spokespeople, columnists, pundits--any single one of them--tackle this issue. So deregulation can occur, giving the big corporate entities more leeway...while the state still protects and enforces for them. that's an increase in privatized, minority, unelected power, not an expansion of personal freedoms for everybody.

I have bolded the particular portion of this paragraph I am particluarly interested in.

Economic power is indeed power but from a private enterprise point of view how does one maintain it?

From a public point of view power is maintained by law and the right of taxation. There is no private means to extract money from an economy to maintain economic power. Corporations cannot force people to give them money to maintain economic power. Large corporations have large overheads and thus small business can be competitive but regulations contributes to limiting, to the benefit of corporations, competition. So that governemnt/corporate nexus develops.

An example would be in Wal-mart supporting a high minimum wage policy, which they have done. Walmart pays above the minimum wage by a dollar or two so doesn't care that the minimum wage is increased it means that some of it's competition operating at a marginal level may disappear or at least have to raise it's prices to cover increased labour costs.

Is the government doing the public a favour or Wal-mart? The apparency is that it is the public.

And people most certainly will accept a certain amount of the corporate/government power nexus. It's not really concealed. Presidents go on record stating that military force can and will be used to "protect interests and markets," not exactly a veiled threat. PR agencies with clients specifically geared towards the Middle East are the same ones used by the government to sell wars to the public. If the public will not accept it, how do we account for the Business interests meeting with governemnt officials to carve up Cuba (in the 1950s) or Indonesia (in the 1960s)? No doubt still going on...certainly, lots of face-to-face meetings with oil company executives and various other firms before the Iraq War...again, not a hidden conspiracy, but a normaloccurence, practically uncommented upon. That is tremendous corporate influence; in fact, it's sometimes difficult to distinguish between the two entities, the State and Big Business.

In the above I believe you are talking about establishment interests as opposed to left/right political interests. Here is where Hillary Clinton and John McCain will meet despite political labels. I want to delineate my views on this point in my next post.

I appreciate the up front dialogue. Have a good day!

[Pliny]

Now I will outline my perception of the left wing of the political spectrum.

The far-left are of course the communists and hardcore totalitarian socialists. I don't think that needs any explanation.

I hate to start off by asking a controversial question but should Nazism/Fascism be included on the far left wing of the political spectrum?

In order to even consider that we must look at time as being a factor plus the actual origins of the political spectrum.

As the political spectrum originated in France through the seating arrangement where the Monarchy and proponents of the established powers under the Monarchy sat on the right side and all other political philosophies and ideologies and anti-establishment movements sat on the left side. The left was comprised then of everyone from anarchists to totalitarian socialists. Everything embodying the Monarchy and established power structure; including religion, was a part of the right wing and centred itself upon the "conservation" of that political structure. So basically "Monarchy" was all that was on the right wing and considered "conservative". Had Fascism been in existence at the time it would have been on the left wing. It wasn't so we can disregard that and look at how it became positioned on the far right of the spectrum. How did it get positioned there?

Fascism and Nazism upon it's appearance in the 1920's certainly wasn't about maintaining a status quo, that is to say "conservatism". Today they are linked together on the right side of the spectrum. Time, it seems then, is a very important factor when we are talking about the political spectrum. It has not remained a static structure but has gone through some basic transformations.

If we take a look at the words liberal and conservative. Essentially, one embodies a concept of change and the other no change. I have heard the term conservative applied to Stalinists in the USSR and anti-Stalinists as liberals. In the primary definition of the terms they are not incorrect usages but I believe attaching political nuances to them is where, in the political sense, they become blurred. How could, in the political sense, Stalinists be called "Conservative". Obviously they can't be in our time. Subsequently one has to ask how Hitler or Mussolini could be associated with "conservatism" from it's political definition as it existed at the time? Politically, what was conservatism and what was liberalism at the time? WWI left European Monarchies in the dust. If it didn't entirely eliminate them it relegated them to a merely historical and symbolic role. They were replaced by Constitutional republics and democracies. Power was shifting in Europe from the established hierarchy to other political forces that promised the people a voice in their governance. So conservatism, a support of the establishment powers, fully broke down and all manner of liberal ideologies were given opportunity for the people to "vote" upon. The result was a struggle for the power once held by Monarchs and constitutional monarchies that the people of Europe had become disillusioned with. A distaste for the opulence and wealth of the Tsar, the Kaiser and other European monarchs, combined with a perception of their political incompetence, popularized the concept of the redistribution of wealth. The left wing was then basically overtaken progressively by the socialists. Perhaps the comparison of Mussolini and Hitler to Monarchs made them right wing but for whatever reason they were positioned there. They were distanced from all other socialist movements. The classical liberals and libertarians who were not politically conservative but were not socialists were basically booted to the right as well not of their own determination, they just found themselves there with some stodgy old conservatives because they weren't socialists. I have not seen and doubt anyone could produce anything that places Fascism or Nazism on the right side of the political spectrum prior to 1932. They had their differences with communists and other socialist movements in the struggle for government power but could they be positioned with "conservatism"? I suppose so if Hitler were likened to the Kaiser but the Kaiser introduced many socialist concepts to his government - Socialized medicine and health care are of note. Is this how the little dictator was associated with the right in the extreme - a mutual hatred with other socialist movements besides their socio/economic differences they wind up in practice being politically quite similar.

These questions are not really relevant except for the fact they introduce confusions as to what today we consider liberalism and conservatism. There is very little difference between some conservatives and liberals in North American politics. They all must support the current socio/economic/political establishment or are considered odd, weird and inclined to be repressed, scoffed at, and if that doesn't work outright vilified. All factors in the socio/economic/political establishment are naturally about "conservation" of the status quo and could be considered the conservatism of the time but it is a conservation politically of "leftist ideology". There is an inherent inability in the current political structure to maintain a status quo. Politicians are always willing to trade benefits to special interests for votes and this introduces progressivism in the growth of government. So conservatism as supported by the socio/economic/political "establishment" becomes a conservation of progressivism and a rather oxymoronic concept. As both established liberal and conservative political parties support progressivism we see little difference between them. I do not take Harper's dropping of "progressive" from the Progressive Conservative name as an insignificant act.

In the end all of these confusions about what's liberal and what's conservative and where it all fits in relation to each other and everything else political makes it very easy to effectively use bumper sticker sloganeering and other forms of propaganda to direct a mostly disinterested public, who is only superfluously concerned with the "nation" and it's governance. As Pericles once stated, and I paraphrase it, "One may not be interested in concerning himself with government but if he doesn't government will concern itself with him."

Speaking of the political spectrum today if one looks he will see very little that can be termed right wing conservatism. Most of it, in my view, has moved left of centre and could hardly be described as conservative. Liberalism has become entirely progressivism and Conservatism has become the conservation of progressivism. I haven't read Ann Coulter's description of liberalism in her latest work, "Demonic" but I have heard her describe it as a mob-mentality. I don' see today's conservatism as any less of a mob mentality though. I do however see a movement within the conservative base that is interested in self-governance and individual responsibility to society as opposed to government responsibility to run individuals. A true politically centrist movement. One that could be described as for socio/economic/political establishment change - a truly "liberal" movement in the classical sense of the word.

In discussing Obama as being liberal you are willing to accept he is liberal but perhaps not leftist.

I would argue that he is really attempting to bring change to the political scene in America. A change that would bring America further left than it has ever been but still you see that as not being left enough. I think it is a failure on Obama's part to bring America as far left as you would like because if he could he would be only too happy to oblige you. Saying he is not far left enough is, in my view, just a means of excusing his failures.

In order to straighten up all the confusions of today as regards the political spectrum it is necessary to look at the forest, so to speak, looking at government as a whole organism and placing it's contribution to society as relative to the overall functioning of society. It ranges then from no involvement in the evolution of society to fully engineering it. Western social democracies then are progressing toward fully engineered societies - they can't help but do otherwise. The emergence of anything opposing that may be ignored or vilified by the socio/economic/political establishment. The tendency of that establishment is towards the fully engineered society. Conservatism is merely viewed by the establishment, which is mostly politically liberal, as being comprised of those that wish to slow the progress somewhat or address inconsequential issues. There are liberals and there are conservatives that are not a part of the establishment. Chomsky, would be one and instead of calling him a liberal he would be called a socialist or leftist. He isn't really vilified politically because it is the direction that politics is moving. He may be criticized by a few for what could be called some of his "anti-establishment" ideas of a socio/economic nature - but never his politics. There is the exception of those who are proponents of small government and that ilk who are outside the establishment and whose political views are generally looked at with a jaundiced eye and/or held completely in contempt.

Whew! That's all I've got for now. Don't know if anyone will slog through all that or not.

[bloodyminded]

I haven't read much of Chomsky but I agree with his analysis of how the "establishment" maintains itself

and no one is allowed to be a part of the establishment unless they are saying and doing the correct things. That's what I got out of his article about "What makes the mainstream media mainstream." - the person hired as a representative of the mainstream media must already hold the views of the establishment and be saying the correct things or he doesn't get hired.

Obviously, ignoring political left/right concepts and looking at it entirely from an "establishment" point of view , Fox news is an anomaly, is not saying the correct establishment things, and the establishment mainstream media tends to vilify it or tries to ignore it.

FOX news is easily as supportive of any other media organ for American-led wars, for Big Business, and for the exercise of terrific power by powerful people.

It is fundamentally an Establishment organ. Its differences with the other organs, so far as they exist, are trivial and marginal.

don't know but you, yourself might consider that Fox news is a part of the "establishment" with it's own corporate backing, political and special interests that are within the "establishment" but ignoring that and keeping within the parameters of television news "media", it stands alone. It's existence is indicative of a splintering in the establishment hierarchy.

I'm just not seeing it.

It could be that the establishment Republican/Conservative forces will win out and you will be right but we'll see. There may be some revelations in the works.

Certainly. I can only speculate. But I will contend that my speculation on this matter is based rather closley to your own view about the way centralized power apparatus operate again and again.

Economic power is indeed power but from a private enterprise point of view how does one maintain it?

From a public point of view power is maintained by law and the right of taxation. There is no private means to extract money from an economy to maintain economic power.

You buy influence from politicians...a disprortionate number of whom have previous ties to the world of Big Business in the first place.

Corporations cannot force people to give them money to maintain economic power.

They can force a climate suyitable to their needs, through lobbying, contributions, and the plethora of personal relationships (which are very important to Business success). While we think of Business as a series of competitors, they are nonetheless all a part of a near-identical paradigm; so, for example, you can posit that the single biggest and most influential lobbying group is the Busienss lobby. Nothing else comes close.

Large corporations have large overheads and thus small business can be competitive but regulations contributes to limiting, to the benefit of corporations, competition. So that governemnt/corporate nexus develops.

That's one possible aspect; but the lack of regulation also helps the biggest corporations...which si exactly why so many of them oppose regulation.

An example would be in Wal-mart supporting a high minimum wage policy, which they have done. Walmart pays above the minimum wage by a dollar or two so doesn't care that the minimum wage is increased it means that some of it's competition operating at a marginal level may disappear or at least have to raise it's prices to cover increased labour costs.

I think you're probbaly right; this would also explain the otherwise starnhe fact that CostCo pays higher wages than Walmart; they wish to poach their workers, if possible, and their business model doesn't depend on having as low product prices as Walmart, so it makes sense from a practical view. I suppsoe there is a fairly delicate dance going on in such matters between labour payouts and total costs, and cost/benefit analyses.

Is the government doing the public a favour or Wal-mart? The apparency is that it is the public.

WalMart is the most successful company in the world (at least by most measures) so I don't know.

[bloodyminded]

Whew! That's all I've got for now. Don't know if anyone will slog through all that or not.

I did. But I will need more time to go through it with the care it deserves. Soon.

[Pliny]

FOX news is easily as supportive of any other media organ for American-led wars, for Big Business, and for the exercise of terrific power by powerful people.

It is fundamentally an Establishment organ. Its differences with the other organs, so far as they exist, are trivial and marginal.

The political differences between George Soros and the Koch Bros. is trivial/marginal?

I think the difference is that Fox News points to government progressivism, baring it's existence to the public whereas, the alternative media doesn't seem to acknowledge its existence; things go merrily along. Just as Obama distances his redistribution of wealth policies as being connected in any way with socialism. Granted, the graduated income tax that is already a part of the American tax system is out of the socialist concept of "from those according to their ability and to those according to their need".

Certainly. I can only speculate. But I will contend that my speculation on this matter is based rather closely to your own view about the way centralized power apparatus operate again and again.

Of course, it is how they operate. It is a question of the will and numbers of those outside established power that will bring change. It won't find it from within.

The tea party is not really a part of the usual establishment class warfare tools used to play against each other - they are the rich and the poor.

You buy influence from politicians...a disproportionate number of whom have previous ties to the world of Big Business in the first place.

They can force a climate suitable to their needs, through lobbying, contributions, and the plethora of personal relationships (which are very important to Business success). While we think of Business as a series of competitors, they are nonetheless all a part of a near-identical paradigm; so, for example, you can posit that the single biggest and most influential lobbying group is the Business lobby. Nothing else comes close.

They cannot buy favour or power if the government hasn't got any to give them. In a free market government, outside of a mandate of justice/criminality, does not have any power to be bought. It cannot give tax breaks and subsidies if it can make no law to do so.

That's one possible aspect; but the lack of regulation also helps the biggest corporations...which is exactly why so many of them oppose regulation.

The biggest corporations are only there because they provided the best product for the best price. Lobbying means a proposal for legislation and is regulation in itself. It is usually for gaining an edge on competition - or some ruling that their product is safer, or more relevantly today, are environmentally better and all similar products need to either be shut down or have the same safety/environmental standards met in their products. It's all part of the competition today and favours the biggest corporations. A lot of times it is just that few other smaller companies can afford to incorporate the regulatory standards that are set and a virtual monopoly is established. Or a license or certification is issued that gives one corporation the "government sanctioned" stamp of approval for their product as opposed to their competitors product.

I think you're probably right; this would also explain the otherwise starnhe fact that CostCo pays higher wages than Walmart; they wish to poach their workers, if possible, and their business model doesn't depend on having as low product prices as Walmart, so it makes sense from a practical view. I suppsoe there is a fairly delicate dance going on in such matters between labour payouts and total costs, and cost/benefit analyses.

Of course, it only stands to reason. The government role in that competition would include things like zoning laws, road access, parking, density, plus any bias, and I have seen bias in city councils against Wal-mart. The councilors claim other businesses would be harmed but a Wal-mart does bring lower prices to those who wish to participate in playing the social game of self-improvement - and so it seems hypocritical to me that they wouldn't be more concerned about the "more vulnerable" in society. I know a few councilors that openly despise Wal-mart. Wal-mart in that instance isn't about to get favours or buy them. Other businesses will. There is no Wal-mart within the city of Vancouver.

So while your complaint is that corporations buy power the complaint should really be that they have the opportunity to buy and government can pick winners and losers in it all.

Edited July 12, 2011 by Pliny

[Sleipnir]

In the weeks leading up to the election I got the impression from mainstream media like the CBC that there wasn't a single person willing to publically support the Conservatives and everyone nationwide adored the NDP.

How do you expect the media to embrace a party that keeps shunning them?

Btw, didn't the SUN embrace the CPC?

Edited November 17, 2012 by Sleipnir

[wyly]

something I blame the media for is playing ball with political parties and by that I mean letting the parties make the rules controlling the game...the media should set the rules and refuse to cover candidates photo-ops and policy announcements etc. until they agree to proper question and answer meetings...no more running and hiding...

[The_Squid]

something I blame the media for is playing ball with political parties and by that I mean letting the parties make the rules controlling the game...the media should set the rules and refuse to cover candidates photo-ops and policy announcements etc. until they agree to proper question and answer meetings...no more running and hiding...

I agree completely. But "the media" is not a single entity. I'm sure that some don't cover photo ops unless they can get a proper story, but many media outlets seem to.....

[Sleipnir]

Media reports what people want to see. How else are the media supposed to get new viewers and subscribers if they showed what people don't care for?