New Study Confirms: “The United States Is No Democracy… But Actually An Oligarchy” Dominated By The Economic Elite

oligarchy

Most Americans wake up every morning believing that they live in a democracy. We have the right to vote, the right to work, and the right to freely express our opinions without threat of imprisonment or worse. Our political leaders often tout the United States as being a democracy of and for the people. We even spend hundreds of billions of dollars a year spreading this democratic influence to the rest of the world.

But a new study from researchers at Princeton and Northwestern University titled Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens starkly contrasts the notion that America provides an equal playing field for every citizen, as it was intended to do at its founding.

After a multivariate analysis of key variables involving 1,179 policy issues the results provide “substantial support for theories of Economic Elite Domination,” wherein economic elites and organized groups representing business interests maintain “substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy,” while average citizens have little or no independent influence.

Essentially, you as an average American citizen have no say whatsoever as it pertains to public policy, legislation, or regulation.

A study, to appear in the Fall 2014 issue of the academic journal Perspectives on Politics, finds that the U.S. is no democracy, but instead an oligarchy, meaning profoundly corrupt, so that the answer to the study’s opening question, “Who governs? Who really rules?” in this country, is:

“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.”

To put it short: The United States is no democracy, but actually an oligarchy.

(Via CommonDreams.org)

Given that even the Federal Reserve announced this morning that their policies make the rich much richer and the poor poorer, can anyone really argue with the fact that the political and socio-economic systems of this country are specifically designed to benefit the interests of the elite?

As Congress debates cuts to food stamps and unemployment insurance to the tune of a few billions dollars, the government pumps tens of billions into the coffers of investment banks and financiers on a monthly basis.

oligarchy-bankers
(Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein and JP Morgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon testify before Congress with other elite bankers)

Those convicted of petty non-violent crimes like possession of marijuana could spend a lifetime in prison, while the individuals responsible for wiping away 40% of America’s wealth in the 2008 crash have not only avoided prosecution, but are rewarded within their respective organizations.

Whistle blowers spreading the truth to the masses about the the duplicitous nature of politics and business have to hide in non-extradition countries to avoid prosecution for releasing “sensitive” material, all the while the elites who engaged in criminal acts like bribery, conspiracy and murder are hardly even given a second look.

And just last week we saw a perfect example of elite domination in the form of a land grab when hundreds of government officials converged on the ranch of a family that has been engaging in the same activity for over a century without any trouble. That is, until a conniving Senator with ties to foreign companies determined it was in the best interests of his pocket book and legacy to force a rancher off public lands and put thousands of people in harms way just to achieve his ends.

oligarchy-reid

The stories of such corruption and overreach against average Americans are countless and prove without a shadow of a doubt that, while we may call the United States of America a “democracy” or “republic,” it’s now only rooted in rhetoric and not reality.

Economic and political cyclical analyst Martin Armstrong warns that it is this very effect of moving power from the people to the elites that led to the failure of previous ‘democratic’ societies:

Dealing with Washington over the years taught me a lot. I have been inside the belly of the beast as well as on the outside. I have seen it all from every angle. Government is not run by democracy – it is a republic oligarchy pretending to be a democracy. Now a study is coming out an it confirms what I have seen over the years that this is just an American Oligarchy.

There is no hope of honest politics until there is major serious reform. We are at the same point in our history as the fall of the Roman Republic and for the very same reasons – outrageous corruption..

When we surrender our power, influence and money to the elite as we have done in modern day America, then we have likewise surrendered to them our liberty.


SHTF Plan – When It Hits The Fan, Don’t Say We Didn’t Warn You

STUDY: U.S. policy has moved increasingly left over the last 70 years

Matt Grossman is a political scientist at Michigan State University. Last week he published an interesting op-ed in The Washington Post enttitled “U.S. policy has gone liberals’ way for 70 years.”

It shreds the establishment Republicans’ claims that moderate, centrist positions are a path to electoral victory. The reason?

Conservatives in Congress are the prime suspects in Washington’s dysfunction. Veteran congressional watchdogs Norman Ornstein and Thomas Mann called the previous session the “worst Congress ever,” and they did not hold back in assigning blame: “The Republicans are the problem,” they said. After a fruitless government shutdown last fall, even House Speaker John Boehner lashed out at conservative groups and passed bills over the opposition of his caucus.

In response, conservatives make two simple claims: Most policies under debate are liberal, and Republican leaders sacrifice conservative principles when they compromise. History shows they are right on both counts.

The reason: the progressive left has framed the debate and the playing field for decades leaving the GOP to play non-stop defense.

…Of the 509 most significant domestic policies passed by Congress, only one in five were conservative, in that they contracted the scope of government funding, regulation or responsibility. More than 60 percent were liberal: They clearly expanded government. The others offered a mix of liberal or conservative components or took no clear ideological direction. When significant policy change occurs in the executive branch, it is even less likely to be conservative; only 10 percent of the executive orders and agency rules that policy historians cited were conservative.

Even labeling as conservative policy government expansions in pursuit of conservative goals, such as traditional values or tougher sentencing,
makes little difference in this conclusion; few significant policy changes fall into this category, though we hear about them often in campaigns…

In other words, when Congress acts it is almost invariably expanding government, not constraining it.

There is a good reason why conservatives are often charged with obstruction. When government is more active, it is usually moving policy to the left. When Congress has doubled its normal productivity, many more liberal laws pass but not necessarily more conservative laws. There was only one session of Congress, the two years after the Republican takeover in 1994, that was both active and conservative, but it did not last. Under President Ronald Reagan, the executive branch made more conservative policy changes only during the first two years of his presidency. Productive policymaking means more domestic spending, more business regulation and wider government responsibility.

The view that normal legislating and bipartisan compromises lead to expanded government is no tea party illusion; it is an accurate reading of the past 70 years.

…the federal government has continually expanded its role in education, civil rights, the environment and health care — and Republican presidents have played large roles in this. Nixon entrenched the Great Society and oversaw the environmental revolution. Reagan was less active domestically but signed more government expansions than contractions. President George H.W. Bush brought us landmarks such as the Americans with Disabilities Act, and his son brought us No Child Left Behind and a new Medicare entitlement.

This history does not bother some Republicans, who see opportunities to fashion new ideas and bargain in pursuit of conservative objectives. But even past policymaking designed to promote markets, safeguard morality and protect the homeland usually expanded government. If contraction is the goal, a positive policy agenda is unlikely to succeed…. The arc of the policy universe is long, but it bends toward liberalism. Conservatives can slow the growth of government but an enduring shift in policy direction would be unprecedented. History shows that a do-nothing Congress is a conservative’s best-case scenario.

All of this tells me that the only way to constrain government is to convene an Article V Convention of the States and to pass amendments similar to those described in The Liberty Amendments.

The federal government seems incapable of controlling itself, so it is incumbent upon the states to do so.

Hat tip: Mark Levin

Doug Ross @ Journal

BOMBSHELL STUDY: Obamacare to expel millions of us from workforce

Guest post by Amy Payne

Obamacare moves people further away from jobs and shifts their health care costs to taxpayers. Good news or bad?

The White House took up defensive measures yesterday after the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office released a new estimate: Obamacare will cause the equivalent of 2.3 million people to stop working.

“Double ouch,” said The Washington Post’s Chris Cillizza, outlining exactly what bad news this is for Members of Congress who voted for Obamacare.

Why will people stop working or reduce their work hours? One word: Money.

Under Obamacare, the less money you make, the more money taxpayers give you for health insurance. So when it comes time to consider a promotion or a different job, people will consider whether that move would make them lose their Obamacare subsidies.

Heritage expert Drew Gonshorowski laid this out last year: “Obamacare ultimately discourages low-income individuals from trying to move into higher paying jobs.”

Gonshorowski notes that Obamacare has all kinds of incentives for individuals:

Some of these distortions include incentives to reduce hours, not seek work, drop insurance coverage, drop dependent coverage, become divorced, or avoid marriage.

Even those who make more money are discouraged from working because of Obamacare’s tax increases. Those tax increases will eat away at their earnings, which could cause some people to avoid raising their income.

These are not good incentives. But the White House, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), and others on the left are arguing that this is good news: People previously were locked in jobs simply to get health insurance, they argue, but now they can leave those jobs and have their health insurance subsidized by the taxpayers.

“This is people having new choices,” said Jason Furman, Chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisors.

While workers have these exciting new “choices,” Obamacare has brought their employers lots of “choices,” too.

Businesses have been reporting to the Federal Reserve for some time now that they are hesitant to hire because of Obamacare and health care cost concerns. Heritage’s James Sherk and Jacob Deveney reported just yesterday that “Employers are responding to the uncertainty of the Obamacare rollout by slashing hours and limiting their new hires.”

The bottom line? “Giving people free benefits reduces their inclination to work to earn those benefits,” Sherk says. “Obamacare does not just reduce businesses’ willingness to hire; it also reduces Americans’ willingness to work. That is not cause for celebration.”

Hat tip: BadBlue Real-Time News

Doug Ross @ Journal