Today, we live in the richest country in the history of the world, but that reality means little because much of that wealth is controlled by a tiny handful of individuals.
— Bernie Sanders, Democratic Presidential contender
People feel like the system is rigged against them, and here is the painful part, they're right. The system is rigged.
Oh, look. Actual scientific examination of America’s so-called “Democracy.” I wonder what they will find…
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.
The article costs $37.00 to buy and read, so this is all you are getting from the main source. But it’s sufficient to make the case. It’s primo stuff. That’s why it costs so much.
These scientists have studied a wide variety of policy issues for a long time and present an analysis that describes a country that likes to talk about Democracy in warm, fuzzy terms but in which a small number of wealthy people find the “democratic government” far, far more responsive to them than we, the so-called 99%, do.
The two professors came to this conclusion after reviewing answers to 1,779 survey questions asked between 1981 and 2002 on public policy issues. They broke the responses down by income level, and then determined how often certain income levels and organised interest groups saw their policy preferences enacted.
"A proposed policy change with low support among economically elite Americans (one-out-of-five in favour) is adopted only about 18% of the time," they write, "while a proposed change with high support (four-out-of-five in favour) is adopted about 45% of the time."
Furthermore the study indicates that even with majorities of commoners pushing for this or that, they are unsuccessful because of “the strong status quo” which defines this system.
This is essentially what Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders focus on so much, that makes them so popular with so many people, and so reviled with a tiny fraction of wealthy, powerful people.
This is why I feel Americans need Bernie over any other candidate who intends to protect this status quo.
The Average American—AKA “commoner”— is constantly told about the value of their vote. Listening to this schtick, one would be inclined to believe that one’s vote—every two years and only one time very four years for a president—was as powerful as a lightening strike. And it isn’t even remotely true.
It’s why politicians AREN’T afraid of us not voting for them.
It COULD be and it SHOULD be but the empowered commoner would wreak complete havoc on the status quo system, which very effectively keeps us hobbled, and is a huge reason we can’t have anything nice anymore. It’s like if something is good for the commoner then the ultra-rich are somehow suffering.
Americans can and should have better things, better lives, but the status quo is all about preventing that as much as possible. Things have to remain just as they are, we are told, or we are all screwed.
This is all entirely untrue and that is why I hate it. That’s why I want to see it destroyed. There is no salient reason our lives should have to suck like they do. None. Life is short and this is wrong.
This is the part where Responsible Serious Adults—those who are buoyed or otherwise are rewarded or enriched by the status quo—tell me and the 99% that we are starry-eyed children, dirty fucking hippies who should just go get jobs and work for what we want.
Well … I kept my end of the “social contract” of the 20th century: I went to college, I worked hard, I went to grad school and graduated and worked hard some more. I have been laid off eight times, managed care, a scam that promised to hold down healthcare costs has savaged the field of mental health making it very difficult to even keep a job, let alone find one.
That social contract was destroyed sometime ago, possibly as early as when Reagan took office, the point at which graphs and reports of the “wealth chasm” begin. But this has been a reality for millions of people:
The wealthy ripped up the Social Contract. The idea that if you worked hard you would be taken care of. That you had dignity, and that your work was worth something. That when you were no longer able to work, you would be taken care of because you were worth something.
One final observation from the study:
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 we believe that if policy making is dominated by powerful business organizations and a small number of affluent Americans, then America’s claims to being a democratic society are seriously threatened.
Kicked to the curb, we are. It is long past time to address this and turn it around.
That is why America should not bend over backwards to keep this toxic and ugly status quo, why we SHOULD listen to people like Dr. Elizabeth Warren and why we should have a President like Bernie Sanders.
Life it just too short to keep going down the same dead-end road.