Democracy In Crisis- Oligarchy, Wealth Obsession, Commercial Societies, Xian Nationalism- J. Adams

[appalachiablue]

- Justice Louis Brandeis understood the nature of power and oligarchy.
_________

- 'This Dangerous Attraction Has Infected Society Like a Virulent Virus and Corrupted Christianity,' Daily Kos, Sept. 11, 2021. - Ed.

From ancient times, this dangerous attraction has been known to lead to despotic government. John Adams worried it would destroy democracy. This is Part 6 of our journey in the series, “Democracy in Crisis: We’ve Been Headed Here for Decades.” A coming overthrow was predictable at least thirty years ago, unless we instituted a major course change. How could we have seen this and how can we save democracy? To help understand this and save democracy, we must explore this dangerous attraction that John Adams feared and how it relates to society, Christianity, and Christian nationalism. (< Previous article in series). Some have warned that a dangerous attraction has been with us since ancient times, including second U.S. President John Adams.

What is this dangerous magnetism? Sympathy with the wealthy and an obsession with wealth as an indicator of worth, superseding one’s character. Luke Mayville, author and lecturer of political philosophy at Boise State University’s Honors College, writes in his 2016 book John Adams and the Fear of American Oligarchy: John Adams thought that widespread sympathy for the rich could be a potent source of power for social and economic elites. If this strikes readers as an odd proposition, it is perhaps because sympathy is a concept more often associated with the plight of the poor and downtrodden than with the predicament of the rich and distinguished. Likewise, insofar as sympathy is associated with political power, it is more easily understood as empowering the causes of the disadvantaged and marginalized.

Adams was absolutely right: sympathy for the rich is a very potent source of their power. Mayville continues, Yet, if sympathy is more easily understood as a sentiment working to empower efforts on behalf of the downtrodden, Scottish historians and moralists of the eighteenth century repeatedly described the same sentiment as a source of power for the rich and distinguished. Indeed, and this source of power — created by public sentiment — keeps the oligarchs in charge. Oligarchy is a form of authoritarianism, and it’s the rule by the selfish, greedy, corrupt few — not just the rich — who control or influence others.

If people want a democracy, they must see the oligarchs for what they are and understand the dangers of looking at wealth, rather than character, as a sense of worth.

- The Dangerous Tendency of Commercial Societies:
Like John Adams, Adam Ferguson (1723-1816), Scottish historian and moral philosopher of the Scottish Enlightenment, saw the dangers of this admiration and sympathy. Mayville says (bolding my emphasis), “Ferguson highlighted the tendency among the people in commercial societies to bestow admiration and influence on fortune rather than character.”...

Read More,
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2021/9/11/2051419/-This-Dangerous-Attraction-Has-Infected-Society-Like-a-Virulent-Virus-amp-Corrupted-Christianity



- John Adams, 2nd President of the U.S. and political thinker.

[SWBTATTReg]

1. Having wealth and how that wealth is obtained is (inherited or earned) is yet another...

way of how democratic societies are undermined by republicans and others whose motto of 'no taxes ever!' flies in the face of common logic.

This approach denies a lot of communities/counties/states/and the FED access to a lot of funds since the wealthy among us spend a relative tiny % of their wealth to just 'live', compared to the rest of us. And ironically, the vast majority of us contribute far more to society's needs (roads, schools, salaries of police, teachers, etc.) than the wealthy, via the sales taxes, the income taxes, etc., paid year after year after year.

Instead, the wealthy all jockey w/ each other, bid up stock markets in a desperate attempt to have the 'most' money, buy massively expensive toys, etc. They claim that they are, indeed they all concerned w/ the woes and ills of society as a whole, but I seriously wonder if this statement is true, since they are so insistent on keeping minimum wage to a bare minimum, pay the lowest possible price for everything, and even gripe when they perceive the price quoted is still 'too high'.

My question for all...Just how has this massive accumulation of wealth truly benefited the Country as a whole? This constant and insane accumulation of wealth hasn't (IMHO) benefited Society as a whole, and if anyone benefited, it's only literally 1% of us. If anyone can come up with anything at all, in how our Society was improved, advanced, etc. on this insane and selfish accumulation of wealth, how?

If anything, I see, even w/ the numbers against them, conservatives (or whatever they call themselves now, it's a joke whatever word they use to describe themselves, the 1%ers will always be a good word to describe them) are putting into place all kinds of laws assuring themselves always a place at the table, even though they only represent 1% of us. Idiot republicans are enabling them at every turn, and these republican idiots can't even see it happening.