When I look at societal ills, you have on one side the obvious power: politicians, religious figures, entire economic systems. Then on the other side, you have the hardcore anti-<insert religion here>, the anti-gay marriage petition signers, the millions upon millions of average people who genuinely believe that global warming is a hoax and that a higher minimum wage will raise prices and destroy businesses like a plague.
Sometimes I wonder which side is more important to the balance of power. What are your thoughts?
(And yes, I know the arguments about indoctrination via church and Fox News and all, but that still leaves a LOT of people who, say, tune in because their preexisting prejudices are confirmed — I don’t think they actually convert centrists and leftists nearly as often, nor am I completely convinced that many of those average citizens who believes in what they say would think differently had Fox News or the Koches or the Catholic Church never existed.)
Money has a huge influence on what the people think. Money really does alter the outcome of elections. It isn’t an absolutely controlling influence, but it’s a kind of extra leverage.
If a small town of 10,000 people is having an election for mayor, and, in the absence of all external influence, Jack is going to win by 52% to 46%, if there is only one newspaper in that town, and the editor goes to the hilt for Jack’s opponent, he can almost certainly turn those odds around.
(I have seen it happen…)
Power in the western industrialized democracies is still pretty well decentralized. So, for most purposes, it’s still We The People.
(Still, it’s nice to be the candidate that rich people support. Better fund-raising dinners, if nothing else.)
They are likely dependent on each other: governments on votes and credit from businesses, businesses on government regulations that favor them and consumer spending, and households on governments for services and on businesses for employment, credit, and goods.