My Coming To Grips With The Question: Is America Still A Democracy?
Sometimes you know things viscerally, but you don’t want to know them at a higher level of consciousness. That’s the way I’ve been with something my good friend Bob Walters has been saying for years, a rap that generally runs: “I have said since the 60s that the US is not a democracy, it is a plutocratic oligarchy. This is not news. So why are so many people finally waking up now and acting like it is news!”
His case is that our entire legislative and electoral system has been largely undermined for decades by the pervasive and sleazy influence of money.
Being in denial, I thought that it wasn’t that his view was totally wrong. It was just a bit too far out there for me.
Then came the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision – a decision that rubs the faces of us Americans who can’t make million dollar PAC contributions in the fact that money rules. And those of us that don’t have the money have almost no voice in our “democracy.”
Still I was resistant. Who really wants to be that cynical?
And then I watched Michael Moore’s film, “Capitalism: A Love Story.”
In it I found out about Citigroup memos that were sent to their fattest of fat cats in 2005 and 2006. The one from 2005 was headed, “Plutonomy: Buying Luxury, Explaining Global Imbalance.” The report ran to 35 pages and started with:
“The World is dividing into two blocs – the Plutonomy and the rest. The U.S., UK, and Canada are the key Plutonomies – economies powered by the wealthy…
… In plutonomies the rich absorb a disproportionate chunk of the economy and have a massive impact on reported aggregate numbers like savings rates, current account deficits, consumption levels, etc. This imbalance in inequality expresses itself in the standard scary “global imbalances…”
It went on to say:
“…We project that the plutonomies (the U.S., UK, and Canada) will likely see even more income inequality, disproportionately feeding off a further rise in the profit share in their economies, capitalist-friendly governments, more technology-driven productivity, and globalization.”
Citigroup’s 2006 follow up report was headed, “Revisiting Plutonomy: The Rich Getting Richer.” Here’s a quote:
“…Back in October, we coined the term ‘Plutonomy’… Our thesis is that the rich are the dominant drivers of demand in many economies around the world (the US, UK, Canada and Australia). These economies have seen the rich take an increasing share of income and wealth over the last 20 years, to the extent that the rich now dominate income, wealth and spending in these countries. Asset booms, a rising profit share and favourable treatment by market-friendly governments have allowed the rich to prosper and become a greater share of the economy in the plutonomy countries… Indeed, David Gordon and Ian Dew-Becker of the NBER demonstrate that the top 10%, particularly the top 1% of the US – the plutonomists in our parlance – have benefited disproportionately from the recent productivity surge in the US.”
My current Bob Walters-like enlightenment was long overdue.
My excuse – if one can have an excuse for keeping one’s head in the sand – for taking so long to twig to what Bob has understood for almost half-a-century is that if material like the above had been given the proper play by the media and proclaimed loudly – even people like myself would have caught on sooner. But of course our major media outlets have been bought and paid for by the super rich with pro-rich agendas.
So is America really a democracy or a plutocratic oligarchy? No contest. I now have to go with Bob on this one.
If you like you can still get a full copy of the memos here:
http://www.mygreencard.com/downloads.php?file=CitigroupPlutonony_October2009.pdf
The Big Belch – a graphic novel about the
environment and corporate greed that is kind of like
Dr. Strangelove meets BP with drawings.
Big Belch Graphic Novel Youtube channel
The Big Belch Blog
Share This
Related Posts
-
“Self” Is a Misnomer
Posted on May 23, 2013
-
Obama Tweets About Global Warming
Posted on May 23, 2013
-
Gov. Christie defends his role in publicly funded TV ads
Posted on May 18, 2013
-
Am I a Home for Identities?
Posted on May 16, 2013
Seems like it is going to take some massive movement in this country to change anything.
Right now we have two parties that seem to support tow competing models. One the right are those that support the current system where the rich get richer. On the left are those that have promoted more support systems to make many dependant on the government for their existence. Seems like clinton was the last to recognize the importance of individual responsibility when he signed welfare reform legislation.
We need to return to the FDR model where the rich paid their fair share, while those needing help provided for their help through hard work in the CCC and WPA. Everyone contributed that made this country much stronger.
That’s just a right-wing talking point (real lie) but since the writer knew that I will say no more.
I sure miss the editor…
(real lie) should have been (read lie)
The next question you’ll be asking is if we have countries anymore.
Seriously — the boundaries are blurring already.
You can have a business in Maryland, live in LA, moneys in london, miners in chile, engineers in russia, and factories in china.
Blur the line between state and corporations, add a little time, and presto, what is a country?
I don’t think we are quite there yet, but we are certainly getting there. I have to say, watching what the Koch Bros did in Wisconsin was and is pretty scary, as is the fact that the voters had a chance to fix it and didn’t, missing all the real problems, leads me to believe that voters are at the usual disadvantages. Small groups of well funded and organized people are infinitely more capable of accomplishing things than large groups of disorganized people. Which is a category that voters fit in. The financial sector has managed to not only get itself deregulated, but meet the worst expectations of what they could do when deregulated, and they have been able to go back to business as normal. That’s pretty scary that we can miss the wake up call we were handed in ’08. I guess it will take a complete repeat of 1929 for us to get the message.
But at the end of the day, we can still vote. And surprising things can happen. I approach the future with a dose of optimism still.
@SteveK..can you tell us why there has been a complete breakdown in the black family stucture.
I believe it is due to a support system from the left that has supported this breakdown leading to increased poverty and increased demand for assistance because it is there.
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=1261
Interesting article. I accept what is stated here. You may or may not. Just a difference in political philosophy. I believe if one receives aid from the government and works for that aid, then that person has a much higher regard for themselves compared to the person that receives aid and does nothing.
RP- do you know any black families? I know a lot of them, including ones headed by single mothers. They certainly aren’t breaking down because they are receiving too much government assistance. They are struggling because they can’t earn enough money to support a family. It is not the result of excessive government assistance eroding their moral fiber. It is the result of thirty years of government economic policies to suppress their wages, policies enacted to promote income inequity in order to shift income to the rich. Poverty has resulted from lower wages, not some imaginary breakdown in moral fiber conjured up to appease the already tiny conscience of the modern conservatives.
Speaking of breaking down. Clinton introduced welfare reform with certain work requirements. We are told that that system is not working so well, so the work requirements have been lowered.
Point is when government creates any system, there are sometimes unforeseen negative consequences. I love when lawmakers and governmentg officials say it will such and such and cost this much and save this much. Never is it: we’ll take a shot at this and see what happens.
I’m thrilled that one of my most reviled Wall Streeters, Sanford Weill, has said the repeal of Glass-Stegaqll was a big mistake AND I am very, very proud of the NYT for admitting that they were also wrong in praising the repeal.
Ok, I agree, that Democracy is a little shaky, but the plutocrats haven’t won yet.
(Note to the .1%ers I can be converted/subverted/inverted for a nice contribution to my personal PAC).
You have to toss in their the ghetto-ization from public housing creating jobless Impoverishment Zones.
I’ve spent considerable time diving into census data, and it’s unmistakable: the vast majority of African-Americans are grouped together in impoverished areas of large cities, or impoverished farm communities in the Deep South. These areas simply do not have job opportunities any more. This is despite “enterprise zones” and other lame attempts to turn things around.
You can decry them for taking government assistance all you want, but if there isn’t any work for them to do, then what?
Let them die in the streets, it appears.
The return of jobs to the cities will do far more to save African American families from poverty than any government program OR the end of any government program will possibly do.
http://themoderatevoice.com/148003/how-to-apply-a-modern-monetary-theory-solution-to-an-economic-downturn-guest-voice/
Although it will/would take time to get this through an already captured congress, it is likely the best solution to our current economic woes.
@merkin..Yes I know a number of black families. Some at the lower income level, some at the upper middle income level. But granted, I do not know any black, single individuals with children. I guess that is the difference that drives my positions on how poverty has taken hold of the black population. But if you access the liberal website http://www.discoverthenetworks.org you will find a number of articles that present the case that the black population is in a spiral they can not get out of. Fifty years ago most black women were married and the father went to work, thus presenting a role model for the children to follow. Yes, the jobs were unskilled and low paying, but the blacks had a support system so they could continue to work, and had the system not let them down, they would most likely have improved much more than what they have today. It seems like the system promoted single families and not the family structure, thus leaving many black children, and especially black males, with no male role model which generated future generations where there was no father figure in the home.Each successive generation became a victim of the prior generations social support system that helped promote single moms.
Sorry, but I still beleive in the FDR model where you receive aid and you work for that aid in some manner unless you are physically or mentally unable to work. Give a man/woman a job and you give the respect.
And this problem is not isolated to just the black population. There are many whites in this same condition that would fair much better if the aid came with a job.
The method of one getting the job is a matter for another discussion, But I will say I believe it needs to be a governmental agency funded like the WPA and CCC where the money gets directly to the jobs and does not filter through multiple layers of bureaucracy that takes money off the top at each level before it gets to the jobs like so much government funding today.
But if you access the liberal website http://www.discoverthenetworks.org
ROFLMAO The troll whats you to believe that DTN is a “liberal” website – too funny.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Horowitz_Freedom_Center
Thanks rudi…
I don’t consider RP a troll at all. He has been polite and presented his ideas in a respectful manner. If he mislabels Horowitz as a liberal website, that’s probably just a misstatement. He has certainly demostrated he understands what a liberal website really is. If his sources are not considered mainstream media, that’s his choice. His facts can be, and should be disputed without resorting to personal attacks.
In the 1950′s and 1960′s many states did refuse AFDC to homes where the father resided until this was ruled unconstitutional in 1968. This was a big reason for the decimation of minority families’ structure and since the Civil Rights Act hadn’t yet been passed, minority families were denied both housing outside of the ghettos and poor rural areas and upward mobility in the job market. This denial of AFDC was not because of liberals, of course, but because of conservatives.
What Ohio said.
Slamfu said:
“But at the end of the day, we can still vote. And surprising things can happen. I approach the future with a dose of optimism still.”
For me, it is a small dose. Sort of like taking a single aspirin to deal with the pain of a broken bone.
Yes, we still have the vote, but increasingly, the choices we have at the ballot box are only those with either great personal fortunes or the help of others with great personal fortunes.
A candidate with a shoestring budget can barely compete at the state level, let alone a national level, and even campaigns for state offices are bankrolled by powerful (and in some cases out of state) interests.
The ability of a citizen to become a citizen legislator is restricted by money and a system that favors those with considerable financial resources.
The candidates we are presented with are hardly responsive to the needs of average citizens whose only bargaining chip is their vote.
I can write to my Senator or call my Representative’s office, but unless the communication is prefaced with “I donated to your campaign” then I am unlikely to receive anything but a form letter in return. The amount of attention paid to me by my elected official is likely to be in direct proportion to the amount paid by me to elect them.
At the end of the day, the issue is access. Access to the elected official, and access to the process whereby one becomes an elected official. Both are supposed to be unrestricted in principle, but in practice there is a steep price for access, and it is rising dramatically.
Are we still a democracy? Technically, yes. Our vote still counts, but the power of our vote has been greatly diminished.
For evidence, one need look no further than November. Nine out of ten legislators will be re-elected despite the approval ratings for Congress being in the toilet. Democrats will hold their noses and vote for Obama, while Republicans will hold their noses and vote for Romney.
The whole thing stinks.
There are three hundred million people in the country. How much access could they possibly have?
Money is the essential tool we use for allocating every other resource, so I don’t understand how politics could possibly be any different. All you people who are lamenting the role money plays in politics, please explain how you envision political resources such as face time with politicians being allocated?
Ultimately, the only thing that matters is votes. If money buys votes, it’s because voters let it. If money buys access, it’s because we vote for politicians that allow that to happen. If we are given bad choices, it’s because we accept them.
The experiment of representative government is that we get the government that we ask for, for better or worse. The founders understood that there is no system, at least not a representative system, that can withstand a failure of the people. I don’t know if we’ll be able to turn it around. I don’t believe in inherent American exceptionalism. But, I don’t see any alternative but for the people to exercise citizenship.
Face time with politicians is still available if you are part of a group with enough members, or it still was in 1993 when my spouse and I visited DC with a debt/deficit reduction organization. I suspect it’s because we had some big name people in leadership positions – and several thousand members – and were addressing a situation everyone knew was a burgeoning problem.
Anyone can find an organization that fits their politics if they will take the time to find one. Anyone can get involved when they find one. Not everyone can find time for a congressional face-to-face; we were able to take time for a DC conference where we met with many congress folk (Gingrich was the newest golden boy). We didn’t contribute that much money, but spent our time to further the organization’s goal.
If you don’t like something, do something to change it. Numbers of adherents will outpace money in the long run. Not everything changes only through the electoral system.