Has USA Become Oligarchy, Not Democracy anymore?

B00Mer

Keep Calm and Carry On
Sep 6, 2008
44,800
7,297
113
Rent Free in Your Head
www.getafteritmedia.com
Has USA Become Oligarchy, Not Democracy anymore?



The US is dominated by a rich and powerful elite.

So concludes a recent study by Princeton University Prof Martin Gilens and Northwestern University Prof Benjamin I Page.
This is not news, you say.

Perhaps, but the two professors have conducted exhaustive research to try to present data-driven support for this conclusion. Here's how they explain it:

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 favour 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.

Eric Zuess, writing in Counterpunch, isn't surprised by the survey's results.

"American democracy is a sham, no matter how much it's pumped by the oligarchs who run the country (and who control the nation's "news" media)," he writes. "The US, in other words, is basically similar to Russia or most other dubious 'electoral' 'democratic' countries. We weren't formerly, but we clearly are now."

This is the "Duh Report", says Death and Taxes magazine's Robyn Pennacchia. Maybe, she writes, Americans should just accept their fate.

"Perhaps we ought to suck it up, admit we have a classist society and do like England where we have a House of Lords and a House of Commoners," she writes, "instead of pretending as though we all have some kind of equal opportunity here."

South Korea

Ferry tragedy was a manmade disaster - The death toll from the sinking of the Sewol off the south-eastern tip of South Korea could have been greatly reduced if the passengers had been properly instructed in safety procedures and the crew hadn't been among the first to abandon the ship, write the editors of South Korea's Joongang Daily.

The South Korean government also shares blame, they write. "It failed to grasp the seriousness of the accident from the start and didn't know how many were rescued or missing."

The government, they continue, should conduct a thorough investigation and prepare a report on how to upgrade the nation's "safety systems and procedures".

Argentina

Cristina Kirchner's sham populism - The government of Cristina Kirchner touts a populism that "redistributes wealth to benefit the poor", writes Luis Alberto Romero in Agentina's Clarin (translated by WorldCrunch).

In reality, he says, "the outcome has been greater wealth concentrations and more social polarisation, helped by subsidy policies".

The Kirchner regime, he argues, has been "built on two foundations: concentration of power and accumulation of wealth".

Algeria

Presidential vote endorses status quo - It seems clear that President Abdelaziz Bouteflika will win a fourth term in this week's election despite looking "more dead than alive", writes University of Houston Prof Robert Zaretsky in the Los Angeles Times.

Mr Bouteflika "is entrenched, propped up by generals and an uneasy status quo", he says.

"The question is," he writes, "how long will the government manage to impose scripted elections on a population ready for the risks and rewards of an unscripted future?"

Ukraine

Nato football v Russian chess - The Ukrainian crisis has taken Nato planners by surprise, writes Prof David Murphy of National University of Ireland, Maynooth, in the Irish Times. This, he says, is because of "fundamental cultural, strategic and political differences" between Russia and the West.

"Nato operates at a huge disadvantage as it needs consensus and co-operation within its member states in order to act," he writes. "President Vladimir Putin and his political and military staffs do not face such limitations and have the freedom to act quickly."

Russia has formulated a plan and is executing it, he concludes. It is up to the members of Nato to work together to stop it.

BBC Monitoring's quotes of the day

Ukrainian media respond to high-level meetings between officials from the US, EU, Ukraine and Russia in Geneva aimed resolving the crisis in Ukraine.

"There is an illusory hope for the conference in Geneva. Ukraine will be presented there as a pie which will be divided. Everything ... shows the signs of a grand plot, where big geopolitical players resolved their issues at Ukraine's expense. It will be like that this time around too." - Editorial in Glavkom.

"Today's meeting will show if the West can counter [Vladimir] Putin's plans to impose his 'world order'." - Editorial in Den.

"International talks will hardly improve the situation in Ukraine until people inside the country start talking. So the only thing the Geneva meeting could influence is to facilitate the beginning of talks inside the country between representatives of the east and the central authorities. If the meeting provides this impetus it will be a positive result." - Volodymyr Fesenko in Komsomolskaya Pravda v Ukraine.

source: Study: US is an oligarchy, not a democracy - BBC News

.......................................

I think this election with Super packs donating billions and all the lobbyist have taken the US Government of the People by the People and handed it over to Big Corporations and Foreign Governments.
 

taxslave

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 25, 2008
36,362
4,337
113
Vancouver Island
The people that hate democracy are always complaining about how hard done by they are. Since only citizens can vote they obviously do not have the support they like to pretend to.
 

damngrumpy

Executive Branch Member
Mar 16, 2005
9,949
21
38
kelowna bc
It is what the American system was based on and Harper is trying to strip
Canadians of their rights one at a time. Safe little obedient crowd no social
activism no civil disobedience just conform.
He could be in for one hell of a surprise
 

Cliffy

Standing Member
Nov 19, 2008
44,850
192
63
Nakusp, BC
Explain how that is Cliffy?
Do you even know who the founding father were other than a bunch of names? They were the rich and powerful of their day and they wanted control by getting rid of the monarchy. Like any war, the rich get the poor to fight it for them while they sit back and watch. Do you really think Washington was ever in the line of fire? Just feed the peons a bunch of patriotic BS and voila, you gots your revolution/war.

The ruling elite almost never get elected to government. No, they hire puppets to do their bidding. That is why I laugh at all the hatred thrown at Obama, because he is a puppet. The system is designed that way because most people aren't smart enough to figure out that politicians are just scape goats for those who really call the shots.
 

B00Mer

Keep Calm and Carry On
Sep 6, 2008
44,800
7,297
113
Rent Free in Your Head
www.getafteritmedia.com
Do you even know who the founding father were other than a bunch of names? They were the rich and powerful of their day and they wanted control by getting rid of the monarchy. Like any war, the rich get the poor to fight it for them while they sit back and watch. Do you really think Washington was ever in the line of fire? Just feed the peons a bunch of patriotic BS and voila, you gots your revolution/war.

The ruling elite almost never get elected to government. No, they hire puppets to do their bidding. That is why I laugh at all the hatred thrown at Obama, because he is a puppet. The system is designed that way because most people aren't smart enough to figure out that politicians are just scape goats for those who really call the shots.



The Founding Fathers were not trying to establish an oligarchy; they were determined to protect the one they had from the excesses of both monarchy and democracy.
 

Corduroy

Senate Member
Feb 9, 2011
6,670
2
36
Vancouver, BC
The study is defining democracy in a way most people here who think the US is a democracy are not. Some of you are defining democracy as the most basic right to vote. The study, however, looks at what the purpose of that vote is and finds that the translation of a person's vote to that person's desired public policy doesn't work out. The majority doesn't get what it wants. They want X policy, vote for one of two parties, and never get X either way. The study found that the people who usually get what they want are the economic elite.

This suggests that the basic right to vote doesn't translate into "democracy": the rule of the people. So voting isn't democracy.

But Americans are not limited to two parties. They have the choice of many other parties and if they voted for them they might have the power to change things. Essentially the US is only an oligarchy through complacence, deception and ignorance. It has the mechanisms for democracy and so the potential for it as well. It's like the study is saying that a car is not a car while it's parked. In this case, the car's been rusted through and on blocks for decades.
 

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
55,567
7,076
113
Washington DC
The study is defining democracy in a way most people here who think the US is a democracy are not. Some of you are defining democracy as the most basic right to vote. The study, however, looks at what the purpose of that vote is and finds that the translation of a person's vote to that person's desired public policy doesn't work out. The majority doesn't get what it wants. They want X policy, vote for one of two parties, and never get X either way. The study found that the people who usually get what they want are the economic elite.

This suggests that the basic right to vote doesn't translate into "democracy": the rule of the people. So voting isn't democracy.
Yes it is. The majority who vote do get what they want. If they really wanted something else, they would vote for something else.

But Americans are not limited to two parties. They have the choice of many other parties and if they voted for them they might have the power to change things. Essentially the US is only an oligarchy through complacence, deception and ignorance. It has the mechanisms for democracy and so the potential for it as well. It's like the study is saying that a car is not a car while it's parked. In this case, the car's been rusted through and on blocks for decades.
Precisely. An oligarchy that the people have the ability to overthrow is an oligarchy they are at least willing to tolerate.

That's democracy.
 

Corduroy

Senate Member
Feb 9, 2011
6,670
2
36
Vancouver, BC
Yes it is. The majority who vote do get what they want. If they really wanted something else, they would vote for something else..

If you define "what people want" as the current system and policies that favour the elite. The study showed that people didn't want that, but voted for political parties that gave them that. The implication being that by voting people are not getting what the want. They got what they voted for but they didn't vote for what they wanted.
 

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
55,567
7,076
113
Washington DC
If you define "what people want" as the current system and policies that favour the elite. The study showed that people didn't want that, but voted for political parties that gave them that. The implication being that by voting people are not getting what the want. They got what they voted for but they didn't vote for what they wanted.
That's correct. Turns out that the sovereign power to work change only occasionally is able to overcome laziness, ignorance, and prejudice. But that's not the fault of democracy, it's the fault of people who are too lazy, ignorant, and prejudiced to inform themselves, get off their dead butts, and work for the change they claim to want.
 

taxslave

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 25, 2008
36,362
4,337
113
Vancouver Island
If you define "what people want" as the current system and policies that favour the elite. The study showed that people didn't want that, but voted for political parties that gave them that. The implication being that by voting people are not getting what the want. They got what they voted for but they didn't vote for what they wanted.

It must be what they wanted or they would not have voted that way. Gotta watch these studies. Often the manipulators have a predetermined outcome in mind and word the questions to dictate that result. It is always the fringe parties that claim they are not getting the results they want.
We voted Harper in because for the most part, other than his misguided war on drugs he is doing what we want. The debt is once again under control, the economy is doing reasonably well and the worst of the offensive long gun registry is gone.
 

Corduroy

Senate Member
Feb 9, 2011
6,670
2
36
Vancouver, BC
It must be what they wanted or they would not have voted that way.

Ugh, I'm so ****ing done with this forum.

That's correct. Turns out that the sovereign power to work change only occasionally is able to overcome laziness, ignorance, and prejudice. But that's not the fault of democracy, it's the fault of people who are too lazy, ignorant, and prejudiced to inform themselves, get off their dead butts, and work for the change they claim to want.

I almost hesitate to use the word ignorance. Surely every American knows by now that the two party system is a sham.
 

Colpy

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 5, 2005
21,887
847
113
69
Saint John, N.B.
If you define "what people want" as the current system and policies that favour the elite. The study showed that people didn't want that, but voted for political parties that gave them that. The implication being that by voting people are not getting what the want. They got what they voted for but they didn't vote for what they wanted.

Believe it or not, I actually agree.

Every time I really begin to get depressed over the state of Canadian politics, I just look south.

The Republicans are absolutely looney.

The Democrats are even crazier.

Or vice-versa, depending on your slant.
 

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
55,567
7,076
113
Washington DC
Ugh, I'm so ****ing done with this forum.



I almost hesitate to use the word ignorance. Surely every American knows by now that the two party system is a sham.
I don't hesitate, and I am American. Much of the ignorance is willful ignorance, the refusal to read or think.

By the way, the U.S. doesn't have a two-party system. There are over a dozen political parties in the U.S. It is true that the system makes it very difficult for the other parties to make any headway, but I think that, properly constructed, a third and even a fourth party could be significant, winning seats in Congress. There is nothing structurally that prevents it.

Not that multiple parties is necessarily a good thing. Look at Israel, where tiny far-right parties so often wield disproportionate power because the major parties have to woo them to assemble a majority. How democratic is that?
 

Corduroy

Senate Member
Feb 9, 2011
6,670
2
36
Vancouver, BC
When I refer to the "two-party system" I don't mean other parties don't exist or that there is a structural impediment to them gaining power.
 

Walter

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 28, 2007
34,843
92
48
When I refer to the "two-party system" I don't mean other parties don't exist or that there is a structural impediment to them gaining power.
If the GOP nominates Bush you will see a very large part of the GOP split from the establishment party much like Lincoln et al did in 1854 from the Whigs.
 

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
55,567
7,076
113
Washington DC
When I refer to the "two-party system" I don't mean other parties don't exist or that there is a structural impediment to them gaining power.
So, those parties win because they have convinced people to give them their money and their votes. Other parties could do that. There's nothing stopping them.
 

Curious Cdn

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 22, 2015
37,070
6
36
You mean, after a brief and cursory flirtation with a sort of theoretical "democracy", the USA has returned to Oligarchy.