Study:U.S. is an oligarchy,not a democracy (1 Viewer)

[tom22406]

Study: US is an oligarchy, not a democracy

Today's must-read
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."

http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746

What say you?

 

[tom22406]

Entire study can be found here

http://www.princeton.edu/~mgilens/Gilens%20homepage%20materials/Gilens%20and%20Page/Gilens%20and%20Page%202014-Testing%20Theories%203-7-14.pdf

 

[hagmania]

If you needed a study to tell you this...

 

[Koya]

I am not surprised, as this is the natural progression of power. It starts with entropy and evolves into control by a few.

The one hope we have (and it may only be just that), is our electoral system at least ALLOWS for a voice of change. Unfortunately, to overcome the extreme power of money and influence by those groups and individuals who control both it will take a confluence of events to occur, and do so before the power and influence makes it too difficult to overcome / changes to rules of the game to lesson the ability of the electorate to create any meaningful change.

We can still have a "peaceful" revolution in our nation and I presume that will be true at least for the forseeable future. Beyond that, it's natural to assume that significant change will occur, and likely that which further decreases the voice of the masses in lieu of the power of a few. To occur, my guess is the general population will need to hurt more financially and socially which is possible as the wealth divide grows in the U.S. If you could some more acute and widespread pain with a new movement led by a very charismatic leader, who can also elicit the involvement of other charismatic leaders along with the ability to do more than just talk a good game, you could see a new party emerge and/or some drastic shift in political power.

Once again, that will need to occur before the oligarchy (albeit an informal one) further grabs and limits power, so it will be an interesting dance say 50-100 years from now. Technology will play a large role as it can both allow for the expression of the masses and to enable the aggregation of disparate voices that on their own have no power, while at the same time technology can enable those in power to wield it with greater tactical advantage to limit the expression and aggregation of the masses.

And so, the political power ballet, continues.

 

[Terpman22]

The real interesting part will be those who vehemently deny this. Not that its "new" news.

 

[LarryAllen'sJockstrap]

Couldn't agree more. It's like the saying you have to have money to make money. For the last 40-50 years, the "policy makers" in our country (CEOs of big business, politicians, high-ranking government employess...) are a musical chairs of the countries' wealthiest and the folks close to them they select as their successors.

One can still live a good life in this country at most any class level, and though rarerly, still move up in class (IMO this is more luck of the draw than hard work, but there are always examples of both.) However, for the most part, the social-economic class you are born into will dictate your life-long status based on the opportunities and resources, or lack of, one has avaiable to them.

 

[Slapdash]

Duh

 

[Rove!]

The parties operate symbiotically in the lesser of two evils paradigm. You have otherwise smart people vigorously defending criminal behavior and freedom-destroying actions because they think it will help "their side" "win."

 

[culdeus]

Freaking sancorp

 

[Yankee23Fan]

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.

Um, this has always been true. I'm not exactly understanding the need for an in depth analysis.

Having said, if we want to have a talk about why this specifically proves that lobbyists are actually a good part of the system as is money in speech, we can go there. Because I know it will be fun.

 

[Sarnoff]

I wish it was more of an oligarchy.

 

[tom22406]

The real interesting part will be those who vehemently deny this. Not that its "new" news.

I can't imagine anyone really trying to deny this,was just looking to spark some conversation that has a study with some data to actually back up the claims that many have made for quite a long time.

 

[tom22406]

I am not surprised, as this is the natural progression of power. It starts with entropy and evolves into control by a few.

The one hope we have (and it may only be just that), is our electoral system at least ALLOWS for a voice of change. Unfortunately, to overcome the extreme power of money and influence by those groups and individuals who control both it will take a confluence of events to occur, and do so before the power and influence makes it too difficult to overcome / changes to rules of the game to lesson the ability of the electorate to create any meaningful change.

We can still have a "peaceful" revolution in our nation and I presume that will be true at least for the forseeable future. Beyond that, it's natural to assume that significant change will occur, and likely that which further decreases the voice of the masses in lieu of the power of a few. To occur, my guess is the general population will need to hurt more financially and socially which is possible as the wealth divide grows in the U.S. If you could some more acute and widespread pain with a new movement led by a very charismatic leader, who can also elicit the involvement of other charismatic leaders along with the ability to do more than just talk a good game, you could see a new party emerge and/or some drastic shift in political power.

Once again, that will need to occur before the oligarchy (albeit an informal one) further grabs and limits power, so it will be an interesting dance say 50-100 years from now. Technology will play a large role as it can both allow for the expression of the masses and to enable the aggregation of disparate voices that on their own have no power, while at the same time technology can enable those in power to wield it with greater tactical advantage to limit the expression and aggregation of the masses.

And so, the political power ballet, continues.

Excellent post

 

[Sarnoff]

The parties operate symbiotically in the lesser of two evils paradigm. You have otherwise smart people vigorously defending criminal behavior and freedom-destroying actions because they think it will help "their side" "win."

There was a recent study that showed that people will change their moral values to conform to "their" side before they would consider switching to the "other" side.

That is, say you initially supported a party because of a particular stance on an issue. Once you became conditioned to support the party against its opponents, if the party then completely reversed its stance on your top issue, you are more likely to reverse your stance as well to stay with the same party than object and join another. We've seen this recently with Democrats who hated Bush and his abuse of the Patriot Act completely stay silent while Obama does worse... wiretapping everyone and drone-killing US citizens without trial. But both sides do it.

This is why democracy is broken, both sides have learned to exploit marketing and PR to turn the whole thing into sports. It is exactly like Red Sox vs. Yankees. Everyone picks a side and hates the other at all costs. Roger Clemens? A Yankees fan would have punched him in the head if he was walking down the streets of New York in the 80s. But the minute he puts on pinstripes he's an all-time great. Sox fans loved Wade Boggs but now curse him ever since he rode that horse after winning the world series in NY.

It all started with Edward Bernays. There's a great documentary you can watch free online, "Century of the Self", that goes into how it's all done now. They interviewed recent UK & US campaign strategists and showed how they use focus groups to create miniature wedge issues and then exploit those to win the whole election for their side. Like how Clinton used the "V-Chip" to turn an absolutely minor policy issue into an easy election win. Nowadays, it's all marketing. The people cannot be trusted to make any kind of intelligent decision.

 

[timschochet]

IMO their conclusion is far too simplistic. We have some democracy. We have some elite power control. We have some democratic pluralism (see Robert Dahl). And we have a certain amount of technocratic control of things.

All of these factors often compete with each other when it comes to determining results. But by far the biggest factor is sheer chaos. Most results are completely out of control, and are achieved (or not achieved) as a result of blind luck.

 

[jon_mx]

The masses tend to be kind of stupid. See Drummers postings for example.

 

[TobiasFunke]

I'd say it's a little misleading of both you and whoever wrote this article (you didn't give a link) to say that the study concludes that the US is an oligarchy when it does no such thing. The word "oligarchy" appears in only one sentence of the report- a sentence summarizing someone else's work.

What they find is support for theories that suggest the wealthy/elite have an outsize influence on public policy. I assume most people agree with that. If we don't like it we should change the First Amendment or at least how the Supreme Court has interpreted it.

 

[Todd Andrews]

The parties operate symbiotically in the lesser of two evils paradigm. You have otherwise smart people vigorously defending criminal behavior and freedom-destroying actions because they think it will help "their side" "win."

You are the wisest of all posters.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

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.

Um, this has always been true. I'm not exactly understanding the need for an in depth analysis.

Having said, if we want to have a talk about why this specifically proves that lobbyists are actually a good part of the system as is money in speech, we can go there. Because I know it will be fun.

It really hasn't. Certainly during FDR's years in office and arguably through the early/mid 1970s there were a host of things pushed through that cut against corporate power.

I think it's cyclical, and that we've already entered the "next" period. It's just slow -- imagine the rate of change in the slope of a sin wave.

 

[DiStefano]

The more control the government has over business, the more the revolving door between business and government perpetuates the elite.

 

[DiStefano]

The parties operate symbiotically in the lesser of two evils paradigm. You have otherwise smart people vigorously defending criminal behavior and freedom-destroying actions because they think it will help "their side" "win."

You are the wisest of all posters.

And you are the antithesis.

 

[tom22406]

I'd say it's a little misleading of both you and whoever wrote this article (you didn't give a link) to say that the study concludes that the US is an oligarchy when it does no such thing. The word "oligarchy" appears in only one sentence of the report- a sentence summarizing someone else's work.

What they find is support for theories that suggest the wealthy/elite have an outsize influence on public policy. I assume most people agree with that. If we don't like it we should change the First Amendment or at least how the Supreme Court has interpreted it.

I linked to the article in the original post and I also linked the study in the 2nd post.

 

[TobiasFunke]

I'd say it's a little misleading of both you and whoever wrote this article (you didn't give a link) to say that the study concludes that the US is an oligarchy when it does no such thing. The word "oligarchy" appears in only one sentence of the report- a sentence summarizing someone else's work.

What they find is support for theories that suggest the wealthy/elite have an outsize influence on public policy. I assume most people agree with that. If we don't like it we should change the First Amendment or at least how the Supreme Court has interpreted it.

I linked to the article in the original post and I also linked the study in the 2nd post.

Ah, there it is at the end. BBC. I only saw the link to the study, my bad.

Anyway, I think it's a little unfair/inaccurate for the reasons I said. I think there is a difference between a small group having outsized influence over policy decisions (what we have according to the study and most people's common sense) and a small group having complete control over policy decisions, which is an oligarchy.

 

[timschochet]

I'm telling you guys that for the most part the so-called Power Elite in this country has no more control over events than anyone else does. It's true that they can exert a heavier influence than most of us, but that doesn't mean much, because pure dumb chance is so overwhelming.

 

[tom22406]

I'd say it's a little misleading of both you and whoever wrote this article (you didn't give a link) to say that the study concludes that the US is an oligarchy when it does no such thing. The word "oligarchy" appears in only one sentence of the report- a sentence summarizing someone else's work.

What they find is support for theories that suggest the wealthy/elite have an outsize influence on public policy. I assume most people agree with that. If we don't like it we should change the First Amendment or at least how the Supreme Court has interpreted it.

I linked to the article in the original post and I also linked the study in the 2nd post.

Ah, there it is at the end. BBC. I only saw the link to the study, my bad.

Anyway, I think it's a little unfair/inaccurate for the reasons I said. I think there is a difference between a small group having outsized influence over policy decisions (what we have according to the study and most people's common sense) and a small group having complete control over policy decisions, which is an oligarchy.

This was in the study

The central point that emerges from our research is that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while mass-based interest groups and average citizens have little or no independent influence. Our results provide substantial support for theories of Economic Elite Domination and for theories of Biased Pluralism, but not for theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy orMajoritarian Pluralism.

So while not having complete control it does have a substantial impact.

 

[lod01]

Tell me something I didn't know. If it was a democracy, I would be able to say something as simple as I'm running for president and would have to be put on all ballots.

 

[Todd Andrews]

The parties operate symbiotically in the lesser of two evils paradigm. You have otherwise smart people vigorously defending criminal behavior and freedom-destroying actions because they think it will help "their side" "win."

You are the wisest of all posters.

And you are the antithesis.

You make me very sad.

 

[lod01]

Let me add that you should be glad it is this way as those in power will never lose it and thus keeping this country on top regardless of how much debt it rings up.

 

[TobiasFunke]

I'd say it's a little misleading of both you and whoever wrote this article (you didn't give a link) to say that the study concludes that the US is an oligarchy when it does no such thing. The word "oligarchy" appears in only one sentence of the report- a sentence summarizing someone else's work.

What they find is support for theories that suggest the wealthy/elite have an outsize influence on public policy. I assume most people agree with that. If we don't like it we should change the First Amendment or at least how the Supreme Court has interpreted it.

I linked to the article in the original post and I also linked the study in the 2nd post.

Ah, there it is at the end. BBC. I only saw the link to the study, my bad.

Anyway, I think it's a little unfair/inaccurate for the reasons I said. I think there is a difference between a small group having outsized influence over policy decisions (what we have according to the study and most people's common sense) and a small group having complete control over policy decisions, which is an oligarchy.

This was in the study

The central point that emerges from our research is that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while mass-based interest groups and average citizens have little or no independent influence. Our results provide substantial support for theories of Economic Elite Domination and for theories of Biased Pluralism, but not for theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy orMajoritarian Pluralism.

So while not having complete control it does have a substantial impact.

Yup I agree. The difference IMO between that an an oligarchy is that the masses could, if they desired, replace every single member of the legislative and executive branches that are responsible for that substantial impact in the next six years. Obviously it would be very difficult, but it could happen. Their money buys influence only because it buys campaign ads and other things that are intended to influence voting. We're the ones who actually let that stuff influence our behavior at the voting booth.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I'd say it's a little misleading of both you and whoever wrote this article (you didn't give a link) to say that the study concludes that the US is an oligarchy when it does no such thing. The word "oligarchy" appears in only one sentence of the report- a sentence summarizing someone else's work.

What they find is support for theories that suggest the wealthy/elite have an outsize influence on public policy. I assume most people agree with that. If we don't like it we should change the First Amendment Commerce Clause or at least how the Supreme Court has interpreted it.

Fixed.

 

[Johnnymac]

The real interesting part will be those who vehemently deny this. Not that its "new" news.

I can't imagine anyone really trying to deny this,was just looking to spark some conversation that has a study with some data to actually back up the claims that many have made for quite a long time.

I think an overwhelming majority of americans would deny this. Thats why we have an oligarchy in the 1st place.