LibriumArcana.Games

commondreams.org wrote:A study, to appear in the Fall 2014 issue of the academic journal Perspectives on Politics, finds that the U.S. is no democracy, but instead an oligarchy, meaning profoundly corrupt, so that the answer to the study’s opening question, "Who governs? Who really rules?" in this country, is:

"Despite the seemingly strong empirical support in previous studies for theories of majoritarian democracy, our analyses suggest that majorities of the American public actually have little influence over the policies our government adopts. 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, ..." and then they go on to say, it's not true, and that, "America's claims to being a democratic society are seriously threatened" by the findings in this, the first-ever comprehensive scientific study of the subject, which shows that there is instead "the nearly total failure of 'median voter' and other Majoritarian Electoral Democracy theories [of America]. 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."

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." That’s 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.

The original study (PDF): https://www.princeton.edu/~mgilens/Gile ... 3-7-14.pdf

The title of the paper (and of this post) may be provocative, but I don't think they're off the mark. This is due to a number of factors, some of which are recent Supreme Court rulings (such as Citizens United, or the more recent decision along similar lines for campaign finance law), as well as how the odds are stacked for the average citizen due to political policy, in all it's multi-layered glory.

Now, lest people like Havoc cry "you're just 'raising awareness', and that's useless," I'd like to use this article to start a discussion here. To the point of the wealthy being able to influence political policy and politicians in this country far outweighing what the average citizen can do, what should be done about this?

The problem is that I don't have any bright ideas, and I haven't seen any suggested either, other than stuff like wolf-pac.com, which is a PAC run by the Young Turks to get a US Constitutional amendment passed to eliminate outside financing for politicians (more info here)

Is the solution just a return to campaign financing, where politicians cannot take any money from an outside source to finance their campaign? I can see this one falling flat due to how lobbyists currently work. They're paid much more than the congresspeople, and they all know it - so lobbyists working with congresscritters is more about an extended job interview than it is long-term good governance.

So, while I appreciate and even like the effort shown by the Young Turks and their idea for this problem, I don't think just eliminating "donations" to politicians will cut it. The problem is that I can't think of anything better than that.

MASSIVE REDACTING EDIT NUMBER 4:

I can't do it. I just can't do it. I've written three different responses and deleted each one, because I'm stuck on the fork of what to do here. On the one hand I'm so tired of being accused of censoring people every time I get frustrated with the circular recitations of woes that seems to be all we ever say about these sorts of things, that all I want to do is delete my goddamn forum account and let you all complain in peace. And yet I can't fucking help it. I must have a fucking compulsion, because I cannot think about this bullshit, bankrupt, intellectually-dishonest study, without becoming volcanically fucking angry. There are no words, none, not in any language, that are capable of expressing the deep, virulent, bileous, savage contempt I have for articles of this sort. The white hot searing hate it inspires in me when people re-define terms so as to generate an attention-grabbing headline. There are no means of expressing how much I despise this sort of intellectual bankruptcy and bullshit histrionic efforts to sell website clicks. I despise such things with every fiber of my being. They literally piss me off for days at a time.

And I can't do a damn thing about it.

I can't express this contempt, because somebody will assume I'm being a curmudgeonly bastard trying to stifle discussion, if not worse. I can't ignore it, because people call me out by fucking name and demand that I take notice. And once I've read it, then I'm so goddamned angry that ignoring it is no longer an option. I am so far past caring as to whether that speaks ill of me or not as to make mockery of the term. You want to pre-empt me from jumping in and complaining about how all people are doing is raising awareness? That is nowhere near the abject disgust I have for "studies" of that sort or the people who produce them. And I am neither willing nor capable of simply "swallowing" such outraged revulsion I have for such things as this. Not for any purpose. NONE AT ALL.

You want to start a discussion? A discussion of what, may I ask? "Is money bad in politics?" Do you honestly believe you will find one person on this forum who will disagree with you on that point? "Should we regulate campaign finance?" Same question. It is not a political discussion when seven people who already know they agree about something sit in a circle and recite liturgy to one another. Perhaps you want to discuss the solution to this problem? What to do about campaign finance? Unfortunately, according to the article above, there is no solution. NONE. You see, if the US is an Oligarchy, then it is the most powerful Oligarchy in the history of the world and the lifespan of such institutions is measured in centuries, not years. You will never solve it, you will never see its end, it cannot be improved, there is no hope. Congratulations, I have just brought you to the conclusion of every non-advocating "study" ever published.

"There is no reason for optimism at the future of the United States."

"No means has be discovered to halt the inevitable destruction of the fabric of American democracy, a destruction already complete and total."

"Those who object to such claims are parochialists at best, complicit at worst in the greatest conspiracy in the history of the world."

"Americans have succeeded in producing a reasonable facsimile of equal rights for all just in time for those rights to become entirely irrelevant."

"The death of American plurality is merely the first round in its extinction worldwide, at the hands of a neo-fascistic world-police."

"Modern voting rights are an opiate no less fictitious than those Marx railed against."

If I take the premise of what you have posted seriously, Rhoenix, then there is nothing to discuss. We are damned souls awaiting the judgment of our betters, sheep in the slaughterhouse to whom no agency is given, and what we think, and advocate, and wish to see done is irrelevant, not to mention bereft of substance. And if I do not, then I am stifling everyone's creative expression and ruthlessly clamping down on your rights to discuss whatever you like. So I'll ask you again, in the spirit of trying to understand, what exactly is it you want me to discuss here?

Because I strongly suspect that you do not actually want to know what I think about this subject.

General Havoc wrote:You know what? Fine. You want to talk about money in politics? You want to talk about the impending (or already existant) oligarchical takeover of the United States? You want to discuss how we're all serfs in the grand crushing grip of our financier overlords (usually a euphemism for Jews, but hey, let's not start that)? Okay then. Make me one statement to start with. One statement that can actually BE discussed. Not "Money in politics is bad, guys," not "Karl Rove is an asshole", not some mealy-mouthed PC crap designed to be agreed to by everyone present, not another tiresome two-minutes-hate recitation about the Koch brothers, not yet another bullshit hang-your-head-and-beat-your-breast litany of how terrible it is that the world is not the way you want it to be. Give me something to actually discuss. A talking point, a statement, a stake in the ground. Make a claim that will piss me off if you must. Defend it. Come up with a proposal that you actually believe in and then shove it up my ass and the asses of all comers if we disagree. Get passionate. Convince me of something. Something not obvious or already in evidence. Something I don't presently believe, or have never thought about. Make me believe that there is a reason I'm taking the time to discuss this matter with you. Do so, and you will show yourself the intellectual superior of whichever asshole invented the title of this particular article, whether I agree with you or not.

Or don't do it. I'm in no position to tell you what you have to spend your time on. But don't then turn around and start characterizing me as the curmudgeon who wants to silence everyone just because I don't like to hear it. I don't want to stop people from debating these questions. I want them to start debating them.

Any idiot can scream hyperbole through a loudspeaker. Prove to me that you're not any idiot, and we'll talk.

Read the linked Princeton study in the OP for full details if you wish, as I did. It has names, dates, places, charts, graphs, effects, and conclusions to support the conclusion that the wealthy presently, due to a combination of factors, have a far greater say in the governance of this country than those who are not.

However, given that I have no real training or experience in debates, I'm going to attempt one at your request. Bear with me.

The study compared 1,779 different policy issues, and analysis concludes 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."

I won't cover the paper's terminology much, as I'm not interested in legalese, just the implications of the legalese.

The study goes in great detail about how those policy issues functionally helped the top 2% of income earners have the impact they wanted, much more so than for the top 10%, and far more than the top 50%. The study does say where those interests overlap in terms of policy preference, and where they don't - and its where they don't overlap that it gets interesting.

The first part of my argument is about the shift in balance away from voter preferences, and toward the preferences of interest groups, PAC's, and wealthy citizens (typically, those at the top 2% of income).

As the study states, "But the picture changes markedly when all three independent variables are included in the multivariate Model 4 and tested against each other. The estimated impact of average citizens' preferences drops precipitously, to a non-significant, near-zero level. Clearly the median citizen or 'median voter' at the heart of theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy does not do well when put up against economic elites and organized interest groups. The chief predictions of pure theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy can be decisively rejected. Not only do ordinary citizens not have the uniquely substantial power over policy decisions; they have little or no independent influence on policy at all."

To continue with this, from another part of the study: "Clearly, when one golds constant net interest group alignments and the preferences of affluent Americans, it makes very little difference what the general public thinks. The probability of policy change is nearly the same (around 0.3) whether a tiny minority or a large majority of average citizens favor a proposed policy change. By contrast - again with other actors held constant - a proposed policy change with low support among economically elite Americans (one-out-of-five in favor) is adopted about 45 percent of the time. Similarly, when support for policy change is low among interest groups (with five groups strongly opposed and none in favor) the probability of that policy change occurring is only 0.16, but the probability rises to 0.47 when interest groups are strongly favorable."

The article does make clear that if a given policy has no supporters among the wealthy and/or interest groups and no voter support, it doesn't stand a chance in hell of passing. However, if a given policy has supporters among the wealthy and/or interest groups and no voter support, it has a much better chance of passing than if the opposite (voter support, but no supporters among the wealthy and/or interest groups) occurs.

The issue is a strong one, because there are many American corporations whose standing wealth and influence overshadow most small countries. They are able to, because of many mitigating factors, unduly influence public debate, and the information the public receives regarding policy issues.

We all roll our eyes collectively at FOX News and such, but FOX News, being owned by NewsCorp, is very strongly influential - and not just in the United States. To the point where news agencies, owned by these large corporations, are able to dictate what information is disseminated to the media and what is not - and their criteria more often than not would be profit margins, rather than the public good. Therefore, it becomes easy, and even standard practice, for a news agency to interject opinion with fact that would bias potential viewers in the direction desired by the company for policy changes. This is and was rather starkly on display on FOX news & FOX Business - you can say "oh, it's just FOX," but the fact remains that a well-known news outlet was biasing the information it gave to its viewers to support the policies supported by those who own NewsCorp. The fact also remains that all major media companies in America are owned by one of six large corporations - General Electric, NewsCorp, Disney, Viacom, Time-Warner, and CBS. The effect of this is subtle, and insidious - no longer will intrepid news reporters be lauded as the ones who investigate and find corruption where it might lead, because instead of their paycheck being issued by a non-profit newspaper, it's now issued by those who have a vested interest of profit margins over dirty truths.

The Citizens United decision by the Supreme Court, and especially the more recent McCutcheon decision both allow the wealthy an outsized influence in politicians, and hence policy, but also by shifting the requirements for a politician to even run in the first place - they've effectively changed the election rules to mean that you need a wealthy sponsor or fifteen to even have a chance, because of the large influx of money in politics, policy, and election cycles as a result of those decisions. What once could be seen as a bonus, is now seen as a requirement to get elected, and stay in office.

My conclusion is this - it wasn't always this way. However, if for-profit business with a huge amount of influence has more of a say in our country's policy than the voters do, especially to the degree that for-profit businesses own the media that gives us our news (and frequently now, how to feel about that news as well), what do you call that? What nice term can be used to describe how the wealthy in this country have more power over the direction our country views things and acts on them than the average citizenry?

We've already solved this problem once before in our nation's history. True, some of the details are those of our modern day now, and not when it last happened - but the majority of the sentiment should be the same, I think. One of the decisions to come out of the Glass-Steagal act after the Great Depression was that tax rate on the wealthy top 2% rose to a staggering 75%, and even higher. For several decades after that, while the tax rate remained in the upper 70's, America no longer struggled between rich and poor - the middle class was firmly established, and our country became rather well to do.

You'll note that the same tax bracket now covers all income levels $400k and up, at a rate of 39.6%, and we have almost no middle class any longer.

All of these things are little ways in which the wealthy have rigged the game in various ways to benefit them, more than it benefits the unwashed masses - which has effects, both direct and indirect, on many things within our daily lives.

So, we get to the real meat of this, which is: what to do about it.

The Young Turks' option is to have a new amendment to the U.S. Constitution added to explicitly prevent this sort of money rain we're seeing now. As I said in my OP, I'm not sure that this is a very good idea, simply because of lobbyists, and the lure for a congresscritter to get hired as a lobbyist later.

After spending the time to write out this post (as rambling in efficacy though it may be), I'm actually of the opinion that re-instituting the Glass-Steagal act, with provisions, might be the best idea. What I'd like to see overall is for news agencies to return to being non-profit again in addition to getting the avalanche of money out of our politics, but that's a separate, though intertwined issue.

In short, at this point I'd suggest bringing back Glass-Steagal to regulate the banks, and add provisions that prevent bribes payments given to politicians.

Also, for fuck's sake Havoc, not everything is about you. I mentioned you specifically in the OP regarding our previous discussions about issues and "raising awareness;" I was not mentioning it to coyly snicker at you.

I'm not talking about the Jews when I say "rich" or "wealthy," and nobody posts stuff in N&P specifically to giggle over you getting mad.

Worse yet, you simply flipped out and gave a highly emotional speech of a response instead of taking the time to actually read the Princeton study it was based on.

I'm posting this to start a discussion about this. Nothing more, and nothing less. Kindly quit trying to use my words as tea leaves, or ascribing motivations to me that aren't mine.

rhoenix wrote:The fact also remains that all major media companies in America are owned by one of six large corporations - General Electric, NewsCorp, Disney, Viacom, Time-Warner, and CBS. The effect of this is subtle, and insidious - no longer will intrepid news reporters be lauded as the ones who investigate and find corruption where it might lead, because instead of their paycheck being issued by a non-profit newspaper, it's now issued by those who have a vested interest of profit margins over dirty truths.

Stop! Stop! Stop!

Non-profit newspapers have never been a major force in American journalism. The vast majority of major newspaper and news networks in general have always, ALWAYS been ruthlessly for profit businesses.

Let me introduce you to a friend of mine, have you ever heard of my buddy yellow journalism. It's an awful thing over 100 years old.

You're right that 6 corporations controling 90% of public news media is a problem, but it is not an issue of "oh noes, journalism which before was pure and clean and utterly devoid of any personal material interests is now a grubby for profit affair!"

It's an issue of "hey large chunks of media are now under control of a small group of people who share large overlapping interest. This may be a problem." It's an continuation of a old problem. Not a new one.

We got enough problems without inventing new one.

rheonix wrote:Also, for fuck's sake Havoc, not everything is about you. I mentioned you specifically in the OP regarding our previous discussions about issues and "raising awareness;" I was not mentioning it to coyly snicker at you.

Bluntly put man, you called him out. You named names. So people came out swinging.

frigidmagi wrote:Bluntly put man, you called him out. You named names. So people came out swinging.

That was not in any way, shape, or form my intent. Looking at the previous posts, it's obvious that's how it was seen by Havoc and others. So logically speaking, the issue is with me, not all of you. That said, even as I go back and re-read it, it still reads to me as a statement of wry humor, not an attempt to troll Havoc.

I was saying it to acknowledge what the first critique of the article would be, as I saw it; especially given that given what I remember of the conversation had about it, it ended up being a good discussion. Havoc's point in that discussion was irritation at people who simply bleat issues at other people without intent to discuss those issues. That was assuredly not my intent in this case, as I wanted to engender a serious discussion about this whole thing.

It was meant to give him credit and props for playing devil's advocate in advance, not to call him out and pick a fight.

So, was that the entire issue with this thread? The entire reason this thread turned into a flamewar, despite the fact that I try to do my very best to keep things civil in these discussions? The fact that Havoc assumed that of course I'd be trying to talk shit to him in a posting to the News and Politics forum?

The comment was this:

Now, lest people like Havoc cry "you're just 'raising awareness', and that's useless," I'd like to use this article to start a discussion here. To the point of the wealthy being able to influence political policy and politicians in this country far outweighing what the average citizen can do, what should be done about this?

I don't see a single thing in there trolling Havoc, but rather a reference to me having been trolled for doing the very thing I named.

So no, I'm not going to take responsibility for Havoc's reactions when I made the attempt to not only give him props, not only give him credit for that thought process, but to give him tacit thanks for that line of thinking in the first place, and still get construed as having somehow talked shit.

I'll grant now that I may very well be simply not seeing what the issue is with what I said. So, please - if someone would be so kind, show me how what I said is calling Havoc out, and why it was construed as so egregious that he didn't bother asking. I'll gladly apologize as needed if that's indeed the case.

But considering that I attempted to do the precise opposite of that, and even bit back retorts of my own in an attempt to keep the actual discussion going, I'll need some convincing.

Yeah I can read and maybe you were trying to give him props but it didn't read it like it. It reads like you calling him out. It doesn't look like you're giving him credit to me or frankly given Havoc's reaction, I would venture to say it didn't look like it to him either.

After taking a while to calm down, cool off and so forth, I hereby acknowledge that you're completely right, Frigid. The intent doesn't matter as much if the wording doesn't make it clear. That's my fault, and me writing that sentiment thoughtlessly is what started this entire mess.

So, in order - Havoc, you have my apologies for thoughtlessly wording a sentiment that appeared to be picking a fight. That was not at all my intent, and I'm sorry for going off the handle about it. In retrospect, it's very clear how it came across to you, and I want to make sure that my intent was to give you props for the previous discussion in the hopes of engendering another good discussion here, and certainly not to call you out for a fight.

Frigid, you once again have my thanks for being the calm voice of reason.

Now, I do consider the subject at hand in the OP important, and worthy of discussion. However, given how things went here because I worded that sentiment badly, I'll understand if we simply leave it be for now.

frigidmagi wrote:

rhoenix wrote:The fact also remains that all major media companies in America are owned by one of six large corporations - General Electric, NewsCorp, Disney, Viacom, Time-Warner, and CBS. The effect of this is subtle, and insidious - no longer will intrepid news reporters be lauded as the ones who investigate and find corruption where it might lead, because instead of their paycheck being issued by a non-profit newspaper, it's now issued by those who have a vested interest of profit margins over dirty truths.

Stop! Stop! Stop!

Non-profit newspapers have never been a major force in American journalism. The vast majority of major newspaper and news networks in general have always, ALWAYS been ruthlessly for profit businesses.

Let me introduce you to a friend of mine, have you ever heard of my buddy yellow journalism. It's an awful thing over 100 years old.

You're right that 6 corporations controling 90% of public news media is a problem, but it is not an issue of "oh noes, journalism which before was pure and clean and utterly devoid of any personal material interests is now a grubby for profit affair!"

It's an issue of "hey large chunks of media are now under control of a small group of people who share large overlapping interest. This may be a problem." It's an continuation of a old problem. Not a new one.

We got enough problems without inventing new one.

Far more than a hundred years old, it goes back to the founding of journalism in this country. I can't recommend Infamous Scribblers enough, it's a great book and a fun read. Journalism in the era of the colonies and afterward was not only intensely biased, libelous and utterly disingenuous, it was at that time the definition of 'feature, not bug'. When one paper tried to present opposing viewpoints during the ratification process for the constitution, they were castigated by readers who basically said that if they wanted to hear the other side of the story, they'd buy the other paper.

The concept of an 'unbiased media' goes back to the forties/fifties and largely follows Kronkite for a while. And that was considered unbiased because for a while it represented a bland, centralized view that was largely in line with national consensus. That started breaking down in the sixties when the media began poking at the official accounts of what was going on over in Vietnam, then Watergate and so on.

Basically our desire for 'unbiased media' is rooted in the fallacious notion that there ever was such a thing.

Josh wrote:Far more than a hundred years old, it goes back to the founding of journalism in this country. I can't recommend Infamous Scribblers enough, it's a great book and a fun read. Journalism in the era of the colonies and afterward was not only intensely biased, libelous and utterly disingenuous, it was at that time the definition of 'feature, not bug'. When one paper tried to present opposing viewpoints during the ratification process for the constitution, they were castigated by readers who basically said that if they wanted to hear the other side of the story, they'd buy the other paper.

The concept of an 'unbiased media' goes back to the forties/fifties and largely follows Kronkite for a while. And that was considered unbiased because for a while it represented a bland, centralized view that was largely in line with national consensus. That started breaking down in the sixties when the media began poking at the official accounts of what was going on over in Vietnam, then Watergate and so on.

Basically our desire for 'unbiased media' is rooted in the fallacious notion that there ever was such a thing.

Well, so much for that illusion of mine, then. Fair enough - thank you both.

If I may.... when have the wealthy and privileged not had a greater influence in the affairs of government over the common citizen?