oligarchy
noun ol·i·gar·chy \ˈä-lə-ˌgär-kē, ˈō-\
: a country, business, etc., that is controlled by a small group of people
: the people that control a country, business, etc.
The US is dominated by a rich and powerful elite.
So concludes a recent study by Princeton University Prof Martin Gilens and Northwestern University Prof Benjamin I Page.
After extensive research, two professors explain the US's form of government and say it is an Oligarchy.
Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on US government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence.
The BBC article puts this in plain English for us: the wealthy few move policy, while the average American has little power.
The two professors came to this conclusion after reviewing answers to 1,779 survey questions asked between 1981 and 2002 on public policy issues. They broke the responses down by income level, and then determined how often certain income levels and organized interest groups saw their policy preferences enacted.
"A proposed policy change with low support among economically elite Americans (one-out-of-five in favor) is adopted only about 18% of the time," they write, "while a proposed change with high support (four-out-of-five in favor) is adopted about 45% of the time."
On the other hand:
When a majority of citizens disagrees with economic elites and/or with organized interests, they generally lose. Moreover, because of the strong status quo bias built into the US political system, even when fairly large majorities of Americans favor policy change, they generally do not get it.
The study goes further to say:
Americans do enjoy many features central to democratic governance, such as regular elections, freedom of speech and association and a widespread (if still contested) franchise. But we believe that if policymaking is dominated by powerful business organizations and a small number of affluent Americans, then America's claims to being a democratic society are seriously threatened.
Eric Zuess, writing in Counterpunch, isn't surprised by the survey's results.
"American democracy is a sham, no matter how much it's pumped by the oligarchs who run the country (and who control the nation's "news" media)," he writes. "The US, in other words, is basically similar to Russia or most other dubious 'electoral' 'democratic' countries. We weren't formerly, but we clearly are now."
This is the "Duh Report", says Death and Taxes magazine's Robyn Pennacchia. Maybe, she writes, Americans should just accept their fate.
"Perhaps we ought to suck it up, admit we have a classist society and do like England where we have a House of Lords and a House of Commoners," she writes, "instead of pretending as though we all have some kind of equal opportunity
Transcript:
He called the current campaign finance system a “sad state of affairs.” Public funding, he added, would level the political playing field and make elections more competitive. It also would let candidates spend more time meeting voters and discussing issues and less time raising campaign funds. “That’s called democracy and I am going to do everything I can to bring that about,” Sanders said.
Public funding of campaigns would counteract the disastrous Supreme Court ruling in a case known as Citizens United. That 2010 case and others which followed in its wake have gutted decades-old limits on campaign funding and paved the way for millionaires and billionaires to spend unlimited sums to influence election outcomes. “We must overturn that decision before it’s too late,” Sanders told the crowd here. “We are increasingly living in an oligarchy where big money is buying politicians,” Sanders added.
He cited former President Jimmy Carter’s concerns about how the Citizens United ruling resulting in “unlimited political bribery.”
The senator compared politicians to NASCAR drivers with their sponsor’s logos emblazoned on their uniforms. He imagined a politician with a sign saying, “I’m sponsored by the Koch brothers” or “I’m sponsored by Big Oil.” Said Sanders, “It’s a really sad state of affairs.”
In his own presidential campaign, Sanders has said he does not want help from super PACs, which the Citizens United ruling spawned. Instead, during the first two months after he declared his candidacy, Sanders has relied on contributors who gave him small donations.
Altogether, more than 76.5 percent of all his contributions – totaling more than $10.5 million – came from individuals who donated less than $200.
: the people that control a country, business, etc.
: government or control by a small group of people
democracy
noun de·moc·ra·cy \di-ˈmä-krə-sē\
: a form of government in which people choose leaders by voting
: a country ruled by democracy
: a country ruled by democracy
: an organization or situation in which everyone is treated equally and has equal rights
In the United States of America where big business and the upper 2% control all the money in the land - can we still call ourselves democratic?
According to an article by the BBC and a Princeton study the US is no longer a democracy.
So concludes a recent study by Princeton University Prof Martin Gilens and Northwestern University Prof Benjamin I Page.
After extensive research, two professors explain the US's form of government and say it is an Oligarchy.
Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on US government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence.
The BBC article puts this in plain English for us: the wealthy few move policy, while the average American has little power.
The two professors came to this conclusion after reviewing answers to 1,779 survey questions asked between 1981 and 2002 on public policy issues. They broke the responses down by income level, and then determined how often certain income levels and organized interest groups saw their policy preferences enacted.
"A proposed policy change with low support among economically elite Americans (one-out-of-five in favor) is adopted only about 18% of the time," they write, "while a proposed change with high support (four-out-of-five in favor) is adopted about 45% of the time."
On the other hand:
When a majority of citizens disagrees with economic elites and/or with organized interests, they generally lose. Moreover, because of the strong status quo bias built into the US political system, even when fairly large majorities of Americans favor policy change, they generally do not get it.
The study goes further to say:
Americans do enjoy many features central to democratic governance, such as regular elections, freedom of speech and association and a widespread (if still contested) franchise. But we believe that if policymaking is dominated by powerful business organizations and a small number of affluent Americans, then America's claims to being a democratic society are seriously threatened.
Eric Zuess, writing in Counterpunch, isn't surprised by the survey's results.
"American democracy is a sham, no matter how much it's pumped by the oligarchs who run the country (and who control the nation's "news" media)," he writes. "The US, in other words, is basically similar to Russia or most other dubious 'electoral' 'democratic' countries. We weren't formerly, but we clearly are now."
This is the "Duh Report", says Death and Taxes magazine's Robyn Pennacchia. Maybe, she writes, Americans should just accept their fate.
"Perhaps we ought to suck it up, admit we have a classist society and do like England where we have a House of Lords and a House of Commoners," she writes, "instead of pretending as though we all have some kind of equal opportunity
This is what Jimmy Carter had to say:
Former president Jimmy Carter said Tuesday on the nationally syndicated radio show the Thom Hartmann Program that
the United States is now an “oligarchy” in which “unlimited political
bribery” has created “a complete subversion of our political system as a
payoff to major contributors.” Both Democrats and Republicans, Carter
said, “look upon this unlimited money as a great benefit to themselves.”
Carter was responding to a question from Hartmann about recent Supreme Court decisions on campaign financing like Citizens United.Transcript:
HARTMANN: Our Supreme Court has now said, “unlimited money in politics.” It seems like a violation of principles of democracy. … Your thoughts on that?
CARTER: It violates the essence of what made America a great country in its political system. Now it’s just an oligarchy, with unlimited political bribery being the essence of getting the nominations for president or to elect the president. And the same thing applies to governors and U.S. senators and congress members. So now we’ve just seen a complete subversion of our political system as a payoff to major contributors, who want and expect and sometimes get favors for themselves after the election’s over. … The incumbents, Democrats and Republicans, look upon this unlimited money as a great benefit to themselves. Somebody’s who’s already in Congress has a lot more to sell to an avid contributor than somebody who’s just a challenger.
Bernie Sanders Proposes Public Funding of Campaigns
ROLLINSFORD, N.H. – Decrying the influence of big money in American politics, U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders on Sunday said he will introduce legislation to provide public funding of elections. “We’re going to introduce legislation which will allow people to run for office without having to beg money from the wealthy and the powerful,” Sanders said.He called the current campaign finance system a “sad state of affairs.” Public funding, he added, would level the political playing field and make elections more competitive. It also would let candidates spend more time meeting voters and discussing issues and less time raising campaign funds. “That’s called democracy and I am going to do everything I can to bring that about,” Sanders said.
Public funding of campaigns would counteract the disastrous Supreme Court ruling in a case known as Citizens United. That 2010 case and others which followed in its wake have gutted decades-old limits on campaign funding and paved the way for millionaires and billionaires to spend unlimited sums to influence election outcomes. “We must overturn that decision before it’s too late,” Sanders told the crowd here. “We are increasingly living in an oligarchy where big money is buying politicians,” Sanders added.
He cited former President Jimmy Carter’s concerns about how the Citizens United ruling resulting in “unlimited political bribery.”
The senator compared politicians to NASCAR drivers with their sponsor’s logos emblazoned on their uniforms. He imagined a politician with a sign saying, “I’m sponsored by the Koch brothers” or “I’m sponsored by Big Oil.” Said Sanders, “It’s a really sad state of affairs.”
In his own presidential campaign, Sanders has said he does not want help from super PACs, which the Citizens United ruling spawned. Instead, during the first two months after he declared his candidacy, Sanders has relied on contributors who gave him small donations.
Altogether, more than 76.5 percent of all his contributions – totaling more than $10.5 million – came from individuals who donated less than $200.
