Major Study Finds The US Is An Oligarchy

[Cheetah]

The U.S. government does not represent the interests of the majority of the country's citizens, but is instead ruled by those of the rich and powerful, a new study from Princeton and Northwestern universities has concluded.

The report, "Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens" (PDF), used extensive policy data collected between 1981 and 2002 to empirically determine the state of the U.S. political system.

After sifting through nearly 1,800 U.S. policies enacted in that period and comparing them to the expressed preferences of average Americans (50th percentile of income), affluent Americans (90th percentile), and large special interests groups, researchers concluded that the U.S. is dominated by its economic elite.

Source: Business Insider

Direct link to study: http://www.princeton.edu/~mgilens/Gilens%20homepage%20materials/Gilens%20and%20Page/Gilens%20and%20Page%202014-Testing%20Theories%203-7-14.pdf

This is something I have long been arguing, though I would mostly have called it a 'plutocracy' (which is a subcategory of oligarchy I suppose, so whatever). What is nice however, is to have an actual, thorough study to base my arguments on. The particulars may be debated, but it seems obvious that the political say of the average person has diminished since ~1970. From the viewpoint of most citisens in other developed and free countries, it certainly seems like the average U.S. citisen has been served a raw deal during the latest decades.

This also expands the comparisons between the Roman Republic (later Empire) and the federal republic of the United States of America: Will the U.S. also evolve from a republic, through an oligarchy and then into a dictatorship? Are we witnessing the end of the republican period for the U.S.? And even more: Is it at all possible for a political superpower to remain democratic?

The authors write that 'The results provide substantial support for theories of Economic Elite Domination and for theories of Biased Pluralism, but not for theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy or Majoritarian Pluralism'. What do you make of the current U.S. government and the status of its average citisen?

 

[IAM]

The Rise and Fall of the American Empire. We are already taking steps to create a dictatorship. Executive Orders are already in place and being used. Just waiting for the right crisis.

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

Figure 1 is pretty damning.

Clearly, when one holds 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 (see the top panel of Figure 1).

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 only about 18
percent of the time, while a proposed change with high support (four-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 .16, but the probability rises to .47 when interest groups are
strongly favorable (see the bottom two panels of Figure 1.)41

TLDR: Citizen's opinions don't affect passage of legislation that much, but those of economic elites and interest groups do.

Not all of the interest groups are connected to the elite, such as the AARP and United Auto Workers union. My take is that it is crucial for citizens to organize in order to give weight to their opinion.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

The news here in Missouri was reminiscent of this topic -

The state legislature just passed a $630m package of tax cuts for the rich despite the state being nearly broke just a couple of years ago. The state is struggling to support education, infrastructure and the proposed solution to our ills is a tax cut? The legislature tried this last year and the governor vetoed it but this year the Republicans have enough votes to override it.

The overwhelming majority of Missourians are not wealthy and will not appreciably benefit from this tax cut. Even if the tax cuts do put a few dollars in the pockets of the poor, it will not help them in the long run. Better schools and public transport opportunities would help but our current legislature has a laser focus on cutting taxes on the rich.

It's hard to say however that the citizens of Missouri don't want this - they did vote the Republicans into the legislature and have more or less bought into the Republican vision of tax-cuts-solve-everything. So to some extent, the populace willingly votes against their own interests and buys into the mythos of what the Republicans sell.

And it's not as if the democrats are substantially better in most respects either. Both sides are entrenched and are controlled to a large extent by the wealthy through intense, unrelenting lobbying. That's really at the root of the problem I think - the working class don't have access to the tools of political power and influence that the rich have. Further, the supreme court is hell bent on removing the last barriers between the rich and unlimited political influence by tearing down any and all prohibitions on campaign donations, lobbying and so forth.

 

[El_Machinae]

Solutions?

 

[Masada]

Both sides are entrenched and are controlled to a large extent by the wealthy through intense, unrelenting lobbying.

That's certainly part of it. But I think it's also important to realize that a lot of legislators are themselves quite wealthy and that this makes it easier to sell tax cuts for the rich.

Solutions?

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

They seem to have picked a lot of business-related interest groups compared to citizen-oriented ones. Anyone suggest some additions to the latter? As it stands, business preferences are highly correlated with that of interest groups overall.

Appendix 1. Business- and Mass-Based Interest Groups Included in Net Group Alignment Indices

Business and professional groups
Airlines
American Bankers Association
American Council of Life Insurance
American Farm Bureau Federation
American Hospital Association
American Medical Association
Association of Trial Lawyers
Automobile companies
Chamber of Commerce
Computer software and hardware
Credit Union National Association
Defense contractors
Electric companies
Health Insurance Association
Independent Insurance Agents of America
Motion Picture Association of America
National Association of Broadcasters
National Association of Home Builders
National Association of Manufacturers
National Association of Realtors
National Beer Wholesalers Association
National Federation of Independent Business
National Restaurant Association
Oil Companies
Pharmaceutical Research & Manufacturers
Recording Industry Association
Securities and investment companies
Telephone companies
Tobacco companies

Mass-based groups
AARP
AFL-CIO
American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees
American Israel Public Affairs Committee
American Legion
Christian Coalition
International Brotherhood of Teamsters
National Rifle Association
National Right to Life Committee
United Auto Workers union
Veterans of Foreign Wars of the U.S.

Not coded as either business or mass-based
National Education Association (includes a mass base of teachers but also university professors)
National Governors' Association (affected by interest groups rather than acting as an independent group)
Universities (unclear status as businesses or nonprofits)

So much for an RD thread...

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Solutions?

I dont see any as politically viable at this point. The Supreme Court will knock down any curbs on lobbying and enough of the populace actually supports policies against their interests to prevent a sweeping change of the congress or constitutional ammendments. I would hope that enough pressure will build up that there will be a sweeping change election soon but I could be wrong. I woululd have thought the recession would have provided that impetus and it did but was reversed in just 2 years. Even with the Congress of 2008 being somewhat progressive, they were not able to pass many sweeping reforms as too many of them were entrenched in the status quo and only masqueraded as agents of change.

That's certainly part of it. But I think it's also important to realize that a lot of legislators are themselves quite wealthy and that this makes it easier to sell tax cuts for the rich.

Yup. A congressman came under fire recently for complaining that congresspeople aren't paid enough and he is right. It is damned expensive to maintain two homes (one in DC and another in their district) and to travel back and forth. It has come to the point where really only the independently wealthy can afford to run for congress or be in congress and that erodes the entire system.

 

[Crezth]

Solutions?

 

[Zelig]

Solutions?

Be part of the rich and powerful.

 

[IAM]

"The First Thing We Do, Let's Kill All the Lawyers"
Shakespeare's Tribute to Trial Lawyers

 

[BvBPL]

Except that the Dick the Butcher was a fool in the play. That line is actually the Bard's tribute to the lawyers because he had an idiot read that line.

 

[BenitoChavez]

The report, "Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens" (PDF), used extensive policy data collected between 1981 and 2002 to empirically determine the state of the U.S. political system.

I'd be interested in seeing a study to determine if the US was an Oligarchy before 1981. As far as I can tell the top US officials have always been wealthy themselves, starting from the founding fathers all the way to the Obama administration and current Congress. And since the US leaders are wealthy that it turn would affect the policies past.

 

[Core Imposter]

I made the declaration prior to the publication of that article, just here the other day if iirc, so certainly I accept their endorsement of my opinion.

Dismantling the concentration of the power of the Federal government is the only solution and one that will be achieved by action of the people. Two things to keep in mind about that. The change can either be through peaceful reform within the parameters of the system as it exists, which method I prefer, or through more direct and bloody convulsions, which I dread.

If you prefer the first, support the sovereignty of the States even through imperfect symbols such as the Bundy Ranch standoff. Otherwise we will be left to a Bundy Ranch shootout.

The second thought is that any reform is temporary in nature. Humans gonna human. No system of human government will be perfect and free of corruption. Hence the Jefferson declaration: The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

 

[Cutlass]

I'd be interested in seeing a study to determine if the US was an Oligarchy before 1981. As far as I can tell the top US officials have always been wealthy themselves, starting from the founding fathers all the way to the Obama administration and current Congress. And since the US leaders are wealthy that it turn would affect the policies past.

The US has always had leaders from the wealthy side of the tracks. But where has the long term dominance of those families been?

 

[luiz]

I'd be interested in seeing a study to determine if the US was an Oligarchy before 1981. As far as I can tell the top US officials have always been wealthy themselves, starting from the founding fathers all the way to the Obama administration and current Congress. And since the US leaders are wealthy that it turn would affect the policies past.

Indeed. And to some extent, is there a single major country which is not an oligarchy? Oligarchy just means "rule by a few". I can agree with the argument that the average American has less say on the course his country takes than say the average Swiss or Norwegian. But the average Brit, German, Frenchman? I don't think so. To say nothing of the average Russian or Chinese.

Smaller countries tend to be considerably more democratic, all else being equal.

 

[Goodfella]

They seem to have picked a lot of business-related interest groups compared to citizen-oriented ones. Anyone suggest some additions to the latter?

I can't find a list comparable to what they have, but off the top of my head probably the ACLU, the Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund, ASPCA, Planned Parenthood, Heritage Foundation, and Christians United for Israel are mass based.

 

[warpus]

That's certainly part of it. But I think it's also important to realize that a lot of legislators are themselves quite wealthy and that this makes it easier to sell tax cuts for the rich.

All their friends are rich too and likely contribute a lot of money to their election campaigns.

That's the people politicians are listening to - people who give them money. That's what they care about because that's what gets them re-elected.... and in the end that's what shapes the policies the politicians push through and support and it's what ends up shaping the country. Not the votes of the people, but the money of the rich.

It's a big problem, but I don't see how you guys are going to get out of this one anytime soon. You have 2 parties who are both a part of the problem, people who keep voting for them no matter what, and momentum into exact opposite direction than the one you'd need to go in if you wanted to start fixing this mess.

 

[El_Machinae]

Not politically viable.
Solutions?

 

[Crezth]

Not politically viable.

That's just what they want you to think.