- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
Lastly, to imply that connections are somehow inherently bad strikes me as an awfully lonely position to take ... it's rather antisocial to claim to neither want nor have any connections what so ever.
I don't believe Glenn (or anyone else here--and I exclude the weirdos) has suggested that connections are "somehow inherently bad." Rather, the question ought to be, in a democratic republic, who is to represent the people and their interests? Thus, you pose the issue in a rather upside-down fashion; connections and the human inclination to gather as tribes, villages, families, cities, and nations because they f[ind] themselves stronger together than apart, is beside the point.
Is there anyone, man or woman, who will/can represent the interests of the common citizen? The answer is 'yes.' The problem, of course, is the entrenched nepotism so vividly on display here today. One can argue socially, anthropologically, or in any other discipline's language, yet it cannot obscure those facts: connections+networks+money+functional aristocracy=political payday. The only thing missing--the only thing important for a functioning government--is meritocracy.
