The Republican Tax Bill Demonstrates US No Longer A Democracy

[Lexicus]

This thing is a straightforward transfer of wealth from lower and middle income households to very wealthy households. It is opposed by voters by a roughly 2 to 1 margin, and the Republicans in Congress are more or less open that they feel compelled to pass it because otherwise their donor money will dry up.

I suppose the next couple of years will tell the tale there. If the backlash to this bill results in a Congress being elected in 2018 that actually repeals it (and goes further, increasing taxes on the rich and on large corporations), then I suppose we'll be somewhat okay, but the far more likely scenario seems to be that the bill will be accepted as essentially a fait accompli. Perhaps some of the more egregious provisions will be reversed, but you can bet that, in the name of "good governance" or whatever, Very Smart Democrats will acquiesce in Republican efforts to cut social programs to reduce the deficit/debt which will inevitably be blown up by the tax bill.

All of this will be opposed by the voters, of course, but the policy preferences of voters are essentially irrelevant to the conduct of politics in this country. All we get to choose now is which flavor of politician we want to take our money and give it to rich people.

Anyway, if the US is no longer a liberal democracy in any real sense of that phrase, what methods can ordinary citizens use to effect political change? Why does it make sense for liberals, Democrats, etc. to observe the traditional norms of liberal societies wrt political action when these have been so obviously jettisoned by the Republican Party?

 

[Gori the Grey]

I've cited it before, but some Princeton researchers have established, in an at least somewhat more objective and less merely impressionistic way, that the US has become an oligarchy/plutocracy:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/princeton-experts-say-us-no-longer-democracy

This is difficult to combat, but I think the Trump era is creating renewed enthusiasm for representative democracy, so I'm cautiously hopeful.

 

[Lexicus]

Oh yes, I'm quite familiar with that study. I'm more interested in answering the questions I asked at the end there. How do citizens make their voices heard in a system that doesn't really care about them? Is electoral politics a good use of anyone's time?

 

[Gori the Grey]

Oh, we need to still keep doing whatever we've been doing: writing our congresspeople, going to town halls (the town halls in opposition to Obamacare repeal are an example of authentic democracy having an impact), voting in off-year elections, etc. More people are stepping up to run for office--that's a positive development. Don't give up in despair. I think the overall distaste in the populace for our first businessman president might spill over into a more critical attitude toward the super-wealthy, and their power over our political system, generally. Again, I'm cautiously optimistic.

 

[Lexicus]

Oh, we need to still keep doing whatever we've been doing: writing our congresspeople, going to town halls (the town halls in opposition to Obamacare repeal are an example of authentic democracy having an impact), voting in off-year elections, etc. More people are stepping up to run for office--that's a positive development.

What we've been doing hasn't been working very well so far as I can see. I mean, we stopped one effort to repeal Obamacare, sure, but this tax bill is actually also an Obamacare repeal. And as I implied in the OP, I don't believe electing "centrist" Democrats is going to accomplish anything. Obama was elected in 2008 on a wave of populist backlash against the elites, and immediately proceeded to govern on behalf of those elites. He let the criminal bankers go free. Only Republican overreach prevented him from doing a deal to cut social security, Medicare, and Medicaid in order to reduce the deficit. If we just vote for Democrats in 2018 and 2020, what's preventing them from just doing the same thing? How is it going to break the hold that the plutocrats have over the legislative process? How does it prevent the rich from dictating the bounds of what we can write, think, and say via their control over the media, universities, and now increasingly over the infrastructure of the internet itself?

Looming over all this, of course, is the fact that we've probably already screwed ourselves out of limiting global warming to 2C, which means serious trouble ahead. Perhaps civilization-destroying trouble.

 

[rah]

When was America a liberal democracy? The system has always been gamed. There was only a perception that it was.

 

[Lexicus]

When was America a liberal democracy? The system has always been gamed. There was only a perception that it was.

America was a liberal democracy from ca 1865 to, oh, 1984.

 

[rah]

The wealthy have always run this country. They just had better PR and actually cared about what people thought (pr wise).
The difference is that they no longer care about that aspect anymore.

 

[Gori the Grey]

I'm not saying we don't have to step up our game, Lex. I'm saying don't give up on the standard democracy stuff out of despair. Those things remain important.

There's a sentiment against the super-wealthy and their stranglehold on our democracy. That sentiment was behind Occupy, behind Bernie's appeal. Even behind Trump's "drain the swamp" appeal (though why his followers could be bamboozled to settle for an ersatz version of counteracting big money I haven't yet entirely plumbed).

Yes, their control of mass media is a challenge. Yes, their control of election funding is a problem. But it's a problem that's emerging to people's consciousness, and I think a Democratic slate might be able to run on a plan to curb the power of the super-rich.

 

[inthesomeday]

America was a liberal democracy from ca 1865 to, oh, 1984.

It certainly was not. The great migrations after the Civil War and once immigrant populations started to rise in the late 19th century saw the political boss system, so even in a purely detached from socioeconomic analysis that only takes into account the political happenings this period was not liberal democracy. Polling taxes and literacy tests remained common tactics for keeping black and poor voters out of polling stations for the majority of the 20th century, and obviously during this entire period the state still acted as the de facto violent arm of the rich. There was nothing anybody could even possibly call free speech until the interwar years, and even during this period there were lots of government purges of leftist, immigrant, and far-right groups. Then during the 50s and the 60s the wars that the government fought were extremely unpopular and undeniably served the elites. Nixon got elected (the first fascist president) shortly after that.

Of course I have no problem calling all this liberal democracy but then we really shouldn't be getting all rosy eyed about it.

 

[Lexicus]

It certainly was not.

Of course I have no problem calling all this liberal democracy but then we really shouldn't be getting all rosy eyed about it.

...then we agree

 

[Ajidica]

The wealthy have always run this country. They just had better PR and actually cared about what people thought (pr wise).
The difference is that they no longer care about that aspect anymore.

Not to this extent.
I mean, with the New Deal and Great Society programs we were spending heavily on public infrastructure, urban renewal, universal education, welfare programs, public housing, employment programs, regulation in favor of the public, price controls, you name it.
None of those are on the wealthy "Top 10 Government Priority" list. The shift has been in three main areas since the 80s:
1) The idea the government should seek out the thoughts of corporations when crafting regulation and place the wishes of a handful of elite at the same level as the public good.
2) The obscene amount of money unleashed by increasingly unregulated and borderline illegal financial world being concentrated in fewer and fewer hands; coupled with a tax code that is only going to entrench a monied aristocracy.
3) The failure of proper campaign finance reform and the travesty that is Citizens United making the wishes of individual or small groups of wealthy donors weigh far more for a candidate than the conventional understanding of individual donations.

 

[FriendlyFire]

Was broken from "Citizen United", then we had "Birtherism" and now "Alternative facts"
This isnt a surprise. this is the standard MO of the Republicans.

The good news is in places like Kansas at least Republicans have shown they can learn even if it means urinating on the electrical fence several times.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

My congressional representative does not live in my district. She has lived in a mansion in Laguna Beach for decades but somehow convinced the electoral commision that the one-bedroom apartment she rented in Irvine without washer and dryer hookups is her primary residence.

She also does not hold town hall meetings with her constituents, give interviews or answer phone calls and letters. She was bought, paid for and fully astroturfed by business interests to represent them and the people of this district were fine with that because of the R next to her name at the ballot box. This is a very affluent area so this doesn't surprise me. Thankfully, the county went to Hillary in '16 and it was the first democrat to take the county since I believe the 60's. So there are signs of change.

I am especially frustrated with the national political situation because my Senators are fairly aligned with my own ideology but aren't able to do anything since they are in the minority. My governor and state legislature, on the other hand, are well aligned with my ideology and are able to take actions I like but nationally I feel my vote doesn't count.

Yes I believe we live in a plutocracy. I believe we have to continue being politically engaged and voting but I don't have any better solutions.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Was broken from "Citizen United", then we had "Birtherism" and now "Alternative facts"
This isnt a surprise. this is the standard MO of the Republicans.

The good news is in places like Kansas at least Republicans have shown they can learn even if it means urinating on the electrical fence several times.

Brownback was on the hill today promoting Kansas' tax disaster as great proof of how successful the current tax cuts will be.

Some of them learn. I'm unconvinced for most.

 

[Broken_Erika]

The US is a Democracy, Of the Rich People, By the Rich People, For the Rich People.

 

[metalhead]

Oh yes, I'm quite familiar with that study. I'm more interested in answering the questions I asked at the end there. How do citizens make their voices heard in a system that doesn't really care about them? Is electoral politics a good use of anyone's time?

The problem is that citizens don't understand or care about policy. They vote largely on feels, and that goes for you and I just as it goes for Joe MAGA out in the heartland. Politics is an emotional game, something Republicans understand very well, and something Democrats seem to understand not at all. That what creates the enormous disconnect between policies that poll at 70+% in favor like raising the minimum wage, and politicians who get elected and think the minimum wage is fine where it is, or is even too high.

You see it in the cyclical nature of politics. Parties out of power nationally reconnect with people on an emotional level, as they retreat back to doing local, grassroots politics to regroup. They gain an understanding of what the country is currently feeling, and are able to tap into that to electoral success. Meanwhile the party in power loses touch with the people, moving further and further out of touch as time wears on.

You see it out in the community now. Women's groups, environmental groups, even election reform groups are seeing record numbers of people swelling up from the ground, ready with enthusiasm to get active. Just as you saw in 2009 racist groups swell up pretending they cared about deficits. Politicians aligned with the groups seeing increased engagement then have a much easier time tapping into the emotional zeitgeist and running successful political campaigns.

All of that is to say, the citizens will be heard. It just sometimes takes far longer than it ought. The pendulum always swings back, and you want to be ready for it when it does.

 

[Lexicus]

1 - for the last 40 years, the pendulum swings less and less far to the left, further and further to the right.
2- if US history is any guide, sometimes you have to wait through centuries of slavery or decades of Jim Crow for the pendulum to swing back. I'm unwilling to wait that long and I think a lot of other people are too. There are many parallels between what the GOP is doing in many states today and what the Democrats were doing in many states in the 1880s and 90s.
3- if the political parties' goal is to create an entire generation of people with absolutely no investment in the status quo, they are succeeding. The consequences of this are unlikely to be good. I'm economically better-off than perhaps 4/5 people my age and I have virtually no investment in the status quo: very little capacity to save money, no prospect of ever buying a house or owning any serious property.

Following with 2, I think many of the same tactics which were used to bring about the end of Jim Crow are probably appropriate for use now. We already saw this to some degree with the Women's March and the March for Science, but in my view these events were not as powerful as they could have been due to the lack of specific demands/political program attached to them.

 

[rah]

I mean, with the New Deal and Great Society programs we were spending heavily on public infrastructure, urban renewal, universal education, welfare programs, public housing, employment programs, regulation in favor of the public, price controls, you name it.
None of those are on the wealthy "Top 10 Government Priority" list. The shift has been in three main areas since the 80s:

Back then was the age of wealthy barons. The great depression increased the number of truly desperate people so the Barons were afraid that if it people got desperate enough the whole system could come down. So all the programs were done to stabilize the situation. A catastrophe was averted. If things got equally bad now, I'd bet you'd see similar tactics, but as long as they think they can get away with it, they will. Hows that for a conspiracy theory.

 

[metalhead]

1 - for the last 40 years, the pendulum swings less and less far to the left, further and further to the right.
2- if US history is any guide, sometimes you have to wait through centuries of slavery or decades of Jim Crow for the pendulum to swing back. I'm unwilling to wait that long and I think a lot of other people are too. There are many parallels between what the GOP is doing in many states today and what the Democrats were doing in many states in the 1880s and 90s.
3- if the political parties' goal is to create an entire generation of people with absolutely no investment in the status quo, they are succeeding. The consequences of this are unlikely to be good. I'm economically better-off than perhaps 4/5 people my age and I have virtually no investment in the status quo: very little capacity to save money, no prospect of ever buying a house or owning any serious property.

Following with 2, I think many of the same tactics which were used to bring about the end of Jim Crow are probably appropriate for use now. We already saw this to some degree with the Women's March and the March for Science, but in my view these events were not as powerful as they could have been due to the lack of specific demands/political program attached to them.

It should give you some hope that a self-identified socialist came as close as he did to winning a major party nomination. Right? The coalition of the disaffected and pissed off are arguably gravitating to Bernie more than Trump. And they are ever-growing, accelerated by watching what the ruling class is now trying to do.

I honestly believe there are a lot of people who simply never believed that political choices have consequences. Maybe part of the reason for that is the inexorable rightward lurch you correctly identify, which has helped foster that feeling. But man, I really see that being stuck with Trump as the president is disabusing a LOT of people of that notion.