Widening inequality in the world’s advanced and developing countries inflicts two blows against democratic politics. Not only does it lead to greater disenfranchisement of the middle and lower classes; it also fosters among the elite a poisonous politics of sectarianism.…
These disheartening results raise an important question: How do politicians who are unresponsive to the interests of the vast majority of their constituents get elected and, more important, re-elected, while doing the bidding mostly of the wealthiest individuals?
Part of the explanation may be that most voters have a poor understanding of how the political system works and how it is tilted in favor of the economic elite. As Gilens and Page emphasize, their evidence does not imply that government policy makes the average citizen worse off. Ordinary citizens often do get what they want, by virtue of the fact that their preferences frequently are similar to those of the elite. This correlation of the two groups’ preferences may make it difficult for voters to discern politicians’ bias.
But another, more pernicious, part of the answer may lie in the strategies to which political leaders resort in order to get elected. A politician who represents the interests primarily of economic elites has to find other means of appealing to the masses. Such an alternative is provided by the politics of nationalism, sectarianism, and identity – a politics based on cultural values and symbolism rather than bread-and-butter interests. When politics is waged on these grounds, elections are won by those who are most successful at “priming” our latent cultural and psychological markers, not those who best represent our interests.Project Syndicate
How the Rich Rule
Dani Rodrik | Professor of Social Science at the Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton, New Jersey
10 comments:
There is nobody going all around saying "I'm the rich.." there is nobody going all around saying "I'm a neo-liberal..." or "I'm the 1%..." or "I'm an oligarch...", etc..
There are PLENTY of people going all around and saying "I'm a libertarian..." though...
Are we trying to say that these nebulous "groups" of people are some form of "secret societies"?
Obama was more or less an abandoned child.... now he is trying to get in to play at Winged Foot on weekends.... is Obama "the rich" now?
Was he "the rich" as an abandoned child?
What are we doing with grouping people by these economic characteristics and then talking about them like they are some sort of organized body of people?
Like this guy here: "how the rich rule" ???? like "the rich" are some sort of organized body of people who seek "rule" or something.... or "oligarchs", etc...
I dont understand how we can think this is useful to classify people and then apply attributes to these groups as though they exist for any other purpose than our own way of perceiving socio-economic categories within our society...
Like any arbitrary grouping is vague, but that does not mean there isn't something real behind the perception.
They may not say it, but they may feel it. And not through coordinated action, but they will push policies that favour their (relative! because groups are always about comparison towards other groups) position over others (if you perceive the world as a zero sum game).
IMO the most pertinent distinction and grouping should be along the lines of how social distribution and progress should happen, adn there are two groups: 1) those who think we are in a 'zero-sum scenario' or a 'race to the bottom' (ultracompetitive environment) and 2) those who think there is place for progress of the whole human race and we should be fixing problems instead of making them.
In the first group you can find many subgroups and subgroups within subgroups (and in the second, to a lesser extent, too): some will focus on wealth and ownership ('rich' vs. 'poor'), some over races ('whites' vs. 'everybody else'), or a mix of different categories as nothing is binary when it comes to humans.
I have nothing against rich people (better for them if they are rich!) as long as they know their place and is sustainable for the well-being and progress of the rest of the population (at what rate can we build McMansions and wealthy golf resorts until it impacts the rest of the population for example), balancing that is a big and complex enough trouble.
But if they are into this zero-sum behaviour they are automatically my enemies (conspiracy or not, I don't care as I don't make distinctions).
"there is nobody going all around saying "I'm a neo-liberal"
er, yes there is.
y,
names, addresses, legal form of identification, etc.... please....
y,
http://www.lp.org/contact-us
1444 Duke St.
Alexandria, VA 22314-3403
(202) 333-0008 (PHONE)
(202) 333-0072 (FAX)
info@lp.org
Please provide the same for the "neo-liberals", the "oligarchs" and "the rich"...
rsp,
A poor title. To reorient the discussion, I'd rename this article:
"How UnderRegulated Markets Pervert Democracy"
Seems way more productive to me.
Social scientists describe such phenomena as class structure, power structure, wealth distribution, education asymmetry, etc as cultural and institutional effects. Conspiracy theorist see cabals behind them, and there have been and still are a few, but by and large they are cultural, historical, and institutional artifacts.
While this can all be changed institutionally through political choices, there are powerful vested interest organized to prevent this and to preserve the status quo and expand existing power configurations.
As sociologists also point out, the ability to organize is the basis of power and affluence. The powerful and affluence are in the position they are, by and large, owing to superior organizing ability. The major reason that of the four classes, warrior, intelligentsia, acquisitive, and working, only the first three come to power on their own is that workers lack the ability to organize sufficiently to rule even if they temporarily gain power in a revolt.
This seems to be due more to nurture than to nature. The working class is less educated and less trained in management. There's a reason, for instance, that traditionally the officer class is selected from the elite rather than the workers and enjoys power and privilege comparable to landed aristocrats, right down to the titles. About the only way for the working class to assume power is through the military.
The rich do rule. When their wealth is threatened by political pressure, they form coalitions to fight off the threats. They buy and sponsor the careers od politicians in ways non-rich people can't. They also make decisions everyday outside of the formal political sphere about the allocation of the world's inhrently limited capital resources and natural resources. The very essence of the free enterprise system is that decisons about the use of capital are made by those who own that capital. That decision-making power over the resources under one's control is where the real power of a society resides. If some people own and control a lot more of those resources than everyone else, then they have a lot more power than everyone else. That is, they rule.
It has been pointed out elsewhere that the issues in political economy are decided not by popular choice but rather than competing factions among the elite, finance, industry, energy, etc., as well as factions of the elite that disagree over the configuration of the system, e.g., economic liberalism v. social democracy, fiscal conservatism v. fiscal liberalism, etc.
In the US, this lines up more or less by political party. The little people are persuaded to vote against their economic interests based on political rhetoric that appeals to interest groups.
The point of the study is that the dynamic is among the power elite, with power stemming from wealth in a capitalist society. The "little people" play no part in it.
Post a Comment