They write as superficially as they can. If you are clever enough, you can read between the lines. They never get deeper, however. So what if journalists started telling us the truth?
A regular American is unknowing of the truth. Yes, he or she knows the corporations buy their laws through lobbyists. That’s it.
They know the whole system is dysfunctional. And they are in awe (not getting it) of why they just cannot enact the laws so needed for the common good.
Journalists telling us the truth? A foretaste
Imagine they would say: Yes, the whole of America is controlled by a few banks and capital owned by the very same super-rich families behind them.
These banks are interconnected through ownership stakes, shared board members, and secret agreements. And they completely destroy the political process. Just a foretaste.
I may disappoint you. However, since my experience is from the Czech Republic, the international structures with local oligarchs had their role in the corruption riddance (slight riddance).
The media were telling the names of crooks, lobbyists, and oligarchs. What was the end? Nothing, people did absolutely nothing.
What did they cause?
As a consequence of clientelism, public housing suffers significantly, with affordable housing projects often neglected, leading to deteriorating living conditions for low-income families. Surely, this is compounded by underfunded public education, where stark disparities in educational quality emerge due to the prioritization of private institutions and the neglect of public schools. Therefore, as a result, children from lower-income families face limited educational opportunities, perpetuating cycles of poverty and deepening social inequality.
Corruption in politics is pervasive, with policies increasingly tailored to serve elite interests rather than the public good. This results in the deterioration of public infrastructure, including roads, bridges, and public transportation systems. Financial resources are diverted to support projects that favor the wealthy. Public healthcare systems are underfunded. This reduces access to medical services for the general population and exacerbating health disparities. Economic inequality continues to worsen, with tax policies and financial systems disproportionately benefiting the wealthy. This stifles social mobility and makes it nearly impossible for individuals from lower socioeconomic backgrounds to improve their circumstances. Essential public services like social security, welfare, and public safety suffer, with their quality and availability decreasing as resources are funneled toward the interests of the elite.
Too much power concentrated
The concentration of power among a few super-rich families weakens democratic processes. Thus, elections and political power are increasingly influenced by money rather than the will of the people. This erosion of democracy leads to greater voter apathy and disengagement. People feel their voices are no longer heard or valued. Environmental neglect becomes more pronounced. The profit-driven motives lead to the degradation of natural resources and ecosystems, with long-term sustainability sacrificed for short-term financial gains. Overall, the control of society by a few wealthy families results in a significant decline in the quality of life for the majority. And public interests are consistently overshadowed by the pursuit of private wealth and power.
What we can do without them?
In a well-functioning society where every good law could be enacted without interference from influential groups, the government would be able to operate with a focus on the common good. It would be free from the pressures of lobbying and special interests. Laws would be crafted based on thorough research, ethical principles, and the genuine needs of the population, rather than the desires of a powerful minority. This would allow for the creation of policies that promote social justice, environmental sustainability, and economic fairness. For example, education and healthcare could be universally accessible and of high quality, with resources allocated based on need rather than profit.
In this scenario, decision-making processes would be more transparent and inclusive, with the voices of all citizens taken into account. Public participation in the legislative process would be encouraged, ensuring that laws reflect the diverse perspectives and needs of the society. Without the distortion caused by influential groups, the government could implement policies that truly benefit the public, such as comprehensive climate action, fair labor practices, and robust social safety nets. This would likely lead to higher levels of trust in government institutions, greater social cohesion, and a more equitable distribution of wealth and opportunities.
Overall, a society that can enact every good law without the influence of powerful groups would be more just, equitable, and responsive to the needs of its people. It would be a place where the well-being of all citizens is prioritized, leading to a higher quality of life and a more sustainable future.
Massive media bombardment?
My above paragraphs were about just a foretaste. Revealing what politicians are connected to what interest groups. The banks, the super-rich families’ names, lobbyists’ names. Just journalists telling us the truth
Imagine a 6-month blitz. I am strongly convinced they wouldn’t do absolutely anything. The major parties would have fewer voters, but the very same structures would operate fearlessly.
Journalists telling us the truth? Do it! You don’t need militarized police
If journalists in the United States were to engage in a massive media blitz, revealing the extent to which a few super-rich families control the political system, the impact might be surprisingly limited. So while such a revelation would undoubtedly shock some segments of the public, history suggests that the broader reaction might be one of cynicism or resignation rather than action. Exactly just as in the Czech Republic, where similar exposures of corruption and elite control led to little substantive change, the U.S. public might react with a mix of outrage and apathy, but ultimately do very little to alter the status quo.
Even with a six-month media blitz detailing the connections between politicians, interest groups, and the super-rich, it is likely that the structures of power would continue to operate with relative impunity. So, voter turnout for major parties might decline, but the underlying power dynamics would remain largely intact. The truth, as told by journalists, could spark debates and discussions but without a fundamental shift in political engagement or a significant movement toward reform, the entrenched power structures would likely persist. The fearlessness of these interest groups, bolstered by a culture that has grown accustomed to their influence, would make it difficult to effect meaningful change simply through media exposure. In such a scenario, the power of the media to effect real change would be limited, highlighting the challenges of addressing deep-rooted systemic issues in a society where political and economic power are closely intertwined.
Leave a Reply