Other countries, not the U.S., have oligarchs apparently. Billionaire and Commerce Secretary Penny Pritzker came and went to the National Press Club with hardly a tough question on Monday—see video and PDF.

I’d submitted several questions, but first a word on the choreography of the event: Virtually every “news maker” event I recall seeing at the Press Club had the speaker at the head table which is on a stage a few feet up, speaking at a podium. This event, it was just her and the moderator, Press Club President Thomas Burr on two cushy chairs on the stage, with the “head table” below them. Whether this was to elevate the two of them, save her the trouble of having prepared remarks, a new thing, an attempt to cast the billionaire in a more casual light—inspired by Davos type events—I don’t know. But it was weird.

Speaking of choreography, on the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue around the same time, several hundred people were arrested at the Capitol Building as part of the “Democracy Spring” and “Democracy Awakening” actions. It seemed odd to me, protests happening, with “arrests” as part of a very planned action, aimed in part against money in politics, while the very personification of big business advocacy in government received virtually no scrutiny.

It’s not just her job, or that she and her family is incredibly rich. It’s that Pritzker enriched herself by crashing a bank with sub-prime loans, causing 1,400 people to lose their savings. In addition, a relation of hers was mentioned in the Panama Papers. So while so many were breathlessly reporting on associates of official bad guys like Putin being mentioned in the Panama Papers, hardly a soul noted the Pritzker connection. Finally, and perhaps most incredibly, Forbes several years ago did an investigation in to the Pritzker family and found that they set up shell companies decades ago in ways that would be illegal now. It’s in a sense not just oligarchy, it’s aristocracy. A newly rich person can’t do what they’ve done, according to Forbes. [See a summary of each of these issues, based on investigations by Tim Anderson, Dennis Bernstein, Stephane Fitch and McClatchy.]

Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organised groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on US government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence. In English: the wealthy few move policy, while the average American has little power.

The two professors came to this conclusion after reviewing answers to 1,779 survey questions asked between 1981 and 2002 on public policy issues. They broke the responses down by income level, and then determined how often certain income levels and organised interest groups saw their policy preferences enacted. "A proposed policy change with low support among economically elite Americans (one-out-of-five in favour) is adopted only about 18% of the time," they write, "while a proposed change with high support (four-out-of-five in favour) is adopted about 45% of the time."

On the other hand: When a majority of citizens disagrees with economic elites and/or with organised interests, they generally lose. Moreover, because of the strong status quo bias built into the US political system, even when fairly large majorities of Americans favor policy change, they generally do not get it.

They conclude: Americans do enjoy many features central to democratic governance, such as regular elections, freedom of speech and association and a widespread (if still contested) franchise. But we believe that if policymaking is dominated by powerful business organisations and a small number of affluent Americans, then America's claims to being a democratic society are seriously threatened.

During the Rwandan Genocide in 1994, President Bill Clinton and members of his administration pushed for the reduction of the United Nations peacekeeping mission in Rwanda from over 2,500 troops to 270, with the remaining troops’ mandate being reduced to a mere observers’ role. The U.S. government evacuated foreign (read: white) personnel from Rwanda, and pretty much ensured the total success of the 100-day slaughter that occurred. President Clinton later told Rwandans that he “did not act quickly enough after the killing began” in his 1998 address in Rwanda.

President Clinton did not fail to act as he told the world then. Actually, he actively pushed for a particular course of action. The genocide began after the April 6 assassinations of the Rwandan and Burundian presidents. By April 11, U.S. government and foreign personnel were successfully evacuated from Rwanda. Once the evacuations were completed, President Clinton, along with then-First Lady Hillary Clinton, “visited the State Department task force in charge of evacuating American citizens to congratulate them on finishing their job.” President Clinton’s administration then strongly and successfully pushed for the reduction and evacuation of the peacekeeping force, by April 21, 1994.

On the day the Rwandan Genocide is generally commemorated, former President Clinton’s words rang hollow both in material and delivery. Instead, they conjured up images, of white foreigners being evacuated from Rwanda to safety at the outset of the genocide. The rest of us, the innocent civilians, were provided with neither the option of evacuation, nor the decency of protection, but were left, amidst a bloody war and genocide, come what may.

What about our black lives made them immaterial to President Clinton and his administration? The cynicism of his utterance “Black Lives Matter” in Africa juxtaposed to his administration’s comments and actions goes even deeper. In discussions about whether to call the events occurring at the time in Rwanda genocide, Clinton National Security Council staff member Susan Rice, who went on to serve as U.S. Ambassador to the U.N., and as current National Security Advisor, said, “If we use the word ‘genocide’ and are seen as doing nothing, what will be the effect on the November [congressional] election?”

It is almost impossible to articulate the depth of betrayal felt at this profound sense of political expediency. While our lives were being slaughtered, at least somewhere in the United States, elections were being won. And in exchange, 800,000-1,000,000 casualties of black lives that apparently did not matter more than mid-term elections were lost.

The Philadelphia Inquirer's editorial included the following reasons for endorsing him:
“his willingness to put principle above party”

“the best credentials and experience to immediately serve Pennsylvania and the nation”

“he can maneuver beyond partisan politics to help the middle class rebound from years of stagnant wages”​

“Sestak’s refusal to be put into a partisan box”

“a deep understanding of government and foreign policy that Katie McGinty and John Fetterman cannot match.”
http://www.philly.com/philly/opinion

Former President Clinton apparently was not expecting, when he appeared last week at a campaign event in Philadelphia on behalf of his wife, the former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, to be confronted by Black Lives Matter protesters over the consequences, intended and not, of one of his Administration’s signature bills—the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. Clinton, his voice raised, wanted protesters to believe that it was thanks to this bill that the nation’s crime rate went down, police forces became more diverse, and a federal assault-weapons ban became law, at least until the ban expired, a decade later; he was able recite a fusillade of statistics without it always being clear where they came from or what, exactly, they referred to. The shouting, Clinton’s finger-wagging replies, and the reluctance to accept what others were saying provided a fascinating glimpse of a group with a deeply felt point of view and of a major political figure repeatedly, even stubbornly, grabbing a political third rail and refusing to let go. For all that, as a political actor, he never broke character, never stopped trying to connect, reminding witnesses of his enormous talent as a campaigner, as well as his potentially volatile role in his wife’s race for the Presidency.

Last week’s confrontation must have been especially hard for Bill Clinton, who loves to speak, hold forth, speak some more, and further explain—none of which is possible when you can’t be heard and you don’t listen. What must have made it harder was listening to his wife’s challenger, Senator Bernie Sanders, whose supporters include Spike Lee and Harry Belafonte, say that “the President owes the American people an apology for trying to defend what is indefensible.” Clinton later said that he was “almost” ready to apologize for the angry tenor of the occasion, which, after all, was intended to bolster black support for his wife generally, and specifically in the now-competitive April 19th New York primary. However much he is helping or harming his wife’s campaign, he’s visibly enjoying his work (on Sunday, he spoke at three Harlem churches), even if his enthusiasm sometimes pushes him over the rhetorical line. His encounter with Black Lives Matter protesters, though, did not help the campaign at all.

Clinton did not exactly reprise his “Sister Souljah moment,” of 1992, when, as the Democratic candidate for President, he offended some supporters (and won many others) by comparing a rap singer’s remarks to the views of the Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke. It was, rather, more of an anti-Souljah episode, showing impatience and irritation with people whose views he seemed unable to acknowledge. It was, above all, a case of the present confronting the past—modern awareness confronting yesterday’s mistakes, such as Hillary Clinton’s use of the term “superpredator” to refer to some of the juvenile criminals who would be most affected by the crime bill’s harsh sentencing provisions. The former President did not say much about how the legislation led to a very bad outcome—the imprisonment of African-Americans, in alarming numbers, for nonviolent crimes.