Well since nobody else seems ready to jump in, let me say a few
words.
The first thing that strikes me about your question is that it
perhaps it can be more easily and straightforwardly answer without
assuming the perspective of Foucault or anyone else for that matter.
People who run large corporate help fund political campaigns, get their
"men" elected (do women even want equality here, in the realm of sleaze?
:), and thereafter that politician's door is always open to them. It's
what we call, here in the states, "legalized bribery." Nothing very
complicated here. It's as old as dirt itself (pun intended).
But then, thinking about it some more, a slightly more interesting
question arises, the answer to which is a bit less obvious. Why does the
US electorate stand for this year after year? How can they go to the
polls, every 2 tears, 4 years, or however often they go, and think their
vote means something? Clearly, to some appreciable degree, these voters
are deluding themselves (or being deluded by other forces, e.g. the mass
corporate owned media) in to believing that the political system is
somehow "fair" and "democratic."
Perhaps it is from here that you could start looking to Foucault.
Although I realize you are less probably familiar with the US system
than some others, the US might be a better test case because there is
relatively little public financing of campaigns. And what there is
happens to be a mere matter of the government matching what the
campaigns raise privately. (So my bribe money gets a matching grant from
the US Government? woo hoo!).
Lionel Boxer wrote:
>
> On Patrick's invitation, I would like to hear what people have to say
> about how those who donate towards political campaigns (and in other
> ways) seek to influence government policy regarding environmental and
> social issues.
>
> I have a feeling that a Foucauldian power perspective can help to
> explain this.
>
> Patrick wants a discussion - can we give it to him? Sorry ... all I
> have are questions at this stage.
>
> Lionel
>
> >From: Patrick Crosby
> >Reply-To: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >To: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >Subject: Re: for those interested in hardt&negri
> >Date: Sun, 01 Jul 2001 12:54:50 -0700
> >
> >No. On the contrary, if you can get some discussion going on this
> list, it
> >seems to me that we ought to pay you. :)
> >
> >Patrick Crosby
> >San Clemente, Ca., USA
> >
> >Lionel Boxer wrote:
> >
> > > Is there a charge for particating on-line?
> > >
> > > I am working on a paper now dealing with the political influence
> that
> > > interferes with triple bottom line.
> > >
> > > http://www.geocities.com/lionelboxer/phd
> > >
> > > Lionel Boxer
> > > RMIT Business
> > > Melbourne
> > >
> _________________________________________________________________________
>
> > >! Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at
> http://www.hotmail.com.
> >
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at
> http://www.hotmail.com.
words.
The first thing that strikes me about your question is that it
perhaps it can be more easily and straightforwardly answer without
assuming the perspective of Foucault or anyone else for that matter.
People who run large corporate help fund political campaigns, get their
"men" elected (do women even want equality here, in the realm of sleaze?
:), and thereafter that politician's door is always open to them. It's
what we call, here in the states, "legalized bribery." Nothing very
complicated here. It's as old as dirt itself (pun intended).
But then, thinking about it some more, a slightly more interesting
question arises, the answer to which is a bit less obvious. Why does the
US electorate stand for this year after year? How can they go to the
polls, every 2 tears, 4 years, or however often they go, and think their
vote means something? Clearly, to some appreciable degree, these voters
are deluding themselves (or being deluded by other forces, e.g. the mass
corporate owned media) in to believing that the political system is
somehow "fair" and "democratic."
Perhaps it is from here that you could start looking to Foucault.
Although I realize you are less probably familiar with the US system
than some others, the US might be a better test case because there is
relatively little public financing of campaigns. And what there is
happens to be a mere matter of the government matching what the
campaigns raise privately. (So my bribe money gets a matching grant from
the US Government? woo hoo!).
Lionel Boxer wrote:
>
> On Patrick's invitation, I would like to hear what people have to say
> about how those who donate towards political campaigns (and in other
> ways) seek to influence government policy regarding environmental and
> social issues.
>
> I have a feeling that a Foucauldian power perspective can help to
> explain this.
>
> Patrick wants a discussion - can we give it to him? Sorry ... all I
> have are questions at this stage.
>
> Lionel
>
> >From: Patrick Crosby
> >Reply-To: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >To: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >Subject: Re: for those interested in hardt&negri
> >Date: Sun, 01 Jul 2001 12:54:50 -0700
> >
> >No. On the contrary, if you can get some discussion going on this
> list, it
> >seems to me that we ought to pay you. :)
> >
> >Patrick Crosby
> >San Clemente, Ca., USA
> >
> >Lionel Boxer wrote:
> >
> > > Is there a charge for particating on-line?
> > >
> > > I am working on a paper now dealing with the political influence
> that
> > > interferes with triple bottom line.
> > >
> > > http://www.geocities.com/lionelboxer/phd
> > >
> > > Lionel Boxer
> > > RMIT Business
> > > Melbourne
> > >
> _________________________________________________________________________
>
> > >! Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at
> http://www.hotmail.com.
> >
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at
> http://www.hotmail.com.