This Princeton study by Martin Gilens and Benjamin Page looks at whether American policymaking outcomes best conform to one of four models – “Majoritarian Electoral Democracy,” “Economic Elite Domination,” “Majoritarian Pluralism” and “Biased Pluralism” – and concludes that “Economic Elite Domination” rules, i.e., whenever the American poor, middle and rich disagree on what is to be done, the rich almost always get their way – despite their relatively small numbers. I.e., the rich not only wield economic power as one would expect, they also wield political power far out of proportion to their numbers. DailyKos summarizes this as, “Too Important for Clever Titles – Scientific Study Says We Are an Oligarchy.”
Discussed in this Elections thread, but that thread is mainly about whether such questions even can be studied scientifically, whether “oligarchy” is a concept subject to scientific definition, etc. Let us not debate any of that here, but rather just assume the study’s conclusion as defined above is correct. (See also the Thomas Piketty thread in GD; Piketty’s thesis is mainly that capitalism does not tend to produce economic equality except in special circumstances which have not applied in the West for decades now, but he also addresses the effects on elite domination of public policy outcomes.)
Let us also assume that is a Bad Thing. (There are alternate views on that point, but they are not open for debate in this particular thread, maybe another.)
What can we do about it? How can we turn plutocracy into democracy? (I will not say “again.” Whether America ever had non-plutocratic democracy before is a question not relevant here except insofar as it relates to this question – which might be very far indeed.)
I’ve always pushed for the idea of a multiparty system and systemic electoral reforms facilitating the emergence of such; but, when you think about it, there’s no reason the plutocrats can’t buy 'em all, Greens and Socialists included, if they’re all in the same fix of having to raise money to win elections. Perhaps campaign-finance reform is the most urgent first step. Anyone have any other ideas?
Find a wealthy, western oecd nation that isn’t a plutocracy and ask them for help. That would be a good first step.
Outside of that, public financing of all elections. Prohibiting people who work for the government to get high paying jobs in the private sector after retirement where even a hint of conflict of interest exists. Reduce income inequality so the wealthy aren’t wealthy enough to buy politicians. Stronger judicial and grassroots oversight. A more involved electorate who cares about plutocracy and votes accordingly.
Stuff like that might help, good luck getting the politicians to pass any of it. Right now the options are naked plutocracy vs empty rhetoric.
I would probably accept that paper’s findings as true, without an assumption, FYI, so I’m probably biased in my assessment.
Within our system, I’m suspect that we are going to be able to do anything about it. Even when we have outcries, such as the SOPA/PIPA blackout last year, it kills the current legislation in a very public manner, and then the same legislation is produced later in another format. We are seeing this, again, with the FCC Neutrality issue. Both parties are arguing past what the public sentiment tends to be and both are fairly indoctrinated to their particular partners that bring in money. Based on what both of them give as solutions to the Net Neutrality issue, they seem to be veering off from what the public generally wants and needs from their internet.
Politicians, while pretty much always serving their own ends in this country, have become very vocally hypercritical of each other. This often leads to them painting themselves into a corner. They can’t back down from their stated position and appear “weak” to be taken by their own party-mates at the next election. They also can’t admit that the other guy is right because the opposite party might take him at the next election.
I can get a lot more detailed into this rabbit hole of politicians sucking, but I think you get the gist.
Thus, I see two avenues out of this:
A) A US-Centrist third party (hopefully not TEAparty 2) arises that acts for real citizen-centric reform (before they can be bought off, at least). I sincerely doubt this happening simply because there is a large set of rules and regulations that are far more stringent for non R/D politicians to advance to polls in most areas. By the time there is enough support for this third party a whole bunch of people will be jumping ship from the D/R aisles - and whoever fills up those new-party spaces most “wins” the party. They’ll likely end up voting mostly with the host party.
B) We continue down this path and Congress/POTUS eventually crosses a line that angries up enough people to start a revolution. It could be something like taking our internet dangly bits away completely and horny internet users just up and snap. I can also see a long march towards oligarchical totalitarianism embarked upon and the rebellion happening at some point of critical mass as more and more people are disenfranchised with the government.
I honestly hope that we can make A happen, but I’m fairly certain that B will happen. Though, I’m fairly cynical and pessimistic, so your thoughts are likely far more optimistic.
Tricky. How do we do that without a violent revolution? And…if we had a violent revolution, how do we know we would get a Parliamentary system in the end, as opposed to a dictatorship? Once you tear up the Constitution, nearly anything could happen, and the bad results are about equally likely as the good ones.
Parliamentary government has its advantages but I don’t see it as being a bastion against oligarchy. Quite the opposite - it makes it easier for an oligarchical system to hold power. Parliamentary government raises the power of parties and mutes the power of individuals. This is an obvious tool to keep rebels and reformers under control and maintain mainstream rule.
Yes, but, rebels and reformers also form political parties, and perhaps more easily under a parliamentary system. Democracy is not supposed to be about the power of individuals anyway, it’s an essentially collective thing.
On that note, see The Frozen Republic: How the Constitution Is Paralyzing Democracy, by Daniel Lazare. Well worth a read even if you disagree, it will tell you a lot of fascinating and important stuff you probably didn’t know about American (and British) constitutional and political history.
Almost impossible; the Constitution itself is so hugely entrenched. You’d have to ask a huge majority of the states to throw away their only advantage. Under a parliamentary system, Connecticut is roughly as powerful as San Diego county. And there are a lot of other states in the same position. To ask them to give up their Senate seats in a massive Constitutional amendment is simply beyond reasonable.
Now, yes, within the Constitution, we could definitely begin to approach a Parliamentary model, simply by changing some of the internal rules of the House and Senate (which the Constitution permits.) So, progress is available even under the limits of our system.
But actually scrapping it and starting over? Not conceivable outside of a new Civil War or a violent revolution. It’s too advantageous to too many people.
The better approach is to follow the examples of 1901 and 1932, and elect a government that will reign in the plutocrats and oligarchs, and introduce a tax structure that breaks up the huge concentrations of wealth and property. It requires the popular will, and, when that is strong enough, no amount of wealth can oppose it, even under our Constitution’s limitations.
BG: Try as you might, there is just no practical way to turn the US into a European Social Democracy. But keep trying. That brick wall might have a weak spot somewheres!
No, you can have a parliamentary democracy which is also a federal state with equal status accorded to areas of different size/population; look at Australia, for example, whose House/Senate model is very consciously taken from the US.
I think the key point about a parliamentary democracy is that the executive is accountable to parliament, which means that to remain in office, or to maximise the chances of reelection, it’s not enough to gratify the wealthy interests who can fund your re-election campaign; you have to maintain the support of parliament.
Whether this would actually work to solve the problems in the OP, well, I remain to be convinced. But if the US wanted to try it, it wouldn’t require a bloody revolution. They managed to ditch the Articles of Confederation in favour of the present Constitution by peacable means, so it could be done again.
(Of course, it’s a chicken-and-egg situation; if a move to a parliamentary system really did threaten the vested interests of the plutocrats who control the present system, they would oppose it. And, with their control of the present system, they would oppose it successfully. On that view, no effective change is possible without putting a few plutocrats up against the wall so that the others acquire a correct understanding of where their best interests lie.)
I’m sure a lot of people said the same thing during the age of the robber-baron. Funny how that crazy-piece-of-paper-no-country-would-dare-touch seemed to correct the issue and provide for the strongest middle class in the world.
No, the Progressive-era and New Deal-era political movements and labor movements, and highly unusual post-WWII economic and geopolitical circumstances, did that; the piece of paper just provided the framework they had to work within, which shows that it is possible to get something done within it, but, still, it might be much easier under a different system.
Step one would be to find a way to get the supreme court to reverse itself and allow strict campaign finance laws. Once big money is out of the picture, populist policies will follow directly.
