Tuesday 6 March 2012

Money Politics.

Abraham Lincoln [A]
So now Aussie blogs are talking about "money politics - American style" (h/t HnH)

Bronte Capital:
"Indeed American style money politics in Australia is far more insidious than in the US because our billionaires are far less diverse. A diversity in billionaires (and in the way they make their money) gives us a diversity of billionaire opinion." (See here)
Don't get me wrong, I think I get the idea: if billionaire A pushed public opinion and the government in the direction her vested interests pointed; well, perhaps then billionaire B could push public opinion and the government in the opposite direction.

Say, in the US the Koch brothers push towards lower taxes for the wealthy, Warren Buffett, who appears to be a nice guy, pushes for higher taxes.

Some kind of balance, I suppose: one billionaire, one vote. Nice billionaire B against not-so-nice billionaire A.

That might be better than a situation where not-so-nice-guy billionaire A pushes unopposed. So, I guess there is some clever political thinking there, if it were applied in the Australian scenario.

But there is something I don't quite understand: wasn't Australia supposed to be a democracy? You know, one person, one vote, no matter how much money, skin color, gender, religion. The regime Abe Lincoln (precisely from the US) speaking at Gettysburg, once supposedly described as being "of the people, by the people, for the people".

Gettysburg Address. Hay copy [B]

Are we ready to give that up?

Image Credit:
[A] Abraham Lincoln. Wikipedia.
[B] Hay Copy of the Gettysburg Address. Wikipedia.

No comments:

Post a Comment