Throughout the course of history, lobbying has been a fundamental tool of political efficiency; an equivalent medium of exchange which looked like this:
Companies, organizations, or monopolies would buy politicians, commercializing democracy through capitalism. Ironically, these two ideas we held near and dear to our hearts remain the ones at constant clash: a black and blue cascade of consciousness, clashing and stepping over each other in the fight for morality and (on the other hand) efficiency and growth.
Lobbying as a tool of efficiency
Lobbying is a tool of efficiency, and it's this efficiency that stagnates ethical concerns leaving a dark sort of immoral status that many resent. However, lobbying at base value is not malicious; these companies evoke this status. In actuality, lobbying at a base value is equal to both sides of an issue: climate change activists and oil companies, anti-drug organizations, and big marijuana. Ultimately, lobbying is not a zero-sum game: the good and the bad must be recognized to understand (fully) how lobbying has changed democracy. Once again, there is no justification for the actions that precede these companies' pockets; instead, I'm arguing for the forced reposition of understanding: "how lobbying has changed democracy," a cost-benefit analysis of both positive and negative.
First, we'll discuss the proliferation of lobbying, the companies behind the dollars, and finally, the implications of this niche of capitalism. Notably, the radical shift from company transparency to this enigmatic form of exchange illuminates American culture: money first, lives later. This innate belief, plastered on the walls of these companies, is equally accountable for the continuation and worsening of climate change; the deterioration of human rights, most prominently being that of women; the explosion of legal and distributed narcotics, and the protection of our "safety" through expansive gun laws.
The mentioning of these companies being prudent is solemn in indignation: these companies are not prudent in the sense that they are humans in the same society mothers, teachers, fathers, and children are in; instead, these companies are prudent in the sense of self-gain. Rising cash flow means additional temporary enjoyment, yet only at the expense of the "future." Ultimately, these companies need to be held accountable. Not the way Purdue Pharma was- only through the suing of a few billion- but through actual and harsh measures, an equivalent of the damages they caused. According to history, if a company killed 1 million Americans by distributing a drug they knew was deadlier and more addictive than heavily stigmatized and illegal drugs, their only expense would be a few billion dollars. We need to shift our system because, in short, it favors the deaths and suffering of millions.
Despite the inherent logic behind these actions confined through the capitalistic frameworks of America, it's not ethical. Like many other social issues, we push ethicality to the back burner, hoping that rising GDPs will make others forget. Forgetting the families who lost someone from an overdose, the teachers who must include shooting protocols into their schedule, or the scope of individuals who live in fear of rising tides because countries like ours can not happen.
Conclusion
Issues like these are not future issues. Depending on where you are, these issues are current, but once again, we hope others will forget with graphs and statistics like rising economic growth! Because it's these headlines from these performative action-based newsletters, don't relay the vital information, at least for a prolonged period.
Lobbying never changed democracy: it simply extended capitalism into our judicial system. Positive or negative, the medium is not the one to blame, but rather, the innate belief that the future is far away, and actions that precede us now will not manifest into devastations. Well, Big Pharma, Big Alcohol, Gun lobbyists, this high school student wants to tell you "it does."
Written by: Jonathan Wei | Junior @ NSHS, Waban MA
Comments