Princeton Study: US is an Oligarchy

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
1

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

"For their study, Gilens and Page compiled data from roughly 1,800 different policy initiatives in the years between 1981 and 2002. They then compared those policy changes with the expressed opinion of the United State public. Comparing the preferences of the average American at the 50th percentile of income to what those Americans at the 90th percentile preferred, as well as the opinions of major lobbying or business groups, the researchers found out that the government followed the directives set forth by the latter two much more often.

It’s beyond alarming. As Gilens and Page write, “the preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy.” In other words, their statistics say your opinion literally does not matter."

2

Beyond depressing, although it’s nothing I didn’t know already.

And people wonder why voter turnout is so low. The kardashians have something to do with it I’m sure, but then there’s the gut feeling you’re not making ANY difference…ever.

3

Is there nothing new under the sun?

First there was this:

Then there was this:

And then, there was this:

(Full disclosure: I knew Seymour Martin Lipset, and he was as wonderful as the reviews say.)

I will skip the Princeton boys’ twice-chewed cabbage, and this whole round of revisionism.

4

These academics don’t seem to understand what a representative democracy is.

Representative democracy is a form of government founded on the principle of elected individuals representing the people, as opposed to autocracy and direct democracy.

The representatives form an independent ruling body (for an election period) charged with the responsibility of acting in the people’s interest, but not as their proxy representatives not necessarily always according to their wishes, but with enough authority to exercise swift and resolute initiative in the face of changing circumstances.

http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Representative_democracy.html

5

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
These academics don’t seem to understand what a representative democracy is.

Representative democracy is a form of government founded on the principle of elected individuals representing the people, as opposed to autocracy and direct democracy.

The representatives form an independent ruling body (for an election period) charged with the responsibility of acting in the people’s interest, but not as their proxy representatives not necessarily always according to their wishes, but with enough authority to exercise swift and resolute initiative in the face of changing circumstances.

http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Representative_democracy.html
[/quote]

Spoken like a true Burkeian:

“Certainly, gentlemen, it ought to be the happiness and glory of a representative to live in the strictest union, the closest correspondence, and the most unreserved communication with his constituents. Their wishes ought to have great weight with him; their opinion, high respect; their business, unremitted attention. It is his duty to sacrifice his repose, his pleasures, his satisfactions, to theirs; and above all, ever, and in all cases, to prefer their interest to his own. But his unbiassed opinion, his mature judgment, his enlightened conscience, he ought not to sacrifice to you, to any man, or to any set of men living. These he does not derive from your pleasure; no, nor from the law and the constitution. They are a trust from Providence, for the abuse of which he is deeply answerable. Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.”

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch13s7.html

6

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
These academics don’t seem to understand what a representative democracy is.

Representative democracy is a form of government founded on the principle of elected individuals representing the people, as opposed to autocracy and direct democracy.

The representatives form an independent ruling body (for an election period) charged with the responsibility of acting in the people’s interest, but not as their proxy representatives not necessarily always according to their wishes, but with enough authority to exercise swift and resolute initiative in the face of changing circumstances.

http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Representative_democracy.html
[/quote]

Spoken like a true Burkeian:

“Certainly, gentlemen, it ought to be the happiness and glory of a representative to live in the strictest union, the closest correspondence, and the most unreserved communication with his constituents. Their wishes ought to have great weight with him; their opinion, high respect; their business, unremitted attention. It is his duty to sacrifice his repose, his pleasures, his satisfactions, to theirs; and above all, ever, and in all cases, to prefer their interest to his own. But his unbiassed opinion, his mature judgment, his enlightened conscience, he ought not to sacrifice to you, to any man, or to any set of men living. These he does not derive from your pleasure; no, nor from the law and the constitution. They are a trust from Providence, for the abuse of which he is deeply answerable. Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.”

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch13s7.html[/quote]

Scipio: How can a state ruled by a tyrant be called a republic at all? For that is what republic means - res publica, “the property of the people.” No country where everyone is oppressed by a single man, where there is no common bond of justice, where there is no agreement among those coming together, can ever belong to the people. Take Syracuse, that most glorious of cities, which Timaeus calls the greatest Greek town and more beautiful than any other. Its citadel was a sight to behold, as were its port and harbour, whose waters reached to the heart of the city and the foundations of its buildings. Its streets were broad with magnificent colonnades, temples, and walls. Yet it certainly could not be called a republic while Dionysius ruled, because everything belonged to him. Therefore, wherever a tyrant rules we ought not to say that it is a bad republic - as I know I said yesterday - because it really isn’t a republic at all.

Laelius: Well said, Scipio. Now I understand what you were talking about earlier.

Scipio: So you see that even a country controlled by a small number of men rather than a dictator cannot be called a republic?

Laelius: Yes, I certainly do.

Scipio: And you would be right to believe so. Where was the “property of the people” when after the great Peloponnesian War the notorious Thirty took over Athens? Did the ancient glory of that state or its splendid buildings, theatres, gymnasiums, colonnades, noble Propylaea, acropolis, works of art by Phidias, or magnificent port of Piraeus make it a republic?

Laelius: No, of course not, since nothing truly belonged to the people.

Scipio: What about when the Board of Ten ruled in Rome without any right of appeal, when freedom had lost all its defences?

Laelius: There was no such thing then as a republic. Indeed, the people soon rose up to regain their liberty.

Scipio: Consider now a third type of government that can also cause many problems, namely [direct] democracy. Suppose in such a state the people control everything and all power is in their hands. The masses inflict punishment on whomever they choose and seize, plunder, keep, or distribute whatever they want. Isn’t that the very definition, Laelius, of a state in which the property belongs to the people? Wouldn’t you describe that as the perfect republic?

Laelius: I certainly would not! There is no state less deserving of the name than one in which all property is subject to the whims of the multitude. We have already decided that no republic existed in Syracuse or Agrigentum or Athens when they were ruled by tyrants nor here in Rome when the Board of Ten was in charge. I cannot see how despotism is lessened when a state is ruled by a mob. As you wisely said, Scipio, a true republic can exist only when the citizens consent to be bound together under the law. The monstrosity you describe surely deserves the name of tyranny just as much as if it were a single person. Actually, it is even worse, for there is nothing more despicable than a government that falsely assumes the appearance and name of “the people.”

  • Cicero, De Re Publica
7

Something of a similar note, I figure it may belong on this thread. It has to do with what our government and ruling parties are really looking like and how our society really treats us all. We are all supposed to be represented right? Well who is represented really? Freedom and Justice for all eh?

http://www.hulu.com/watch/619112

http://www.alternet.org/books/matt-taibbi-superrich-america-have-become-untouchables-america-who-dont-go-prison

In an Oligarchy those with money rule. In our system those with money seem to experience a different, more lenient form of justice and punishment, also those with money rule. I’d say calling us an Oligarchy is sort of a scary but eye opening thing.

We really need to check ourselves here, our European neighbors are more western than we are, they experience more overall freedoms across the board.

8

[quote]Severiano wrote:
Something of a similar note, I figure it may belong on this thread. It has to do with what our government and ruling parties are really looking like and how our society really treats us all. We are all supposed to be represented right? Well who is represented really? Freedom and Justice for all eh?

http://www.hulu.com/watch/619112

http://www.alternet.org/books/matt-taibbi-superrich-america-have-become-untouchables-america-who-dont-go-prison

In an Oligarchy those with money rule. In our system those with money seem to experience a different, more lenient form of justice and punishment, also those with money rule. I’d say calling us an Oligarchy is sort of a scary but eye opening thing.

We really need to check ourselves here, our European neighbors are more western than we are, they experience more overall freedoms across the board.
[/quote]

Have you actually lived in Europe? I have. And I can assure you that freedom of speech only exists for those espousing common orthodoxies. The UK has also banned feminists and conservative talk show hosts from entering the country. And the European economies are in sharp decline. With the exception of a couple of small continental countries you are not allowed to bear arms. Have you been to Italy? 42% youth unemployment, 1.41% birthrate and hundreds of thousands of gypsies trying to rob you when you walk down the street. What a wonderful society!

9

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Severiano wrote:
Something of a similar note, I figure it may belong on this thread. It has to do with what our government and ruling parties are really looking like and how our society really treats us all. We are all supposed to be represented right? Well who is represented really? Freedom and Justice for all eh?

http://www.hulu.com/watch/619112

http://www.alternet.org/books/matt-taibbi-superrich-america-have-become-untouchables-america-who-dont-go-prison

In an Oligarchy those with money rule. In our system those with money seem to experience a different, more lenient form of justice and punishment, also those with money rule. I’d say calling us an Oligarchy is sort of a scary but eye opening thing.

We really need to check ourselves here, our European neighbors are more western than we are, they experience more overall freedoms across the board.
[/quote]

Have you actually lived in Europe? I have. And I can assure you that freedom of speech only exists for those espousing common orthodoxies. The UK has also banned feminists and conservative talk show hosts from entering the country. And the European economies are in sharp decline. With the exception of a couple of small continental countries you are not allowed to bear arms. Have you been to Italy? 42% youth unemployment, 1.41% birthrate and hundreds of thousands of gypsies trying to rob you when you walk down the street. What a wonderful society!
[/quote]

The U.K. and their surveillance mirrors our own, but the Nords seem to have gotten things right as far as money and power goes.

If we could somehow mate the Nordlanders laws and ability to keep banksters in check seems to be a boon. Their justice systems in places like Norway, Sweden, Finland and Iceland seems a bit soft but at the same time they at least on the surface seem to follow a system of justice in terms of a rehabilitation theory. Ours doesn’t follow shit except convention, tradition and precedent.

Now, if we could just take Nord legal system and put in on the Gold Cost of Australia, and replace all the crossfit boxes with powerlifting gyms… That would be my Valhalla.

10

I always liked this video wrt democracy, republic, oligarchy

11

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Severiano wrote:
Something of a similar note, I figure it may belong on this thread. It has to do with what our government and ruling parties are really looking like and how our society really treats us all. We are all supposed to be represented right? Well who is represented really? Freedom and Justice for all eh?

http://www.hulu.com/watch/619112

http://www.alternet.org/books/matt-taibbi-superrich-america-have-become-untouchables-america-who-dont-go-prison

In an Oligarchy those with money rule. In our system those with money seem to experience a different, more lenient form of justice and punishment, also those with money rule. I’d say calling us an Oligarchy is sort of a scary but eye opening thing.

We really need to check ourselves here, our European neighbors are more western than we are, they experience more overall freedoms across the board.
[/quote]

Have you actually lived in Europe? I have. And I can assure you that freedom of speech only exists for those espousing common orthodoxies. The UK has also banned feminists and conservative talk show hosts from entering the country. And the European economies are in sharp decline. With the exception of a couple of small continental countries you are not allowed to bear arms. Have you been to Italy? 42% youth unemployment, 1.41% birthrate and hundreds of thousands of gypsies trying to rob you when you walk down the street. What a wonderful society!
[/quote]

True. The unemployment in Western Europe is frightening, and we are suggesting we should somehow model ourselves after this ?

12

5606×4024 3.19 MB

I think this sums it up pretty well.

13

Does anyone ever wonder if the founding fathers, or at least some of them, knew exactly what they were doing?

14

[quote]bigflamer wrote:
I think this sums it up pretty well.[/quote]

The price of liberty is eternal vigilance.

15

FWIW, a republic is a subtype of liberal democracy.

16

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]bigflamer wrote:
I think this sums it up pretty well.[/quote]

The price of liberty is eternal vigilance. [/quote]

A balance must be struck between liberty and security, for too much of either weakens its counterpart.

17

[quote]ZJStrope wrote:
Does anyone ever wonder if the founding fathers, or at least some of them, knew exactly what they were doing?[/quote]

The irony of the last bolded line in SM’s post did not escape me.

I thought the exact same thing. The cynical part of me says yes. They knew what they were doing and they knew that a bunch of basic bumpkins would never read philosophical musings on what is or is not a republic.

18

[quote]ZJStrope wrote:
Does anyone ever wonder if the founding fathers, or at least some of them, knew exactly what they were doing?[/quote]

They had a pretty good idea.

The problem is that the message and point of what they actually wanted to achieve got lost.

What we have today, mostly the idealism and the very concept of government itself, is a far cry from what they thought they created. Neither Democrats nor Republicans probably come close.

Granted, what they thought they created was idealistic, to say the least. It probably never could have actually existed in the manner they wanted and as soon as the people who had an active hand in creating the government died, it sort of went a different direction. As you would expect.

And keep in mind that the elites of the 18th century had a very strong belief in the concept of social betters. They genuinely thought themselves better than those below their social levels. Whether this translated into contempt and arrogance really depends on the individual.

This belief pretty much drove their entire political thinking. They believed in the concept of democracy and a republican government, sure, but they also had in mind that ultimately it would always be THEM in control. But they attempted to differentiate this from a monarchy or dictatorship with one key assumption- That they would be working for the common good and not for their own personal benefit. They also believed that whatever was good for them, would be good for everyone else, and that they would be capable of representing the lesser in a proper and fair manner. All they had to do was trust them.

Wishful thinking of the worst kind imo. But, like I said, idealistic.

In all honesty, while the folks who created the Constitution were undoubtedly incredibly talented and more concerned with leveling the playing field than most others, you really shouldn’t forget the fact that they probably would have considered people like you and me irrelevant in the grand scheme of things, and they created the Constitution to benefit them. I don’t buy the thought that the Constitution is infallible or even remotely close to “perfect”.

Anyways, we’re utterly failing to be what they would have considered proper citizens of a republic. That is, very well educated and independent wealth generators, either through land or business. The unfortunate fact is that it is incredibly difficult for most people to achieve the independence that they thought of, largely because of simple economics and the changing of technology and the world. But there’s nothing wrong with this; the realities that they lived in is very different from ours. I think it’s silly to attempt to hold onto old ideals just for the sake of tradition.

What is detestable is that we let education slip so low and don’t hold it as priority #1.

19

[quote]Bismark wrote:
A balance must be struck between liberty and security, for too much of either weakens its counterpart.[/quote]

A balance doesn’t need to be struck between the two; they are not mutually exclusive. Liberty can exist in full, but a (real) crime is committed if one violates another’s liberty. Security can exist in full(at least as much as security can ever exist), but a (real) crime is committed if one’s security measures violate another’s liberty.

20

[quote]NickViar wrote:

A balance doesn’t need to be struck between the two
[/quote]

Yes it does. It’s basic social contract theory.

‘Social contract arguments typically posit that individuals have consented, either explicitly or tacitly, to surrender some of their freedoms and submit to the authority of the ruler or magistrate (or to the decision of a majority), in exchange for protection of their remaining rights.’