SATISH SHARMA - not just Rotigraphy.: is American voting largely symbolic?

https://x.com/ricwe123/status/2021555416698634448

Richard

Eric Li’s exchange with John Pilger forces a difficult question into the open: is American voting largely symbolic? In the United States, parties alternate power, rhetoric shifts, and new leaders emerge, yet core policies,especially those tied to finance, defense, and corporate interests,often remain remarkably consistent. Why? Because immense wealth and organized capital exert extraordinary influence over the political system. Billionaires, corporate lobbyists, and financial elites shape legislation and regulation, while voters are left choosing between options that rarely threaten entrenched interests. Power, critics argue, resides less in the ballot box than in the boardroom. The pattern appears across administrations. Donald Trump surrounded himself with wealthy insiders, cut corporate taxes, and blurred the line between public office and private business. Democrats, though differing in tone and messaging, have also maintained close ties to Wall Street and corporate donors. Barack Obama’s financial crisis response, for example, stabilized the banking system but left many of its key actors untouched. Different branding, similar structural constraints. From this perspective, the American system isn’t malfunctioning, it functions as designed, safeguarding elite interests while preserving the rituals of electoral democracy. China presents a contrasting model. The Communist Party does not rely on competitive national elections or private campaign financing. Political authority remains centralized and continuous, while economic strategy has shifted dramatically over time,from rigid central planning to market-oriented reforms. That continuity of control enabled long-term industrial policy, rapid development, and the lifting of hundreds of millions out of poverty. China is not capitalist in the Western political sense. Markets operate, but the state retains decisive authority over major sectors and can discipline private capital when it conflicts with national priorities. Wealthy entrepreneurs do not openly fund electoral campaigns or formally dictate policy through party competition. In one system, democracy coexists with powerful oligarchic influence. In the other, state authority openly supersedes private wealth. Each claims legitimacy on different grounds,one through elections, the other through performance and stability,and each invites its own debates about power, accountability, and freedom.

11:02 PM · Feb 11, 2026