Did you mean to type oiligarchy
October 26, 2014 4:58 AM Subscribe
This post was deleted for the following reason: This article dates to April of this year, when we had a thread on the subject. -- cortex
In violation of Betteridge's law.
posted by Obscure Reference at 5:13 AM on October 26, 2014 [5 favorites]
posted by Obscure Reference at 5:13 AM on October 26, 2014 [5 favorites]
Needs a "well_duh" tag.
posted by Thorzdad at 5:19 AM on October 26, 2014 [3 favorites]
posted by Thorzdad at 5:19 AM on October 26, 2014 [3 favorites]
For the last couple of years I've been very slightly involved in my local government, and it's been striking how openly responsive the elected officials are to developers and local business people. (It's classic growth coalition behavior, exactly as predicted by regime theory, but I had always figured that they would at least maintain a veneer of democratic accountability.) That the rich have an effective veto on national policy is depressing but not surprising; it's more interesting to me how even the rich get stymied by the inertia and barriers to having new policy enacted.
posted by Dip Flash at 5:22 AM on October 26, 2014 [5 favorites]
posted by Dip Flash at 5:22 AM on October 26, 2014 [5 favorites]
From its inception. The post WWII rise of the middle class was a fluke.
posted by mondo dentro at 5:26 AM on October 26, 2014 [8 favorites]
posted by mondo dentro at 5:26 AM on October 26, 2014 [8 favorites]
For me, the really interesting element is this:
More obviously, you have all those defenders of the current political process as rational or meritocratic, which includes those who scold the left and/or the right for perceived political incompetence on the grounds that "the other side" has spent decades of patient work building or working their way into political institutions and has thus captured "the center" or the ability to influence "the center."
If you accept the conclusions of Gilens and Page, then it's really the rich and influential one should try to influence, not the mushy center. In fact, the study's results collapse or at least dramatically diminish a whole popular political narrative in which compromise, triangulation, and internalized tone-policing are framed as the only truly sound, reliable political techniques. (It also takes the piss out of the whole "Dark Enlightenment" crowd; turns out we already have elite rulers, and the D.E. crowd just aren't in it nor are clever enough to recognize it or its workings.)
posted by kewb at 5:30 AM on October 26, 2014 [7 favorites]
This is obviously inconsistent with the median-voter theorem—which holds that policy outcomes reflect the preferences of voters who represent the ideological center—but I don’t think that it is a particularly controversial claim....One of the study’s other interesting findings is that, beyond a certain level, the opinions of the public at large have little impact on the chances a proposal has of being enacted. As I said, policy proposals that have the support of the majority fare better than proposals which are favored only by a minority. But, in the words of Gilens and Page, “The probability of policy change is nearly the same (around 0.3) whether a tiny minority or a large majority of average citizens favor a proposed policy change.”I think that bit is far from being accepted common wisdom, and far from "uncontroversial" as Cassidy claims. Pretty much all mainstream commentary on elections takes some version of "the undecided center" or "the swing voter" for granted.
More obviously, you have all those defenders of the current political process as rational or meritocratic, which includes those who scold the left and/or the right for perceived political incompetence on the grounds that "the other side" has spent decades of patient work building or working their way into political institutions and has thus captured "the center" or the ability to influence "the center."
If you accept the conclusions of Gilens and Page, then it's really the rich and influential one should try to influence, not the mushy center. In fact, the study's results collapse or at least dramatically diminish a whole popular political narrative in which compromise, triangulation, and internalized tone-policing are framed as the only truly sound, reliable political techniques. (It also takes the piss out of the whole "Dark Enlightenment" crowd; turns out we already have elite rulers, and the D.E. crowd just aren't in it nor are clever enough to recognize it or its workings.)
posted by kewb at 5:30 AM on October 26, 2014 [7 favorites]
If America was an oligarchy, Social Security would already have been raided and eliminated. Since the rich skew to gimme conservatives, we would have had complete elimination of a lot more taxes on the rich. America is fighting against a tide of oligarchy (and may lose).
Votes do count in America. Many times over. Your vote is counted for the individual you vote for, it is counted by your demographic and geographical location. Politicians will choose who they can screw over by who doesn't vote.
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 5:40 AM on October 26, 2014 [9 favorites]
Votes do count in America. Many times over. Your vote is counted for the individual you vote for, it is counted by your demographic and geographical location. Politicians will choose who they can screw over by who doesn't vote.
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 5:40 AM on October 26, 2014 [9 favorites]
Sometimes I wonder whether democracy would have been less of a placebo button had they not extended the franchise to all adults; I mean, property-owning old men voting on real matters of policy, the stakeholders could deal with, but a system in which a tidal-wave of billions of votes could decide has to be mitigated into harmlessness, through various mechanisms.
posted by acb at 5:42 AM on October 26, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by acb at 5:42 AM on October 26, 2014 [1 favorite]
Pretty much all mainstream commentary on elections takes some version of "the undecided center" or "the swing voter" for granted.
This "conventional wisdom" is a media narrative used as part of a total strategy to blunt anti-oligarchic democratic forces. It has never been true.
posted by mondo dentro at 5:50 AM on October 26, 2014 [1 favorite]
This "conventional wisdom" is a media narrative used as part of a total strategy to blunt anti-oligarchic democratic forces. It has never been true.
posted by mondo dentro at 5:50 AM on October 26, 2014 [1 favorite]
Undue influence of money in politics /=/ oligarchy.
posted by JPD at 5:50 AM on October 26, 2014 [4 favorites]
posted by JPD at 5:50 AM on October 26, 2014 [4 favorites]
If America was an oligarchy, Social Security would already have been raided and eliminated.
Give them time. Think of the slowly boiled frog theory. You can't just eliminate Social Security overnight and expect the citizenry to sit on their thumbs and accept it. You have to condition them first, to come around to the idea that SS is useless or unnecessary or about to peter-out on its own.
It's only relatively recently that the oligarchs have achieved a level of wealth and media power to where they can easily overwhelm any competing messaging (from either opposing voices or the government itself) to where they can now re-educate Americans. Think, for instance, of how many 20, 30, and even 40-somethings who now absolutely believe that Social Security will not be there for them when they reach retirement. This is a direct result of the long-term drum-beat of that particular meme, reinforced over-and-over through seemingly endless media outlets and nattering heads.
Also, look at just how successful the "starve the beast" mantra have been, especially on the local and state level.
The next 20 or so years are going to be, imho, very crucial to the future of the US. Over this period, I'm afraid, we could very well see the official hand-over of the running of the democracy to corporate interests.
posted by Thorzdad at 5:58 AM on October 26, 2014 [8 favorites]
Give them time. Think of the slowly boiled frog theory. You can't just eliminate Social Security overnight and expect the citizenry to sit on their thumbs and accept it. You have to condition them first, to come around to the idea that SS is useless or unnecessary or about to peter-out on its own.
It's only relatively recently that the oligarchs have achieved a level of wealth and media power to where they can easily overwhelm any competing messaging (from either opposing voices or the government itself) to where they can now re-educate Americans. Think, for instance, of how many 20, 30, and even 40-somethings who now absolutely believe that Social Security will not be there for them when they reach retirement. This is a direct result of the long-term drum-beat of that particular meme, reinforced over-and-over through seemingly endless media outlets and nattering heads.
Also, look at just how successful the "starve the beast" mantra have been, especially on the local and state level.
The next 20 or so years are going to be, imho, very crucial to the future of the US. Over this period, I'm afraid, we could very well see the official hand-over of the running of the democracy to corporate interests.
posted by Thorzdad at 5:58 AM on October 26, 2014 [8 favorites]
Not in the traditional sense, no. The US, like many modern capital driven economies, just modern capitalism. Which is pretty much the same thing as an oligarchy. At least in practice if not principle.
Of course, practitioners of modern capitalism are more about theory than practice, so they would not agree.
posted by clvrmnky at 6:02 AM on October 26, 2014
Of course, practitioners of modern capitalism are more about theory than practice, so they would not agree.
posted by clvrmnky at 6:02 AM on October 26, 2014
This "conventional wisdom" is a media narrative used as part of a total strategy to blunt anti-oligarchic democratic forces. It has never been true.
I wasn't calling it "true." I was calling it "widely believed." In other words, I'm saying that the strategy you describe has been quite successful. I think we're having one of those bouts of contentious agreement.
posted by kewb at 6:04 AM on October 26, 2014
I wasn't calling it "true." I was calling it "widely believed." In other words, I'm saying that the strategy you describe has been quite successful. I think we're having one of those bouts of contentious agreement.
posted by kewb at 6:04 AM on October 26, 2014
Votes do count in America. Many times over.
Boston Globe: Vote All You Want, the Secret Government Won't Change
More, via Bill Moyers: Anatomy of the Deep State.
posted by ryanshepard at 6:12 AM on October 26, 2014 [7 favorites]
Boston Globe: Vote All You Want, the Secret Government Won't Change
More, via Bill Moyers: Anatomy of the Deep State.
posted by ryanshepard at 6:12 AM on October 26, 2014 [7 favorites]
Thorzdad: "look at just how successful the "starve the beast" mantra have been, especially on the local and state level."
I think that your boil the frog analogy is spot on but I also wonder if the frogs have caught on, though almost too late. There's something of a toll road revolt happening in Texas and a feeling, at least among a significant minority, that government does have a role to play in things like water management and growth planning.
What I wonder more about is the so-called "liberal areas" like Portland and Seattle. In Seattle, for instance, we're more than happy to vote ourselves more taxes to pay for things like schools (SPS levy, Prop 1B), transit (King County Prop 1, Seattle Prop 1), parks (Green Space Levy, Metro Parks District), and social services (Family Services, Health and Human Services Levies). Almost all of these are notable because they involve more government spending and virtually no private-sector spending. The rest of Washington seems to vehemently disagree, if the tax-rollback initiatives pushed at the state level are to be believed. What happens in these areas when or if the two groups collide, like if the state tries to push back, at the behest of corporate interests in the economy, on Seattle residents ability to tax ourselves?
posted by fireoyster at 6:23 AM on October 26, 2014
I think that your boil the frog analogy is spot on but I also wonder if the frogs have caught on, though almost too late. There's something of a toll road revolt happening in Texas and a feeling, at least among a significant minority, that government does have a role to play in things like water management and growth planning.
What I wonder more about is the so-called "liberal areas" like Portland and Seattle. In Seattle, for instance, we're more than happy to vote ourselves more taxes to pay for things like schools (SPS levy, Prop 1B), transit (King County Prop 1, Seattle Prop 1), parks (Green Space Levy, Metro Parks District), and social services (Family Services, Health and Human Services Levies). Almost all of these are notable because they involve more government spending and virtually no private-sector spending. The rest of Washington seems to vehemently disagree, if the tax-rollback initiatives pushed at the state level are to be believed. What happens in these areas when or if the two groups collide, like if the state tries to push back, at the behest of corporate interests in the economy, on Seattle residents ability to tax ourselves?
posted by fireoyster at 6:23 AM on October 26, 2014
... more on Michael Glennon and his new book "National Security and Double Government:"
Scott Horton Show (podcast) 10/22/14 Michael Glennon interview (mp3)
Michael Glennon, Professor of International Law and author of National Security and Double Government, discusses his article “Vote all you want. The secret government won’t change.“
posted by Auden at 6:28 AM on October 26, 2014 [1 favorite]
Scott Horton Show (podcast) 10/22/14 Michael Glennon interview (mp3)
Michael Glennon, Professor of International Law and author of National Security and Double Government, discusses his article “Vote all you want. The secret government won’t change.“
posted by Auden at 6:28 AM on October 26, 2014 [1 favorite]
If you accept the conclusions of Gilens and Page, then it's really the rich and influential one should try to influence, not the mushy center.
Not to downplay the results here, but the smallish R^2 statistic leaves room for the possibility that political success may be multifactorial. It is entirely possible that many of the political theories pooh-poohed above are simultaneously correct or variably applicable in different situations.
posted by The White Hat at 6:29 AM on October 26, 2014 [3 favorites]
Not to downplay the results here, but the smallish R^2 statistic leaves room for the possibility that political success may be multifactorial. It is entirely possible that many of the political theories pooh-poohed above are simultaneously correct or variably applicable in different situations.
posted by The White Hat at 6:29 AM on October 26, 2014 [3 favorites]
If you look at the history of revolutions, they generally always happen because the wealthy elites drop their support for the regime. Even the french revolution, which is always put forward as a populist frenzy, had its roots in budget deficits and disputes over tax policy. By the time the mob got involved, the revolution had already occurred, in the sense that the King's power had been neutered and the traditional legislative bodies disbanded.
If you want a revolution, you first need to convince the people funding the regime to stop funding it. Then anything can happen.
posted by empath at 6:51 AM on October 26, 2014 [6 favorites]
If you want a revolution, you first need to convince the people funding the regime to stop funding it. Then anything can happen.
posted by empath at 6:51 AM on October 26, 2014 [6 favorites]
A virtual X10 favoriting of empath's statement. Revolutions (not necessarily violent or precipitous ones) occur when one group of rich bastards decides it's fed up with another group of rich bastards. The very romance of "the People" rising up is another mythic narrative of the American Revolution (and the 18th century revolutionary period in general, perhaps). Just as one relevant factoid: Washington was the wealthiest man in the Colonies at the time. Most of the rest of the framers were pretty loaded, too.
Along these lines, an enduring source of confusion to me over the past few decades has been why exactly this sort of revolt didn't occur between the new-ish dot-com New Economy money and the old Cold War petrodollar money. In hindsight, I guess I underestimated the staying power of the Cold War's greatest legacy: the Deep State.
posted by mondo dentro at 7:17 AM on October 26, 2014 [1 favorite]
Along these lines, an enduring source of confusion to me over the past few decades has been why exactly this sort of revolt didn't occur between the new-ish dot-com New Economy money and the old Cold War petrodollar money. In hindsight, I guess I underestimated the staying power of the Cold War's greatest legacy: the Deep State.
posted by mondo dentro at 7:17 AM on October 26, 2014 [1 favorite]
Glennon's thesis is more or less GWB's: the civil service employees of the agencies are unaccountable to the political appointees that nominally run the show. It's why GWB tried to purge the agencies and replace employees with loyalists. The notion that Washington bureaucrats really run the show is a conservative chestnut going back decades.
Glennon's thesis also presupposes that Obama really wanted to make substantial changes to surveillance policy, which I think is a questionable presupposition. I follow politics pretty closely and never got the sense that Obama opposed the actions of the NSA; I always thought his objection was to the illegality of the programs. That objection was rendered moot when Congress changed the law to permit the programs.
posted by jpe at 7:29 AM on October 26, 2014
Glennon's thesis also presupposes that Obama really wanted to make substantial changes to surveillance policy, which I think is a questionable presupposition. I follow politics pretty closely and never got the sense that Obama opposed the actions of the NSA; I always thought his objection was to the illegality of the programs. That objection was rendered moot when Congress changed the law to permit the programs.
posted by jpe at 7:29 AM on October 26, 2014
an oligarchy is just a democracy small enough that it doesn't include you...
posted by ennui.bz at 7:35 AM on October 26, 2014 [5 favorites]
posted by ennui.bz at 7:35 AM on October 26, 2014 [5 favorites]
Those with power and money are always going to be reluctant to hand it over without a fight. We're selfish like that. It's the rare rich person who recognises this and does more than the token effort at redistribution of power.
posted by arcticseal at 7:40 AM on October 26, 2014
posted by arcticseal at 7:40 AM on October 26, 2014
Along these lines, an enduring source of confusion to me over the past few decades has been why exactly this sort of revolt didn't occur between the new-ish dot-com New Economy money and the old Cold War petrodollar money.That and the new dot com money was generally made by the children of the old money.
It's posh boys all the way down.
posted by fullerine at 7:51 AM on October 26, 2014 [2 favorites]
Even the two great models of participatory politics used by the founding fathers -- democratic Athens and republican Rome -- were essentially large oligarchies of landed citizen men, with various levels of infighting. In Rome your wealth literally and transparently dictated how much your vote was worth most of the time. And if you were a woman or born to foreigners or a slave your voice was just never heard.
posted by oinopaponton at 7:56 AM on October 26, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by oinopaponton at 7:56 AM on October 26, 2014 [1 favorite]
Not to downplay the results here, but the smallish R^2 statistic leaves room for the possibility that political success may be multifactorial.
I'd just downplay the results. Rather than R2, I'd note that (in the versions I've seen before) they don't report a proportional reduction in error over the naive hypothesis that no changes ever take place, and I assume that's because such a PRE would be very small.
This study has come up before, and last time I pulled the data and played with it. The middle class and affluent agree on about 90% of the "proposals" they analyze. On the remaining about ten percent, where a majority of affluent want one thing and a majority of middle-class people want the opposite, the affluent won on about 55 percent of proposals. That's the whole result: when the chips are down and there's disagreement, the wealthy win slightly more than half the time.
Further, affluent and middle-class preferences were almost never strongly opposed; the only issue where there was at least a 20-point split (60 percent of affluent want it but only 40 percent of middle class do) was NAFTA. Double further, many of the proposals they analyze were social policy questions where affluent preferences were if anything more liberal than middle-class preferences. Triple further, some of the proposals are for either clearly unconstitutional (should IDX be totally banned) or outlandish (totally banning immigration, totally banning foreign aid) things.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 8:02 AM on October 26, 2014 [4 favorites]
I'd just downplay the results. Rather than R2, I'd note that (in the versions I've seen before) they don't report a proportional reduction in error over the naive hypothesis that no changes ever take place, and I assume that's because such a PRE would be very small.
This study has come up before, and last time I pulled the data and played with it. The middle class and affluent agree on about 90% of the "proposals" they analyze. On the remaining about ten percent, where a majority of affluent want one thing and a majority of middle-class people want the opposite, the affluent won on about 55 percent of proposals. That's the whole result: when the chips are down and there's disagreement, the wealthy win slightly more than half the time.
Further, affluent and middle-class preferences were almost never strongly opposed; the only issue where there was at least a 20-point split (60 percent of affluent want it but only 40 percent of middle class do) was NAFTA. Double further, many of the proposals they analyze were social policy questions where affluent preferences were if anything more liberal than middle-class preferences. Triple further, some of the proposals are for either clearly unconstitutional (should IDX be totally banned) or outlandish (totally banning immigration, totally banning foreign aid) things.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 8:02 AM on October 26, 2014 [4 favorites]
Is there something new about this article or are we just going to have the same discussion we had in April?
posted by zabuni at 8:15 AM on October 26, 2014
posted by zabuni at 8:15 AM on October 26, 2014
I'd just downplay the results.
So, political science can't even prove something which is obvious?
posted by ennui.bz at 8:20 AM on October 26, 2014
So, political science can't even prove something which is obvious?
posted by ennui.bz at 8:20 AM on October 26, 2014
Is there something new about this article or are we just going to have the same discussion we had in April?
[leon] Always the same discussion. [/leon]
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 8:21 AM on October 26, 2014
[leon] Always the same discussion. [/leon]
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 8:21 AM on October 26, 2014
« Older Russian empire changes clocks to Putin Time... | And then it happens again, when you’re sixty or... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by adamvasco at 5:08 AM on October 26, 2014 [1 favorite]