The irony of the political rise of the plutocrats is that, like Venice's oligarchs, they threaten the system that created them.
Chrystia FreelandRead
What is interesting is that, although it is framed as a war between the elites and Main Street, the Tea Party is actually really good for the elites.
Interpretation
The Tea Party appears to oppose elite interests but inadvertently benefits them.
This quote highlights the paradox within the political landscape where movements that claim to represent the common people, like the Tea Party, may actually serve the interests of the elite class. It suggests that while these movements are framed as populist revolts against authority, the outcomes often end up reinforcing the status quo and benefiting those they aim to challenge.
In practice
This quote could be used in a discussion about political movements and their true beneficiaries.
The irony of the political rise of the plutocrats is that, like Venice's oligarchs, they threaten the system that created them.
All of us can agree that we want government to work as well as possible, and we should all applaud efforts to improve it. But there is no escaping the divisive and essential questions: What is the purpose of the state, and whom does it serve?
In a globalized economy, jobs no longer need a passport, but workers do.
This is the 21st-century paradox: Even as political democracy has become the intellectual default mode for much of the world, the private sector usually trumps the public one when it comes to accommodating consumer choice.
Living as we do in the age of Facebook, we shouldn't be surprised that some countries are starting to imagine themselves more as social networks than as a physical place.
One of the most important political and economic facts of this young century is that capital has been slipping the traces of the nation-state. Business is global; government is national.
No one talks about the real ethics disaster in Washington. It's that many members of Congress will listen to any argument against a bill except for two: that it's not moral or that it's not Constitutional.
If you want to preserve - I'm very serious now - if you want to preserve democracy as we know it, you have to have a free and many times adversarial press. And without it, I am afraid that we would lose so much of our individual liberties over time. That's how dictators get started.
The established politicians, who before the war preached national pride and Christian love, were the first to collaborate with the Germans. But the communists, who as children we'd been taught to fear, kept a resistance movement alive, living and dying true to their ideals.
Our friends at the Republican convention were more than happy to talk about everything they think is wrong with America, but they didn't have much to say about how they'd make it right. They want your vote, but they don't want you to know their plan.
How can wealth persuade poverty to use its political freedom to keep wealth in power? Here lies the whole art of Conservative politics in the twentieth century.
We do not deny any nation's legitimate interest in security. But protecting the security of one nation by robbing another of its national independence and national traditions is not legitimate. In the long run, it is not even secure.
Subscribe for the occasional hand-picked quote. No noise.