http://www.princeton.edu/~mgilens/Gilens homepage materials/Gilens and Page/Gilens and Page 2014-Testing Theories 3-7-14.pdf
This is the study that indicates that the economically elite pretty much control policy changes in the US. And it is based on data from 1981-2002.
One can imagine how much more the economically elite have cemented their control of policy since 2002, with the subsequent economic implosion, and more recent Supreme Court decisions like “Corporations are people”, Citizens United, and their most recently allowing anyone with the money to contribute to an infinite number of political campaigns.
Oops, the link doesn’t seem to work.
Just highlight the title of this thread and hit your google button. You will find the study. I think it is an important one.
Oops, the link doesn't seem to work. Just highlight the title of this thread and hit your google button. You will find the study. I think it is an important one.It probably requires copying and pasting into the browser bar. Lois
Oops, the link doesn't seem to work. Just highlight the title of this thread and hit your google button. You will find the study. I think it is an important one.It probably requires copying and pasting into the browser bar. Lois I copied from the browser bar at the site of the original study, and pasted here. That generally works. But anyway, a site that just talks about the study is probably more palatable to the casual reader. So here is one: http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2014/04/16/The-US-is-not-a-democracy-but-an-oligarchy-study-concludes/2761397680051/
There is no mention of media or television.
LBJ was complaining about how television was changing politics in the late 60s.
psik
There is no mention of media or television. LBJ was complaining about how television was changing politics in the late 60s. psikIn spite of the existing mass media, from 1981 to 2002, the study suggests that the economically elite overwhelmingly (perhaps, virtually, exclusively) influenced public policy changes. But with the spread of social media, since, perhaps the equation could change. Perhaps not. What the study suggests to me, is that our system of government, with its checks and balances, though a laudable effort, was not effective at all (from 1981-2002) in being a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. IOW, I think that we may be misguided when we praise or blame the President, the Congress, or the Supreme Court when we like or dislike new governmental policies. Rather, the study suggests to me that we should praise or blame the economically elite. So thanks for Obamacare, oh exalted economically elite. You are wise and merciful.
The real story here is the methods used to get average Americans to go along with their own disenfranchisement.
The real story here is the methods used to get average Americans to go along with their own disenfranchisement.One can hope. But in the overall picture, it would appear that economics trumps alternative underlying efforts at establishing democracy.
There is no mention of media or television. LBJ was complaining about how television was changing politics in the late 60s. psikIn spite of the existing mass media, from 1981 to 2002, the study suggests that the economically elite overwhelmingly (perhaps, virtually, exclusively) influenced public policy changes. But with the spread of social media, since, perhaps the equation could change. Perhaps not. This was the effect of mass media: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Selling_of_the_President_1968 Mass media helped make it possible for the rich to buy politicians. That is why I found its lack of mention in the paper peculiar. Let's face it. Obama was a junior senator who never completed his first term and suddenly he has the money to run for president. I voted for him the first time but I still wondered who bought him. Like the difference between Republicans and Democrats matter. Simply slight variations in how to screw up the country. psik
This was the effect of mass media: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Selling_of_the_President_1968 Mass media helped make it possible for the rich to buy politicians. That is why I found its lack of mention in the paper peculiar. Let's face it. Obama was a junior senator who never completed his first term and suddenly he has the money to run for president. I voted for him the first time but I still wondered who bought him. Like the difference between Republicans and Democrats matter. Simply slight variations in how to screw up the country. psikReally? You are surprised that a single political book, short-lived-in-popularity from 1968, did not make it as a footnote in a scholastic study in 2014? Nevertheless, I don't discount the notion that mass media is one of the effective tools that supports the influence of the economically elite. As far as Obama becoming President, initially, you must know that it also required the economic support of millions of average Joes like you and I (not just the support of a good portion of the economically elite). Otherwise, Hillary would probably be President now. But Obama's success may have been an aberration from the norm.
Tim, it doesn’t really matter if the link works or not. I don’t need a study to show me this.
In fact, for me personally studies like this just rub salt in the wounds.
Putting it another way…the fact that studies like this exist is truly Orwellian to me. Truly.
Tim, it doesn't really matter if the link works or not. I don't need a study to show me this. In fact, for me personally studies like this just rub salt in the wounds. Putting it another way....the fact that studies like this exist is truly Orwellian to me. Truly.Some folks may not be as confident, as you, that they already know everything worth knowing. Some folks may want to see how their personally held assumptions/hypotheses are supported by quantitative data, or not. Some Union folk might be interested in what the study says about the actual influence of mass-based groups on public policy (which BTW, appears to be better than the influence of the average citizen). But I can't blame you for not wanting to wade thru the full text of the original study. It is rather tedious. As far as studies like this being "truly Orwellian" to you, you say it as if I know what the heck you are talking about. I don't. I read "1984", but it was well prior to 1984, so my recollection is not so great.
From Wikipedia:
“Orwellian” is an adjective describing the situation, idea, or societal condition that George Orwell identified as being destructive to the welfare of a free and open society."
The fact that the study exists is hilarious in an ironic way.
1984 is worth re-reading. The term “Orwellian” refers to the powers that be, (Big Brother) controlling the perceptions and behavior of the population at the level of thought.
The way that our ecomany and our perception of it is manipulated so that we think we still live in a true democracy, is definitely Orwellian.
1984 is worth re-reading. The term "Orwellian" refers to the powers that be, (Big Brother) controlling the perceptions and behavior of the population at the level of thought. The way that our ecomany and our perception of it is manipulated so that we think we still live in a true democracy, is definitely Orwellian.I recall being depressed from reading it the first time. That was maybe 1971. I recall the concept of "newspeak" which seems to be standard political tactics these days.
1984 is worth re-reading. The term "Orwellian" refers to the powers that be, (Big Brother) controlling the perceptions and behavior of the population at the level of thought. The way that our ecomany and our perception of it is manipulated so that we think we still live in a true democracy, is definitely Orwellian.I recall being depressed from reading it the first time. That was maybe 1971. I recall the concept of "newspeak" which seems to be standard political tactics these days.The problem is, there truly are people in this world who would (or did) read 1984 and didn't regard it as a warning, but instead thought of it as a guide or action. Same with Hitler and the Nazis. You just KNOW there are powerful people around after and to the current day who saw Hitler/Nazism not as a warning, but as a role model. And their take away was, good goals, bad implementation. They learned from his and Mussolini's mistakes and have been at it ever since. (And I'm talking about the moronic neo-nazis groups.)
... (And I'm talking about the moronic neo-nazis groups.)I am not as alarmed by the pathetic neo-nazis as I am re: the no-longer dormant, though still somewhat under-the-radar, and much more powerful resurgence of the John Birch Society.
... (And I'm talking about the moronic neo-nazis groups.)I am not as alarmed by the pathetic neo-nazis as I am re: the no-longer dormant, though still somewhat under-the-radar, and much more powerful resurgence of the John Birch Society. Has there been a resurgence? I have not been aware of it. Lois
... (And I'm talking about the moronic neo-nazis groups.)I am not as alarmed by the pathetic neo-nazis as I am re: the no-longer dormant, though still somewhat under-the-radar, and much more powerful resurgence of the John Birch Society. Has there been a resurgence? I have not been aware of it. LoisActually my final comment was a typo....I WASN'T talking about the moronic neo-nazi groups (which incidently are on the rise according to SPLC).
Has there been a resurgence? I have not been aware of it.Not so much a resurgence as a continuance. This far right rhetoric began over fifty years ago and is picked up today by the likes of the Tea Party. It's essentially the same old John Birch Society "radicals are replacing capitalism with Marxism" argument dusted off and reused. BTW the Society is still alive and kickin'; it's just been drowned out by the new wave of reactionaries. Remember the racist rhetoric about how the "government" is taking the money away from hard working whites and giving it to the lazy Blacks? We heard that in the fifties and it's been revived as an argument against the Obama administration, just as one also hears of the "death panels" argument against Medicare in the 60's during the Kennedy administration. Nothing new under the sun on the right. http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2013/10/the-john-birchers-tea-party.html Cap't Jack