Gadarene: “not always seeing, for example, that eroding your consumer base in a quest for greater profit margins now–like when you throw thousands out of work to move your factories overseas–might just come back and bite ya later.”
Or, for example, short-term thought like saying that American workers should never be laid off, no matter what the competitive landscape looks like, potentially making the business go bust because it couldn’t maintain the profit margins of its competitors… Your logic only works if the workers getting laid off are the only consumers which a company sells to. With lower priced products, all consumers benefit, which in general grows the economy, which in general opens up new companies, which can hire the displaced workers… Personally, I have no love for american workers who do an equivalent job to their foreign counterparts but demand more pay. The labor market is the same as any other market, and if they charge too much for their product (labor), the companies will look elsewhere. Nobody balks at paying american workers big bucks when they do a better job than anyone else, only when they are not worth the price premium that they charge.
In any event, you have not demonstrated that your worker-retention policy has long-term benefits (which is required in order for you to prove your thesis that denial of this policy is wrong-headed and driven by plutocrats and oligarchs). Given the current economic situation (e.g. very low unemployment and low inflation), I find your hypothesis hard to swallow.
“the machete taken to the capital gains tax. corporate tax loopholes and shelters. reduction of estate tax. a progressive income tax that really ain’t all that progressive.”
There are far less shelters and loopholes today than there used to be (Bill Bradley, no right-winger, supported some of Reagan’s tax policies for exactly that reason – he lowered the rates but cut the loopholes). And, no matter how you slice it, the tax structure is progressive. It may not be as progressive as you would like, but it is progressive. In order for your hypothesis to hold up, we’d need a regressive tax structure.
“People, when polled, are overwhelmingly in favor of some kind of campaign finance reform. Which means that some politicians will make some pretty speeches (either about the sanctity of the system, or about the sanctity of free speech), and then nothing will get done.”
You misunderstand the “intensity of support”. If you ask the question “do you support campaign finance reform”, you will probably get the answer “yes”. If you ask the question “do you want campaign finance reform more than a prescription drug benefit for medicare”, you’ll probably get the answer “no”. Support for campaign finance reform (and flag-burning amendments) is wide but shallow. Support for campaign finance abuses and protecting the first amendment is narrow but deep. Politicians give the “masses” what they want in general, and also appeal to narrower groups (such as corporate donors or civil-libertarians) at the same time.
“I believe that polls are flawed, and over-reliance on polls (as you pointed out) as dangerous as ignoring public opinion altogether. (Exhibits A and B: Bill Clinton; Newt Gingrich.)”
That begs the question: “which policies of Bill Clinton (which were motivated by polls) have resulted in programs which are unpopular with the american people?” Please note that the health care debacle doesn’t count, since that was an appeal to liberal ideology rather than the polls (proven by the fact that it was wildly unpopular and elected a republican congress).
“I just don’t think public policy … are as coincidant with the will of the people as you say.”
Then it should be very easy for you to provide concrete examples. If you have poll numbers to back them up, even better.
