(used when comparing two or more cases or situations) making necessary alterations while not affecting the main point at issue.
I first heard this term from a “word of the day” my girlfriend had been thinking over, while I was working on this article. Mutatis Mutandis seemed very fitting a theme when speaking about our two party system what I believe within it, it’s inherent corruption.
From the outside, the sidelines, it looks as though there are two clear parties that we as a nation have in essence deemed the “winning” sides. Both of which have clear cut, defining social views and debatable talking points. Pro-life, pro-choice, regulation, deregulation, pro-gun, anti-gun, and so on and so forth. But what are similar characteristics of these two parties? The element I find most common between the two is money in the form of campaign contributions, and the voting records based on said contributions.
Looking into the campaign contributions of US Senators Charles (Chuck) E. Schumer a Democrat from New York, and Jeff Sessions a Republican from Alabama, as well as their voting records, I’ve found there are similarities in voting patterns based on who has in essence legally “bribed” these politicians. They will be in comparison to Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who’s had 81% of his campaign donations come from donations of less than $200 by individuals and NOT corporations.
Both Chuck Schumer and Jeff Sessions have received considerable amounts of donations from defense contractors, though Sessions more so than Schumer this doesn’t negate the fact that both gave a “Yea” vote on the “National Defense Authorization Act of 2016” allocating funding to the very people that donated to their political campaigns. Looking over Senator Sanders’ record, you can see that he does not vote in favor of this, all-the-while not having taken any money from defense contractors.
Again both Senator Schumer and Sessions have received campaign contributions from the banking and financial industries, and in 2010 they both voted “Yea” to reduce regulations governing debit card transactions in the “Amendment 392 – Debit Card Transactions ” proposal.
Allowing military defense contractors to buy our politicians, as well as the financial industry leads to a perpetual NEED for war, and deregulation of the financial sector could lead to economic meltdown, as has been shown in the past. Examples such as these can be found repeatedly, and across isle.
Yes the two primary parties may be bickering over “hot-button” social beliefs, but in the end I feel as though the social bickering is meant to placate the bases of both Liberals and Conservatives and keep the two from focusing on what is truly the problem in our country. A problem both sides fight, money in politics, the American Duopoly, left and right the same.
A politician of a different color is still, mutatis mutandis, a bought politician.
Links to the resources used for my article can be found below.
I suggest digging further, and see just how similar both parties are.