Your are offering a critique of the very idea of corporations. Whatever the merits of that critique (I think it has some), it is seperate from the question of whether or not corporations lean to the left or the right politically. (And in this context, left and right mean Democrat and Republican.) I think you'll have a difficult time trying to argue that corporations in general, and the media and the very wealthy in particular, do not favor the Democratic party.(Emphasis added.) Once you untwist the negatives in that sentence, you will find this sentiment: In general, corporations and the very wealthy favor the Democratic Party.
And everything is going just fine in Iraq. Lincoln really did say those words. Bush is enormously popular. Pray for a rosacea cure and the problem will disappear in the morning. 9/11 happened because Osama wants Americans to turn Islamic. Whatever you want to believe is real, is real. Wheeeeee!
5 comments:
From what I recall the majority of the very wealthy *do* lean Democrat. Millionaires are Republican, multi-millionaires are Democrat.
One theory is that those *trying* to get rich tend to go with whatever is best for them to do so, which traditionally (though not any more) has been to vote Republican. Once you're truly wealthy and don't need to worry about money, you can spend some time thinking about what actually is the best option, and they vote Democrat.
sofla said....
I disagree. I have never heard that the multi-millionaire cohort generally votes for the Democratic Party, certain high profile examples tending to support that claim notwithstanding (FDR, JFK, George Soros, Robert Rubin, etc.).
If it were so common as to be the general rule, the uppermost income/wealth cohort would not consider such people traitors to their socioeconomic class (as they do), because it would be too common and so ordinary that it couldn't be seen as an aberration.
This wasn't just guesswork, it was some authentic decent research. Let's just take the Forbes list of richest Americans. Take out the Walton family and nearly all of the top 15 are Democrat supporters. Gates, Buffet, Allen, Page, Brin, Ballmer - all Dems. Throw in folk like Jobs, Trump, Soros etc etc.
You seem to be thinking of the "old" rich, the kind who turn up at Bohemian Grove. That kind of thinking, that "rich=republican" is as outdated as the "democrat=communist" thinking the wingnuts espouse.
Actually, I think there is some truth to this. Old old money can be pried loose from conservatism. Sometimes not even that old -- second generation. I'm thinking of Joseph Kennedy, who for a while drifted toward a certain affection for fascism (although those who have called him a Nazi sympathizer have overblown the situation dramatically) -- and his sons, who were, are, classic liberals.
I happen to know that in the Mellon family, Peggy Mellon Hitchcock's kids are pretty liberal. They keep a low profile. But most others in that family are quite conservative -- Scaife being the most obnoxious example.
And then there is the Rockefeller family. That name used to be the ultimate "red cape" to wave around in American fringe circles, though not so much these days.
So I think we can fairly say that second or third generation wealth MAY (or may not) go liberal. But a CEO drawing half a mill a year is almost certainly going to be conservative.
The idea that large corporations are run by "secret commies" is actually an old meme in the American fringe. I'm thinking of books like Skousen's "The Naked Capitalist," written back in the early 1970s. (Skousen is the guy who wrote that one, right? I'm going on memory here...) The John Birchers always promulgated the notion of mega-corps as ultra-liberal bastions, and I think modern neoconservatism derives in large part from the Birch tradition.
Corporations usually seek out the lowest bid in my humble opinion...... I personally think they lean on both sides of the aisle to whatever or whoever has the power to further their causes, which never includes We the People.
Post a Comment