The corporate elite are putting pressure on Indiana

[rogerashton]

to reverse its anti LGBT law, and that's good.

The corporate elite are putting pressure on Democrats to muzzle Elizabeth Warren, and that's bad.

Don't misunderstand me, I subscribe to both these positions. But I would like to be able to say what the consistent principles are that underlie them both. Any help?

[Gothmog]

1. Governor Dense is feeling the pressure

This will be fun to watch

[tularetom]

2. $$$$$$$$$

That's the consistent principle that underlies both positions. They think the Indiana law will cost them money. They think Elizabeth Warren will cost them money. They love money.

It ain't rocket science.

[rogerashton]

3. Not the question I posed.

My question is about our principle. If it is OK for the corporate elite to strong-arm the legislative process when we agree, what makes it wrong for them to do that when we don't agree? Or is it ever wrong?

Not to disagree with what you said. That is quite right of course.

[HereSince1628]

4. I suspect principle is about judging the impact each act on 'us' independently

But it's also correct to come to the conclusion that corporations are only interested in money and that for coporations holding what seem to be positions based on different moral grounds resolves into only consideration for the bottom line.

[rogerashton]

5. So, are we any different

if we support or oppose corporate muscle in the legislative process according to the impact on "us" independently? Or should we be different? And who is "us," by the way? If the impact is different on some of "us" than on others, won't those divisions weaken "us?"

[HereSince1628]

6. I suggest 'us' is team 'us'...all those interested in civil rights and human equality

I don't think 'support' is as correct somuch as saying pleased with corporate action...

It's like responding to rain.

Sometimes we are glad for rain, sometimes we wish it would stop.

We can do that without being hypocritical.

[rogerashton]

7. But if "us" is all those who believe in democratic governance

or if corporate domination is antipathy to human rights --

Sure, we can treat corporate dominance of the legislative process as neutral to our values -- a natural phenomenon like the rain -- without being hypocritical. (Hypocrisy gets a bit of an undeserved bad press, IMO.) But can we take that position without being incoherent and divided?

[HereSince1628]

8. I suspect, but I can't be certain, that "us" will always be somewhat incoherent and divided.

[LiberalAndProud]

9. It's troublesome that it seems we are at the mercy of the whim of big business.

I am thrilled that some business moguls have taken a stand in Indiana, while at the same time knowing that had they not, regardless of how many average citizens might take to the streets no note would be taken by he media or the lawmakers. Even though I heartily agree with this action, how is it not fascism?

[rogerashton]

10. That's what troubles me,

although I'm not sure I would go so far as to call it fascism. The best way I have been able to think it through is that, in the case of the Indiana law, I'm obliged to oppose it even though the corporate elite also are annoyed by it, while at the same time regretting -- if not in this case opposing -- their ability to pressure the Indiana legislature. But I feel a need to explain (to myself if nobody else) why that is the correct stance for me to take.

Unlike some other posters I am not comfortable if "we" are incoherent and divided.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6441545

[LiberalAndProud]

11. I was referring the the phrase that Mussolini probably didn't say.

"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power."

So, I'll foreswear that particularly incendiary word and call it corporatism because state and corporate power have indeed merged in our society.

[rogerashton]

12. Yes, they have,

but "corporation" had a somewhat different meaning in Mussolini's language -- including what the Germans called die führerprinzip. I don't know the Italian word. And despite the CEO-worship we see, I don't think we have yet sunk to that.