James M. Keating
Dr. Paul Landow
PSCI 8040
26 September 2014
Midterm Essay: The United States of an Oligarchy
Introduction
Based on common public discourse, left leaning circles from revolutionaries to communists love to point out the inconsistencies of democracy. The United States is always at the forefront of that conversation because of their overwhelming economic and military might (although the economic gulf that exists today is smaller than the decade following the Cold War). As the perceived democratic world leader, leftists ranging from Noam Chomsky (libertarian socialist) to Russell Brand (revolutionary), spend a majority of their time calling out the U.S. and the West for their tendency to appease to multinational corporations, Wall Street and other economic elites at the expense of the common people. A recent study by Princeton professor Martin Gilens and Northwestern professor Benjamin Page has gained popularity in recent months (appearing in multiple high ranking news outlets; i.e. Huffington Post, Fox News, etc…). The Gilens-Page study quantitatively argues that the U.S. is in fact dominated by a rich and powerful elite. “Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence” (Gilens and Page 2014, 564). The merits of quantitative analysis is what separates this study from those scholars and public figures who just simply argue that the elitist class exists but cannot use appropriate research methods to prove it as scientific knowledge. The implications of the Gilens-Page study suggests that U.S. is not in fact the democracy its often prides itself to be, but an oligarchy where it is nearly impossible for the average citizen to influence policy. This essay seeks to evaluate the Gilens-Page argument and more generally the elitist argument held by revolutionaries, socialists and the like. History of Issue In order to answer this question, one has to look at who exactly is governing. Is it the masses like democratic principles promise? Or is the elite? David Dahl is one scholar who argues that our representative democracy allows leaders to “cater to mass tastes and in return use the strength provided by the loyalty and obedience of the masses to weaken and perhaps even to annihilate all opposition to their rule”(Dahl 1961, 7). In conclusion of Dahl’s assessment he argues that through organizational “penetration”, citizens can affect policy because the nature of political power in the United States is not centrally maintained but spread across various organizations advocating for various goals. The issue with Dahl’s argument lays in his definition of democracy, which he believes simply means that the population has equal access to political resources. …show more content…
The debate of Dahl’s definition is out of the scope of this essay, but I bring up that point because Dahl doesn’t necessary disagree with the idea that very few people influence politics. Dahl believes the silent decision maker of policy is a decentralized population that uses competing interest groups (Dahl 1961, chapter 6). Dahl’s argument is very limited in the fact that he used only one case study. Surely if his methods were expanded to a national scale, many unforeseen variables would play a role in the analysis. Scholar C. Wright Mills is one of the pioneers of suggests …show more content…
citizen is unattentive to legislation and thusly making themselves largely ignorant about politics as a whole. So who is to say that the policy preferences of the commoners are preferable to that of the elites? One could argue that leaders possess a far greater knowledge of public policy. The author of this essay is not inclined to believe the above statement but simply trying to highlight possibly assumptions and counter arguments to the Gilens-Page study.
Another potential weakness is that what the Gilens-Page study argues, that the U.S. is an oligarchy, is very far from a new one. The argument was first made through scholarly literature in the 1930s. “If this be democracy, we need not quarrel about names. But whatever the label, the fact remains that for most practical purposes; we are ruled by a few powerful and selfish groups” (Mallet-Prevost 1933, 171). Lastly, the study cannot distinguish which elites, or what organized interests is more effective or influence can achieving its policy aims in contrast to low commoners support.
Dr. Paul Landow
PSCI 8040
26 September 2014
Midterm Essay: The United States of an Oligarchy
Introduction
Based on common public discourse, left leaning circles from revolutionaries to communists love to point out the inconsistencies of democracy. The United States is always at the forefront of that conversation because of their overwhelming economic and military might (although the economic gulf that exists today is smaller than the decade following the Cold War). As the perceived democratic world leader, leftists ranging from Noam Chomsky (libertarian socialist) to Russell Brand (revolutionary), spend a majority of their time calling out the U.S. and the West for their tendency to appease to multinational corporations, Wall Street and other economic elites at the expense of the common people. A recent study by Princeton professor Martin Gilens and Northwestern professor Benjamin Page has gained popularity in recent months (appearing in multiple high ranking news outlets; i.e. Huffington Post, Fox News, etc…). The Gilens-Page study quantitatively argues that the U.S. is in fact dominated by a rich and powerful elite. “Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence” (Gilens and Page 2014, 564). The merits of quantitative analysis is what separates this study from those scholars and public figures who just simply argue that the elitist class exists but cannot use appropriate research methods to prove it as scientific knowledge. The implications of the Gilens-Page study suggests that U.S. is not in fact the democracy its often prides itself to be, but an oligarchy where it is nearly impossible for the average citizen to influence policy. This essay seeks to evaluate the Gilens-Page argument and more generally the elitist argument held by revolutionaries, socialists and the like. History of Issue In order to answer this question, one has to look at who exactly is governing. Is it the masses like democratic principles promise? Or is the elite? David Dahl is one scholar who argues that our representative democracy allows leaders to “cater to mass tastes and in return use the strength provided by the loyalty and obedience of the masses to weaken and perhaps even to annihilate all opposition to their rule”(Dahl 1961, 7). In conclusion of Dahl’s assessment he argues that through organizational “penetration”, citizens can affect policy because the nature of political power in the United States is not centrally maintained but spread across various organizations advocating for various goals. The issue with Dahl’s argument lays in his definition of democracy, which he believes simply means that the population has equal access to political resources. …show more content…
The debate of Dahl’s definition is out of the scope of this essay, but I bring up that point because Dahl doesn’t necessary disagree with the idea that very few people influence politics. Dahl believes the silent decision maker of policy is a decentralized population that uses competing interest groups (Dahl 1961, chapter 6). Dahl’s argument is very limited in the fact that he used only one case study. Surely if his methods were expanded to a national scale, many unforeseen variables would play a role in the analysis. Scholar C. Wright Mills is one of the pioneers of suggests …show more content…
citizen is unattentive to legislation and thusly making themselves largely ignorant about politics as a whole. So who is to say that the policy preferences of the commoners are preferable to that of the elites? One could argue that leaders possess a far greater knowledge of public policy. The author of this essay is not inclined to believe the above statement but simply trying to highlight possibly assumptions and counter arguments to the Gilens-Page study.
Another potential weakness is that what the Gilens-Page study argues, that the U.S. is an oligarchy, is very far from a new one. The argument was first made through scholarly literature in the 1930s. “If this be democracy, we need not quarrel about names. But whatever the label, the fact remains that for most practical purposes; we are ruled by a few powerful and selfish groups” (Mallet-Prevost 1933, 171). Lastly, the study cannot distinguish which elites, or what organized interests is more effective or influence can achieving its policy aims in contrast to low commoners support.