So is the beginning of the end for dynasty politics? Barack Obama won tonights contest in Iowa, winning 39% in the caucuses.
Hilary was left to battle for third with second-tier candidate John Edwards. Ouch.
On the republican side of things, Mike Huckabee took a comfortable win. Well, how could he not, with campaign slogans like 'I like Mike.' Genius.
The numbers would lead one to believe that this spells the end for the era of money fuelled politics. Huckabee was outspent by around 20 to 1. Realistically though, the early primaries are always about man hours logged one to one as opposed to dollars spent. The West Wing taught me this, and it makes sense too - the voters there feel they have a birthright to vet the candidates, and this means shaking their hand and serving them a slice of pie.
But what's really interesting is the notion of money and politics in general. It's not enough. It does help a candidate, but all the money in the world wouldn't get Bush re-elected. How much power does money create? And is it fair that the rich get a louder voice with their bigger wallets? I was informed a few weeks ago that a candidate for SU president last year was sponsored. This still baffles me. At a recent lit and deb debate it was asserted repeatedly that democracy and capitalism are exclusive, because capitalism leads to mass inequality financially which leads directly to inequality in the democratic process. You can't buy extra votes for yourself, but you can throw some support to your candidate. And then go looking for a favour?
Democracy is surely all about equality. If it can be proven that more money equals more political power, then is democracy possible in a capitalist society? Sounds logical. Most democracies contain checks and balances, though, which limit the influence that money can bring. Further, if you want to start this argument, you'll get stuck in a bit of a tangle with a slippery slope. Surely education, literacy and relationships can increase a persons political influence. Should college graduates be limited to only have the same amount of letters published in papers as non-graduates? Should we level the playing field in other ways - if you run for public office your bebo top 16 must contain equal representation from all social classes.
Increased political influence is one of the benefits that goes along with earning the big books. That and the women. These incentives drive economies at the very basest of levels. People must have the drive, be willing to take the risk - and for that, the prize must be pretty good. Democracy will never be entirely equal. I'm not going to bother listing the socialist and communist embarrassing ideas of 'democracy'. Money does make the world go round. For better and for worse. But bear in mind, money no longer holds the sway it used to. Barack Obama won more votes with his youtube videos than Hilary Clinton could hope for from her add buys. Huckabee could barely afford signs, while Romney could have bought himself an immigrint family to clean his bus.
It's going to be a fun year with America Votes 2008. On this side of the atlantic we get to sit back and watch the fireworks. You'll hear constant talk of the middle class, of special interest, and of the new alliance. Don't listen - just watch the numbers and see some history get made. New Hampshire votes next Wednesday - primary party in mine!
1 comment:
"Surely education, literacy and relationships can increase a persons political influence."
This is where Marxist ideas of class division really fall down hard- Weberian social theory defines it much more realistically, telling us that social division is based on CLASS (ie, how much money you earn), STATUS (one's standing in the community, ie you could be rich but not well thought-of)and PARTY (what kind of politics you subscribe to- either living "for" politics, or living "off" them). Even in a society where capital is divided equally (as in communist, socialist etc), there will still be issues of class because of man's tendency to stratify society in multiple ways.
However, Bordieu's theories of cultural capital tell us that within society, different aspects of our culture, typically those pursued by the dominant socio-economic group, are recognised as being part of "high" culture, such as classical music or art, while others, typically those favoured by lower socio-economic strata, such as pop music or soccer are deemed as being "low" culture. Because education systems typically reflect the cultural preferences of the dominant economic group, this means that those in the marginal economic groups are already at a disadvantage before they reach school-going age, and thereafter, by having less access through their family and social interactions outside school to this supposed "high" culture. basically this means that poor kids have less of a chance for them to gain this cultural "capital", that is, knowledge of the culture held up as important by the dominant social group, thus putting them at a disadvantage for life.
Post a Comment