Fools, Their Money, and Citizens More and More United

Mr Isquith has surveyed the post-Citizens United world, and found it wanting:

Americans were already deeply cynical about their politics, before Citizens United. But while there was once a means, however faint, to argue that the system is not a dull gloss over what is in essence an elaborate sporting event with dueling oligarchs jockeying over what amounts to most of us as minutiae, the Super PAC order of today renders that optimism not naïve but simply delusional. In the same way people know professional wrestling is fake — even if the role of “winner” is traded back-and-forth between dueling sides — voters will soon believe, if they don’t already, that American democracy is a sham.

It may continue to provide good copy for Wilkinson, Weigel, and me, but the Citizens United decision nevertheless remains, on the whole, a disaster.

Is the CU decision the disaster, or is the disaster what, post-CU, we are seeing ever more clearly?  Put differently, is it in the final analysis possible to agree with Mr. Isquith without disagreeing with him?

Now, to suggest that citizens may have very good reasons to be united in their belief that American democracy is a sham is not to say that they do not or should not have other good reasons to believe other things about American democracy as well.  It could be, for instance, that the mass electoral arm of the American system has never functioned ideally, was never designed to function ideally, and cannot be made to function ideally or very much more nearly ideally without requiring the sacrifice of other ideals or values – in short that our approach to election campaigns is necessarily informed by the same Madisonian borderline attraction-repulsion complex that attaches to every other aspect of applied American political science, from the management and tabulation of actual voting, to the obligations and privileges of citizenship, to the relations between and true powers of the various branches and sub-branches, to the functioning of the judicial system from top to bottom.

Yet whatever the deeper truth about the American system such as it is, the post-CU world is a world in which the 0.0001% are financing a remarkably effective satire undermining themselves and their chosen spokespeople:  Diminishing returns as morality play.  Don’t we mostly believe that the main “beneficiaries” of SuperPAC spending have mostly suffered in public esteem over the course of an extremely disproportionately negative campaign?  Does anyone believe that the candidates, their party, or the interests that the candidates and party seek to represent are “doing better” right now than they were before the Republican campaign really got going?  Has any Occupy protest or even any interview with Donald Trump done more to expose the irrationality of an economic system that to some impressively large extent reserves its greatest rewards for people who do not deserve them?

Who needs Karl Marx when we have Sheldon Adelson and Foster Friess and the shrinking men they pay for on vividly multimediatized display?

It could be that by November the SuperPACS will have discovered something to say and a way to say it that somehow reverses the increasingly indelible impression that they’re making fools of themselves, but speech is not merely a commodity sold by the ton.  It has to have something to convey.  The main message of the SuperPAC-oids, repeated and received and repeated and received again, has so far been that people like them, all of the people that people like them like, and all of the other people like them at all, to whatever extent they like them or are like them, are dangerous and ridiculous.  On present evidence that will continue to be their only real message until and unless they themselves, embarrassed to be the last ones to get their own joke, finally discover less self-destructive ways to waste their money.

13 comments on “Fools, Their Money, and Citizens More and More United

Commenting at CK MacLeod's

We are determined to encourage thoughtful discussion, so please be respectful to others. We also provide a set of Commenting Options - comment/commenter highlighting and ignoring, and commenter archives that you can access by clicking the commenter options button (). Go to our Commenting Guidelines page for more details, including how to report offensive and spam commenting.

  1. breadth is deciding Brown v Board of Ed by saying that separate but equal can never be permitted rather than deciding the case narrowly by saying that the Board was not in this instance furnishing an equal education and that the Board must come up with a plan to remedy the inequality.

    the case is decided against the Topeka B of E either way, which is the decision, but…….there’s a slight difference in breadth

  2. don’t be so worried….. you get a great deal of lee-way with me, Colin………and if you get get out of line……..I’ll already be there most likely.

    there were a couple of different ways to go……and one of the grumpiest and brightest of the Muddville nine suggested one………

    • See, now that’s what I was looking for, an interesting and thoughtful distinction, but the articlegoes back to my oh so very very subtle point: What makes the decision the decision we so know and love is it’s breadth. It didn’t go all the way – “what the hey, let’s protect ALL speech, fire in a crowded building, obscenity, fraud, you name it” – but it wasn’t as modest as the author of that article seemed to have been expecting either.

  3. miggs, in case you missed it, the Court had a bit of trouble deciding where political speech and commercial speech separated.

    if someone shows a movie to paying audiences and it revolves around political figures, is that political or commercial or artistic?

Commenter Ignore Button by CK's Plug-Ins

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *