Words are cheap. That's why for example in a presidential debate, a candidate who has been on the wrong side of an issue for decades can attack their opponent who has been on the right side for decades in a sentence, claiming they're the ones on the right side of the issue and claiming the opponent isn't; the waters are muddied. Same easy thing works for White House spokespersons who just lie, and so on.
So, the public - left, right and center - largely dislikes something going on with 'elites'. And that something is named by the phrase 'the swamp'. But when one candidate who is actually against 'the swamp' says so, the competition who is for the swamp weakens the discussion by simply adopting the phrase themselves and claiming THEY'RE the one against the swamp, and calling their opponent the swamp. Muddying the waters.
And so you end up with the public rather confused about what is the swamp and who is against it and unorganized in fighting the swamp, which is just what the swamp wants.
It's pretty bizarre when everyone - Bernie and trump, Pelosi and Ryan - will say they're against the swamp and it means nothing because the word has been diluted to mean anything and contradictory things. The only sure loser would be a politician who said they're for the swamp, so of course none do - and the American people who still have the swamp.
Isn't it strange that such a basic and important issue can't be defined better? I don't even recall one leader who says they're against the swamp being challenged on what the word means.
For there to be any political organization against the swap, I'd think it needs to get a clearer meaning.
The first target people might come up with are politicians who vote for powerful interests and against the interests of the American people. I'd say pretty much every Republican politician fits that bill; of course they'd disagree. Some Democrats do; and of course they'd disagree.
But I'd suggest that the politicians are a secondary part, the 'hired hands' - that's it's the interests they serve, who pay the bills whether in campaign donations or rewarding former politicians with lobbying jobs, that are more 'the swamp'. And those interests are somewhat amorphous.
Wall Street largely pretty clearly belongs on the list. Historically, Wall Street was a 10% of the economy's profits overhead to 'grease the wheels'; in recent decades when they have increased their role as a parasite, that has risen up to 40% of the country's profits they suck out. I'd call that added 30% 'swamp'.
The healthcare insurances excesses (somewhat curtailed by the ACA, which required them to spend a bigger share on patient benefits, which required them to insure pre-existing conditions); big pharma excesses (illustrated by their being Republicans' biggest donor in the 2000 election, rewards with hundreds of billions of tax dollars per year in added costs from the new drug program that banned the government from negotiating prices); the defense industry, which is obscenely large, sucking hundreds of billions of dollars from the American people every year for unneeded weapons and pushing the US to a role of oppression as an empire; the privatization movement which mostly provides worse service for higher cost from education to prisons; and much more are all 'the swamp'.
There are some poster children for the swamp - such as Goldman Sachs, which when not paying Hillary $400,000 to give a speech, is backing all kinds of schemes to hurt citizens for profit. They've destroyed plenty of pensions and other people's money to line their pockets. Of course with the 2008 Great Recession, they manipulated the recovery to steer hundreds of billions to themselves.
Speaking of the Great Recession, the big banks are in particular the swamp. While I already mentioned them generally, the Great Recession in particular showed the banks as 'too big to fail', sucking up trillions in recovery money that should have gone to the public, mostly unpunished for their role in the crash, and legally unaccountable to both Bush and Obama.
I'd add another category - the plutocrat tycoons, who give billions to elect almost entirely Republicans to do their bidding - the Kochs (who organize hundreds of like-minded tycoons to donate), Mercer, Addleston, the Waltons, and many more who give money to buy our elections to put people in power who will protect them at the public's expense.
Then there's ALEC and its clients - the organization that represents the biggest corporations and literally writes laws for their benefit, typically against the public interest, and hands them to mostly Republican legislatures who sometimes have 30% of all the laws they pass be bills written by ALEC.
And then there's the right-wing media - not jut Fox, but Sinclair which owns to many talk radio stations airing right-wing propaganda 24x7, and many more. The voice of the swamp, swan songs misleading millions to support the swamp.
The Supreme court itself has become swampland, with a majority being Republican appointees who are legal radicals who have destroyed our constitution by interpreting it to deny the power of the people to rule their country, creating protections for unlimited money in buying our elections and saying the people cannot pass laws limiting the swamp. Money is speech and corporations are people with constitutional rights.
I'd say that's the swamp.
But trump uses the word as well - Pelosi is the swamp! Schumer is the swamp! Anyone who gives to Democrats is the swamp! An actor who attacks him is the swamp! The utterly corrupt cronies he is and puts into government and supports, he doesn't call the swamp. When he appoints fossil fuel and #1 enemy of the environment Scott Pruitt to head the EPA to destroy the protection of the environment (including swamps) - that's not the swamp.
The swamp is an important phrase in our politics - but needs some agreement on what it means to have any use other than filling trump's speeches with lies misusing the phrase.
So, the public - left, right and center - largely dislikes something going on with 'elites'. And that something is named by the phrase 'the swamp'. But when one candidate who is actually against 'the swamp' says so, the competition who is for the swamp weakens the discussion by simply adopting the phrase themselves and claiming THEY'RE the one against the swamp, and calling their opponent the swamp. Muddying the waters.
And so you end up with the public rather confused about what is the swamp and who is against it and unorganized in fighting the swamp, which is just what the swamp wants.
It's pretty bizarre when everyone - Bernie and trump, Pelosi and Ryan - will say they're against the swamp and it means nothing because the word has been diluted to mean anything and contradictory things. The only sure loser would be a politician who said they're for the swamp, so of course none do - and the American people who still have the swamp.
Isn't it strange that such a basic and important issue can't be defined better? I don't even recall one leader who says they're against the swamp being challenged on what the word means.
For there to be any political organization against the swap, I'd think it needs to get a clearer meaning.
The first target people might come up with are politicians who vote for powerful interests and against the interests of the American people. I'd say pretty much every Republican politician fits that bill; of course they'd disagree. Some Democrats do; and of course they'd disagree.
But I'd suggest that the politicians are a secondary part, the 'hired hands' - that's it's the interests they serve, who pay the bills whether in campaign donations or rewarding former politicians with lobbying jobs, that are more 'the swamp'. And those interests are somewhat amorphous.
Wall Street largely pretty clearly belongs on the list. Historically, Wall Street was a 10% of the economy's profits overhead to 'grease the wheels'; in recent decades when they have increased their role as a parasite, that has risen up to 40% of the country's profits they suck out. I'd call that added 30% 'swamp'.
The healthcare insurances excesses (somewhat curtailed by the ACA, which required them to spend a bigger share on patient benefits, which required them to insure pre-existing conditions); big pharma excesses (illustrated by their being Republicans' biggest donor in the 2000 election, rewards with hundreds of billions of tax dollars per year in added costs from the new drug program that banned the government from negotiating prices); the defense industry, which is obscenely large, sucking hundreds of billions of dollars from the American people every year for unneeded weapons and pushing the US to a role of oppression as an empire; the privatization movement which mostly provides worse service for higher cost from education to prisons; and much more are all 'the swamp'.
There are some poster children for the swamp - such as Goldman Sachs, which when not paying Hillary $400,000 to give a speech, is backing all kinds of schemes to hurt citizens for profit. They've destroyed plenty of pensions and other people's money to line their pockets. Of course with the 2008 Great Recession, they manipulated the recovery to steer hundreds of billions to themselves.
Speaking of the Great Recession, the big banks are in particular the swamp. While I already mentioned them generally, the Great Recession in particular showed the banks as 'too big to fail', sucking up trillions in recovery money that should have gone to the public, mostly unpunished for their role in the crash, and legally unaccountable to both Bush and Obama.
I'd add another category - the plutocrat tycoons, who give billions to elect almost entirely Republicans to do their bidding - the Kochs (who organize hundreds of like-minded tycoons to donate), Mercer, Addleston, the Waltons, and many more who give money to buy our elections to put people in power who will protect them at the public's expense.
Then there's ALEC and its clients - the organization that represents the biggest corporations and literally writes laws for their benefit, typically against the public interest, and hands them to mostly Republican legislatures who sometimes have 30% of all the laws they pass be bills written by ALEC.
And then there's the right-wing media - not jut Fox, but Sinclair which owns to many talk radio stations airing right-wing propaganda 24x7, and many more. The voice of the swamp, swan songs misleading millions to support the swamp.
The Supreme court itself has become swampland, with a majority being Republican appointees who are legal radicals who have destroyed our constitution by interpreting it to deny the power of the people to rule their country, creating protections for unlimited money in buying our elections and saying the people cannot pass laws limiting the swamp. Money is speech and corporations are people with constitutional rights.
I'd say that's the swamp.
But trump uses the word as well - Pelosi is the swamp! Schumer is the swamp! Anyone who gives to Democrats is the swamp! An actor who attacks him is the swamp! The utterly corrupt cronies he is and puts into government and supports, he doesn't call the swamp. When he appoints fossil fuel and #1 enemy of the environment Scott Pruitt to head the EPA to destroy the protection of the environment (including swamps) - that's not the swamp.
The swamp is an important phrase in our politics - but needs some agreement on what it means to have any use other than filling trump's speeches with lies misusing the phrase.