What's new

Princeton Concludes What Kind of Government America Really Has, and It's Not a Democracy

Dubious

RETIRED MOD
Joined
Jul 22, 2012
Messages
37,717
Reaction score
80
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
By Tom McKay
MDViOTA5NWNmZCMvVDVvN3QyaHV5NVFsOFNSdWd3NWdHYzRQQ2dzPS8xMXgyMDI6NTYxNngzNzM3Lzg0MHg1MzAvczMuYW1hem9uYXdzLmNvbS9wb2xpY3ltaWMtaW1hZ2VzLzJlZWNkNzNhNmFkMzQ3OWFkZTIyYmE0ZGM5YTEyOTdkNzg0MWRjYWE5ZTlhZDE3NmZhMjhjNGQxNDMzNzZiYTQuanBn.jpg

Princeton Concludes What Kind of Government America Really Has, and It's Not a Democracy



The news: A new scientific study from Princeton researchers Martin Gilens and 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.

For their study, Gilens and Page compiled data from roughly 1,800 different policy initiatives in the years between 1981 and 2002. They then compared those policy changes with the expressed opinion of the United State public. Comparing the preferences of the average American at the 50th percentile of income to what those Americans at the 90th percentile preferred, as well as the opinions of major lobbying or business groups, the researchers found out that the government followed the directives set forth by the latter two much more often.

It's beyond alarming. As Gilens and Page write, "the preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy." In other words, their statistics say your opinion literally does not matter.

That might explain why mandatory background checks on gun sales supported by 83% to 91%of Americans aren't in place, or why Congress has taken no action on greenhouse gas emissions even when such legislation is supported by the vast majority of citizens.

This problem has been steadily escalating for four decades. While there are some limitations to their data set, economists Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez constructed income statistics based on IRS data that go back to 1913. They found that the gap between the ultra-wealthy and the rest of us is much bigger than you would think, as mapped by these graphs from the Center On Budget and Policy Priorities:

42d0f1cf03d8c82290e7ef1aff5df558.png


3f9db8084af2e243bc97fd1dfcaceb64.png


Piketty and Saez also calculated that as of September 2013 the top 1% of earners had captured 95% of all income gains since the Great Recession ended. The other 99% saw a net 12% drop to their income. So not only is oligarchy making the rich richer, it's driving policy that's made everyone else poorer.

What kind of oligarchy? As Gawker's Hamilton Nolan explains, Gilens and Page's findings provide support for two theories of governance: economic elite domination and biased pluralism. The first is pretty straightforward and states that the ultra-wealthy wield all the power in a given system, though some argue that this system still allows elites in corporations and the government to become powerful as well. Here, power does not necessarily derive from wealth, but those in power almost invariably come from the upper class. Biased pluralism on the other hand argues that the entire system is a mess and interest groups ruled by elites are fighting for dominance of the political process. Also, because of their vast wealth of resources, interest groups of large business tend to dominate a lot of the discourse. America, the findings indicate, tends towards either of these much more than anything close to what we call "democracy."

In either case, the result is the same: Big corporations, the ultra-wealthy and special interests with a lot of money and power essentially make all of the decisions. Citizens wield little to no political power. America, the findings indicate, tends towards either of these much more than anything close to what we call "democracy" — systems such as majoritarian electoral democracy or majoritarian pluralism, under which the policy choices pursued by the government would reflect the opinions of the governed.

Nothing new: And no, this isn't a problem that's the result of any recent Supreme Court cases — at least certainly not the likes FEC v. Citizens United or FEC v. McCutcheon. The data is pretty clear that America has been sliding steadily into oligarchy for decades, mirrored in both the substantive effect on policy and in the distribution of wealth throughout the U.S. But cases like those might indicate the process is accelerating.

"Perhaps economic elites and interest group leaders enjoy greater policy expertise than the average citizen does," Gilens and Page write. "Perhaps they know better which policies will benefit everyone, and perhaps they seek the common good, rather than selfish ends, when deciding which policies to support.

"But we tend to doubt it."

Princeton Concludes What Kind of Government America Really Has, and It's Not a Democracy - PolicyMic

From the blue bolded part I understand this is more a political finding than a scientific one :D

Then again in today's world there really isnt any true democracy!
 
Interesting article, but it totally ignores the very powerful influences of local governments that are led by the people and that directly affect their communities. Democracy works much better bottom up rather than top down.
 
Interesting article, but it totally ignores the very powerful influences of local governments that are led by the people and that directly affect their communities. Democracy works much better bottom up rather than top down.
Hence my comment...however we cant ignore that powerful people are at the top otherwise we wont call them powerful, right?
 
Hence my comment...however we cant ignore that powerful people are at the top otherwise we wont call them powerful, right?

Actually, the real power resides in, and comes from, the people. The people at the top are merely temporary custodians of it.
 
Actually, the real power resides in, and comes from, the people. The people at the top are merely temporary custodians of it.
Please explain...esp when a normal person (not one in power or one with a political backing) tries to climb to the top...will he or will he not require backing from these "powerful people" ?

Every presidential candidate gets $$ for their campaigns and all the $$ comes from these guys...so when the candidate is so called selected by the people, it was the $$ who advertised him, brought him to that position otherwise do you mean to tell me a no body, unknown to America somewhere in Nebraska or S.Dakota will be ruling America tomorrow?

And whichever backed candidate wins, he does favours....and so on...

@VCheng Oh btw, what I wrote in post 5 is the theory and the the practical is shown using the stat data in this article...
 
Please explain...esp when a normal person (not one in power or one with a political backing) tries to climb to the top...will he or will he not require backing from these "powerful people" ?

Every presidential candidate gets $$ for their campaigns and all the $$ comes from these guys...so when the candidate is so called selected by the people, it was the $$ who advertised him, brought him to that position otherwise do you mean to tell me a no body, unknown to America somewhere in Nebraska or S.Dakota will be ruling America tomorrow?

And whichever backed candidate wins, he does favours....and so on...

The USA is a superpower for a reason, and that is the system of its governance. A quote from a recent State of the Union speech:

".... the daughter of a factory worker is now CEO of America's largest auto company, the son of a bartender is our speaker of the House and the son of a single mother became president ......"

The system is not perfect, but it works very well indeed.
 
Anyone with a basic education knows that in a "true" democracy every enfranchised citizen would vote on every single law etc. The US is a "Republic"....we have representatives vote in our interest. And no matter the party....a representative who consistently votes against his electorate's interest gets tossed out.
 
The USA is a superpower for a reason, and that is the system of its governance. A quote from a recent State of the Union speech:

".... the daughter of a factory worker is now CEO of America's largest auto company, the son of a bartender is our speaker of the House and the son of a single mother became president ......"

The system is not perfect, but it works very well indeed.
Never said it was perfect....no one talks much about achievements everyone pokes at the holes...

Anyway, my question still remains unanswered

when a normal person (not one in power or one with a political backing) tries to climb to the top...will he or will he not require backing from these "powerful people" ?

To climb the top or for votes (in terms of leaders) one needs campaigns...so...back to my question...

do you mean to tell me a no body, unknown to America somewhere in Nebraska or S.Dakota will be ruling America tomorrow?

Anyone with a basic education knows that in a "true" democracy every enfranchised citizen would vote on every single law etc. The US is a "Republic"....we have representatives vote in our interest. And no matter the party....a representative who consistently votes against his electorate's interest gets tossed out.
So its not a democracy...because such represents should have their say ...if they dont like something why forced to vote for it?
 
do you mean to tell me a no body, unknown to America somewhere in Nebraska or S.Dakota will be ruling America tomorrow?

You mean like Obama? He lost one election as a Senator, and then ran successfully for President after winning a Senate seat on his second attempt. He was pretty unknown when he ran for nomination.

Sure, it could happen again.

PS: Nobody rules USA. It is governed by those chosen by its people.
 
Plenty of people in power were "unknown" at one point. Who knew who Obama was when he was 19? So, yes....a 15 year old in ND who is "unknown" now may well rule in 40 years. (but you do have to become "known"....duh. Do good and people start to notice you.)
 
You mean like Obama? He lost one election as a Senator, and then ran successfully for President after winning a Senate seat on his second attempt. He was pretty unknown when he ran for nomination.

Sure, it could happen again..
Yea he was unknown...who made him known? how? whose money and contributions? donations? He didnt win a lottery to pay for his campaign!

PS: Nobody rules USA. It is governed by those chosen by its people
You telling me it is governed by people chosen by its people? Well that much may be true...but you sure no favours are asked in return for the campaigns? Such generosity?

Secondly, you mean to say the pentagon gets approvals before moving and doesn make wrong moves? You telling me the people who didnt want Iraq war still wanted it because democratic America went for it as a representative of the people who elected it!

Thats not just one surprise move...there were others in Africa and so on where the people dont know...government's mission of protecting the people by keeping them uninformed ;)

Plenty of people in power were "unknown" at one point. Who knew who Obama was when he was 19? So, yes....a 15 year old in ND who is "unknown" now may well rule in 40 years. (but you do have to become "known"....duh. Do good and people start to notice you.)
Read post 11...at least the 1st part..2nd part even I am thinking of removing it ...but maybe later :D
 
Persistently selective posts geared towards reinforcing your own prejudices is not okay either. :D
Nahh I am not prejudice...I aint living in that country so cant really be bothered but would really like to hear other's views and hence the provoking questions...

I hate govt worshipers from any country!
 

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom