General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsUS Is an Oligarchy Not a Democracy, says Scientific Study
https://www.commondreams.org/view/2014/04/14In America, money talks... and democracy dies under its crushing weight. (Photo: Shutterstock)
***SNIP
To put it short: The United States is no democracy, but actually an oligarchy.
The authors of this historically important study are Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page, and their article is titled "Testing Theories of American Politics." The authors clarify that the data available are probably under-representing the actual extent of control of the U.S. by the super-rich:
Economic Elite Domination theories do rather well in our analysis, even though our findings probably understate the political influence of elites. Our measure of the preferences of wealthy or elite Americans though useful, and the best we could generate for a large set of policy cases is probably less consistent with the relevant preferences than are our measures of the views of ordinary citizens or the alignments of engaged interest groups. Yet we found substantial estimated effects even when using this imperfect measure. The real-world impact of elites upon public policy may be still greater.
Nonetheless, this is the first-ever scientific study of the question of whether the U.S. is a democracy. "Until recently it has not been possible to test these contrasting theoretical predictions [that U.S. policymaking operates as a democracy, versus as an oligarchy, versus as some mixture of the two] against each other within a single statistical model. This paper reports on an effort to do so, using a unique data set that includes measures of the key variables for 1,779 policy issues." Thats an enormous number of policy-issues studied.
What the authors are able to find, despite the deficiencies of the data, is important: the first-ever scientific analysis of whether the U.S. is a democracy, or is instead an oligarchy, or some combination of the two. The clear finding is that the U.S. is an oligarchy, no democratic country, at all. 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). The U.S., in other words, is basically similar to Russia or most other dubious "electoral" "democratic" countries. We weren't formerly, but we clearly are now. Today, after this exhaustive analysis of the data, the preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy. That's it, in a nutshell.
Junkdrawer
(27,993 posts)What did Frank Zappa say????
"The illusion of freedom will continue as long as it's profitable to continue the illusion. At the point where the illusion becomes too expensive to maintain, they will just take down the scenery, they will pull back the curtains, they will move the tables and chairs out of the way, and you will see the brick wall at the back of the theatre."
GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)No attempt was made by the establishment to address OWS grievances. Maintaining the status quo was more important than maintaining the facade of democracy, so they essentially crushed it nationwide, democracy be damned.
Junkdrawer
(27,993 posts)WE see THEM as irremovable possessors of power.
THEY act like desperate men about to be overthrown any minute.
bemildred
(90,061 posts)Promethean
(468 posts)Fact is standards of living are still decent among too many. Unfortunately I thing we are in a case of "it needs to get worse before it can get better" as people won't take action until the problems affect them more strongly. The Oligarchs know this and it is why they act like desperate powermongers. They are putting forth every safeguard they can for when that time comes that they've taken too much. So that they can survive it to corrupt the new system that comes after.
RKP5637
(67,109 posts)it as the other guy's problem. As you say, in essence, this is how the oligarchs survive.
GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)an appeal to this Government to STOP the violence against OWS by the UN. That told people their suspicions that this was an organized assault on US Citizens from the Federal Level. That of course was vehemently denied at first, but then was proven to be true after the FOIA documents relating to the crackdown were revealed.
When a government brutally cracks down on its own peaceful, unarmed protesters as happened to OWS, there is no question this is no democracy.
Good to see it confirmed though once an for all. The question now is, what to do about it? Is it too late?
Junkdrawer
(27,993 posts)do you clear away the ruble from where you intend to rebuild and do it over, as it were, brick by brick?
Junkdrawer
(27,993 posts)At 60, I'm FINALLY waking up to this reality.
Think Globally, Act Locally seems to be a harder won piece of wisdom than I ever imagined.
Silly me.
fleabiscuit
(4,542 posts)Same age, never felt so duped. Makes me just want to shake people and yell "wake the fuck up!"
socialist_n_TN
(11,481 posts)and I've been a self-proclaimed Marxist since my early 20s. So I should have known this was coming. But I didn't get actively involved in a Marxist group until 3 years ago. I spent the intervening years thinking that the shit would really hit the fan only after I was dead. Wisconsin showed me that it wasn't going to happen that way which is when I joined the group I'm in now.
Would I have made any difference if I had joined and stayed active in revolutionary politics for all those years? Probably not, but I won't know will I?
2banon
(7,321 posts)Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)I do not think free speech zones would stand up to a constitutional challengeto restrict free speech to certain limited areas. I believe the founders wanted free speech to include the entire nation.
LiberalEsto
(22,845 posts)The establishment answered them with cops and tear gas and tasers and billy clubs and handcuffs and mass arrests. That's their answer, and they're sticking to it.
2banon
(7,321 posts)CFLDem
(2,083 posts)newfie11
(8,159 posts)Now what? How to correct this with militarized police, voting skewed, oligarchs controlling money?
I'm damn glad I'm old!
Junkdrawer
(27,993 posts)I believe we're now at the "Massive non-violent resistance" stage.
If we demur, again, next stop is revolution or invasion.
elzenmahn
(904 posts)...he lays all of this out, and is in agreement that our only real option left is non-violent resistance and civil disobedience.
Junkdrawer
(27,993 posts)Said he did a superb job of the history of 30s political theater.
YOHABLO
(7,358 posts)newfie11
(8,159 posts)Please enlighten me!
clydefrand
(4,325 posts)decision, the we are now absolutely an oligarchy!! And, I too, am glad I'm glad I am old (79).
geckosfeet
(9,644 posts)From the abstract:
Each of four theoretical traditions in the study of American politics which can be characterized
as theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy, Economic Elite Domination, and two types of
interest group pluralism, Majoritarian Pluralism and Biased Pluralism offers different
predictions about which sets of actors have how much influence over public policy: average
citizens; economic elites; and organized interest groups, mass-based or business-oriented.
//
Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organized groups representing business
interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens
and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence. The results provide
substantial support for theories of Economic Elite Domination and for theories of Biased
Pluralism, but not for theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy or Majoritarian Pluralism.
//
While this body of research is rich and variegated, it can loosely be divided into four
families of theories: Majoritarian Electoral Democracy, Economic Elite Domination, and two
types of interest group pluralism Majoritarian Pluralism, in which the interests of all citizens
are more or less equally represented, and Biased Pluralism, in which corporations, business
associations, and professional groups predominate) Each of these perspectives makes different
predictions about the independent influence upon U.S. policy making of four sets of actors: the
Average Citizen or median voter, Economic Elites, and Mass-based or Business-oriented
Interest Groups or industries.
Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens
So apparently voting is not the answer. Whomever is elected gets bought out anyway. The voter is simply electing someone to carry out the policies preferred by economic power.
LakeVermilion
(1,041 posts)you really choosing to make that person a millionaire. Its not a vote for representation, but rather a vote to select a lottery winner.
newfie11
(8,159 posts)geckosfeet
(9,644 posts)The person you elect may or may not "retire" from congress and go through the revolving door to become a special interest lobbyist or work in an industry that they consistently voted for. If they do, they will of course be hired at a salary that makes a congresspersons pay look like chump change.
bemildred
(90,061 posts)840high
(17,196 posts)cprise
(8,445 posts)Should there ever come a time when most Americans even think that hard about voting.
bemildred
(90,061 posts)The last time public opinion had much impact was the 70s, and the squirrels have been working feverishly ever since to gut and vitiate the reforms made then, and before then under LBJ. You don't have this many wars when the public makes the decisions.
Junkdrawer
(27,993 posts)The Whole is greater than the sum of the Parts be damned...
Well, well worth the time....
hedda_foil
(16,375 posts)Though the title seemed familiar, I had never seen this program before your post and.I've already watched the first two episodes. I'm amazed that I overlooked it when it was first released in 1977. The entire series is written and wonderfully narrated by John Kenneth Galbraith, who I've greatly admired since high school. (I graduated way back in 1963, so his Keynesian interpinretation of capitalism was actually taught as the best solution to the booms and busts, vast Income inequality etc of capitalism.) The series is even more relevant today than when it was first produced.
Here's the description of the series:
The Age of Uncertainty is a 1977 television series about economics, history and politics, co-produced by the BBC, CBC, KCET and OECA, and written and presented by Harvard economist John Kenneth Galbraith.
Galbraith acknowledges the successes of the market system in economics but associated it with instability, inefficiency and social inequity. He advocates government policies and interventions to remedy these perceived faults
The content of the series was determined by Galbraith, with the presentation style directed by his colleagues in the BBC. Galbraith began by writing a series of essays from which the scripts were derived and from these a book by the same name, emerged which in many places goes beyond the material covered in the relevant television episode.
Here's the link to the first episode.
https://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=KGSID_Uyw7w
I can't recommend it highly enough. Imho, it's something no DUer should willingly miss.
Junkdrawer
(27,993 posts)Don't miss the episode on the history of the Nuclear Cold War. John Foster Dulles is given a thorough and well deserved proctological examination.
malaise
(269,024 posts)oligarchs and not millionaires and billionaires.
Curmudgeoness
(18,219 posts)Octafish
(55,745 posts)When the Warmongers starts wars without end for profit and not a single one is held to account, there's proof.
When the fifth or sixth generation of Warmonger named Bush is appointed pretzeldent and utters, "Money trumps peace" and no reporter asks, "What do you mean?", there's proof.
But when Catherine Austin Fitts observes:
"One of the things that is interesting about reading conspiracy theory is that much of what folks think is conspiracy is really many people acting in concert to make or protect their money."
She's denigrated as a "conspiracy theorist" and ignored.
PS: Thank you for another excellent article and thread, xchrom!
Succinct and complete...thanks.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Junkdrawer
(27,993 posts)Last edited Tue Apr 15, 2014, 08:15 AM - Edit history (1)
is that it takes time for a Class to react to changing conditions.
The USSR broke up around 1991. The PNAC document was one extreme portion of the ruling class trying to convince the others in their class of their strategy to take advantage of this.
While we were preoccupied with Iraq and Afghanistan, Russia recovered. Portions of the ruling class are still acting as if Russia were the push-over they were in 1991. Until the ruling class adjusts to this fact, the odds of Nuclear miscalculation are great.
Junkdrawer
(27,993 posts)Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)The "election" was simply a charade.
Junkdrawer
(27,993 posts)Funny. Now that he has 6 yrs. on-the-job training, elements here who previously defended him though thick and thin are now attacking the man.
Tells me something.
enlightenment
(8,830 posts)It is long, but not that complicated a read. When you write something like that without bothering to read the referenced study, you are doing nothing more than breaking your nose with your own knee.
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)READ. THE. PAPER. Puhleeze. Everyone should read it.
It is not too taxing--30 pages with charts. The link at the Commondreams site takes you to this PDF:
http://www.princeton.edu/~mgilens/Gilens%20homepage%20materials/Gilens%20and%20Page/Gilens%20and%20Page%202014-Testing%20Theories%203-7-14.pdf
Excerpt:
"When the preferences of economic elites and the stands of organized interest groups are controlled for, the preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy."
--We the People are "statistically insignificant"
jwirr
(39,215 posts)race.
BlindTiresias
(1,563 posts)You address the study instead of doing childish stuff like this?
Drunken Irishman
(34,857 posts)Only an idiot would believe Barack Obama won more votes. Nader has won every election he's run in - including 2000 and 2004 and they were all stolen from him by the corrupt Illuminati controlled government. LOOK IT UP, SHEEPLE!
adirondacker
(2,921 posts)phoenixpcrod
(9 posts)We are now the East India Trading Company!
Junkdrawer
(27,993 posts)Then they fucked up in India (Sepoy Rebellion) and the Brits passed the Good Governance act.
MisterP
(23,730 posts)gopiscrap
(23,761 posts)jwirr
(39,215 posts)cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
mrdmk
(2,943 posts)Here is a list:
Income
Your Home
Energy
The air you breath
Education
Information Network (Media, Internet, General Conversation)
There is more than I want to think about at this time...
LiberalArkie
(15,716 posts)only males who were tax paying citizens who owned more that 50 acres could vote. This made it so only the elite could vote, not the tavern owner.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)But when we started as a country, land was plentiful and almost anyone could have 50 acres. That 50 acres thing prevented slaves from having the right to vote, but most people had 50 acres..
True. Only men could vote.
But by 1856, we had universal suffrage among white men, and in 1870 with the passage of the 15th Amendment, at least in theory, we had universal suffrage for men.
http://www.kqed.org/assets/pdf/education/digitalmedia/us-voting-rights-timeline.pdf
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)"A final point: even in a bivariate, descriptive sense, our evidence indicates that the
responsiveness of the U.S. political system when the general public wants government
action is severely limited. Because of the impediments to majority rule that were deliberately built into
the U.S. political system federalism, separation of powers, bicameralism together with further impediments due to anti-majoritarian congressional rules and procedures, the system has a substantial status quo bias. Thus when popular majorities favor the status quo, opposing a given policy change, they are likely to get their way; but when a majority even a very large majority of the public favors change, it is not likely to get what it wants.
In our 1,779 policy cases, narrow pro-change majorities of the public got the policy changes they wanted only about 30% of the time. More strikingly, even overwhelmingly large pro-change majorities, with 80%
of the public favoring a policy change, got that change only about 43% of the time. In any case, normative advocates of populistic democracy may not be enthusiastic about democracy by coincidence, in which ordinary citizens get what they want from government only when they happen to agree with elites or interest groups that are really calling the shots. When push comes to shove, actual influence matters."
(So does this help create the illusion of "democracy" in a system which favors the elites?)
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
whistler162
(11,155 posts)The U.S. is a Republic not a Democracy! But, heck what are facts to do with diatribes!
Junkdrawer
(27,993 posts)What took you so long?
X axis, Y axis. The two are orthogonal, as the mathematicians say....
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)We're not a pure democracy, formulating law via referendum and plebiscite, to be sure. We're a constitutional republic. But as a constitutional republic with democratically-elected leaders, we're still a democracy.
At least ostensibly...but as this study reinforces, in practice we're nothing of the sort.
BlindTiresias
(1,563 posts)I think that word does not mean what you think it means.
The US is a representative democracy (or is supposed to be) the fact that the study shows that this is not the case and the economic elite nearly always get what they desire while the population almost never gets what they desire should be extremely disturbing to you.
Edim
(300 posts)or wants to join the elite.
RainDog
(28,784 posts)To be effective, representative democracy requires that elected legislators understand what their constituents believe and wantand American politicians regularly declare that they are championing the priorities of voters in their districts. But are they? In late 2012, prior to the November elections, we surveyed nearly 2,000 candidates running for state legislative offices across the United States.
...When we compare what legislators believe their constituents want to their constituents actual views, we discover that politicians hold remarkably inaccurate perceptions. Pick an American state legislator at random, and chances are that he or she will have massive misperceptions about district views on big-ticket issues, typically missing the mark by 15 percentage points.
What is more, the mistakes legislators make tend to fall in one direction, giving U.S. politics a rightward tilt compared to what most voters say they want. As the following figures show, legislators usually believe their constituents are more conservative than they actually are. Our attitude measurements are most accurate on the questions about same sex marriage and universal health insuranceand in both instances the legislators guesses about their constituents views were 15-20 percent more conservative, on average, than the true public support for same-sex marriage or universal health care present in their districts.
Breaking down misperceptions by the leanings of legislators reveals further imbalances:
The typical conservative legislator overestimates his or her districts conservatism by a whopping 20 percentage points. Indeed, he or she believes the district is even more conservative than the most right-leaning district in the entire country.
Liberals also think their constituents views are more conservative than they really are, but are typically only off by about five percentage points.
Most conservative legislators believe their positions on same-sex marriage and health care command majority support in their districtsbut only two-fifths are correct. In contrast, liberal legislators usually share views with constituents, but one in five does not know it.
Our study also found that politicians dont learn in the normal course of events. After November 2012, we posed the same questions again to some candidates. Even after conducting campaigns and seeing the results, politicians did not arrive at more accurate perceptions of constituent viewsnot even those who had spent more time talking to voters. Much remains to be learned about why U.S. legislators think constituents are more conservative than they truly are, but researchers have found that politically active citizens tend to be wealthier and more conservative than others. Politicians who want to represent all the people in their districts need to keep this in mind.
But if these politicians think they're supposed to represent the oligarchy, then such misperceptions are quite easy to understand - and they also demonstrate that Democrats, more than Republicans, both understand and support policies that are aligned with American voters.
No wonder conservatives have made such a concerted effort to gerrymander voting districts - it's the only way they can continue to disregard what Americans want their elected representatives to do.
dotymed
(5,610 posts)In the preamble to the Constitution it clearly states "To Maintain the Status Quo."
We desperately need a Democratic Socialism form of government.
chemenger
(1,593 posts)marions ghost
(19,841 posts)Because facing it is the first step to dealing with a problem.
We have to get out from under the idea that we have achieved Democracy in America.
Pull back from all the mythology and imagine a better world.
Bettie
(16,110 posts)It's sad. We're sliding to a corporate state. Just waiting for the renaming of the White House to The White House: By Monsanto or some such nonsense.
marmar
(77,081 posts)k/r
Zorra
(27,670 posts)The global power of the financial centers is so great, that they can afford not to worry about the political tendency of those who hold power in a nation, if the economic program (in other words, the role that nation has in the global economic megaprogram) remains unaltered. The financial disciplines impose themselves upon the different colors of the world political spectrum in regards to the government of any nation. The great world power can tolerate a leftist government in any part of the world, as long as the government does not take measures that go against the needs of the world financial centers. But in no way will it tolerate that an alternative economic, political and social organization consolidate. For the megapolitics, the national politics are dwarfed and submit to the dict tates of the financial centers. It will be this way until the dwarfs rebel . .
http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/mexico/ezln/1997/jigsaw.html
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Unless you give a large cut of the proceeds of the venture.
FarCenter
(19,429 posts)Just finished reading "Measuring America: How the United States Was Shaped By the Greatest Land Sale in History", which has some interesting details about our founding land speculators.
http://www.amazon.com/Measuring-America-United-Greatest-History/dp/0452284597/ref=pd_sim_b_1?ie=UTF8&refRID=1RJ80F2X39FE2VM1B17X
Although the main topic of the book is the history of surveying and land enclosure, it is a great source of information about how the US acquired its land, measured it, sold it, and profited from it. One cause of the Revolution was the King's assertion of ownership of the land west of the Alleghenies following the French and Indian War. By then, colonials had already been moving into the Ohio river valley and had other ideas.
trackfan
(3,650 posts)dionysus
(26,467 posts)be toast;
the problem; not enough people vote, and half the people who *do* vote have their heads up their asses...
Yavapai
(825 posts)That we get to vote for the two candidates picked by the oligarchs. It is the "golden rule, those with the gold, rules."
I voted for Clinton, and got NAFTA. I voted for Obama and got a watered down health plan that allowed insurance companies to still rape the people, along with continued drone strikes, and a too long continuation of war.
Vote any way you choose, just don't expect any real change...
dionysus
(26,467 posts)but he tries to make everyone like him so they'll work with him... and they end up stabbing him in the back.. every single.. time
I wish he was tougher, but hey, there was only one LBJ...
but back to the point, if enough of us gave a damn, we could fix this, but the odds aren't on our side.
for every political junkie like us, and that sadly includes freeper types.... there's 10 people who don't give a shit about current events and never vote. if we had an educated populace we could throw all the crooks out on their ass (or in jail)
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)between two Corporate-owned candidates, and both are for the Big Banks Uber Alles, Big Military and endless wars, Gm vomitoxin contaminated foods, seeds and crops, privatizing education and prisons and water, rules and regs for the 98% and no rules or regs for themselves, Big Pharma, Big Medical Interests, Corporate Media Conglomerates, etc.
What will save us all is the burgeoning Community Rights organization.
Google "youtube" + Paul Cienfuegos" + "community rights" and start learning what we need to do to take our communities back. The time for opportunity is now! Right now, 150 communities are seeing to it that the "Corporate Personhood" of Big Corporations is being dismantled, and you can get aboard and help unite your community against whatever current problems the Big Companies are bring to your town or city or rural area.
dionysus
(26,467 posts)truedelphi
(32,324 posts)Last edited Sat Apr 19, 2014, 01:03 PM - Edit history (1)
Have you ever tried to show up at a Democratic gathering and state that you would like to see a bit of real change?
I can't even phone bank with the local Democratic group, as much as I would have liked to for John Garamendi.
The whole process here in Calif. is controlled by Diane Feinstein. This Dragon Woman has deliberately set things up so that only war-mongering, bankster-loving asswipes get to run.
Mention how Liz Warren would be wonderful, on the Democratic ticket, and you might as well say you live on Mars with your tiny green relatives. You immediately become a pariah. In California, it is already known that it is Hillary Clinton all the way. (Is it already 2016 here?)
Why did Cindy Sheehan have to run as a third party person?
Why did I have to?
meanwhile, Diane Feinstein saw to it that not once but twice, candidates were chosen to run against Ahnold Schwartzennegger for the governor's office. And she deliberately chose weak and non-charismatic people, the last time around choosing
Phil Angelides, a weasel-like creature no one in Northern California had ever even heard of. And in Southern Calif. people knew Angleides as scum sucking slime Meanwhile the person people wanted, Stephen Westley - well, Di Fi said he hadn't put in enough time as a Democratic floor sweeper or whatever.
So we lost twice to the Republicans. You have to wonder how much money or influence the Republican Party leadership gave her in return for these two very sweet deals for the Republicans.
raouldukelives
(5,178 posts)Everyone in the markets. Everyone who facilitates transactions in the markets. All are opposed in deeds to democracy. To freedom, to the ideas and ideals set forth in the words of Tom Paine, MLK, Gandhi and even for the Christians, Jesus.
A LINO. One who greases the tracks for the oligarchs while espousing liberal thoughts in private. The reason we keep getting weaker, rotting from within.
Time is running short, which side are you on?
If you want to stand against something, not standing with it is a good start.
Emelina
(188 posts)Almost all media in the USA is controlled by six mega companies.
pa28
(6,145 posts)and yet supporting these ideas in Washington is cause for dismissal from the very serious person's club.
When your Representative or Senator seems to give you the finger as soon as they are elected it's not your imagination.
BlindTiresias
(1,563 posts)You are correct in your original intuitions but quantitatively showing this to be a real phenomenon is a big deal and makes it substantially harder to handwave away the elite choice model of the legislative process.
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)for one thing, they look at "1,779 policy issues".
Well, my first question is, how much of the public even CARES about those 1,779 policy issues. Secondly, how is the public informed about those policy issues?
Then there's the matter of elections. Saying that the US is an oligarchy means that apparently elections do not matter.
That seems absurd on its face. Would we have gotten the Bush tax cuts without the election of Bush? And without the election of a whole bunch of Republicans to the House and Senate? Same thing with the invasion of Iraq. It's pretty obvious to me that those elections mattered, and that had voters chosen differently the net policy result would have been much different.
Further, if the study says that "policies are going against the will of the public". Well, are not SOME elected officials voting WITH the will of the public? Further, how is the "will of the public" even measured?
If, for example, 90% of the public in Pelosi's district is against the Bush tax cuts and the invasion of Iraq, but 60% of the public in my district is FOR them. Then the "will of the public" (assuming CDs are of equal size (which they are NOT)) would be 65% against and 35% for. But in Congressional voting this works out to a 50-50 split.
However, nota bene, in that 50-50 split, each representative IS representing the "will of the public" IN THEIR OWN DISTRICT.
Further, it would appear that for the period they studied, that much of the government was controlled by Republicans. I would submit though, that, unfortunately, those Republicans ARE, largely, representing their conservative districts.
BlindTiresias
(1,563 posts)It says that the public's will is expressed, but only when it coincides with the will of the economic elite. The small portion of popular preferences that are being expressed are those joined with economic elites, making conservative districts and economic elite preferences joining together entirely consistent with their argument.
I am assuming we will see what exactly those 1,779 policies are when the study is officially published in the fall. That will provide some basis to verify the argument to a better extent but I expect it to be entirely valid.
Some stuff you are saying is kind of silly and shows you didn't even read the study fully, though:
"Further, if the study says that "policies are going against the will of the public". Well, are not SOME elected officials voting WITH the will of the public? Further, how is the "will of the public" even measured? "
It explicitly states how they gathered the data on page 10 of the paper.
Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)BlindTiresias
(1,563 posts)Would be quantitative study. There have been qualitative studies on the elite preference theory for decades now.
geretogo
(1,281 posts)think about here and there is no doubt this is NOT a democracy . It is Owned and Ruled by the very wealthy .
That is the definition of an Oligarchy .
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)Is rising up, community by community, and smashing the Corporate Personhood entities under the weight of the power of We the People.
Google "Paul Cienfuego" and Community rights + youtube.
Over 150 US communities are now uniting against Corporations. Because of the community rights movement, one community has banned Nestle Inc from coming in and taking their water away. Another New Hampshire community has stopped a powerful Quebic utility from coming in and taking over their community. Their piece of legislation guarantees their community really sustainable energy, not Corporate-polluting, Climate-destroying energy.
geretogo
(1,281 posts)truedelphi
(32,324 posts)One is my tiny little rural hamlet has its own very indie TV station, and on account of that TV station I have heard about this movement.
Two: I now am out in the community making headway. Lake County Calif is going to have the first "right to grow" statement of human rights - that no federal regs and no state agencies can tell people what to grow or how to grow it. I you own land, and you own a seed, it is your inalienable right to plant that seed and take care of it and then harvest it.
So if my housing association tells me to pull up my ten tomato plants on account of "their charter" means I can't have tomatoes growing in my front yard, I become a plaintiff in a lawsuit against them. (Otherwise they can demand a fine, per day, and then fight me in court, with me being a defendant without many rights.)
All over California, various agencies tell the small organic farmers that because some official saw a rabbit romping across their field, they must tractor under their organic crop,as the rabbit might be carrying anthrax etc. Meanwhile the big farms owned by Sygenta and Monsanto are able to pay off the agents to not take any actions against them, So they can continue to destroy the soil and the air and the water with their pesticides and Gm crap.
Anyway, figure out what needs to change in your area, and then join with others in your area to help stop the corporations from having the power. Together we all truly have the power to topple the "Giants." And believe me, they did not see this coming!
We will make this fictional situation truly fiction-based only: "Slavery is the legal fiction that a person is property. While Corporate Personhood is the legal fiction that property is a person!"
geretogo
(1,281 posts)make this county GMO free . We have many Organic farmers here . Monsanto and many outside
corporations are spending a lot of money to defeat the proposition to put on the state ballot
in the next election . Money speaks , lets see if the peoples voice is louder .
Vashta Nerada
(3,922 posts)Flatulo
(5,005 posts)The public was ready for stiffer gun controls by a huge margin, but our senate and house could not act.
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)---nt
Rex
(65,616 posts)The only way to go back to regulated democracy, is for the PTB to STOP rewarding the very same people that caused us to almost lose the middle class and our fragile economy.
OF COURSE I am talking about the GOP...if ever there was a party responsible for destroying the Union, it is the Grand Old Party.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)...the ''elections'' and the ''parties'' are all a facade.
- Remember?
K&R
Alas, how we underestimated the strength of the enemy! Everywhere the socialists proclaimed their coming victory at the ballot-box, while, in unmistakable terms, they stated the situation. The Plutocracy accepted the challenge. It was the Plutocracy, weighing and balancing, that defeated us by dividing our strength. It was the Plutocracy, through its secret agents, that raised the cry that socialism was sacrilegious and atheistic; it was the Plutocracy that whipped the churches, and especially the Catholic Church, into line, and robbed us of a portion of the labor vote. And it was the Plutocracy, through its secret agents of course, that encouraged the Grange Party and even spread it to the cities into the ranks of the dying middle class.
Nevertheless the socialist landslide occurred. But, instead of a sweeping victory with chief executive officers and majorities in all legislative bodies, we found ourselves in the minority. It is true, we elected fifty Congressmen; but when they took their seats in the spring of 1913, they found themselves without power of any sort. Yet they were more fortunate than the Grangers, who captured a dozen state governments, and who, in the spring, were not permitted to take possession of the captured offices. The incumbents refused to retire, and the courts were in the hands of the Oligarchy. But this is too far in advance of events. I have yet to tell of the stirring times of the winter of 1912.
The hard times at home had caused an immense decrease in consumption. Labor, out of work, had no wages with which to buy. The result was that the Plutocracy found a greater surplus than ever on its hands. This surplus it was compelled to dispose of abroad, and, what of its colossal plans, it needed money. Because of its strenuous efforts to dispose of the surplus in the world market, the Plutocracy clashed with Germany. Economic clashes were usually succeeded by wars, and this particular clash was no exception. The great German war-lord prepared, and so did the United States prepare.
The war-cloud hovered dark and ominous. The stage was set for a world-catastrophe, for in all the world were hard times, labor troubles, perishing middle classes, armies of unemployed, clashes of economic interests in the world-market, and mutterings and rumblings of the socialist revolution. ~Jack London, The Iron Heel
certainot
(9,090 posts)shouldn't be surprised.
with that giant megaphone they can short circuit our democratic feedback mechanisms at will with distractions, distortions and their own alternate reality. no other medium can do the think tank-coordinated repetition that rw radio and it's 450 coordinated blowhards can. they can create made to order constituencies for any occasion and usually its the same republican/teabag/ talk radio base.
and still there the dem party and the left's orgs give it a free speech free ride.
there is NO organized opposition to it outside the very effective by specialize rush boycott.
considering the time lost on global warming ignoring rw radio, waiting for it to fade, waiting for free ubiquitous high speed, is the biggest mistake in political history.
cer7711
(502 posts). . . run on an unsustainable predatory economic system of Scroogilistic Crapitalism funneling ever-greater concentrations of wealth into the hands of the 1%.
Ben Franklin: Turns out we could not keep our democratic republic. For awhile there, though . . .
2banon
(7,321 posts)totally agree with you there..
Pauldg47
(640 posts).... with tax cuts for the wealthy so they could buy our country with their billions/trillions they saved. It's now a plutocracy!!
This will be resolved. It can only go so far. The youngsters will rise!!! Be scared 1%... be scared!!
defacto7
(13,485 posts)of the United States of America circa 2014 without the hesitation of a doubt.
I find it hard to use the name "United States of America" for the country we now live in.
The founders of United States of America are no longer the founders of this country.
The people who have fought, bled and died for the United States of America did not do so for this country.
The people who have stood for freedom, human rights and civil liberties since the 18th century stood for a different country than we now have.
It may be time to change the name.
Or it may be time to take our country back from those who staged this slow rolling coup d'etat which has engulfed us.
The American Anschluß, and we just let them take it?
2banon
(7,321 posts)You know come to think of it, the Bush and Clinton families almost qualify as the Plutocrat Party, and the Koch Brothers et al are the Oligarch Party. That would make it pretty clear who the hell people are actually campaigning for.
struggle4progress
(118,290 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)Other than monarchies of one kind or another, under one name or another, our Framers had two models before them, the republic of Ancient Rome and the democracy of Athens. They chose republic.
http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/openforum/article/A-republic-if-you-can-keep-it-2487385.php Warning: this Ben Franklin story may or may not be apocryphal. However, the story does not alter the fact that we organized as a republic, not a democracy. With the passage of centuries, the way in which we elect our representative has become more democratic--in theory, anyway--ask Buffet, Soros, the Kochs and others like them, the Supremes and BradBlog. They all know better than I about whether the theory matches the reality. However, in theory, we have become more democratic in allowing people to vote.
Regardless of how we choose our representatives, though, we are a republic, or a representative form of government, as in Ancient Rome, not a democratic form of government in which any citizen may vote directly on issues, as in Ancient Athens.
Plutonomy vs. plutocracy--as the Citigroup memos explain, the economy (as conceived and perceived by the rich) drives government. But, if you want to use plutocracy or oligarchy instead, be my guest. However, I think it's important to know that we are a republic, not a democracy.
Why so many nonetheless insist we are a democracy, especially those who know better, is a great question.
blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)"O"