Scrap, there is nothing democratic whatsoever in winning elections by lying.
To some extent it is. Lying is necessary to also serve the interest of the poor. Democracy is based on the vote of the majority, so to serve any interest other than the majority, one must appeal to and lie to the middle class.
How would that ever serve true democracy? Controlling the masses by lying is not about democracy.
My comment was stated based on the assumption the video is being discussed. The primary point of the video is, "The oligarchs have discovered the formula for persuading the poor to vote for the interests of the very rich." The poor tend to represent a smaller percentage of the population who are less likely to vote, so have trouble agreeing the poor are swinging elections. Would have to see some stats on this particular election, but don't believe it to be true here. Though generally the middle class are the majority and people do tend to vote in their own interest, so while it's not a palatable idea, it's does seem realistic to say serving the interests of both the very rich and the poor require some manipulation of the middle class.
Sorry, it just doesn't make any sense to me. Someone would always find out and things would go south in some other way.
Not sure why it doesn't make sense. While the speaker of the video presents this idea as as a new idea, and a new global phenomenon created by the advent of modern social media, it's a message have heard all my life. There are two types of people in the world, us vs them, the poor and the very rich. The masses who toil and struggle for their manipulative and powerful overlords. Maybe it's true and maybe it's not. If it's true, then it's always been true. If it's not, then it's a lie to manipulate the public into believing they are have-nots. In the US, it's a normal point of view and keeping in custom of distrusting those in power, it's also likely effective in driving consumerism.
Jack, I’m not going to try to change your opinions on this. I know from previous discussions that our starting assumptions regarding the political spectrum are profoundly different. This is not intended as some kind of snide or oblique put down, I’m simply saying that (whether you are aware of it or not) I don't believe that you are an out-of-the-box thinker on politics and related subjects. A lot of people claim to be independent thinkers who form their own views based on their own observations. You are one of the very rare few who actually are.
What you are talking about is the rhetoric of class struggle. Which has been ongoing for centuries. Just because the rhetoric is familiar, does not mean that nothing has changed. Neoliberalism and globalization have radically altered the economic landscape and obliterated the negotiating position or the working class. Combine that with the increase in downward mobility (from middle class to working class, or from working class to underclass). Much has changed. One question: Do you believe that someone like Donald Trump or Bernie Sanders would have been electable 10 or 20 years ago? Because they were both certainly electable in 2016, while the established politician who most represented the political centre was not.
Also when the video talks about “the poor” I would assume that he is using a broad brush and including many people who may be able to afford to feed and clothe themselves but struggle to afford the sort of lifestyle, job security and financial security, and lack many of the related job benefits, that their parents may have taken for granted. Some of us refer to that growing portion of the population as the “precariat”. Remember that much of the population are “rusted on” supporters of a specific party in a two-party system, regardless of whether that part reflects their interests or not. If you can convince a sizeable segment of the population to shift their vote from one party to the other, then you’ve got it sewn up.
If you can convince a sizeable segment of the population that the political system is corrupt and that neither side of politics represents their interests, then people will vote for a rank outsider who promises to shake things up. Actually it isn't a particularly difficult task to convince people that the political system is corrupt and that neither side of politics represents their interests, in my opinion it is factually true and more and more people are coming to that conclusion independently.
