Welcome to the Oligarchy, Peasant

[brother_dour]

First, let's start with the article, and a few choice quotes:

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

"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

Comments

[hardblue]

I suspect the only thing that can lead us to change course from this plutocratic direction is a true social movement - a sort of Occupy Movement but a thousand times stronger and with much better direction. I am afraid that, despite the great and growing inequality, we are not likely to see such a movement in the next ten years to come because even the people in the bottom quarter enjoy an appreciable level of comfort. They may have a couple of vehicles in the driveway, a big-screen TV in the living room, a personal computer, not to mention such necessities as microwave ovens. Of course, there are people who don’t have these things, but I suspect we are talking about a very small class, not nearly enough to change the political complexion of our elite-democracy. This passivity of the masses has let our economic elites run wild without any check, and we are seeing what the corruption of power looks like.

[peristaltor]

I suspect the only thing that can lead us to change course from this plutocratic direction is a true social movement. . . .

Agreed. Sadly, it will take a major crisis and scandal to get people aware that steps need to be taken. Your notes about relative comfort are well noted and problematic.

We also need to decouple the tight link between media messages-almost exclusively produced by and on behalf of those oligarchic overlords-and the topics up for discussion at any given point. Until mass media includes topics of interest to the mass of people, it ain't nothing but a megaphone. Sadly, such a decoupling requires a decoupling of money from media topic selection, and I don't see how that's going to be done. Far too much editorial power at the top.

[hardblue]

About the comfort level, it just seems to me that people aren't likely to rock the boat and take to the streets when you have a soft patch, even if it is a relatively very modest patch. Now, if people are having trouble in getting a home to live in and are having a hard time in stocking their refrigerator, amid the great amassing of wealth at the top, then I think you would see something. If this is about right, it is an unfortunate dynamic, because a check on the top is then missing, so that the elite only have to provide a big majority with a little comfort and they can be left to run their dreams of empire.

[peristaltor]

. . . amid the great amassing of wealth at the top . . .

Ah, I don't think the magnitude of this mass is appreciated, thanks to the top's media mouths. Wealth is to be congratulated lest the non-congratulater is regarded as a comm'nist.

Now, should somehow someone manage to describe how the monetary creation system automatically rewards monetary creators-especially since repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act pulled the over-rev stops off the process-we might see some progress in at least slowing the upward concentration of wealth.

Until then, yes, a check on the top is indeed missing. Let's see. How stable is this situation?

[kylinrouge]

Is there a frame of reference here? Any governments out there right now that are not oligarchies?

[namey]

Apparently not... at least given enough time.

[brother_dour]

They're all totalitarian in some way, if not oligarchic. Iran has its theocracy, North Korea has its Little Lion Man, Russia has Putin, the UK has a whole cadre of nanny state politicians...and the US has its Super PACs buying up representation.

[oportet]

It's hard to run an efficient campaign without money, so you have to raise money.

Now, remember the folks who gave you money? You owe them.

You can't pay them back with money - you spent it on the campaign, remember?

All that's left is favors.

How can we eliminate this problem?

No political donations whatsoever! Except now, only the 'already rich' can win.

How about no campaigning whatsoever? Even with the spread of information through the internet, you're essentially voting for the name that sounds like it'll do the best job.

There is no rational solution, but I will propose what I believe to be the best irrational solution - hold politicians accountable for campaign promises. They deliver on 70% of promises within a year, or they're out. No exceptions, no excuses. Fine if they don't meet 50%, jail time if they don't meet 30%.

[luvdovz]

Doesn't that sound a bit too arbitrary? Why 50% and not 75%? What about 25%?

What if external factors prevent them from delivering on their promises? A natural disaster, international economic crisis, international conflict, peak oil, a major market collapsing on which said country heavily depends? Are they going in jail all the same?

[oportet]

Effort is subjective, so an arbitrary line is the best I can do.

I understand there are external factors, which is why I used those lower arbitrary numbers instead of '100% or else'.

[luvdovz]

But that's just not fair. Even if a politician does a tremendous amount of work and performs with high efficiency, external factors could still bring them to "49%", which means they'd still be judged as a failure.

[mahnmut]

That was either the most amazing Jedi mind trick, or the best Kool-Aid ad I've heard in a year. Either way, well done, bro!

[ddstory]

Completed your trip to the Dark Side you have, my son.

[brother_dour]

I don't think you even looked at the article in question. The authors statistically, positively linked the probability of a policy becoming official to its support among the 90th percentile of wage earners. They also proved statistically that the correlation was so strong that the average voter's vote is statistically insignificant.

So, yeah, there's nothing to fix here if you a) are the 90th percentile or b) think they somehow know more about what is best for the rest of us than the rest of us do.

But back to your assertion that that more laws basically impact the rich more than the poor. There's two problems with that.

1) Not supported historically. The wealth gap between the richest 1% of Americans and the 50th percentile is greater now than it was in 1900, when regulations were few and far between. If your theory were true, we would expect to see the opposite occur.

2) there is credible data (T. Hungerford, Congressional Research Service, 12/12/2012 among many others) that suggests that the impact of tax cuts on

[abomvubuso]

Our individual vote is a placebo, nothing more.

I liked that one.

Been saying this for years. I mean that politicians lack the expertise to serve on special committees. With quite a few exceptions, of course. They don't vote as experts on policies, they vote as party members, following the interests of their respective parties.

As a technocracy-fan, I'd say abandoning the party system would be a step in the right direction. People need to start making informed decisions on policies that they understand, using expertise rather than ideology.

Of course it's not going to happen, though.