Thread by @alexthechick

There's been but Muh Principles flying around all over the place the last few days vis a vis Disney but I have yet to see anyone discuss a foundational premise: Since when are corporations agreed to be Super Voters whose actions and opinions are more important than actual voters?

Look, I'm dumb not stupid, of course corporations have always had power in politics. What's good for GM is good for America is older than I am (I know that's not what was really said, don't start). The Golden Rule of he who has the gold makes the rules is as old as humanity.

American copyright law has been the Mickey Mouse laws at least as long as I've been alive. None of that is new. However, the agreement, such as it was, was that the public got jobs and the corporation got tax breaks and everyone made out.

That was always more true in theory than fact but the scale tipping towards corporations get what they want with no reciprocal responsibility to citizens began to ramp up early 90s with the growth of outsourcing.

Now, all those amazing tax breaks and sweetheart property tax deals and local governments building out infrastructure were met with so long and thanks for all the fish. And the voters were left with the bill and no jobs and the destruction of entire communities.

Voters were, comprehensibly, furious about this. Screw taxation without representation. This was representation without taxation. And there was nothing that the voter could do about it.

In theory, at least, politicians can be voted out of office. Unless you have billions and access to financing billions more, you, a voter, cannot change the make up of a corporate board. Let's leave out arguments re outsourcing and shareholder value as all of this is the set up.

So voters were already, again, comprehensibly, furious that the only votes that mattered on economic matters were corporate ones. The reciprocal benefit of jobs no longer existed, or, if it did, could vanish in a matter of days or weeks. But that was all economics.

Then corporations decided to start playing in social areas. Pick your topic. Pro-life, gay rights, immigration, religious freedom, pick it. Corporations decided to start throwing weight around about matters with no obvious economic relationship to the business.

Now, matters on which voters should have a say were being held hostage to corporate whims. Remember NC's bathroom bill and the boycotts? Again, pick your topic. Corporations were acting, and being treated by elected officials, as if they had any vote at all on these matters.

Not only that they had any vote at all, but that their vote was dispositive. And people noticed. It didn't matter what voters said. It didn't matter what elected officials did. Corporations attempted and succeeded in exercising veto power over social matter legislation.

But shareholders can vote out the board! Sure. After the actions have been taken and after politicians have caved. Sure, there can be an attempt. Oh. Wait. You don't hold the right class of shares, sorry, thought you knew.

There has been long, and again, comprehensible, absolute frustration and rage that politicians and the pundit class have accepted, wholeheartedly, the idea that corporations are Super Voters and get to have ultimate veto power over these matters. This is also not new.

Which brings us to Disney. In all the wailing about retaliation, I've seen nearly no one even admit that in order for retaliation to occur, the other party must have acted first. None of this would have happened if Disney, with no shareholder input, didn't open its mouth first.

Disney decided to throw its weight around because why wouldn't it? Hey, it's a Super Voter. Everyone agrees on this! The Pikachu shocked faces when the FL legislature decided to reject that notion and just treat Disney as another special interest have been amazing to witness.

What possible principle is there in replying to political actions with politics! How about, just spit balling here, bare knuckle politics? How about the principle that corporations do not get veto power over legislation? How about the principle that actual voters are supreme?

The wailing and gnashing of teeth about Muh Principles means nothing, absolutely nothing, until the question of what is the proper political role of a corporation is answered. Because I, a person, am comprehensibly exhausted by pretending this question isn't foundational.

YOU CAN'T DO THIS TO DISNEY! WHERE ARE YOUR PRINCIPLES! Right here where I believe the actions of the voters are what matters and corporations who choose to play political games get political consequences. You might not like that principle, but it is a principle.

Play stupid Will to Power games, win stupid Will to Power prizes. The lesson should be, as I've been screaming into the void, that Will to Power isn't a game nor should it be played. But if it's going to be played, then my side better play to win. And that is a principle. /fin