US Is an Oligarchy Not a Democracy, says Scientific Study

Greetings all,

The authors of this historically important study are Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page, and their article is titled "Testing Theories of American Politics." The authors clarify that the data available are probably under-representing the actual extent of control of the U.S. by the super-rich:

www.commondreams.org...

Have this to say:

"Despite the seemingly strong empirical support in previous studies for theories of majoritarian democracy, our analyses suggest that majorities of the American public actually have little influence over the policies our government adopts. Americans do enjoy many features central to democratic governance, such as regular elections, freedom of speech and association, and a widespread (if still contested) franchise. But, ..." and then they go on to say, it's not true, and that, "America's claims to being a democratic society are seriously threatened" by the findings in this, the first-ever comprehensive scientific study of the subject, which shows that there is instead "the nearly total failure of 'median voter' and other Majoritarian Electoral Democracy theories [of America]. When the preferences of economic elites and the stands of organized interest groups are controlled for, the preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy. "

The author of the article, Eric Zuesse, sums up:

The clear finding is that the U.S. is an oligarchy, no democratic country, at all. American democracy is a sham, no matter how much it's pumped by the oligarchs who run the country (and who control the nation's "news" media). The U.S., in other words, is basically similar to Russia or most other dubious "electoral" "democratic" countries. We weren't formerly, but we clearly are now. Today, after this exhaustive analysis of the data, “the preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy.” That's it, in a nutshell.

Bread and circuses my friends, bread and circuses.

Just what is an oligarchy?

From Websters:

ol·i·gar·chy noun \ˈä-lə-ˌgär-kē, ˈō-\
: a country, business, etc., that is controlled by a small group of people

: the people that control a country, business, etc.

: government or control by a small group of people

www.merriam-webster.com...

Well we here all know that..... but I'd say :

plu·toc·ra·cy noun \plü-ˈtä-krə-sē\
: government by the richest people

: a country that is ruled by the richest people

: a group of very rich people who have a lot of power

www.merriam-webster.com...

... is much more accurate, especially as our Big Money owned Supreme Court has determined that money is equivalent to speak.

There has been a comspiracy going on - here in the USA - but it hasn't been hidden at all. It's been quietly working towards these goals for decades and started with (drum roll please) the "Powell Memo".

Thom Hartmann in an interview you can find here: truth-out.org...

...gives some background to the Powell Memo...

So by 1970, you had great social ferment: against the war, feminism (including the emergence of the pill), civil rights, marijuana use, the emergence of the hippies, the large-scale emergence of alternative religious beliefs, the beginning of the gay-rights movement. Virtually every sector of society except old rich white guys was in open revolt. On top of that, to make it really frightening for the conservatives whose highest priority is the financial consolidation of wealth, Rachel Carson wrote the book that began the environmental movement - and Ralph Nader ignited the consumer movement.

and then states the strategy in the Powell memo (see reference for more):

Powell laid out a strategy for the conservatives in the memo: Dial back the power of the middle class; dial back the financial stability of the middle class, and restore the role of the wealthy at the center of power to regulate society - and prevent the country from lurching in other directions.

and he was rewarded for this with:

Just a short time after he wrote the memo, Richard Nixon put him on the Supreme Court, where he was in a position to implement parts of his memo. This included particularly legally empowering the corporate world and the wealthy.

I've known this was happening most of my life and in the last decade this "strategy" has become flagrant. What I don't understand is why everyday citizens support these policies and people that concentrate power and wealth in the hands of the very few and destroy the lives and livelihoods of millions of people.

reply to post by FyreByrd

Paul Craig Roberts would probably agree . "April 14, 2014 "ICH" - How does Washington get away with the claim that the country it rules is a democracy and has freedom? This absurd claim ranks as one of the most unsubstantiated claims in history.

There is no democracy whatsoever. Voting is a mask for rule by a few powerful interest groups. In two 21st century rulings (Citizens United and McCutcheon), the US Supreme Court has ruled that the purchase of the US government by private interest groups is merely the exercise of free speech. These rulings allow powerful corporate and financial interests to use their money-power to elect a government that serves their interests at the expense of the general welfare.

The control private interests exercise over the government is so complete that private interests have immunity to prosecution for crimes. At his retirement party on March 27, Securities and Exchange Commission prosecutor James Kidney stated that his prosecutions of Goldman Sachs and other “banks too big to fail” were blocked by superiors who “were focused on getting high-paying jobs after their government service.” The SEC’s top brass, Kidney said, did not “believe in afflicting the comfortable and powerful.” In his report on Kidney’s retirement speech, Eric Zuesse points out that the Obama regime released false statistics in order to claim prosecutions that did not take place in order to convince a gullible public that Wall Street crooks were being punished. www.counterpunch.org...

Democracy and freedom require an independent and aggressive media, an independent and aggressive judiciary, and an independent and aggressive Congress. The United States has none of the above.

The US media consistently lies for the government. Reuters continues to report, falsely, that Russia invaded and annexed Crimea. The Washington Post ran an obviously false story planted on the paper by the Obama regime that the massive protests in former Russian territories of Ukraine are “rent-a-mobs” instigated by the Russian government.

Not even Washington’s stooges in Kiev believe that." the rest is at www.informationclearinghouse.info...

reply to post by FyreByrd


S+F!

I'd say you nailed it beautifully in a sweet post

The sad thing is that many other countries are pure wanna-be's in this psychopathic world-view.

I think everyone on ATS knows that it is like that already. They may not have known the name of it though.

There is also a different view on what most Govt's. are "In order to support the radical new economic system called Technocracy, government is being reinvented from top to bottom. Unelected and unaccountable regional governmental organizations are rapidly usurping sovereignty and local control throughout the nation -- all according to Agenda 21 and "sustainable development."

What is Technocracy? It's a radical economic system intended to replace capitalism. It's also the biggest scam in the history of the world! Forget property rights. Forget freedom. Forget Unalienable Rights.

To find out more, you must see my new video of a presentation I gave in southern California in early January called GLOBALISM AND TECHNOCRACY." this is to a 1/2 hour lecture on it . www.augustforecast.com...

reply to post by FyreByrd


I agree with the studies conclusions!

Here is a youtube video that explains the 5 basic forms of Government



... and it ultimately shows that there are ONLY TWO forms of government possible ...

Oligarchies ...

OR a ...

Republic!

Now what is lost is lost ... and It's to late to apologize!

reply to post by rickymouse

I think everyone on ATS knows that it is like that already. They may not have known the name of it though.

Most likely true. Additionally many people are also becoming aware of the only means we have in removing such a corrupt corporate/government control system.

Think Bundy's ranch in Nevada vs. the BLM.

reply to post by FyreByrd


Plutocracy is right!

rickymouse
I think everyone on ATS knows that it is like that already. They may not have known the name of it though.

edit on 14-4-2014 by rickymouse because: (no reason given)

I'm not so sure. In the political threads and mudpit; partisanship divided along party lines still seems to be the operating principal.

I see ATS as becoming increasingly theocratic, conservative and ultra right with most members still adhering to the status quo and pointing fingers at the opposite party instead of the real power in America the facist Corporate Oligarchy military industrial complex neocon scum.

This directive from the mod squad seems to be completely ignored imo.



www.abovetopsecret.com...

"Democracy" is two wolves and a lamb voting on what's for dinner.

Democracy is fine as long as the majority think the way you do, but once you are in the minority--on ANYTHING--you are in trouble. Relying on the majority to be tolerant towards you means your fate is not in your own hands. Relying on human beings to be tolerant of anything has historically not gone well for those in the minority. Just think: In a "democracy' half the people have an IQ of 100 or less. Because we are under the illusion that "everyone is equal," it's those people who will decide your fate. That phrase once meant that "everyone was of equal worth before God." (yeah, yeah. Religion and all that. Blah, blah.) But NOW it means everyone is of equal intelligence and not just "equal opportunity," but "equal achievement." So if you don't manage to "achieve," it MUST be someone else's fault. It couldn't possibly because you are stupid, lazy, or lack character.

I would prefer a true "meritocracy" over "oligarchy," but given the choice I'll take either of those two over "democracy" any day.

It's supposed to be a Republic not a democracy to begin with.

reply to post by FyreByrd


Yep. I actually had a prof in the SBA declare that outright stated that what we had here in the US was the presence of a shadow government that was basically an oligarchy (techno-oligarchy was precisely what he used). Suffice it to say, he got my attention. I was pretty shocked actually because one never expects to hear a professor talk about something like a shadow government, lol.

The full paper is here, being hosted at Princeton University: www.princeton.edu...

Authors of the paper:

Martin Gilens of Princeton University
Benjamin Page of Northwestern University

Based on their brief little CV's on their pages, it would seem like they have been screaming about this kind of thing for the last several years. Just like my prof at some nameless state university was (and my poli sci prof, too).

reply to post by FyreByrd


THANK YOU for this clarity. I don't know how old you are, but I am 63 and have witnessed all of this. How were we duped into kowtowing to the rich, our colonists ancestors must be so disappointed, if they see.

reply to post by MOMof3


Unfortunately, our colonial ancestors were actually, for the most part, wealthy. It wasn't cheap coming to America or setting up shop here. My ancestor came in 1613 as part of the 2nd Virginia Tobacco Charter and his father was the richest man in the UK (til the Crown seized most of it lol--tobacco cartel). You had three sorts of early arrivals--1. those who could afford to set up shop here and maintain trade with England, 2. indentured servants and, 3. slaves.

The settlement of the colonies was actually privately funded. You can actually see that influence within the Federalist Papers as well in the 18th century. It explains a lot really.

P.S. To give an idea as to how it affected us, we used to have another constitution but after Shay's Rebellion, the old one was scrapped to avoid another rebellion going unchecked. That's why our Constitution dates to 1789.

reply to post by FyreByrd

i think it should be called a monarchical oligarchy.
i would think that seeing how all the presidents except van buren supposedly have a blood line that can be traced back to the king of england john lackland, including obama.

that and if i'm not mistaken the queen of england has meet all the presidents of the last 60 years except johnson and also has met with truman before she was crowned and met hover after he was out of office.

kinda strange hunh, i guess she had to give them marching orders.

but that is just a little conspiracy bug flying around

reply to post by WhiteAlice


True. But it was the children of the less fortunate, indentured servitude, who settled the wilderness, that made the militias that won the Revolution.

reply to post by olaru12


We must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the facist Corporate Oligarchy military industrial complex neocon scum.

Updated for 2014.

And Republican and Conservative policy makers keep upping the bar, the Oligarchy gets to spend unlimited funds to buy politicians and policy.

And, if you use the brain god gave you, you can recognize that American conservatives are effectively privatizing the government, just like they want to do with many government institutions. They also have convinced the retarded that the oligarchs should get all the tax breaks and not be subject to laws (regulation).

It makes sense because an oligarchy is a system by the rich for the rich, everyone else are just the employees. This is why we have to give businesses all the money and make sure they do not have laws to impede their wholesome plans.

qwerty12345
It's supposed to be a Republic not a democracy to begin with.

Thats right, the people should not have a vote unless you can pay for it!

Down with democracy, up with pay to play Republicanism!

reply to post by FyreByrd


Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini.

We live in a land where the great masses of the population has no real voice, while a corporation has the right to spend unlimited amounts of money to effect its political ambitions.

A land where a corporation is allowed to hide what they feed us and the people have no right to know what they are eating. Our beef is packed full of hormones that are illegal in much of the world even China, and genetically modified crops rule the day. A land where a corporation controls our press and in turn holds sway over public opinion etc.. A person could go on and on here you know!

We don't have a democracy people and we have Crony capitalism that basically killed the mom an pop operation/American dream. Add to that fact all federal agencies will just laugh off any Congressional oversight and in turn be unaccountable to the people.

What does that make our system of Government? Should we coin a term?

A more perfect union was the goal of our forefathers! We can effect the same!

When Holder and other fed agencies can just ignore contempt of Congress charges we no longer have a government which answers to the people. When secret police rule the day and our every move and every word we speak is recorded and monitored. When the president can use signing powers to bypass Congress and effect or rewrite laws. We no longer have a representative democracy but rather live in Despotism.

Congress will never vote to reform itself, not without being forced! So longs as we continue to vote for plastic men, those pre selects we get to choose from then there is no hope of reform! If you vote the two party system you are part of the problem. Public office should be a reward of merit not a contest of funds.

If you have ever read the charters of freedom on which this country was founded, you would see that action is demanded. Will we see it? I think only if the Feds allow a confrontation. People are most certainly looking for a showdown!

"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security"