Later On

A blog written for those whose interests more or less match mine.

The new Oligarchy, free from oversight and law

with one comment

Glenn Greenwald spells out in detail how the American Republic has been transformed into an Oligarchy, created from the elite of the media and both political parties. This Oligarchy is accountable to no laws and no oversight, and the interlinking of the Executive, Legislative, and Judiciary provide a castle. In the meantime, you and I are subject to ever-increasing surveillance and regulation, with forcible reminders of the power of the Authorities visible everywhere.

Read his column today. Please.

One excerpt:

… As Matt Stoller recently noted in an excellent post on the bipartisan orthodoxies that are untouchable in political debates, “there are 1 million people put in jail for doing what Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, and George Bush have done” (buying and consuming illegal drugs) and “2 million people are in prison in America, by far the highest total of any other country in the world.” It’s almost impossible for the non-rich to defend themselves effectively against government accusations of criminality, and judges have increasingly less sentencing discretion to avoid imposing harsh jail terms. Punishment for crimes is for the masses only, not for members in good standing of our political and corporate establishment.

Where our political elite break the law, our leading media stars and pundits fulfill their central purpose by dutifully arguing that establishment figures who have broken the law have done nothing wrong and deserve protection, even our gratitude, when they do so. In the view of our establishment, even mere civil liability — never mind criminal punishment — is deeply unfair when imposed on lawbreaking corporations, as we see in the “debate” over telecom immunity.

This same warped principle is also expressed in how our establishment scorns the work John Edwards did in representing maimed or dead individuals against the corporations which, through recklessness or negligence, destroyed their lives. From a letter from Theodore Frank of the American Enterprise Institute to the New York Times today (h/t Jay Diamond):

There is a critical distinction between Mitt Romney’s and John Edwards’s wealth. Mr. Romney, as a businessman, made investments that created wealth. Mr. Edwards, as a trial lawyer, made his money through lawsuits that merely took from one pocket and gave to another, and probably destroyed wealth in the process. (Mr. Edwards’s multimillion-dollar medical malpractice verdicts almost certainly hurt the quality of health care in North Carolina.) Little wonder that Mr. Romney understands that to improve the economy, one needs to expand the pie, while Mr. Edwards’s policy proposals focus entirely on the redistribution of the existing pie without thought for the future adverse consequences to the size of the pie.

Anything that results in accountability for our largest corporations is inherently bad, even when they’re found under our legal system to have broken the law or acted recklessly. Thus, John Edwards’ self-made wealth is deeply dishonorable and shameful because it came at the expense of our largest corporations and on behalf of the poor and dirty masses, while Mitt Romeny’s wealth, spawned by his CEO-father’s connections, is to be honored and praised because it benefited our establishment and was on behalf of our glorious elite. Naturally, our establishment sees itself as Good, and thus, whatever their most powerful leaders do — even when illegal — is never really bad. It can’t be, because they do it. Hence, George Bush’s and Lewis Libby’s felonies aren’t really like the felonies of the “drug dealers” and the other street dirt. Neither the Law nor Jail are for the clean, good, upstanding establishment members, so sayeth Jay Rockefeller and Fred Hiatt and Joe Klein and David Ignatius and the rest. …

Written by LeisureGuy

30 December 2007 at 8:10 am

One Response

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Mike, I agree with the contention, that the logic that makes distinctions about how wealth is accumulated, of for that matter, how fame is accumulated, bogus. Example: Bush II ran for president, and turned out to be a very bad choice. If he wasn’t the son of Bush I, no way would he have been a contender in the first place. And what about Hillary?

    Our prison population, especially the ratio between Black and other groups, is a national disgrace. (I think that you had a post on this recently.) Or, in recent days, it is pointed out that Texas, alone among states, continues to use capital punishment at a very high rate. And, when questioned by a nyt reporter recently, Texas officials gave responses to the reporter’s questions that, for me at least, indicated that they are entirely unperturbed that their policies are opposite of the policies on capital punishment of the other 49 states.

    Raymond McInnis

    30 December 2007 at 8:44 am


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 325 other followers