CSotD: Another insult, and I think a heavy one
Skip to comments
Mike Thompson earns the lead-off spot today with an appropriately dark commentary on the Supreme Court's official declaration that we are now a plutocracy.
It reminds me of an exchange in "The Mikado," in which Nanki-poo seeks information from Pooh-bah, the Lord High Everything Else (and hence the epithet):
NANKI-POO : But how good of you (for I see that you are a nobleman of the highest rank) to condescend to tell all this to me, a mere strolling minstrel!
POOH-BAH: Don't mention it. I am, in point of fact, a particularly haughty and exclusive person, of pre- Adamite ancestral descent. You will understand this when I tell you that I can trace my ancestry back to a protoplasmal primordial atomic globule. Consequently, my family pride is something inconceivable. I can't help it. I was born sneering. But I struggle hard to overcome this defect. I mortify my pride continually. When all the great Officers of State resigned in a body because they were too proud to serve under an ex-tailor, did I not unhesitatingly accept all their posts at once?
PISH-TUSH: And the salaries attached to them? You did.
POOH-BAH: It is consequently my degrading duty to serve this upstart as First Lord of the Treasury, Lord Chief Justice, Commander-in-Chief, Lord High Admiral, Master of the Buckhounds, Groom of the Back Stairs, Archbishop of Titipu, and Lord Mayor, both acting and elect, all rolled into one. And at a salary ! A Pooh-Bah paid for his services ! I a salaried minion! But I do it! It revolts me, but I do it.
NANKI-POO: And it does you credit.
POOH-BAH: But I don't stop at that. I go and dine with middle-class people on reasonable terms. I dance at cheap suburban parties for a moderate fee. I accept refreshment at any hands, however lowly. I also retail State secrets at a very low figure. For instance, any further information about Yum-Yum would come under the head of a State secret. (NANKI-Poo takes the hint, and gives him money.) (Aside) Another insult, and I think a light one!
I have often wondered what the tipping point is, when a nation slides into a completely, irredeemably degraded state, and if there ever is a moment of "whoops!" like dozing off behind the wheel and drifting onto the shoulder, where you wake up in horror and realize what almost happened, or if by then it's simply too late.
In any case, here we are, and I feel sorry for the "On the One Hand/On the Other" cartoon features, which play the faux-fairness game by showing two cartoons on opposite sides of any controversy, because I suspect those who agree that rich people should be able to buy elections will simply remain silent on this topic.
Which is why I appreciate Scott Stantis, a conservative who is not afraid to break out of lockstep with his less thoughtful brethren on the right.
As he remarked there, "While I totally get the arguments in favor of this opinion I see a corrupt system made more corrupt by an endless stream of special interest money."
Yep. From here on out, it's all about the Benjamins.
Jack Ohman makes his point with a pun.
Dan Wasserman makes a similar point with a better pun.
And, while Matt Davies is not addressing the Supreme Court's decision, his latest is a good commentary on the most disturbing element, for those who believe that, when we reach that tipping point, the people will wake up and take the wheel.
Robert Reich posted this on his Facebook page yesterday, and I agree with his premise but I think he's making it overly complex: A simple amendment allowing Congress to impose limits on campaign spending would likely cover things, though perhaps adding "and the states" would prevent challenges to any state law that sought even more control than the Feds, including declaring that those "tell Jean Shaheen" fig leaves do not prevent a commercial from being considered part of a campaign.
I'm sure the media would like to see such an amendment proposed, because the spending against its adoption would put their ad revenues into the stratosphere.
The media may also be looking at McCutcheon v FEC in another way: Under campaign spending rules, they have to give political ads the most favorable rate, which means going back through their records for the semi-recent past and including things that aren't necessarily on the current rate card.
But, if there's no limit to what can be spent, why should there be limits to what can be charged?
I'd like to see that challenge brought to the court, because the resulting decision would really show whether they are simply reading the law in a certain way or actively in the pocket of the plutocrats.
So, could an amendment such as Reich suggests be enacted?
I really don't know. There was a moment 40 years ago when all seemed lost, but the Senate, and Judge Sirica, stepped up and we got our country back on track.
Obviously we can't count on the legislature anymore: The days of Scoop Jackson, Barry Goldwater, Howard Baker, and other conservatives of character are past, and while it's fun to quote Bernie Sanders, he hasn't got enough political power to call for a Senate potty break, much less push forward any legislation that wasn't going to pass anyway.
On the other hand, the American people elected Bill Clinton twice, despite the concerted efforts and vast, right-wing spending of Richard Mellon Scaife, and they elected Barack Obama twice despite even more spending by even deeper-pocketed enemies.
Such an amendment would be unlikely to get out of committee in the House or the Senate, much less onto the floor of either house, much less be brought to a vote, at least in the Senate.
But while the Senate is hard to crack, the House is not.
If true grassroots groups would stop trying to elect unelectable dream candidates to the presidency and focus instead on putting credible, principled candidates into achievable seats, they could tilt the balance enough to at least force legislators to declare their loyalties on this topic.
It could happen. This follow-up of his previous cartoon by Darrin Bell – who does the best caricature work in political cartooning today — was noted in yesterday's comments and is relevant here. Millions of dollars of lies about the Affordable Care Act and mockery of the concepts of hope and change, and yet now the people ask the plutocrats…
Comments 2
Comments are closed.