Has our “western” system of Government EVER been “by the people, for the people” though?
gary
1

Has our “western” system of Government EVER been “by the people, for the people” though?

Sure, but that’s too vague.

What you’re really getting at is “how well does government address it’s policies to the middle class”. Statistically, those would be the people whose income and/or net worths are in the 66 2/3% of the midst of a bell-shaped curve.

The problem usually is (and certainly is today) that we have one policy that demands preferential treatment to the least wealthy, and another that demands preferential treatment to the most wealthy.

And when a politician comes along that demands policy preference to the MIDDLE, they get labeled a “populist” and get demonized.

I agree with everything you state — if coming from a belief of a benignly designed and truly democratic Government — but that view is false.

Well, I think we’d be doing OK if we had strict adherence to not just the Constitution, but gave preference to the thoughts of the Framers of the Constiuttion as expressed by The Federalist Papers when it comes to interpretation.

But you’re right, we abandoned all that ages ago.

Somewhere (around the English civil war period) that Monarchy turned into a Corpocracy…but still those corporations were still run by the descendants of the wealthy conquerors…. and they were still the members of the new parliament, its lawyers, judges and administrators.

Without objection. And you can justify SOME of that corporatism on the grounds that the corporations are the vehicle that wealth is transmitted to the less wealthy. What benefits them often (not always, but often) benefits the less wealthy as well.

The only time in history that the wealthy did not use their $$ to control politicians was when the wealthy were the politicians!

Actually, know what’s interesting? Here’s a book you ought to read:

What Geisst’s book does is outline the history of Wall Street, including a LARGE discussion on all of it’s shysters. When you read it, you come to the conclusion that for most of American history, the corrupt shysters, the people who are always looking for a way to profit not by producing, but by moving money out of the pockets of those less sociopathic than they, were attracted to Wall Street. There were no rules, it was the Wild Wild West, and anyone who was smart with questionable ethics could make a killing.

At the same time, it SEEMS from my read of history, that the US government was *relatively* honest, compared to the way it is today. No deep state, no lobbyists, etc.

And there’s always going to be shysters, btw. Part of the dirty underbelly of humanity.

When the SEC was formed after the 1929 meltdown, largely based on the now-disproven assumption that the meltdown and Depression were caused by the big money people on Wall Street, it became difficult, if not impossible, for a shyster to make a decent buck on Wall Street the way they used to (they adapted over the decades, but that’s another story).

So, where did the shysters all go? Well, they moved to Washington, of course. Because now that Wall Street was no longer the place of easy money, Washington was the next easy mark. :-)

And starting right after the Depression (and during), our government and taxation and regulatory system started to become the behemoth it is today, with a myriad of ways that a shyster could get into the system, as a lobbyist, an NGO, whatever….and get paid for doing nothing.

Interesting thing, these migratory birds. :-)

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.