Saturday, January 30, 2010

The Most Exclusive Club

Opinione published a fascinating article about the U.S. Senate. I don't often hear the things The Prince describes.

Sometimes described as “the world’s most exclusive club”, the United States Senate is perhaps one of the least known and understood institutions in the American government. A close examination of the composition and structure of the United States Senate helps explain how America has transformed from an agrarian republic envisioned by James Madison and Thomas Jefferson, to a financial aristocracy favored by Alexander Hamilton.

Further giving credibility and weight to the statement that American democracy has evolved into a plutocracy ruled by the wealthy are to include the list of millionaires in the lower House of Representatives, where 240 legislators were worth at least $1 million. The richest representative was likely Darrell Issa, a Republican from California, who was worth an estimated $251,025,020 in 2008. The average net worth across the House was $4,670,831.

If American voters cast their votes in the 2010 Senate races based on their pocketbook and not based on their gun holster or union card, then and only then would you really see the interests of hard working American people be represented in Washington DC.

I find it very interesting that so many Americans are struggling financially yet these career politicians are, for the most part, on the other end of the spectrum. Do you think there's a problem with that? Can wealthy men truly represent the regular folk?

Did you like the Prince's advice to not vote with your gun holster or your union card but rather with your pocketbook? Do you think gun owners tend to vote for gun friendly politicians at the expense of other issues?

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.


  1. Unless someone is campaigning on a platform to ban the private transfer of money, I think i'll vote based on the gun holster.

  2. Do you think gun owners tend to vote for gun friendly politicians at the expense of other issues?

    Some of us do, and that's one reason we're winning (albeit agonizingly slowly). We have a significant number of voters whose votes are guided by that single issue--how many single-issue voters choose denial of rights as the only thing they care about, come election day? Damned few, I'm guessing--and that's good for America.

    Personally, I'm not quite a single-issue voter. I'll always vote against a candidate who advocates U.S. (or my state's) gun laws becoming even more draconian than they are now, but being good on guns won't get my vote if I have too big a problem with the candidate on other issues.

  3. "Unless someone is campaigning on a platform to ban the private transfer of money.."

    Yup, Commies. We have some of those in the government.


  4. the lack of comments again highlights one of the problems with the poltics in America. Most Americans don't want to see their politics through a lens of class warfare but that is how the political establishment (Dems and Republicans) has been able to split the working class vote among both parties. The dems getting the ideolistic part of the middle class, while the republicans have been able to get the gun owners and other social conservatives. I think is ironic since most republicans are against abortion, but they are also in favor of capital punishment.