It certainly seems as if the US may be a plutocracy, at least for the next 4 years. But is that necessarily a bad thing? Yes, it could be argued that these guys are out of touch with ordinary people but as long as those people communicate their needs and the admistration listens then it shouldn’t be a problem. The rich are accustomed to getting things done. Trump promised to drain the swamp and by the look of some of his appointments that is exactly what he’s doing, although he’s obviously had to throw a few bones to the Republican Party.
Whatever happens the next 4 years will be interesting. Will billionaires be as sucessful in running a country as they are in running their businesses? I think they could be. I know this topic will probably divide along party lines but please try to avoid knee-jerk responses if at all possible. I know that’s difficult and to be honest I’m not even sure that I’m being perfectly neutral in my opinion. But it’s worth a shot.
You want talented and successful people running agencies.These people tend to be rich. This is a common thing among recent administrations. The current cabinet has a billionaire, a man worth 200 million, and five people with double digit millions.
Rule of the Rich has been the default governance of most regimes and civilisations, restrained and cut back only by competing hereditary rule ( Kingship and loyalty ) and the occasional violent revolution: both now gone as possibilities. So it seems neither good nor bad, so long as the non-rich are protected and the rich allow people not from their ranks to join the power-structure.
Mr. Trump will temper the money-as-a-measure-of-worth instincts of his Republican rivals and other libertarians, and hopefully allow his own *Noblesse Oblige *instincts to shelter and foster the less fortunate from the neoliberal winds of further misfortune.
Drain the swamp was generally understood to mean get rid of corruption and undue special interest control over Washington, laws, etc. Appointing some of the absurdly rich individuals behind those special interests to give them direct power and the ability to bypass lobbying Congress isn’t exactly draining the swamp.
But then, this is the same contradiction as labeling Trump a “man of the people” or somehow in touch with the people given being born into a privileged, wealthy family and living a Saddam’s palace kind of opulent lifestyle for most of his life, proudly sending business overseas in order to cut corporate costs and maximize profits.
And you could possibly be excused for believing that circa 1999, or if you are particularly dense, 2006. The billionaire investment bankers and hedge fund managers who contributed to the global financial collapse of 2007-08 gave lie to the notion that rich people are inherently practically smarter, and certainly not more honest, than people in general. And I’ll make the point again that Donald Trump himself is [POST=19174474]probably not a billionaire[/POST], although he may well be several times over once he uses the position as President to enrich himself and force foreign business interests to kowtow to his executive power.
Won’t someone think of the lobbyists, private and corporate sponsored policy ‘think tanks’ and “government relations professionals” who will be looking for work?
I don’t have a problem with rich people being in government; with respect to the Trump administration I have a major problem with: 1. their lack of experience in running large organizations. 2. their wrong policies.
For example I would see Bill Gates as an excellent Cabinet choice.