SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
A study by Princeton and Northwestern universities shows that a small group of elite have control over the general population and the government only supports the rich and powerful while the masses have no say whatsoever. The 42 page report concludes "we believe that if policymaking 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."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Study Concludes USA is an Oligarchy
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 71 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
This login session: $13.76, but for you $11.88.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by geb on Thursday April 17 2014, @11:40AM
The error bars on the public opinion side of their data must be enormous.
If you ask people which team they support... er... which party they vote for, then you'll get a fairly definite answer, but if you start asking about individual policies then most people won't be able to give a definite yes or no. There are untold thousands of conditions on people's support for any given policy, any of which could be hugely important to the individual, but opposed by or irrelevant to the rest of the population. Based on context, people's opinions change, and change rapidly.
I seriously doubt that any of the representative sample of voters involved in this study read and understood a large enough number of legal documents to show their opinion on what was really happening.
On the other side of the divide lobbyists who care about some individual issue are very likely to understand exactly what they're asking for, and have the time to examine minute details of proposals.
To some degree this is desirable, as it's better to base a decision on knowledge than on guesswork or emotion.
If you want the public to hold any real power in a highly complex democracy (complex by necessity as it is solving complex problems) then you don't just have to get involved, you have to put in a significant amount of effort educating yourself on what is going on, and the context for each action.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Sir Garlon on Thursday April 17 2014, @12:34PM
I agree with everything you said, up until you said the government is "solving problems." ;-)
Seriously. I don't see the role of government as solving problems, though it sometimes does that (polio vaccine springs to mind). In my opinion, government's purpose is to manage public resources: public lands, public funds, radio spectrum, water resources, etc. Unlike solving a particular problem, that's a job that can never be completed.
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Geezer on Thursday April 17 2014, @01:06PM
One of the most ambitious government problem-solvers of all time, FDR, supported a private charity (the original March of Dimes) to solve that particular problem.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 17 2014, @07:48PM
The Salk vaccine that finally whipped polio wasn't available until 1953, 8 years after FDR died.
FDR had a giant influence on the national economy when he put 15 million Americans on the public payroll after THE PRIVATE SECTOR HAD BEEN ROLLED UP IN THE FETAL POSITION FOR 4 YEARS.
If it wasn't for his following the instructions of John Maynard Keynes, it is unlikely that "The Arsenal of Democracy" would have been economically strong enough to have supplied The Allies at a time when The Axis was overrunning the globe.
-- gewg_
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday April 17 2014, @01:23PM
Oblig. demotivator [despair.com]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2, Insightful) by JoeMerchant on Thursday April 17 2014, @12:39PM
The theory goes that we educate the population sufficiently for them to be self-governing.
The practice is... somewhat different.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 1) by dioptase on Thursday April 17 2014, @02:18PM
The phrase "lead a horse to water" comes to mind. People are educated enough to be self-governing, but rarely take the time to be more than superficially involved (in either understanding or participating).
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 17 2014, @01:17PM
I think that's basically the point of the article. The People can be easily manipulated by wealthy special interest groups into supporting policy that they claim to oppose. We all know this. The NRA represent 1.5% of the population, while 90% of the population claims to favor expanded background checks: guess who wins? The AARP represent 12% of the population and they are so powerful that Congress won't even talk about social security. Nevermind corporate interest groups that may represent a few hundred or few thousand people. If policy diverges from popular opinion on big issues, it should be little surprise that there is greater divergence on smaller issues.