Barry Gold wrote:
>> Umm... one negative on Sanders (besides economy): he opposes the
>> >Citizens United decision. I think CU was correctly decided even though I
>> >don't always like the results.
Don Bruder wrote:
> That's not a negative - that's a HUGE plus. The CU decision was the most
> completely wrong interpretation of the constitution that's ever been
> handed down. Corporations*ARE NOT* persons, and*MUST NOT* be permitted
> to exercise the rights of persons. Period. Ever. Under any
> circumstances. By allowing them to do so, the rights of actual human
> beings are not just undercut, they're effectively eliminated.
I disagree. Most people misunderstand the point of Citizens United. It's
not that Corporations have a free speech right because they are
"persons". CU is about the whole purpose of the First Amendment.
Why do we have the right to speak freely? Is it just so we can have the
pleasure of hearing our voices (or reading our own words)? No, it's for
the benefit of those who will hear what we say or read what we write.
Under CU, Corporations have the right of free speech for the benefit of
those who will hear it: so that they can hear a point of view and
consider it, evaluate it along with the other things they know.
Now... this whole idea -- of hearing somebody's thoughts and evaluating
them along with everything else we know -- is being called into question
by modern Psychology. We know about things like
* Confirmation Bias: you believe statements and events that confirm what
you already believe, disbelieve or ignore those that contradict it
* Emotional reactions: You hear certain key words ("dog whistles") and
react based on your particular set of fears. I'm afraid of Christians
(esp. Evangelicals) imposing their religion on the rest of us, so I give
a lot of weight to the establishment clause of the First Amendment.
Most Conservatives are afraid of the Government coming in and imposing a
tyranny(*), so they want guns to defend themselves. The Religious Right
thinks homosexuality is a big deal, so they can be motivated to come out
and vote by politicians saying that same-sex marriage will destroy the
family. Nobody considers exactly _how_ SSM is going to affect hetero
families.
Or on the other hand, most liberals are big on equality and distrust
large corporations even while they trust the government with even more
centralized power, so making a big deal about "the 1%", "Big Oil", "Big
this", "Big That", "60(@) people own half the wealth in the world" will
motivate _them_ to come out and vote for left-wing candidates.
So if that's what motivates us to vote, is there really any point to
Democracy? It's just a bunch of people reacting to emotional triggers
without (in most cases) any true rational thought involved.
Even here -- and I'm convinced we're better than the general population
-- it seem to me that half of our Conservatives and at least half of our
self-identified liberals are reacting emotionally more than rationally.
Probably me too, although I'm not aware of it and do my best to apply
rational thought to all this.
(*) Sometimes to a ridiculous extent. Consider the "black helicopters"
and "fringed flag" conspiracy theories
(@) Or whatever the number is. Less than 100 in any case.