That’s not the argument either. Read GP’s comment attentively, they’re making a general commentary on how the people with money manipulate the conversation by distracting everyone else. If you’ve ever read Neil Postman’s “Amusing Ourselves to Death”, you’ll recognise the thought.
Being pedantic about which particular conversation is or isn’t happening where and by how many people is counter-productive and only serves to exhaust everyone and exacerbate the issue.
> Being pedantic about which particular conversation is or isn’t happening where and by how many people is counter-productive and only serves to exhaust everyone and exacerbate the issue
I'm arguing there is no conspiracy. It would be lovely if rich people (namely, anyone) were coherently running the government. But the reason we're seeing chaos is because there are fundamental interests attached to each of those major spending lines that have wide voter support (and antagonism).
I’m pretty sure the US government has a rich dude in the presidency, a rich dude pulling the strings via doge, and all the members of the presidents official inner circle are rich people.
In congress, it’s very much a rich persons club.
Maybe this is how it’s always been, but it feels even more obvious and extreme today.
> I’m pretty sure the US government has a rich dude in the presidency, a rich dude pulling the strings via doge, and all the members of the presidents official inner circle are rich people
That doesn't mean they're coordinated. Particularly not on matters of deficit reduction, let alone controlling the national conversation around it. Saying the conversation around the deficit is being suppressed is more a statement of ignorance than anything happening in reality.
This is usually the correct view to take, but in this case I'd disagree. Hot button political topics are easy "conspiracies." Political parties are groups that get together and decide what to talk about. They pass around memos with talking points to their members. They often focus on problems that are divisive but either unlikely to happen or unlikely to affect much if they do. It's not too keep the little man down, but to win elections and avoid making hard decisions with unclear consequences.
Consider transexual rights. Very divisive, but transexuals are a tiny minority. Transexual voters won't be deciding elections, so it's "safe" to bash or advocate for them. Another topic I believe had been seen as "safely impossible" was pro-life stances. Because abortion rights had been asserted through the Supreme Court and based on a Constitutional right, politicians felt safe to rail against it. They never thought they could do anything short of a constitutional amendment. Republicans were thrown for a loop when the SCOTUS reversed the decision, and the "red wave" of 2022 was much smaller than anticipated.
The ability to distract people is orthogonal to the ability to functionally operate a government. I mean, that’s Donald Trump’s (and his protégés like MTG’s and J.D. Vance’s) entire schtick.
Being pedantic about which particular conversation is or isn’t happening where and by how many people is counter-productive and only serves to exhaust everyone and exacerbate the issue.