Agree or Disagree: The U.S. is Now an Oligarchy

"The news: A new scientific study from Princeton researcher Martin Gilens and Northwestern researcher Benjamin I. Page has finally put some science behind the recently popular argument that the United States isn't a democracy any more. And they've found that in fact, America is basically an oligarchy.

An oligarchy is a system where power is effectively wielded by a small number of individuals defined by their status called oligarchs. Members of the oligarchy are the rich, the well connected and the politically powerful, as well as particularly well placed individuals in institutions like banking and finance or the military."

http://www.policymic.com/articles/87719/princeton-concludes-what-kind-of-government-america-really-has-and-it-s-not-a-democracy

Agree. It has been for quite a while, I think, and it's only becoming more entrenched with recent Supreme Court decisions.

Water is wet?

The Lonely Stoner wrote:Water is wet?

So lets push this further.

Was it ever anything but an oligarchy? Anti-federalists warned that the federalists were creating such a government with the new Constitution. I realize the point was to create a Republic rather than a democracy, but the framers worked extra hard to put a buffer between the people and politics and opened the door for dominant interests to manipulate politics.

Started in 1913.

SawGreen wrote:Started in 1913.

Were things different in the days of Rockefeller, Vanderbilt and Carnegie?

BTW, let's at least link to the piece that prompted the thread:

http://www.livescience.com/45235-american-oligarchy.html

Cym Jim wrote:

Were things different in the days of Rockefeller, Vanderbilt and Carnegie?

BTW, let's at least link to the piece that prompted the thread:

http://www.livescience.com/45235-american-oligarchy.html

I did, and the link to the paper is in the link I provided.

Turtleneck wrote:

Was it ever anything but an oligarchy?

Nah...

Turtleneck wrote:
I realize the point was to create a Republic rather than a democracy, but the framers worked extra hard to put a buffer between the people and politics and opened the door for dominant interests to manipulate politics.

It's almost as if it were.... intentional....

Turtleneck wrote:I did, and the link to the paper is in the link I provided.

My bad. Didn't see the text of your post for some reason.

Nice thread by the way - I'm very interested in what folks have to say. I'm sure someone will find a way to make it a partisan pissing match though!



Oh, and please change your avatar - it's quite disturbing!

Cym Jim wrote: I'm sure someone will find a way to make it a partisan pissing match though!

 

Get outta here, Jim!!!! YOU waisis!!!!

So why is everybody so complacent about this topic? I have mentioned this to others and their reactions have largely been the same....  

Let me ask two questions. First, if it was intentional, why do we heap so much praise on the framers? We seem to have so much respect for the Constitution, but if it does nothing more than institutionalize a rigged system, why so much appreciation? Second, was it by design, or have lazy Americans let this happen? In other words, we are incredibly disengaged from the political process, which then opens the door for that void to be filled by a narrow range of interests that have less competition and can dominate the system. So in the end, it's possibly our own fault.

[quote="Turtleneck"]"The news: A new scientific study from Princeton researcher Martin Gilens and Northwestern researcher Benjamin I. Page has finally put some science behind the recently popular argument that the United States isn't a democracy any more. And they've found that in fact, America is basically an oligarchy.

An oligarchy is a system where power is effectively wielded by a small number of individuals defined by their status called oligarchs. Members of the oligarchy are the rich, the well connected and the politically powerful, as well as particularly well placed individuals in institutions like banking and finance or the military."


My question to you is "When was the last time that the government did what you asked of it?"  It is not a democracy and I don't have enough influence as a single citizen to make it work for me.  Oligarchy.

MasonGuy wrote:

You're right. The system rewards group action (in place of individual action) by design. For example, and as you said, it is not a (direct) democracy. But this points back to my above question about political engagement. While we do not have power as individuals, do we have power as organized groups? If the answer is yes, is it actually our fault for disengaging from political activism and leaving the system to elites?

Turtleneck wrote:


You're right. The system rewards group action (in place of individual action) by design. For example, and as you said, it is not a (direct) democracy. But this points back to my above question about political engagement. While we do not have power as individuals, do we have power as organized groups? If the answer is yes,  is it actually our fault for disengaging from political activism and leaving the system to elites?

Of course it is. I cannot tell you how hard it is to motivate my daughters simply to vote. They tell me it doesn't matter who is running the country, they can't influence so they don't care. It makes me sad and sick at the same time. All the elections, be they local or national, show that most citizens no longer participate in the selection of their governments. Now is the easiest time to manipulate because there are fewer votes to have to sway at elections and fewer voices to hear when special interests have the largest part of the ear of our congress. Oligarchy.

AvgMSUJoe wrote:Agree.

When one family can easily influence 40% of the electorate solely based on their $$ ...

isn't that the family who flat out lied and as it turns out actually benefit from the unAffordable Care Act?

MasonGuy wrote:

Of course it is.  I cannot tell you how hard it is to motivate my daughters simply to vote.  They tell me it doesn't matter who is running the country, they can't influence so they don't care.  It makes me sad and sick at the same time.   All the elections, be they local or national, show that most citizens no longer participate in the selection of their governments.  Now is the easiest time to manipulate because there are fewer votes to have to sway at elections and fewer voices to hear when special interests have the largest part of the ear of our congress.  Oligarchy.

How many non-oligarchs (hopefully what I mean by this is evident, though it's inartfully stated) receive nominations from the Democratic party or the Republican party (at least at the federal level)? Consider the average net worth of congressmen/women and senators.

Robert J Sakimano wrote:
isn't that the family who flat out lied and as it turns out actually benefit from the unAffordable Care Act?

I don't know if they benefit, but the women was not honest about options for her family.

Turtleneck wrote:So why is everybody so complacent about this topic? I have mentioned this to others and their reactions have largely been the same....  

Dude... this is America... if it's not about racism, the Malaysian plane, or Mylie Cyrus... it's not important.

Turtleneck wrote:
Let me ask two questions. First, if it was intentional, why do we heap so much praise on the framers?

As the old saying goes... history is written by the victors; and history will be framed exactly how the victors want to be viewed.

Turtleneck wrote:
We seem to have so much respect for the Constitution, but if it does nothing more than institutionalize a rigged system, why so much appreciation?

See the last answer. We're not as smart as we like to think... and a lot more susceptible to manipulation by individuals who manipulate for a living, than we'd like to think.

Turtleneck wrote:
Second, was it by design, or have lazy Americans let this happen? In other words, we are incredibly disengaged from the political process, which then opens the door for that void to be filled by a narrow range of interests that have less competition and can dominate the system. So in the end, it's possibly our own fault.

It's always been sold to us that we have a voice and we're free and this and that... but clearly that's not the case. We vote on people who lie and manipulate to get into office, and they're the ones who actually get to vote on a particular issue.

Throughout history, the philosophy of governance revolves around the 'vehicle' (i.e. government) for those predisposed to greed and accumulation of power to actualize their insecurities and provide the perception that when they demand a (large) percentage of your money (by threat of violence) that there's some sort of benevolence at work. When in reality it's just that... they are taking your money to further their own personal quest for wealth and power.

It amazes me that there's millions upon millions of people that still believe these individuals, who not only choose the career path of a politician but also play the game needed to be played in order to prove their ability to their bosses (corporate interests & political party) to maintain power for their entity... that these individuals are on some noble, patriotic quest and working tirelessly to better everyone else's lives.



+1 Turtleneck... I don't recall you on Wells that much but these are the conversations that I find interesting and enjoyable and I wish there were more of... far more so than the predictable and overdone, fake left/right dichotomy and the currently trendy 'everyone is a racist'.

MasonGuy wrote:

Of course it is.  I cannot tell you how hard it is to motivate my daughters simply to vote.  They tell me it doesn't matter who is running the country, they can't influence so they don't care.  It makes me sad and sick at the same time.   All the elections, be they local or national, show that most citizens no longer participate in the selection of their governments.  Now is the easiest time to manipulate because there are fewer votes to have to sway at elections and fewer voices to hear when special interests have the largest part of the ear of our congress.  Oligarchy.

I feel for ya, Mason... the problem is, as has been shown. It truly doesn't matter who you vote for, at least in a presidential election. There are only two choices... and they're not much of a choice. They are paid by the same people. They both travel in the same, elite circles. And for those individuals to even have gotten to where they have gotten... they have had to prove their allegiance to those elites. By the time you or I even hear an individual's name... they've already proven to their bosses many times over that they will further the agenda of the those corporate interests that control both parties and ONLY further the agenda of those interests.

We really don't have any options... power was already funneled long before any of us were even thought of.

So I don't think you should be frustrated that your children have already been able to come to this determination... the frustration should be focused at changing a system that has NEVER worked. Ever.

Cameron wrote:

How many non-oligarchs (hopefully what I mean by this is evident, though it's inartfully stated) receive nominations from the Democratic party or the Republican party (at least at the federal level)? Consider the average net worth of congressmen/women and senators.

There are great riches awaiting anyone that get into congress.

xsanguine wrote:

I feel for ya, Mason... the problem is, as has been shown. It truly doesn't matter who you vote for, at least in a presidential election. There are only two choices... and they're not much of a choice. They are paid by the same people. They both travel in the same, elite circles. And for those individuals to even have gotten to where they have gotten... they have had to prove their allegiance to those elites. By the time you or I even hear an individual's name... they've already proven to their bosses many times over that they will further the agenda of the those corporate interests that control both parties and ONLY further the agenda of those interests.

We really don't have any options... power was already funneled long before any of us were even thought of.

So I don't think you should be frustrated that your children have already been able to come to this determination... the frustration should be focused at changing a system that has NEVER worked. Ever.

"It is good to have a rebellion every now and then..." - Thomas Jefferson. These guys weren't winging it when they created the country. We have turned into sheep and are all letting them down.

MasonGuy wrote:

"It is good to have a rebellion every now and then..." - Thomas Jefferson.  These guys weren't winging it when they created the country. We have turned into sheep and are all letting them down.

But see, here's my problem right there.... I'm not convinced their ideas were altruistic. In fact, I'm not sure any semblance of benevolence can be found in the ideas of men who couldn't (or wouldn't) come to determine that enslaving other humans is adversarial to the concept of liberty, freedom. I have the benefit of history and hindsight... I understand that, but still.

But maybe you're right... all along I've doubted the intentions of men like Thomas Jefferson without considering the fate they were risking by pulling the stunts they pulled. It's just hard for me to trust any individual that seeks any form of power over others... from the manager at Wendy's to the human resources director at the bank.... and especially anyone who gets involved in politics as a career.

+1

Brought this up on TOS a few times and am amazed and how many have never heard of this important event in US history,
Look up Smedely Butler and the Buisness Plot than rewatch Eisenhowers farewell speech all the while knowing that 50 cents of every tax dollar goes to the miltary

There is a reason the US Senate is called The Millionaires Club. If we look at post Civil War Presidents we see even if they didn't come from wealthy families they all cultivated relationships that would finance their political careers.

Roosevelts, Kennedy and Bushes all came from wealthy families while Coolidge, Truman, Nixon, Clinton and Obama did not. Start connecting the dots and you see they all seem to end up at many of the same places.

What are you talking about GRR? Members of Congress - Senate and House - are barely putting food on the table.

http://www.opensecrets.org/pfds/averages.php

xsanguine wrote:

But see, here's my problem right there.... I'm not convinced their ideas were altruistic. In fact, I'm not sure any semblance of benevolence can be found in the ideas of men who couldn't (or wouldn't) come to determine that enslaving other humans is adversarial to the concept of liberty, freedom. I have the benefit of history and hindsight... I understand that, but still.

But maybe you're right... all along I've doubted the intentions of men like Thomas Jefferson without considering the fate they were risking by pulling the stunts they pulled. It's just hard for me to trust any individual that seeks any form of power over others... from the manager at Wendy's to the human resources director at the bank.... and especially anyone who gets involved in politics as a career.

+1

After reading through your posts, I will straight up ask...what role do you envision for the state? It seems that you have a critical stance, and that power broadly diffused to the people is not possible so long as there is a central authority. How can the state be effectively governed without centralization of authority?

Yep. The career politicians, their advisers, and the lobbyists are the new Royal class. They just bounce around from one area to the other.

Robert J Sakimano wrote:isn't that the family who flat out lied and as it turns out actually benefit from the unAffordable Care Act?

No. The woman with cancer has slightly lower premiums but her out of pocket costs skyrocketed and she lost benefits that were covered under her previous plan she was forced off of.

Once again, the mainstream media telling half truths. Only talking about slightly lowered premiums and not her entire healthcare expenses.

Turtleneck wrote:

After reading through your posts, I will straight up ask...what role do you envision for the state?

Ideally zero. But I'm also a realist and realize anarchy is not possible with the state of our society and what our society values in our upbringing. Therefore, what I would prefer to see is a minarchist scenario... the state maintains a reasonably sized military and a police force tasked only with keeping people from killing each other and from stealing/defrauding each other. The rest should be left to the "free market"... which I understand is a demonized word if you belong to a specific team... but all it really means is to let the people decide, by choice.

Turtleneck wrote:
It seems that you have a critical stance, and that power broadly diffused to the people is not possible so long as there is a central authority.

I'm of the opinion that power is not diffused to the people at all, no matter how they market our system of government. I'm also of the opinion that the president is no more than a figurehead in our government. The two teams that get any sort of say have it down perfectly; 1. In order to play ball, you need to belong to one of the two teams. 2. In order to belong to one of the two teams you must adhere to certain beliefs. 3. In order to make it to any sort of position to actually have any say in practically anything with regards to that team, you need to prove your worthiness by doing the bidding of the team. And in order to get high enough to have actual "power" to make any sort of change... you've needed to have proven over the course of many years #3.

And who do these individuals see, befriend, work with, and hang out with in their every day? Lobbyists, corporate business executives, and other members of the "team" who've proven #3 for years and years and years. And the lobbyists obviously work for the corporate business executives.

It's a lose-lose-lose scenario for the people that... whether they agree with it or not... are "governed over". Which is a nice way of saying control, power and dominated over them.

Government is immoral in that all of these things that get decided are enforced by threat of violence of which government has assumed a monopoly of over their subjects... I mean, "constituents".

Turtleneck wrote:
How can the state be effectively governed without centralization of authority?

Define "effectively governed".

The_Dude wrote:Yep. The career politicians, their advisers, and the lobbyists are the new Royal class. They just bounce around from one area to the other.

It's not even new, brah... it's just the way it's always been. It's just a repackaged version of monarchy with a better marketing and PR team.

The_Dude wrote:

No. The woman with cancer has slightly lower premiums but her out of pocket costs skyrocketed and she lost benefits that were covered under her previous plan she was forced off of.

Once again, the mainstream media telling half truths. Only talking about slightly lowered premiums and not her entire healthcare expenses.

Sorry. You are wrong.
Her premiums went from $1100/mth with everything covered ($13,200/yr) to $571/mth ($6852/yr) with out of pocket expenses capped at $5100/yr. That ended up to be $11952/yr plus she kept her same doctors including her oncologist.

http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20140310/LIFESTYLE03/303100100

But a few million here and a few million there gets a lot of gullible folks making the same mistake you did.

xsanguine wrote:

Ideally zero. But I'm also a realist and realize anarchy is not possible with the state of our society and what our society values in our upbringing. Therefore, what I would prefer to see is a minarchist scenario... the state maintains a reasonably sized military and a police force tasked only with keeping people from killing each other and from stealing/defrauding each other. The rest should be left to the "free market"... which I understand is a demonized word if you belong to a specific team... but all it really means is to let the people decide, by choice.



I'm of the opinion that power is not diffused to the people at all, no matter how they market our system of government. I'm also of the opinion that the president is no more than a figurehead in our government. The two teams that get any sort of say have it down perfectly; 1. In order to play ball, you need to belong to one of the two teams. 2. In order to belong to one of the two teams you must adhere to certain beliefs. 3. In order to make it to any sort of position to actually have any say in practically anything with regards to that team, you need to prove your worthiness by doing the bidding of the team. And in order to get high enough to have actual "power" to make any sort of change... you've needed to have proven over the course of many years #3.

And who do these individuals see, befriend, work with, and hang out with in their every day? Lobbyists, corporate business executives, and other members of the "team" who've proven #3 for years and years and years. And the lobbyists obviously work for the corporate business executives.

It's a lose-lose-lose scenario for the people that... whether they agree with it or not... are "governed over". Which is a nice way of saying control, power and dominated over them.

Government is immoral in that all of these things that get decided are enforced by threat of violence of which government has assumed a monopoly of over their subjects... I mean, "constituents".



Define "effectively governed".

I sympathize with much of what you said. My questions were just meant to get an idea about the direction for which I thought you were heading. Personally, I am not confident that government is necessary simply because of our human nature. To a great degree, we have been socialized into rather unhealthy competitive behaviors by forces much greater than the individual. Generally speaking the legitimacy of the state can be questioned. Your comment on the morality of government is interesting. While our government is theoretically rooted in consent, does consent matter at this point?

On a less grand scale, there has to be institutional reforms that at least make this better (in terms of a voice for the people). That does not mean moving away the state, but reforming how we do politics. I know this has little chance of happening, but elections must be reformed. We need an electoral system that will encourage multi-party competition. We need smaller and more exclusive parties rather than two large parties that try to sell themselves as broad-based. There are sever challenges to this, and chief among them is the electoral college. However, I do think this is step in the right direction in terms of giving the people a greater voice.

Saw a good video with Moyers and Krugman discussing this topic. I would post the link if this site would allow it.

Required viewing for anyone interested in this topic. They discuss Piketty's book Capital in The Twenty-First Century.

Turtleneck wrote:

I sympathize with much of what you said. My questions were just meant to get an idea about the direction for which I thought you were heading. Personally, I am not confident that government is necessary simply because of our human nature. To a great degree, we have been socialized into rather unhealthy competitive behaviors by forces much greater than the individual. Generally speaking the legitimacy of the state can be questioned. Your comment on the morality of government is interesting. While our government is theoretically rooted in consent, does consent matter at this point?  

On a less grand scale, there has to be institutional reforms that at least make this better (in terms of a voice for the people). That does not mean moving away the state, but reforming how we do politics. I know this has little chance of happening, but elections must be reformed. We need an electoral system that will encourage multi-party competition. We need smaller and more exclusive parties rather than two large parties that try to sell themselves as broad-based. There are sever challenges to this, and chief among them is the electoral college. However, I do think this is step in the right direction in terms of giving the people a greater voice.

Good stuff, TN. I agree... well, at least as much as I can given the philosophy I'd actually implement if I had the power. I'm just not sure how to reform elections and politics in a way that would avoid any of the problems that plague a system of rule over others. That's where my view regarding the morality (lack thereof) of government... in my belief, it's simply immoral to be the subject of another human being. Now we can put friendlier words like "citizen" or "resident" but they all mean the same thing. My free will is being controlled by another human being arbitrarily.

Getting back to reforms... I can't envision a time throughout history where a group of humans rule over other humans and everyone is happy. I'm just skeptical that is even possible because I believe history has shown that any system of governance does not allow for that. Another reason, a big reason, why I think this is impossible is that any system of governance just funnels power to a select group of people... it's been that way since the beginning and those individuals won't allow for the type of competition you and I envision and what actually occurs. I may just be stating the obvious but Republicans and Democrats look out for each other and the perpetuation of their power far more than they would ever consider to the citizens; that's the nature of the beast.

I think, because we're caught up in our own individual lives... we think that these politicians are in it because they're on some benevolent, patriotic quest to do good. Now there may be one or two of those individuals out of the hundreds at that level... but I'd be surprised if it were more than a handful that think, and more importantly act, like how we're sold. To me, it's like any other job... they get done what is easiest to make their money and go home to their family.

Having said all of that... I'm not sure what kinds of reforms would counteract human nature. Which is why, if we're already going to be subject to human nature... we might as well not give and fund a small group of elites to control us and have a monopoly of violence over us on that type of scale.

We've been slowly moving toward an Oligarchy for decades.

My good friend, philosophy professor Jeffrey Grupp, refered to it as 'Corporatism'.

Deputy Commissioner of the FDA Michael Taylor is a good example of how Corporatism works.

xsanguine wrote:

Good stuff, TN. I agree... well, at least as much as I can given the philosophy I'd actually implement if I had the power. I'm just not sure how to reform elections and politics in a way that would avoid any of the problems that plague a system of rule over others. That's where my view regarding the morality (lack thereof) of government... in my belief, it's simply immoral to be the subject of another human being. Now we can put friendlier words like "citizen" or "resident" but they all mean the same thing. My free will is being controlled by another human being arbitrarily.

Getting back to reforms... I can't envision a time throughout history where a group of humans rule over other humans and everyone is happy. I'm just skeptical that is even possible because I believe history has shown that any system of governance does not allow for that. Another reason, a big reason, why I think this is impossible is that any system of governance just funnels power to a select group of people... it's been that way since the beginning and those individuals won't allow for the type of competition you and I envision and what actually occurs. I may just be stating the obvious but Republicans and Democrats look out for each other and the perpetuation of their power far more than they would ever consider to the citizens; that's the nature of the beast.

I think, because we're caught up in our own individual lives... we think that these politicians are in it because they're on some benevolent, patriotic quest to do good. Now there may be one or two of those individuals out of the hundreds at that level... but I'd be surprised if it were more than a handful that think, and more importantly act, like how we're sold. To me, it's like any other job... they get done what is easiest to make their money and go home to their family.

Having said all of that... I'm not sure what kinds of reforms would counteract human nature. Which is why, if we're already going to be subject to human nature... we might as well not give and fund a small group of elites to control us and have a monopoly of violence over us on that type of scale.

I think we want governance in the form of authoritative norms. To me, both governance and government are more-or-less systems of rules. However, what would be ideal is not government backed by force but shared governance - between citizens - backed by norms that create standards of behavior and structure relations. In other words, instead of submitting our will to the power of a central authority, our behavior is governed by social norms and what is seen as appropriate/inappropriate. Yet, as I said above, we have been socialized into competitive behaviors that make such a state seem like a utopian dream world. Imagine a state defined by small communities governed by social norms of cooperation rather than force? At the same time, according to how we think about politics, people equate such talk with dirty words like socialism.

Simple reforms will not be enough. I totally agree. But to have a system where individuals are empowered rather than power belonging to a narrower range of interests seems unlikely at this point. Those interests will not surrender power, so all we can do is pursue institutional reforms. I think that means increasing the amount of representation by way of increasing the number of political parties. We need more parties. This means electoral reforms, and probably increasing the size of the House as well. Both reforms will run up against the Constitution, which I think would put an end to such efforts.

For me, a couple of main problems are that the two parties in the US care more about winning seats than they do representing the people. On top of that, House districts are too big. On average, each member of the House represents approximately 700,000 people. I think a proportional representation electoral system increases representation, and would facilitate a move to a larger House. This may seem counterintuitive, but maybe we need more ideological parties. Why? Because they do not care as much about winning seats as they do representing the interests of their membership. In a proportional representation system, those parties will get seats and can represent the interests of their membership. However, like I said, that is not going to happen. Outside of general unfamiliarity (and fear of major change) on the part of the general public, the Constitution would stand in the way and I do not see - even if a proposal was on the table - 3/4 of the states would ratify such changes,