Politicians already do pay attention to a lot of things other than lobbyists. The ultimate goal of 90% of politicians is to be re-elected. Usually, lobbyists are the most capable of making that happen. Contributions = exposure = votes. But if there's a large voting bloc within a constituency, that precludes the influence of lobbyists. No matter how much a pro-gay marriage lobbyist is willing to spend on a Kentucky Senator, he's not getting a gay marriage vote. It's not a big conspiracy. Plenty of Congressmen are idiots that come from unspectacular backgrounds -- they're not part of some interlocked alliance of elites.
OWS is already capable of making politicians listen to something other than lobbyists. That's my point. OWS, right now, would likely be capable of garnering enough public support to reinstate Glass-Steagall. Or to raise taxes on the wealthy.
When you talk about changing everything, I don't see what you mean or how that's realistic. Banks are still going to be extraordinarily wealthy and influential -- there's no changing that. The rich are still going to wield disproportionate influence. But changes can be made, and OWS needs to narrow their scope if they want to do that.
|