I received an invitation to a grassroots fundraising event on behalf of a Massachusetts Democrat’s candidate committee. The identity of the candidate is not the issue. The issue is the message contained in the invitation and this message is one that I have seen numerous times with most candidates. I bring it up now because I have reached a level of awareness, especially after attending the most recent state Democratic convention, the convention that focused on income inequality and our perilous path towards a two tiered society.
The invitation requested donations ranging from $2,700 to $100. All who donated could attend the event. However, those who contribute a minimum of $1,000 are granted early admission, the rest are held back for one half hour while the wealthier contributors get extra time.
We, as Democrats, cry out against the special access to power that money can buy. The widening disparity of wealth in our nation is reaching historical proportions as the middle class evaporates. We drift closer to a two tiered society of rich and poor, winners and losers, haves and have nots; or as in this case, those wealthy donors who come first, and the poorer donors who wait their turn and know their place.
Napoleon of Orwell’s Animal Farm re-wrote the 7th Commandment to read ” “All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others“. Somehow, Democrats have lost their way and adopted this same revision. All Democrats are equal, but wealthy Democrats are more equal than others.
I am not naive. I understand that running for office costs a fortune. Most of our legislators spend half their time raising money. Even holding a fundraiser costs a lot of money. As Randy Newman wrote, It’s Money that Matters. I fully acknowledge that we ought to be thankful and show appreciation for those individuals who are willing and able to donate large amounts of capital, but when doing so results in two groups or any sort of division of our party and its members, we have failed to honor what we stand for.
I am not writing this to point the finger of blame at anyone or make a moral statement. I am not placing myself outside of the circumstances that I am condemning. I am certainly not uninvolved or non-complicit in the problems presented here As a Democrat, I have participated as one of the “wealthy group” on a few occasions. My criticisms are being conducted in light of my own complicity and it is what we do with that complicity however minor or insignificant that really matters.
It is my disappointment with the path that we are on that forces me to write this. The disappointment is is born from the realization that the Democratic Party could be a party of inclusion with no divisions, no special treatment of a wealthy class, or any class for that matter.
Your comments, as always, are most welcome.
…since $2700 is a lot more than you can contribute legally to an in-state candidate. For true grassroots fundraisers the donations are usually “suggested” amounts. I have been known to offer to volunteer for events I can’t afford a ticket to. Until there are changes in the laws I don’t know what to suggest since unilateral disarmament is not appealing, though in the scheme of things $2700 isn’t that disproportionate in its influence on federal races either.
as someone who has contributed tens of thousands of dollars to Democratic candidates over the years at the federal, state and local levels. 🙂
The only solution as I see it would be to remove the corrupting influence of money in politics altogether. That would involve electing a president committed to reforming SCOTUS by overturning the Citizens United decision. And public financing of ALL elections.
That’s just one of the many reasons I am supporting Hillary Clinton.
Fred Rich LaRiccia
I agree that the invitations were grossly offensive. They reflect an unfortunate fact of life that, as you observe in the thread-starter, is as true for Democrats as it is for Republicans.
A front-row seat costs more than a back-row balcony seat. Even in the most liberal Episcopal parish, the member who provides a fifty million dollar bequest to the parish in their will and who gives six million dollars to the capital campaign for the new Parish Hall is treated differently than the struggling student who drops a single in the offering plate on Sunday morning.
A basic reality of at least our culture — if not human nature — is that money is power. The founder of the Christian church was singularly unsuccessful at changing that reality, and I suspect we will be as well. For virtually all of its history, the top of each of the Christian religious hierarchies has been wealthy. The Vatican remains a reservoir of enormous wealth. Even extremist Protestant “conservatives” controlled great wealth during their dominance.
If there are “miracles of faith”, then among them is the miraculous way that the principles advocated by Jesus (at least some of them), Mahatma Gandhi, and The Dalai Lama (among others) can accomplish needed change in the presence of such power. These are miraculous ONLY because the power of money is so real.
Sadly, I think it also needs to be said that these miracles of faith themselves are not owned by any particular political, government, ethnic culture. The targeting of the financial heart of America in the 9/11 attacks was not accidental. The AQ attackers were not wealthy, at least in comparison to that target. The narrative that AQ successfully tells its Muslim followers is that a handful of the poor and powerless faithful brought down the wealthy and powerful America — they claim, with some justification, that the 2008 collapse of the American economy was the direct consequence of the 9/11 destruction of the WTC.
In my view, it is possible to regulate some aspects of how the power of wealth is used to influence government. To the extent that government exists to do what the people cannot do by themselves, an aspect of that is that government can BY FORCE prevent the concentration of wealth that brings about, as a necessary consequence, the simultaneous concentration of power in the handful that controls that wealth and power.
I think that too few of us are willing to admit that this prevention of wealth concentration has always been and will continue to be resisted by force. The wealthy will, by and large, part with their wealth only through force. The alternative to forceful action by government is forceful and far more bloody action by the people.
We must first reverse and then prevent a recurrence of the obscene concentration of great wealth that America has allowed to happen during the decades of “conservative” ascent since the Reagan era. We need political leaders who understand how to leverage and apply the miracles of faith that can accomplish this reversal non-violently. All of us must also understand the necessary role that the threat of violence and bloodshed plays in making those miracles of faith effective.
We desperately need miracles of faith. We also desperately need a realistic appreciation of what history teaches us about how the very wealthy respond to such miracles.
may take a “miracle of faith” to overcome the influence of money in American politics. But do you really believe that the targeting of the World Trade Center in the 9/11 attacks was one of these “miracles of faith,” in line with “the principles advocated” by Jesus, Gandhi, and the Dalai Lama? I’ve read your statement a few times, and can’t seem to interpret it any other way. It’s a real head-scratcher. Certainly, Jesus, Gandhi, and the Dalai Lama would never advocate the mass killing of innocent people in order to defeat the corrupting power of money.
The 9/11 attackers did not target “the financial heart of America” in order to make a statement about the influence of money in western society. It’s not capitalism that Middle Eastern terrorists tend to oppose, but democracy itself.
By the way, my understanding is that Mohamed Atta and the other ringleaders of the 9/11 attacks were not from poor families, but came from the upper levels of Egyptian and Saudi society, as did Osama bin Laden himself.
Your argument seems to have gone off the rails with with your 9/11 example.
I fear you miss my point about faith.
For the followers of the particular strain of the Muslim tradition that AQ speaks to, indeed THEY do believe that the 9/11 attacks were in line with their faith tradition. Jesus would almost certainly oppose a great many of the actions taken by Christian faithful in his name. I doubt that Jesus, Gandhi, or the Dalai Lama would applaud the Spanish Inquisition, the Crusades, the fire-bombing of Dresden, or the nuclear attacks on Japan that ended WWII.
I disagree with your second paragraph. My read of extremist Muslim literature of the time that was that their target was, in fact, American WEALTH. They believed, not entirely irrationally, that American wealth was a mainstay of Israeli expansion. When Muslim extremists speak of America as “the Great Satan”, it is not the way we choose our government that they attack. It is, instead, our “godless” freedoms and the resulting wealth that, in their eyes, we use to advance an agenda that they view as evil.
If the goal of the 9/11 attackers was to attack American democracy, surely the primary target would have been the symbols of that democracy in Washington DC, with a minor diversion to NYC, rather than vice-versa.
The point I’m attempting to make (perhaps unsuccessfully) about any approach based on faith is that it is exquisitely sensitive to the beliefs and moral framework of its adherents. There is enormous power in grassroots faith-based movements. The uses of that power directly reflect the belief system of those who wield it.
The spread of Muslim extremism is very much a grassroots faith-driven movement. The evocative power of 9/11 in the extremist Muslim community exists, I submit, because the 9/11 fits the narrative of “faithful” followers taking down a center of evil wealth and therefore power. At its core, it is not very dissimilar from the imagery of Jesus turning the table of the money-changers in the temple. The fact that AQ leadership emerged from wealthy families is largely irrelevant to that narrative — just as the wealth of the Vatican or of extremist Protestant leaders is irrelevant to the narrative of whatever social agenda they promote.
…I doubt Mohammed would have condoned 9/11 or any of the other tragedies you mention either.
about the view Muslim extremists have of western wealth. I will grant you that they oppose American wealth, but only to the extent that they want it for themselves — they are not acting in the manner of Jesus turning the money-changers out of the temple. Terrorists who target and murder innocent people do not fit the narrative of faithful followers taking down a center of evil wealth. Like most extremists, Middle Eastern terrorists want to establish totalitarian states or societies over which they hope to rule and gain maximum benefits for themselves. They don’t care about the poor or downtrodden, but rather view them as pawns in a political game.
Look at any campaign of terror in the world or throughout history, from the Nazis to the Khmer Rouge to ISIS. Blood lust, murder for its own sake, and ultimate power are the goals. Trying to describe those aims in lofty terms is misguided.
You are far more willing to demonize millions of faithful believers than me.
As you say, we’ll have to agree to disagree. You do admit, don’t you, that millions of extremist Muslims in the world say EXACTLY the same thing about Americans as you say about them, right?
You dismiss their “lofty goals”, they similarly dismiss yours, and the cycle of religious war spins faster and faster.
Muslim extremists and terrorists. I don’t dismiss faithful believers or Muslims in general, the vast majority of whom I don’t believe are extremists. You’re the one who seems to believe that’s the case in referring to “millions of extremist Muslims.”
Perhaps there are only hundreds of thousands of Muslims extremist enough to outright support or encourage terrorism.
My point is that every religious movement has extremists. Those extremists assert the same foundations of faith as their more moderate counterparts. When ANY faith-based movement finds a mechanism to assert grassroots power, the potential for violence exists. There are Christian extremists, Jewish extremists, and Muslim extremists.
The Roman Catholic church in America is certainly not a terrorist organization. At the same time, America has been plagued by waves of abortion clinic vandalism and bombings, murders of abortion clinic staff and providers (like John Salvi), and similar terrorist acts. Those acts of terrorism were not performed by Unitarians, Jews, or Methodists. The seeds of those terrorist acts were planted by the weekly reminders from the pulpit of the “evils” of abortion, and fertilized by the pandering to anti-abortion extremism by right-wing political agitation. Our Tea Party extremists did not spring up out of whole cloth from fairy dust sprinkled by aliens.
In my view, religious wars happen as moderates are moved towards the extremes of their respective traditions by events of the world around them. Too often, Christians and Jews reject the “extremists” and “terrorists” of the Muslim tradition even while demanding ever-more violent reprisals — and all too often citing chapter and verse from scripture while doing so.
I’m not supporting terrorism. I’m instead reminding us that every faith-based movement has a tendency to sanctify its own goals, actions, and martyrs while demonizing those of people whom it brands as “evil” or “the enemy”.
When we celebrate “miracles of faith”, I suggest that we need to acknowledge that some of those “miracles of faith” result in outcomes that we find extraordinarily distasteful.
are political in nature, not religious. Terrorism is about power, not faith.
I see. So the intentions of the
infidelsterrorists are “political”, not religious. Our own, however, are purely spiritual as we walk in the hallowed path of Jesus, Gandhi and the Dalai Lama. No “political” agenda for us. No sirree. Martin Luther King wanted nothing to do with power or politics.Sorry, but we’re talking about POWER here. You derisively condemn terrorism as being about power — FAITH is about power, in the context of this thread. We are talking about the POWER of “miracles of faith” to overcome the POWER of concentrated wealth.
Indeed, we do disagree. The formulation you present is, as I observed earlier, a prescription for never-ending holy war. You call them “terrorists” and dismiss their motivations. They call you “evil” and dismiss your motivations. The attitudes reinforce each other as each of you steps up the intensity of your attacks.
The rest of us suffer while the two of you (where “you” refers to the groups that pursue this insanity) play out your narcissistic power game.
leap to conclusions about personal convictions that I haven’t stated. It’s called putting words in my mouth. I never said our motivations are entirely pure and never said I support violent reprisals against all terrorists. If you want to maintain that there’s no difference between the aims of ISIS and Martin Luther King — it’s all about power — then there’s nothing I can say to you.
Let’s both take some deep breaths.
Of course I’m not arguing that the aims of ISIS and MLK are identical. For one thing, ISIS is, by all indications, not a “faith-based” movement.
I’m only saying that the followers of Osama Bin Laden made arguments similar to those made by the followers of some of the more radical (but still faith-based) civil rights activists of the US civil rights era, such as Stokely Carmichael. Each claimed to be acting on behalf of a deity. Each claimed that their prophetic vision justifies their actions. Each claimed that whatever political aims they had were secondary to and in furtherance of their religious goals.
We are frequently reminded of the importance of respecting “diversity” of religious viewpoints. I’m observing that too often the limits we place on that respect are very much determined by our own religious/moral beliefs.
One idea I had came when I was doing a lot of canvassing a few years ago, working with a number of new volunteers for various campaigns. I’d say that most all were in the mid to low income range, certainly not “top tier donors”. Clearly there would be some logistical, tracking, and coordination points to be worked out, but there ought to be a way to reward these volunteers with a voucher or some sort of “golden ticket” to attend these more expensive fund raisers. Time is money, no? I suppose the state committee could distribute these vouchers to town chairs (awarded by population density?) who would then work with campaigns looking for canvas or phone bank volunteers. Instead of just a “thank you for your time”, as a volunteer gives a Saturday afternoon, we could present them with a 100 point voucher to serve in lieu of a cash donation and be allowed to attend expensive events.
…but I have in fact been afforded access to otherwise ticketed campaign events by virtue of being a volunteer, sometimes as a reward for previous service and sometimes as a thank you for volunteering at that event.
And I hope others do too.
True story.
I was a an event where a prominent person was fundraising for a campaign. I was there in a lobby area on a $50 ticket with about 40 others, while others were on the floor above having made those 4 figure donations. The headliner went from person to person among the cheap seats, chatting and hugging, and finally summoned a photogtapher.
The campaign minions explained that it was the folks upstairs who would get pictures. He said firmly, “I think these nice folks deserve pictures, too.” So he posed with and thanked each of us.
That is how I came to have a picture taken with former president George Herbert Walker Bush, at an event he held during his son’s campaign.
Any candidate or speaker could do the same.
Seattle and Maine voted in interesting public financing initiatives crafted with a strong awareness of the post-Citizens United legal and political environment. Maine created a two for one system of matching funds for candidates that stay within public financing and accept certain limits.
Seattle went a different direction by piloting “democracy vouchers” that make every citizen into a small donor. We will see which one works better and hopefully other voters, including those in the commonwealth, can be encouraged to do the same.
Via citizen petition, since any legislation or vote was doomed.
The Democrats gutted it.
But yes, I agree, people in power tend to oppose efforts to constrict power.
Like all the Democrats.
Ironically, when this vote was taken all the Republicans voted against it, as back then they all voted no on the budget as a matter of principle. That came in handy sometimes.