In the New York Review of Books you can read an argument, new to me, and maybe also to you:
1. Corporations, and interest groups, like the American Chamber of Commerce, The American Medical Association, are moderate.
2. Americans didn't like their government even before legislators were paid by lobbyists to dedicate themselves to doing what they might want to do anyway, but in any case to the exclusion of what might be good for the country.
3. Partisan politics, not money, is the cause of disgust with the government.
Comment:
1. Who benefits from partisan politics? Obviously not the people.
2. Do the "moderate" members of the Medical Industry, the Chamber of Commerce, the "moderate" corporations benefit? According to the numbers, the money, the profit figures, absolutely they do benefit, benefit greatly.
3. The lobbies and the corporations fund both parties in roughly equal amounts, Often they fund both parties at the same time.
Now, without being a conspiracy theorist, is it too much to ask for you to consider that people who
- support both parties equally,
- resulting in partisan deadlock,
- which deadlock, blocking new, better law, is greatly to the benefit of those doing the funding
that these people, corporate and industry leaders, gratefully accept this result as a run of luck too good not to be taken advantage of? And that they intend to continue dispersing their money in this way that creates such happiness for them?
