"I'm not overly alarmist about it, but I do think there are some worrying signs, like the growing accumulation of wealth by a very small proportion of the population, plus elections in the US are much more dominated by money than anywhere else calling itself a democracy"
About this Quote
Singer’s opening move is a philosopher’s version of “I’m not mad, I’m just disappointed”: the deliberate tamping down of panic so the reader can’t dismiss him as hysterical. “Not overly alarmist” is strategic ethos-building. It signals that what follows isn’t a hot take about capitalism’s doom, but a measured warning from someone whose brand is moral seriousness and empiricism.
The pairing of “growing accumulation of wealth” with money-saturated elections isn’t accidental. Singer is stitching together two domains we often pretend are separate: the economy (where inequality is framed as a policy problem) and democracy (where legitimacy is framed as a civic ideal). His subtext is that these aren’t parallel crises; they’re a feedback loop. Concentrated wealth doesn’t merely coexist with political capture - it finances and normalizes it. Once elections are “dominated by money,” redistribution becomes harder to win, and inequality becomes self-protecting.
The line “anywhere else calling itself a democracy” is a dry blade. It turns “democracy” from a noun into a claim that can be revoked, implying the US is drifting toward a system that markets itself as popular rule while operating as something closer to a monetized oligarchy. Singer’s intent isn’t to score partisan points; it’s to reframe what should count as “worrying signs” in a society that still treats wealth concentration as success and campaign spending as free speech. In that sense, it’s a moral philosopher doing what he does best: quietly making complacency feel indefensible.
The pairing of “growing accumulation of wealth” with money-saturated elections isn’t accidental. Singer is stitching together two domains we often pretend are separate: the economy (where inequality is framed as a policy problem) and democracy (where legitimacy is framed as a civic ideal). His subtext is that these aren’t parallel crises; they’re a feedback loop. Concentrated wealth doesn’t merely coexist with political capture - it finances and normalizes it. Once elections are “dominated by money,” redistribution becomes harder to win, and inequality becomes self-protecting.
The line “anywhere else calling itself a democracy” is a dry blade. It turns “democracy” from a noun into a claim that can be revoked, implying the US is drifting toward a system that markets itself as popular rule while operating as something closer to a monetized oligarchy. Singer’s intent isn’t to score partisan points; it’s to reframe what should count as “worrying signs” in a society that still treats wealth concentration as success and campaign spending as free speech. In that sense, it’s a moral philosopher doing what he does best: quietly making complacency feel indefensible.
Quote Details
| Topic | Wealth |
|---|
More Quotes by Peter
Add to List
