Yes, Virginia (and other states), there is an American plutocracy

[pecksniff]

It is an incontrovertible fact that the uberrich wield political power in our country far out of proportion to their numbers. Nothing they solidly oppose will get done, nothing they earnestly want done will be blocked. Yes, we get to vote -- but, to become a serious candidate and get on the ballot, a pol must pass a "wealth primary" -- not that the candidate must be rich, but must have an impressive amount of campaign funding, and we all know where most of it comes from. (Occasionally a Sanders or a Warren or an AOC will be elected nevertheless, but that is a marginal matter the oligarchy can afford to tolerate.) Once elected, they often let lobbyists, or organizations like ALEC, draft their bills for them.

See the 2014 study by Martin Gilens and Benjamin Page of Princeton.

Each of four theoretical traditions in the study of American politics—which can be characterized as theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy, Economic-Elite Domination, and two types of interest-group pluralism, Majoritarian Pluralism and Biased Pluralism—offers different predictions about which sets of actors have how much influence over public policy: average citizens; economic elites; and organized interest groups, mass-based or business-oriented. A great deal of empirical research speaks to the policy influence of one or another set of actors, but until recently it has not been possible to test these contrasting theoretical predictions against each other within a single statistical model. We report on an effort to do so, using a unique data set that includes measures of the key variables for 1,779 policy issues. Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence. The results provide substantial support for theories of Economic-Elite Domination and for theories of Biased Pluralism, but not for theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy or Majoritarian Pluralism.

See here and here. The latter book is mainly about the Kochs and their egregious network of think-tanks, academic institutions and astroturf orgs.

But, wait, it gets worse! The real class enemy here (and you don't need to be a Marxist to know a class enemy when you see one) is not just the upper 1%, it is the upper 20%! They will always get their way!

“The upper middle class, the top fifth, broadly, and above, not only maintain their position very nicely, but perpetuate it over generations more effectively than in the United Kingdom,” said Richard Reeves, a Brookings Institution scholar and author of "Dream Hoarders: How The American Upper Middle Class is Leaving Everyone in the Dust, Why That is a Problem, and What to Do About It". “And yet, that that’s not so widely known or seen as a problem, because of the kind of myth of classlessness that has developed in the U.S.”

Comments like Schumer’s — defending a blurrily defined middle class — are a perfect example of the myth of classlessness that is parsed by Reeves, who was born in Britain but became a U.S. citizen. The biggest picture statistic he cites to frame the problem of improperly dissecting the economy’s real winners and losers is pre-tax income growth between 1979 and 2013. The bottom 80 percent saw their incomes grow by $3 trillion, while the top 20 percent saw their incomes grow by $4 trillion. When you put this on a graph, the bottom four quintiles, or 20 percent sections, slope upward slightly. But not so with the upper middle class; people making roughly $120,000 a year or more.

Either way, whether upper-class or upper-and-upper-middle-class rule, it's oligarchy, not democracy.

I foresee some on this board might defend this state of affairs rather than denying it. I have actually -- not making this up -- seen some PB posters defend the old idea of property qualifications for voting.

"We must make our choice. We may have democracy, or we may have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both."
-- Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis

Choose democracy.

 

[pecksniff]

See also Thomas Piketty's Capital in the Twenty-First Century. It's an international problem.

 

[CornusKousa]

LOL......last I checked all our laws went through congress and we're governed by democratically elected representatives.

What plutocracy??

 

[pecksniff]

LOL......last I checked all our laws went through congress and we're governed by democratically elected representatives.

What plutocracy??

The one that vets the list, pre-election, of those democratically elected representatives.

I'll put you down in the "deny" rather than the "defend" column -- and I'll hope you stay there; that column is more ignorant but less loathsome.

N.B.: I know you tend to see politics in terms of "liberalism" on one side vs. authoritarianism on the other -- but this is not that kind of question. If the plutocracy were to decide you should have no guns, you would have no guns.

 

[pecksniff]

See the 2014 study by Martin Gilens and Benjamin Page of Princeton.

For a criticism of that study, see here.

 

[CornusKousa]

For a criticism of that study, see here.

A Vox opinion piece vs. Princeton prof??

LOL.... that's fuckin' weak.

 

[pecksniff]

A Vox opinion piece vs. Princeton prof??

LOL.... that's fuckin' weak.

The Vox piece refers to other scholarly work questioning Gilen's and Paige's conclusions.

 

[CornusKousa]

The Vox piece refers to other scholarly work questioning Gilen's and Paige's conclusions.

It's Vox....might as well be InfoWarz.

 

[pecksniff]

It's Vox....might as well be InfoWarz.

No, you're thinking of Vox Day. No connection. Vox is this.

 

[CornusKousa]

No, you're thinking of Vox Day. No connection. Vox is this.

Oh no it's the same vox.... even your commie-wiki agrees it's a bullshit site not to be taken seriously by anyone who isn't a radical hardcore leftist who hates individual liberty.

 

[LittleDixie]

"We must make our choice. We may have democracy, or we may have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both."
-- Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis

We don't live in a democracy - with or without rich people.

 

[pecksniff]

"We must make our choice. We may have democracy, or we may have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both."
-- Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis

We don't live in a democracy - with or without rich people.

Please don't get into that democracy vs. republic nonsense.

 

[Lazaran]

"We must make our choice. We may have democracy, or we may have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both."
-- Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis

We don't live in a democracy - with or without rich people.

Um.....

The quote you posted suggests that Democracy can be had minus the concentration of wealth in the hands of the few.

I subscribe to that belief.

 

[CornusKousa]

Um.....

The quote you posted suggests that Democracy can be had minus the concentration of wealth in the hands of the few.

I subscribe to that belief.

Can you cite even a single example of this??

Not even the most hardcore communist countries have been able to do that.

But the left has always been a pseudo religion that relies on beliefs and faith.

 

[pecksniff]

Can you cite even a single example of this??

Not even the most hardcore communist countries have been able to do that.

But the left has always been a pseudo religion that relies on beliefs and faith.

You seem to be saying, not that democracy is impossible, but that equality of wealth is impossible.

I daresay there will always be a socioeconomic pyramid in any society more advanced than hunter-gatherer -- but the shape of that pyramid is negotiable; it is much flatter, the top and bottom closer together, in some societies than others. And, generally speaking, the flatter the better.

 

[pecksniff]

And, this present state of affairs in America, with an economic pyramid so sharp and steep that its top is a spire reaching up several times the height of the basic structure, didn't just happen. See Evil Geniuses, by Kurt Andersen. He refers to plutocrats playing a calculated long game.

 

[CornusKousa]

And, this present state of affairs in America, with an economic pyramid so sharp and steep that its top is a spire reaching up several times the height of the basic structure, didn't just happen. See Evil Geniuses, by Kurt Andersen. He refers to plutocrats playing a calculated long game.

Rich people aren't plutocrats just because they have more than you.

They aren't the boogeyman no matter how much you try to make them out to be as such to avoid holding your PRESIOUS Democrats responsible for their corruption and terrible policies/governance.

 

[pecksniff]

Rich people aren't plutocrats just because they have more than you.

They are plutocrats because they have and wield political power far out of proportion to their numbers.

 

[CornusKousa]

They are plutocrats because they have and wield political power far out of proportion to their numbers.

No they don't.

They don't get extra votes and their vote counts no more than yours or mine.

There is no plutocracy.

 

[pecksniff]

No they don't.

They don't get extra votes and their vote counts no more than yours or mine.

There is no plutocracy.

You are overlooking the dozens of obvious ways in which money can be used to influence elections -- and post-election politics -- and the parameters of political discourse among the general public.

 

[CornusKousa]

You are overlooking the dozens of obvious ways in which money can be used to influence elections -- and post-election politics -- and the parameters of political discourse among the general public.

Not at all... being rich and famous has it's privileges.

Legislating/governing is not one of them, AOC among others very existence as an office holder proves this.

That is decided democratically and like it or not the buck stops with our legislators and executive officials, not rich people for being rich.... there is no plutocracy.

 

[pecksniff]

Not at all... being rich and famous has it's privileges.

Legislating/governing is not one of them . . .

Political influence is. And it's not a matter of being famous -- the real PTB are what Paul Fussell, in his book Class, called the "out-of-sight rich," the ones you never heard of, the ones who live in mansions not visible from the main road, possibly on a privately-owned island.

 

[pecksniff]

How Five Companies Control All US Media.

 

[LittleDixie]

Please don't get into that democracy vs. republic nonsense.

Sorry, but it is true. We vote for people who go to Washington and do what they want. Congress and the president didn't legalize gay marriage even though the majority wanted to. Pot is still illegal, etc...

https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746

Um.....

The quote you posted suggests that Democracy can be had minus the concentration of wealth in the hands of the few.

I subscribe to that belief.

Taking property from people without their consent is stealing. That's wrong.

 

[CornusKousa]

Sorry, but it is true. We vote for people

I glad you understand it is true....we are a democracy and you just admitted it.