I'm canvassing for opinions here. Let's assume the following:
a) the infusion of money into politics shapes the playing field in a fundamental way (e.g., through issue framing, candidate vetting, astroturfing, etc.)
b) said manipulation effects some amount of inculturation at the personal level, and
c) our politics are on solid normative ground if they reflect the "general will," however ill-defined.
In that situation, to what extent is c) in tension with a) and to what extent is c) reliant on a)? That is to say, how much does commodifying politics undermine democratic theory (if any), and how much do our democratic impulses exist primarily because of commodification (if any)?
Can't really pretend I know anything about politics - so I won't. I do know medicine though, and one thing I've learned is that as something gets more complex, there are more and more factors influencing, and those influences become more and more underestimated.
ReplyDeletePolitics is probably as complex as it gets.
I only ask because it seems so irresolvably unanswerable. Yet, every single ideology out there gives us the arrogant assurance that it--and only it--knows best. Libertarians tell us that agency emerges from ownership of self; Marxists tell us that ownership uncouples the self from agency. Well, I say 'learn some humility.'
ReplyDelete::Steps off soapbox::