Affluence Rules Politics- Despite Election Politics

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Easy E**

http://www.bostonreview.net/forum/lead-essay-under-influence-martin-gilens

A really interesting essay in the Boston Review by Martin Gilens. A few key quotes....

When preferences diverge, the views of the affluent make a big difference, while support among the middle class and the poor has almost no relationship to policy outcomes. Policies favored by 20 percent of affluent Americans, for example, have about a one-in-five chance of being adopted, while policies favored by 80 percent of affluent Americans are adopted about half the time. In contrast, the support or opposition of the poor or the middle class has no impact on a policy’s prospects of being adopted.

***

Nor do cross-class alliances work to dent the influence of the well off. When middle-class preferences align with those of the poor, responsiveness to the affluent remains strong while responsiveness to the poor and middle class is still absent.

***

Even when Democrats control Congress and the White House, the less well off are no more influential.

Basically, Trade Unions, Civil Rioghts Organizations, and other coalitions of voters aren't enough to off-set the wishes of the affluent (the top ten percent of earners). So, when do we change from democracy to oligrachy? What's the dividing line?

**Frazzled**

You're assuming we haven't already?

**easysauce**

the US has been an oligarchy for a while now.

**Chongara**

This is news? Next you're to tell me that water is in fact wet, and start asking where the distinction between 4 quarts and a gallon of the stuff is.

**Easy E**

The intersting part is that even the dreaded Unions have no impact in halping poor and middle calss voters get their interests inacted, and the Democratic Politicians do no better.

**LordofHats**

Frazzled wrote:
You're assuming we haven't already?

This. This isn't new (though I'd say it was on the downturn for much of the progressive era before kicking about up after WWII and through the 50's).

While everyone in the US can vote, the people with money get to define the politics we are voting for. Even when we have political liberty, we're stuck playing the game on their terms.

**nkelsch**

The US political parties are practically the same in regards to a global political/economical spectrum.

The US is a 'one party system' in the eyes of a lot of the rest of the world.

**Cheesecat**

nkelsch wrote:
The US political parties are practically the same in regards to a global political/economical spectrum.

The US is a 'one party system' in the eyes of a lot of the rest of the world.

I'm pretty sure democrats follow keynesian economics and republicans are fans of trickle down and laissez faire economics at least ideologically speaking now in practice I'm not informed enough to comment.

**feeder**

The view from my porch looks like my fine neighbours to the south are either voting for Jack Johnson or John Jackson.

Or, if you prefer. Kodos or Kang.