View Full Version : US No Longer a Democracy
"Americans may like to think they live in a Democracy, but a new study suggests the opinions of a moneyed elite class are far more influential than those of the masses.
The study, by professors at Northwestern and Princeton, found that policies supported by economic elites and business interest groups were far more likely to become law than those they opposed.
It also found that the preferences of the middle class made essentially no difference to a bill’s fate."
Click here (http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/the-us-no-longer-democracy)to read more
gimmethesimplelife
5-10-14, 11:12am
"Americans may like to think they live in a Democracy, but a new study suggests the opinions of a moneyed elite class are far more influential than those of the masses.
The study, by professors at Northwestern and Princeton, found that policies supported by economic elites and business interest groups were far more likely to become law than those they opposed.
It also found that the preferences of the middle class made essentially no difference to a bill’s fate."
Click here (http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/the-us-no-longer-democracy)to read more What I can add here is that this is not the same country that I grew up in in the 70's and 80's. Often I don't even recognize it as I attempt to navigate it. The sense of fairness and that hard work meant anything or could get you anywhere is long gone - to me it's all about saving what I can, lowering every expectation, and being open to leaving America as some future date. It does not at all surprise me that this overall decline in the quality of life here would move into the political arena. As I've recently posted, I've given up on American politics, but this does not mean that I don't agree with the OP. Rob
catherine
5-10-14, 11:21am
Yes, I've read that study, and I agree with it. When the leaders of the government are beholden to outside interests, and have much to gain politically by taking the large amounts money they offer (with strings attached, of course), it's hard to think why our little voices would be heard. But it shouldn't stop us from speaking out. It's the only defense we have against the Goliath of corporate interests.
ApatheticNoMore
5-10-14, 12:02pm
I think I live in a fairly totalistic control system truth be told. You see all the parts at work and yea that's how I'd describe it. Now toward it's own people it's not the worst government evah evah evah (toward the other countries it intervenes in it might very well be!), because there is a lot of competition there (not a lot of instances of real freedom and democracy in human history - civilization is mostly the history of one form of oppression or another - human beings seldom ever free). And so to compare it to the worst cases is hyperbole, but it's a pretty complete political control system nontheless.
Voting may or may not matter occasionally. It may matter: for direct democracy issues (by which I mean state propositions of course), or if there are actual good choices in primaries or general elections. Voting lesser of two evils is voting against your own interest and desires in the first place so of course it can't help but produce politicians who vote against them. And that's all assuming the voting machines themselves aren't rigged. Protest in this country is very highly punished, ok yea you get beaten up (but there are countries that are more brutal - sure - they are also sometimes dealing with much bigger protests movements representing far more of the populus and so have to be), laws like the NDAA are on the books so they can lock you away forever at any given time, and it may make you unemployable as well as you'll now have a "criminal record" (in a country with little safety net in which the unemployment rate is kept high for years and years). And that's not what the study is about? No. And of course money and politics is a huge problem. I'm just theorizing on how elite control is maintained on the ground level, the other end of the telescope. By rather oppressive measures I think.
The "No Longer" is interesting, if it doesn't compare to prior studies on how well the government represented popular opinion it' hard to say "no longer" (as opposed to never :) ). Certainly many people's economic circumstances used to be better (so I think that's where the hypothesis that it used to be more representative comes from), but I also think popular opinion may be diverging more now from elite consensus. How long did it take for Vietnam to become unpopular? But the media can scarcely even lie us into wars anymore there's so much good alternative media about these days.
Give up on politics? Meh, noone is obliged to get involved in politics (since I don't even think getting involved flows from a passionless "should" but rather true concern). But what is politics just voting for some high level office? (then maybe one should give up). But it's really much broader. What about city hall? How well does it represent the majority? One can see politics as fairy tale (our government just perfectly represents the people) or as struggle (make it represent us). As winnable struggle or a losing struggle. But even if it's the latter isn't doing absolutely nothing to try to improve it, just to make it that much worse? Appeasement if you will. To conclude that non-involvment is the optimum choice: I think you have to conclude it's not only a losing struggle, but one on which you can have no effect, which is to go above and beyond what the study concludes. By the way Princeton and the like also represent elite interests, ok not everything produced is going to be dishonest and lacking all intellectual integrity, nothing, not even our political system is that corrupt in America at present, it simply isn't, but just they don't exist to empower joe schmoe either.
a new study suggests the opinions of a moneyed elite class are far more influential than those of the masses.
That's the best news I've read here in a long time.
ApatheticNoMore
5-10-14, 1:19pm
Well maybe if our dictators were benevolent .... Unfortunately I'm quite sure they're not.
I suspect if you were to read the Constitution, you'd find that the US was never a democracy.
I suspect if you were to read the Constitution, you'd find that the US was never a democracy.
A point lost on entirely too many, including our benevolent overseers.
Why would you say the Constitution does note reflect democratic principles? I'm a foreigner here, so I'm just wondering... i've studied US political structures, and on several occasions I've heard people say 'the US wasn't founded as a democracy, it was founded as a republic'... it's a perspective that seems a little odd to me, as if the two were inherently incompatible..
ApatheticNoMore
5-10-14, 5:09pm
A point lost on entirely too many, including our benevolent overseers.
a more democratic system would be far preferable (as would a parliamentary system which though representative, seems to do a better job of it (our representatives aren't representing us at all apparently). As might alternative voting schemes like runner up voting). But short of actual reform of the very means by which we vote, most people generally talk about less extreme ways to deal with a broken system. You go to war with the government you have, not the government you wish you had ... to paraphrase Rumsfield :)
a more democratic system would be far preferable ....Really?
So, if a majority decided to enslave, subjugate or otherwise abuse the minority, which happens naturally within a democracy, that would be preferable?
I've heard people say 'the US wasn't founded as a democracy, it was founded as a republic'... it's a perspective that seems a little odd to me, as if the two were inherently incompatible..
This country was intentionally set up as a republic because in a republic, a constitution or charter of rights protects certain inalienable rights that cannot be taken away by the government, even if it has been elected by a majority of voters. In a pure democracy, the majority is not restrained and can impose its will on the minority.
Every time this subject comes up I'm reminded of Benjamin Franklin's response to a the question "What kind of government have you given us?". His reply, "A Republic, if you can keep it." I often wonder if democratically inclined citizens desire to impose their will on others hasn't permanently destroyed the most ideal (republican) form of government in recorded history.
Really?
So, if a majority decided to enslave, subjugate or otherwise abuse the minority, which happens naturally within a democracy, that would be preferable?
This country was intentionally set up as a republic because in a republic, a constitution or charter of rights protects certain inalienable rights that cannot be taken away by the government, even if it has been elected by a majority of voters. In a pure democracy, the majority is not restrained and can impose its will on the minority.
Every time this subject comes up I'm reminded of Benjamin Franklin's response to a the question "What kind of government have you given us?". His reply, "A Republic, if you can keep it." I often wonder if democratically inclined citizens desire to impose their will on others hasn't permanently destroyed the most ideal (republican) form of government in recorded history.
Thanks for that. I never really thought about the difference.
ApatheticNoMore
5-10-14, 10:14pm
So, if a majority decided to enslave, subjugate or otherwise abuse the minority, which happens naturally within a democracy, that would be preferable?
well being a republic (unless you want to argue the U.S. was a democracy then and is only a republic now - I suppose I have heard stranger arguments in my life ... ) didn't seem to prevent slavery in the U.S. where the majority decided to enslave a minority. So at best we can say that based on the historical record republics also sometimes decide to enslave, subjugate and otherwise abuse minorities. I suppose someone COULD do a historical study on whether republics or democracies are more likely to have slavery and thus whether it happens more naturally in one or the other, but I'm not sure there are many direct democracies to be found.
This country was intentionally set up as a republic because in a republic, a constitution or charter of rights protects certain inalienable rights that cannot be taken away by the government, even if it has been elected by a majority of voters. In a pure democracy, the majority is not restrained and can impose its will on the minority. Every time this subject comes up I'm reminded of Benjamin Franklin's response to a the question "What kind of government have you given us?". His reply, "A Republic, if you can keep it. I often wonder if democratically inclined citizens desire to impose their will on others hasn't permanently destroyed the most ideal (republican) form of government in recorded history.
Ok but the Princeton study was trying to get at whose interest gets represented in the U.S government. That was the actual subject that was being discussed. And I don't get how a bunch of inalienable rights that have mostly been null and voided fits into that at all * (perhaps just an unwise choice of words in the thread title - maybe the title should have been "representative democracy in the U.S. does a very poor job of representing it's alleged constituents"). Whether people can get representation from their government is vitally important at the very core level. It's at root about whether most people have in voice in the systems that are imposed on them. Say the local river where everyone gets their water is being poisoned, if the people have a voice in their government (and it might be local government in this case but that doesn't affect the argument) can determine whether or not the poisoning continues. There should be inalienable protection against such poisoning? Yea probably. And wanting for most people to have a voice in their government and the society they have to live in doesn't mean the majority is always right. Otherwise the CA propositions would be flawless (and hahaha you know). It's just a flaw that it's better to live with than to have a small clique ruling the vast majority (unless anyone really has got that benevolent dictator stuff figured out).
* Mostly null and voided. Well the Supreme Court refused to take the Hedges case on the NDAA. Read it and weep. Hedges and Amnesty International also apparently had a previous case on spying before Snowden, which the courts also refused to hear. So that's the 5th amendment, the 4th amendment and the Hedges case was also being argued as a 1st amendment case. And one can say rights often exist on continuum in how much any given society allows, which is probably true enough, although it makes a lie of the term "inalienable" (only until they aren't). But I think the balance only needs to tilt so far for the overall society to have the character of a police state. And the U.S. is there. I think political freedom in any sense is drastically curtailed. Non-political freedom, well only frank totalitarianism goes after that.
well being a republic (unless you want to argue the U.S. was a democracy then and is only a republic now - I suppose I have heard stranger arguments in my life ... ) didn't seem to prevent slavery in the U.S.
It didn't prevent slavery as an institution already in place, but it was the cornerstone of eliminating it. Under a democracy, it would still be going on if a majority of the populace wanted it so as there would be no inalienable rights that government could not usurp.
Democracy on a state level enabled and condoned it, republicanism on a federal level eliminated it.
These arguments about republic vs democracy are missing the point of the OP. What changed isn't the codified structure. What changes is the impact of money. The same effort and actions by citizens now carry less effective influence (in the absence of excessive wealth).
These arguments about republic vs democracy are missing the point of the OP. What changed isn't the codified structure. What changes is the impact of money. The same effort and actions by citizens now carry less effective influence (in the absence of excessive wealth).
All governments become oligarchies.
early morning
5-11-14, 10:43am
Perhaps Jefferson had it right:
What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it's natural manure. Jefferson, of course, was talking about the potential tyranny of men ensconced in high ranking positions for long periods of time, while I personally would apply it more to the tyranny of rule of monied interests (and there is a direct connection there, IMHO). I rather suspect that even though many of us may be in agreement with Jefferson's sentiment, not all of us would spill blood willingly in hope of the same outcome. . .
These arguments about republic vs democracy are missing the point of the OP. What changed isn't the codified structure. What changes is the impact of money. The same effort and actions by citizens now carry less effective influence (in the absence of excessive wealth).I think if we take this observation to its obvious conclusion, what we're talking about is influence. Money certainly does affect influence, although it's not the only avenue.
We live in an era of mass communication, which has more impact on the national zeitgeist than at any other time in history. If a special interest provides the means (money) to promote a particular agenda or more broadly, an ideology, is that any different than the free influence promoted by media outlets or the entertainment industry? If a private group spends $10M promoting something that counters the free expression of Mother Jones or The Daily Kos or MSNBC, does that give the private group special influence? Should we assign a $ value to opinions expressed in all newspaper editorials or other opinion journalism? If so, and we really want to take money out of politics, should we forbid the public expression of opinion?
I often wonder if the desire to take money out of politics isn't really a desire to silence anyone perceived as being the opposition.
Your explanation makes it sound like quite the opposite: That the taking of money out of politics is perhaps the only means where government could be shaped by the ideas rather than by the money.
Your explanation makes it sound like quite the opposite: That the taking of money out of politics is perhaps the only means where government could be shaped by the ideas rather than by the money.
Actually, when carried to a logical conclusion, its not so much taking money out of the equation, it's taking the public expression of opinion out of the equation.
No. When carried to a logical conclusion, money takes public expression of all but the rich out of the equation.
No. When carried to a logical conclusion, money takes public expression of all but the rich out of the equation.
I would disagree. There are lots of sources of influence, including newspapers, magazines, entertainment industry, blogs, forums such as this, talk radio, cable TV's opinion programming, etc.
I'm not sure why some vague description of "the rich" should be culled out of the herd.
I would disagree. There are lots of sources of influence, including newspapers, magazines, entertainment industry, blogs, forums such as this, talk radio, cable TV's opinion programming, etc.
I'm not sure why some vague description of "the rich" should be culled out of the herd.
Most of those sources are controlled by a small handful of corporations - and they are actively disassembling net neutrality so that the internet will be primarily just a handful of corporations as well.
Of course there will always be public expression - public expression sells - but controlled, channeled, and spun. Endless variations of expression out there, but it's primarily the expressions that are heard that define people's world views and shape opinion.
catherine
5-11-14, 12:30pm
Most of those sources are controlled by a small handful of corporations - and they are actively disassembling net neutrality so that the internet will be primarily just a handful of corporations as well.
Of course there will always be public expression - public expression sells - but controlled, channeled, and spun. Endless variations of expression out there, but it's primarily the expressions that are heard that define people's world views and shape opinion.
+1
Most of those sources are controlled by a small handful of corporations - and they are actively disassembling net neutrality so that the internet will be primarily just a handful of corporations as well.
Of course there will always be public expression - public expression sells - but controlled, channeled, and spun. Endless variations of expression out there, but it's primarily the expressions that are heard that define people's world views and shape opinion.
So, that begs the question, should public expression from anyone other than individuals, lets say advocacy groups, news organizations, unions, corporations, entertainment venues, etc., be regulated, perhaps by being limited to voluntary gatherings?
So, that begs the question, should public expression from anyone other than individuals, lets say advocacy groups, news organizations, unions, corporations, entertainment venues, etc., be regulated, perhaps by being limited to voluntary gatherings?
It's a really difficult question to answer - we could have every single aspect locked down by the state - we could live in an anarchy. I think in the US most folks want something in the middle while those with power more often would like to be unrestrained to exercise the power they have, whether it be political, or economic, or popular. And I think the best you could hope for is to work to correct situations where too much power is being concentrated into too few hands. I don't think there is a "fix" - it's more of an organic, evolving, mutating landscape that has to be continually reexamined and tweaked and managed.
I think there's a problem when only FOUR companies control the media outlets. As you said, the open internet is some relief from that, but now with net neutrality in the balance, who knows what will happen? People think that there's a big difference between MSNBC and Fox News, but they are alike in the breadth of their control of the dissemination of the news.
Why is it bad that four companies control what we see and hear in the news? Because the news can then be slanted and there's no one with equal weight to counter. I remember when the Iraq war was being pushed through Congress. I was in Germany at the time, and the headlines were: "A disaster for President Bush. Only half of Congress supports the war" When I got home the next day, all the news here was saying "victory for George Bush. Half of Congress supports the war."
flowerseverywhere
5-11-14, 11:12pm
Perhaps Jefferson had it right: Jefferson, of course, was talking about the potential tyranny of men ensconced in high ranking positions for long periods of time, while I personally would apply it more to the tyranny of rule of monied interests (and there is a direct connection there, IMHO). I rather suspect that even though many of us may be in agreement with Jefferson's sentiment, not all of us would spill blood willingly in hope of the same outcome. . .
spoken by someone who owned several hundred slaves. Kind of an odd quote considering the circumstances.
Gardenarian
5-12-14, 1:46pm
I think America was designed to be ruled by the wealthy, right from the start. George Washington was the richest person in America when he was president. (Not that he wasn't a remarkable man anyway.)
We've always been a county ruled by rich white guys.
Here's an article from Common Dreams about democracy, oligarchy, and free-trade (http://www.commondreams.org/view/2014/05/12-1).
I think America was designed to be ruled by the wealthy, right from the start. George Washington was the richest person in America when he was president. (Not that he wasn't a remarkable man anyway.)
We've always been a county ruled by rich white guys.
Here's an article from Common Dreams about democracy, oligarchy, and free-trade (http://www.commondreams.org/view/2014/05/12-1).
A People's History of the United States - Howard Zinn
There are lots of sources of influence, including newspapers, magazines, entertainment industry, blogs, forums such as this, talk radio, cable TV's opinion programming, etc.None of which compares to the impact of money.
Most of those sources are controlled by a small handful of corporationsGood point. So effectively, the rich are able to purchase influence through these other means which some, like Alan, don't even consider the influence of the rich..
and they are actively disassembling net neutrality so that the internet will be primarily just a handful of corporations as well.And it should be noted that in this week's proposed revision to the FCC rulemaking on net neutrality, they're still carving into stone the right for a MVPD to reserve a "fast lane" for their associated content sources. In other words, Comcast would retain the right to give priority to traffic from Hulu.
Of course there will always be public expression - public expression sells - but controlled, channeled, and spun. Endless variations of expression out there, but it's primarily the expressions that are heard that define people's world views and shape opinion.And that's increasingly the expression which has the most amount of money behind it.
It's a really difficult question to answer - we could have every single aspect locked down by the state - we could live in an anarchy. I think in the US most folks want something in the middle while those with power more often would like to be unrestrained to exercise the power they have, whether it be political, or economic, or popular. And I think the best you could hope for is to work to correct situations where too much power is being concentrated into too few hands. I don't think there is a "fix" - it's more of an organic, evolving, mutating landscape that has to be continually reexamined and tweaked and managed.Precisely! Those who support the extremes tend to try to characterize the situation as either one way or the other - either there is little regulation or there is "state control". Since it would undercut support for the extreme they prefer, there is a reluctance to talk about the best situation, which is somewhere very close to the middle - not a scenario with little regulation, nor with state control, but rather something with an amount of regulation not only in between those two extremes but even pretty darned close to equally between those two extremes. That gives you the best of both aspects - lots of flexibility offered by not being fully regulated, and lots of protection of the public interest from not being inadequately regulated.
I think there's a problem when only FOUR companies control the media outlets.I think four is enough. Five would be better; six would be good too; but four can work, if there is a reasonable amount of regulation. With more than six companies, you start getting encountering inefficiencies that tie up a lot of the resources devoted to broadcasting (resources that in the end we consumer "pay" for one way or another), reducing the value delivered.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.