A Tocquevillean Challenge

A common view on the Burn the Constitution thread seems to be that the American system of government, while imperfect, is at least the best of all practical worlds (apologies for the Panglossian paraphrase). Words like “democracy” are often bandied about as proof that the United States represents the acme of freedom and enlightenment. Accordingly, I’d like to play Devil’s advocate for a bit, and challenge the notion that our political structure is anything more than nominally democratic.

Here’s the deal: I’m taking the position that the US is functionally an oligarchy and a plutocracy, rather than a democracy. I’ll cite an aspect of our society/culture/government which indicates pervasive plutocratic or oligarchical tendencies. Those of you who believe otherwise can either refute my assertion, or offer up a counter-example which makes a stronger case for America as a functional democracy–that is, demonstrate that the aspects of our country which are republican and genuinely representative supersede those which are non- or anti-democratic. Clear?

Dictionary definitions, culled from Webster’s Ninth Collegiate:

democracy: a government by the people; esp. the rule of the majority

oligarchy: government by the few

plutocracy: government by the wealthy

I’ll go first, with a set of contentions:

  1. Institutional power in the United States–in business, media, and politics–is held by a demographic which is overwhelmingly white, overwhelmingly male, and–most importantly–overwhelmingly wealthy.

  2. Those in this demographic tend to associate primarily with others who share their socio-economic status, and to develop a particularized world-view based upon that socio-economic status–just as anyone’s perspectives are colored by their own experience.

  3. People of every stripe tend to act rationally, seeking outcomes which are in their own interest. Similarly, people tend not to actively seek outcomes which are not explicitly rational.

  4. Individuals with institutional power are far better equipped to pursue policy goals which achieve outcomes in their own interest than are individuals without institutional power.

  5. The policy interests of the wealthiest ten percent of Americans can sometimes conflict with the policy interests of the other ninety percent. What benefits the few does not always benefit the many.

  6. In general, the policy outcomes sought by those with institutional power are not designed with the various interests of the public in mind.

  7. In general, the interests of policymakers only coincide with the will of the public when prudent or propitious.

  8. A relative few (those with institutional power, and those who share the interests of those with institutional power) shape national policy, with little consideration for a relative many.

Therefore, America’s an oligarchy. Responses? :slight_smile:

Interesting. Most of your points make sense at first glance, but I have some questions:

  1. What institutions in particular do you have in mind?

  2. Why are the white males holding power in these intitutions causing the country to move toward socialism at an alarming rate?

  3. If you view oligarchy as problematic, what is your suggested solution? (please don’t point toward a redistribution of wealth scheme).

::

Oh, but it gets better than that, Gadarene. People do tend to act rationally, and to seek rational outcomes, but they often do this in a short-sighted way in a limited context. This nation has a highly developed bureaucracy, and the power of anyone in it is related to which portions of the bureaucracy they control. Therefore, a bureaucrat, in order to expand or preserve his or her own power, is going to protect and attempt to expand the “turf” that his or her department has dominion over. Thus, bureaucrats become overly protective of “pet projects”, funding sources, and other such sources of power. What this means for you and me is that while the bureaucrats move in ways that appear rational to them, the end result is irrational policy. The military develops and buys weapons that don’t work, the White House, State, and Defense Departments follow mutually contradictory foreign policies, and in the face of all this, the bureaucrats sometimes need to resort to extralegal means to keep the engine running smoothly (I’m thinking specifically of Iran-Contra here.) All of this plays into the hands of major corporations, who can exploit bureaucracies to their own ends, and the wealthy who run them.

What we here in the U.S. have is a plutocracy to a certain extent, and an oligarchy to an even greater extent, but the defining mode of government here is bureaucracy- rule by a little guy at a desk somewhere. And bureaucracies, as everyone knows, do not make any sense outside of their own contexts. So, my assertion is that it’s not an issue of the wealthy or the corporations setting an agenda, it’s an issue of an agenda setting itself, and powerful and wealthy people playing along.


Heck is where you go when you don’t believe in Gosh.

Uh-Oh, CaliBoomer knows too much. Someone inform the party leaders.

I’d love to dispute your points there Gadarene, but honestly I think you’re right. Lets see if anyone comes forth to dispute them.

I agree with this assessment, but am still wondering why the bureaucracies was formed in the first place. Or does it just grow like cancer once it get started?

:

There is theoretical power and effective power. Theoretically, our government is a democracy, effectively, I would agree that it is a plutocratic oligarchy.

However this is not necessarily a bad thing. Generally speaking, an oligarchy will have a higer average level of intelligence. By harnessing the oligarchy, we increase the level of intelligence in our government. And a plutocracy gives power to those who make efficient economic decisions.

The key point is that the oligarchy must persuade the holders of the theoretical power to allow them their effective power. Thus, the people’s theoretical power is effective.

Any government other than a pure direct democracy with no officers can accurately be termend an “oligarchy.” But, just as the management of a corporation must answer to its shareholders, the oligarchs of our society must answer to the people at large. If they become too extreme or obvious at pursuing their interests at the expense of the people, the people do retain the ability to strip them of their power.


No matter where you go, there you are.

Gadarene: “3) People of every stripe tend to act rationally, seeking outcomes which are in their own interest. Similarly, people tend not to actively seek outcomes which are not explicitly rational.

Counterexample: White involvement in the abolitionist and civil rights movement, male involvement in equal rights for women, etc. People are often motivated by principle rather than short-term self interest. I would argue that a fair and equitable society is in my own long-term self interest, but I think that the implication of your question was more toward short-term.

6) In general, the policy outcomes sought by those with institutional power are not designed with the various interests of the public in mind.

I believe that, along with five, you are trying to imply that the wealthy are in charge, and establish policies that benefit themselves. Counterexample: a progressive income tax.

In general, the interests of policymakers only coincide with the will of the public when prudent or propitious.

True. However, it is always prudent for a politician to make policy which coincides (or at least is not obviously at large variance with) public opinion. Notice: many politicians are criticized for “poll-driven politics”.

8) A relative few (those with institutional power, and those who share the interests of those with institutional power) shape national policy, with little consideration for a relative many.

Without an ability to read minds, we will never know for sure. It could be that public policy coincides with the will of the people through some incredible coincidence. However, one would assume that if policymakers paid little to no attention to the desires of a plurality of americans, then polls which ask questions like “is the country on the right track” would yield lower results (unless you believe in a conspiracy of pollsters).

All of 'em. grin That is to say, those which shape national policy or set the public agenda. Corporations and their media extensions, NGOs, and the federal government (and to a lesser degree that of the states).

Well, I don’t believe they are. But two questions back atcha:

  1. Ya know, I keep hearing that we’re “moving toward socialism at an alarming rate,” and nobody ever explains exactly what that means. Could you enlighten me as to the specific socialist policies which are currently pervading our lives? Be prepared, too, to explain why they’re actually socialist, as opposed to liberal or secular or just plain different from what you personally believe.

  2. I know your question was both rhetorical and sarcastic. But if you believe that the country is turning socialist, and you acknowledge that the preponderance of institutional power in this country, as measured by political representation and corporate ownership, is in fact held by rich white guys, then who are causing the push toward socialism, if not them? Seems like either a)we’re not becoming socialist, b)white men don’t have most of the power in this country, or c)your rhetorical question isn’t so rhetorical.

Calif, with due respect, you think everything’s a redistribution of wealth scheme. (As an aside, public libraries are one of the only truly socialist institutions in this country. Are you opposed to public libraries?) But yeah, I’ve got some ideas. We could start by making a fuller commitment to education and the revitalization of the urban infrastructure, while toning down the “redistribution of wealth” known as corporate welfare…which you’re against, right? I mean, taking money from taxpayers so McDonald’s can advertise the Big Mac in Singapore? Oops, that’s another example of oligarchy. Anyway. :slight_smile:

First of all, neuro-trash grrrl: I pretty much agree with everything you said, and you said it far more articulately than I could’ve. It’s definitely true that bureaucrats exert an inordinate amount of control over the implementation of policy, especially since they’re unelected and largely unaccountable. However, a certain degree of specialization is necessary if we want to get anything done 'round here–the argument, of course, is that those whose interests are vested in the status quo (whether through the entrenchment of bureaucracy or the perpetuation of institutional power) will try to keep anything from getting done which might alter that status quo. If we could combine the knowledge of the career bureaucrats with a long-term desire to effect policy beneficial to the general welfare, then we’d be getting somewhere.

See, I understand where you’re going with this, but I think that kind of perspective can be self-perpetuating. I mean, yes, generally speaking an oligarchy will have a higher level of intelligence. But carrying that idea forward veers dangerously close to the Platonic vision of a philosopher-king. And Plato, of course, stipulated the necessary existence of a large servant class when envisioning his Republic (like Adam Smith did, but that’s a different story). I’d much rather work toward what Benjamin Barber has called “an aristocracy of everyone,” where we work on increasing the potential of the public at large to be an informed and capable citizenry. Then we can start working on those democratic principles.

Efficient for whom, though? A company’s stock often goes up if it lays off 4,000 workers. Good news for investors, bad news for the workers. (And please, CalifBoomer, I don’t mean “the workers” in some abstract anarcho-syndicalist communal sense, so spare me. :)) The danger in a plutocracy, to me, is that what’s good for the CEOs ain’t always good for the country at large, especially in the longer term.

Granted. Unless they just pursue their interests subtly. Or the people at large stop caring, too interested in their credit limits and their VCRs and their many, many brands of running shoes. Entrenched power is only contested by an active electorate…something, arguably, we’ve never really had 'round these parts.

It was. Your examples are good ones…and, frankly, heartening. Many movements have at their core reforms which necessarily involve the longer term, and I think that’s a great thing. The problem is, when you don’t see the need for reform–when you like everything pretty much how it is, thankyouverymuch–you become less likely, IMHO, to think in terms of long-term rationality. I’d argue that the dominant national institutions are geared largely toward short-term self-interest, and long-term self-preservation: not always seeing, for example, that eroding your consumer base in a quest for greater profit margins now–like when you throw thousands out of work to move your factories overseas–might just come back and bite ya later.

Counter-counterexamples: the machete taken to the capital gains tax. corporate tax loopholes and shelters. reduction of estate tax. a progressive income tax that really ain’t all that progressive.

But yeah, I’m generally implying that the wealthy are best-equipped to influence policy, and aren’t likely, collectively, to establish policies adverse to their own well-being.

You’re right. But poll-driven politicians, however pervasive, are only one aspect of institutional power. People, when polled, are overwhelmingly in favor of some kind of campaign finance reform. Which means that some politicians will make some pretty speeches (either about the sanctity of the system, or about the sanctity of free speech), and then nothing will get done. People, when polled, are also overwhelmingly in favor of a flag-burning amendment. Which means that some politicians will make some pretty speeches (either about the sanctity of the flag, or about the sanctity of free speech), and then nothing will get done. Some of those politicians may well themselves genuinely believe in the legislation–but in both cases, dominant institutions exist (corporations, the USSC) which will ensure that the process won’t advance much beyond the pandering.

(Incidentally, the Supreme Court is from time to time one of the strongest arguments in favor of enlightened oligarchy, being able to push for far-reaching and long-term reforms in the name of the general welfare. Of course, the Supreme Court is more often unbelieveably political and petty itself, so there y’are.)

No, though I believe that polls are flawed, and over-reliance on polls (as you pointed out) as dangerous as ignoring public opinion altogether. (Exhibits A and B: Bill Clinton; Newt Gingrich.) I just don’t think public policy–or the motivations for public policy–are as coincidant with the will of the people as you say. Good things do happen, I’m not denying that…and politicians do pay attention to their constituency as well as their donors. But political institutions are only part of the story, and even they aren’t representing the interests of the people so much as representing the interests of some people. And, consistently, the same “some people.”

Gadarene:

But of course. Got to love that proto-fascist! :slight_smile: In Plato’s scheme, the philosopher-king and the ruling class in general had no direct accountability to the people. That’s the crucial step. If you keep both effective and theoretical power in the oligarchy, it will become totally corrupt.

Granted. The OP is very broad; I’m painting with a broad brush as well.

But isn’t that direct proof that the interests of the people are being (on the whole) satisfied? It is only a dissatisfied populace that pursues social change.


No matter where you go, there you are.

Not quite.

  1. Just how does one example of democracy cancel out an example of non-democracy? What’s the central question: “Is the US perfectly democratic” or “Is the US mostly democratic” [what’s “mostly democratic”?] or “Is the US more democratic than most countries?”

  2. Are the terms “democracy” and “oligarchy” mutually exclusive? If the people democratically decide to give power to a small number of people (and retain the power to revoke the power), is it still a democracy?

  3. Are those that are “in power” getting what they want because they are “in power”, or are they “in power” because they are getting what they want? That is, is it possible that those that agree with the predominant mood of the country get “in power” because of that prior agreement, rather than using their power to create agreement?

  4. Your definitions referred to government, yet your examples of oligarchy referred to instituional power. Do you consider de facto governmental bodies (that is, bodies that have government-like powers in small areas of control), such as the Motion Picture Association, Microsoft, and the College Board, to be on par with de jure governmental bodies as far as determining what type of government we have?

  5. If all people have the same amount of potential political power, but only a small number of people actually exercise their political power, is it still a democracy?

Examples of central, governmental economic planning:
Anti-trust laws
Government-supported monopolies
Federal Reserve
IRA, 401(k), Social Security, etc.
Corporate Welfare
Rent control
Zoning

We are far from “going commie”, but we’re certainly not perfectly capitalist either.

I agree that we shouldn’t simply hand all over all our power to a small group of people, but a certain amount of concentration of power of power makes sense. No one (at least, not that I know of) complains about hospitals being staffed by a small group of specialized workers rather than rotating in people from the community. “Hey, let Bob get a crack at the next gunshot victim. He going back to working at the used car lot tommorrow, and he really wants to oversee a blood transfusion before he goes!”

I think it’s direct proof that people aren’t paying attention, or have stopped paying attention, to public affairs–whether through apathy, frustration, or satisfaction. Or maybe in-between working forty hours a week, making time for your family, and barely scraping by, a lot of people are so exhausted that they accept these latter day bread-and-circuses as providing some measure of satisfaction, in lieu of substantive change that would make their lives appreciably better.

Gadarene, I think that when poeple talk about the US being a great example of a democracy they aren’t talking about the dictionary definition of a democracy. What they are talking about is:

  1. A nation in which the leaders are selected by a vote of the people.

  2. A government that is both empowered and limited (in actual practice) by a governing document (a constitution, though it doesn’t necessarily have to be written down)

  3. A government that respects and protects the fundamental human rights of its citizens.

The US definitely has 2 & 3 covered, although I can see where there’s room for argument on number 1.

The Ryan (can I call you The?): All good questions. And I’d answer 'em, 'cept I’m exhausted and would likely babble in an unsatisfactory manner. I’ll take your points one by one tomorrow, unless one of y’all who sees where I’m coming from with this would like to attempt an answer yourself. As to your final point about the need for centralization of power, though: I utterly agree. See my response to neuro-trash grrrl about specialization. My concern is that the centralized policy-making body (or bodies, since in my estimation corporations are de jure governmental entities, in certain ways) is responsive to the general welfare of the country, and can be held accountable, and can implement long-term goals which will benefit the most people possible (you guessed it; I’ve got my utilitarian side).

A point I was going to make on an earlier post which has some relevance here: When James Watt was Secretary of the Interior at the beginning of Reagan’s first term, he fervently believed that Jesus Christ would be returning within our lifetime. To that end, this man–in charge of public policy relating to forestry, natural resources, clean air and water, etcetera–saw absolutely no need for long-term conservation of anything, since he was sure we’d all be gone long before all the trees were chopped down or the fresh water used up. So he let corporations run roughshod over the environment. To me, that’s an example of an ostensible public representative subverting the general welfare to his own interests and his own beliefs, and doing it in such a way that any long-term planning was dramatically eschewed. And I think it’s a perfect allegory.

SingleDad:

Gadarene:

Friends, this is untrue.

Education can make you more articulate.
But it can’t make you more intelligent.

You and I are NOT more intelligent than uneducated “savages”. This could be humorously illustrated by transporting a bunch(preferably a large bunch) of oligarchs into the Kalahari Desert with 2 days worth of water. A San tribesman would have no trouble surviving.

For a government to have smarter leadership it would need to find and promote intelligent people. In America, our leaders support their sons.

No competittion. No change.

Sorry Gadarene, I agree with your OP.
Sorry SingleDad, you are OK with me.
But this is an elitist position.

The people in charge are better than the rest of the people, so they deserve to be in charge.

Untrue.


Just putting my 2sense in.

Tyranny, like Hell, is not easily conquered.

-Thomas Paine (fugitive slave catcher)

SingleDad

Offhand, I’d say that’s about right.

Witness the Third Reich’s brilliant Eastern Front campaign and the Soviet Union’s profound economic insights. Cuba’s stunning technological achievements are legendary. And is there any more advanced culture in the arts and sciences than North Korea?

[…slapping forehead…]

Gosh, I almost forgot Idi Amin’s Uganda, which has so drastically skewed the intelligence bell curve toward the African oligarchies. South Africa, for example, was much more intelligent when Mandela was in prison. It just lacked social skills.

OK, I just spent over a hour typing a detailed post for this thread, when I had a #$%&@ hardware fault, and had to reboot the computer - lost the post, of course.

I’ll just hit the highlights on this version.

It may help this debate if we use the same terminology to describe the same things. This debate revolves around ‘democracy’, so we need to be very specific about the meaning of that term.

The term ‘Democracy’ has usually been applied to two different political conditions: classical direct democracy, where every citizen is expected to take part in the government (passing laws, holding office, etc.) and modern representative democracy, where ultimate power rests with the citizen body but actual government is in the hands of a small group of people.

The relationship between these two political systems can be illustrated by the following chart:

                            Ultimate authority is in the hands of the citizen body

            Classical Tyranny
    Modern 'Democracy'

Classical Democracy
Medieval Oligarchy
Modern Dictatorship

                            Ultimate authority is in the hands of the government

Note that the two sources of authority coincide with Classical Democracy.

I had better post this portion now and post the next section separately.

Bill

Oops…

That chart should be as follows:

…Power rests with the citizenry

…Classical Tyranny
…Modern 'Democracy
Classical Democracy
…Medieval Oligarchy
…Modern Dictatorship

…Power rests with the government

Bill

Gadarene:

A fair question, if only because the word ‘socialism’ is contoversial or even inflammatory to its adherents.

The first step would be to look at the definition of socialism:
so·cial·ism (ssh-lzm)
n.
A social system in which the means of producing and distributing goods are owned collectively and political power is exercised by the whole community.
The theory or practice of those who support such a social system.
The building of the material base for communism under the dictatorship of the proletariat in Marxist-Leninist theory.
a political theory advocating state ownership of industry 2: an economic system based on state ownership of capital [syn: socialist economy] [ant: capitalism]

Compare this definition to government’s increasingly intrusive activities over the past 30 or so years and you can see the correlation. Those activities would include, but are not limited to:

  1. Manipulation and complication of the tax code (on both individual and corporate levels)for the purpose of making social change as opposed to simply raising revenue.
    What socialist don’t seem to realize is that corporations do not pay tax the way individuals do. Any increase in corporate tax is simply viewed by the corporation as just another cost of doing business that is passed on in the price of its goods and services. Increasing tax on corporations for the purpose of ‘punishing’ them for success is a concept embraced by the left, but it’s actual effect is simply to transfer more money from individuals to the central bureaucracy.

  2. Increasing ‘enabling regulations’ (here’s where the bureaucracies gain power) designed to control the minutia of individual’s lives.
    These ‘enabling regulations’ require increase reporting of private activities to the central bureaucracy, and in an increasing number, intrude on private property rights (witness so-called ‘wetlands’ definitions).

  3. Increasing redistribution of wealth schemes including, but not limited to, social welfare programs designed to create an incresingly dependent class of people, thereby insuring the powerbase of entrenched bureaucrats.

The effect of this is the accretion of power to the central bureaucracy, an integral step to a socialist state.

I do not object to public libraries, or public funding of highways, national defense, etc., as these are the proper use of tax dollars, and do not require complex tax codes or ‘enabling regulations’ to accomplish. BTW, a noted capitalist by the name of Andrew Carnegie was instrumental in the formation of the public library system back at the beginning of the last century.

::