Elected Government officials not Free to Heed Demands!
Jul 14, 2023 17:23:59 GMT -5
Post by Radrook Admin on Jul 14, 2023 17:23:59 GMT -5
Elected Government officials not Free to Heed Demands!
There are persons who demand certain things from elected government officials because they feel that such officials owe them as their constituents. Well, that might be true to a certain degree. However, what such persons fail to understand is that elected officials are not totally at liberty to heed such urgent demands, regardless of how justifiable those demands might be.
Why? Very simple, because there are companies and special interest groups which contributed substantially to a their election campaigns, and special interest groups which expect the officials whom they supported to ignore any demand that might go contrary to their financial interests.
If not? Well, then they will withdraw their support when re-election time comes around, placing the candidate at a serious election-campaign financial disadvantage. So naturally, for the elected officials, heeding or not heeding these groups becomes a matter of keeping or losing their jobs.
In short, no matter how vociferously a politician's constituents might holler about some unsound government policy that they feel should be urgently addressed, the politician might rightfully feel that his hands are totally tied.
This applies to such issues as gun control in an effort to reduce gun-related violence.
Reduction of the sale of petroleum-dependent vehicles, in order to reduce the detrimental environmental effects they are having,
Or reduction of the production of tobacco, which contributes significantly to the incidence of lung cancer which was a issue some decades ago.
Sounds like bribery, doesn't it? Yet, unfortunately, it is part and parcel of our representative election system and the only way to prevent it would be to ban election campaign contributions from such powerful and influential organizations. But of course that would force candidates to carry the election campaign costs which would severely limit those who are financially less advantaged.
Of course, such a measure would not change the present situation but simply make it more obvious than it already is.
In any case, the brutal reality is, that as in all other areas of human behavior, it is selfish materialistic interests that predominate in determining what will or will not be done by those in control of governments.
Why? Very simple, because there are companies and special interest groups which contributed substantially to a their election campaigns, and special interest groups which expect the officials whom they supported to ignore any demand that might go contrary to their financial interests.
If not? Well, then they will withdraw their support when re-election time comes around, placing the candidate at a serious election-campaign financial disadvantage. So naturally, for the elected officials, heeding or not heeding these groups becomes a matter of keeping or losing their jobs.
In short, no matter how vociferously a politician's constituents might holler about some unsound government policy that they feel should be urgently addressed, the politician might rightfully feel that his hands are totally tied.
This applies to such issues as gun control in an effort to reduce gun-related violence.
Reduction of the sale of petroleum-dependent vehicles, in order to reduce the detrimental environmental effects they are having,
Or reduction of the production of tobacco, which contributes significantly to the incidence of lung cancer which was a issue some decades ago.
Sounds like bribery, doesn't it? Yet, unfortunately, it is part and parcel of our representative election system and the only way to prevent it would be to ban election campaign contributions from such powerful and influential organizations. But of course that would force candidates to carry the election campaign costs which would severely limit those who are financially less advantaged.
Of course, such a measure would not change the present situation but simply make it more obvious than it already is.
A plutocracy (from Ancient Greek πλοῦτος (ploûtos) 'wealth', and κράτος (krátos) 'power') or plutarchy is a society that is ruled or controlled by people of great wealth or income. The first known use of the term in English dates from 1631 Unlike most political systems, plutocracy is not rooted in any established political philosophy.
In any case, the brutal reality is, that as in all other areas of human behavior, it is selfish materialistic interests that predominate in determining what will or will not be done by those in control of governments.