Is inequality and money hijacking the American Democracy?

[Trading]

The thesis that the growing inequality since the eighties is allowing a few people to determine in great measure the candidates from (especially) the Republican party, and also their political agenda (rejecting that climate change has a human cause, rejecting any increase in taxes for the richest, defending the annulment of measures to regulate financial markets adopted after 2008, etc.), thanks to their financial capacity that allows them to pay huge contributions to the candidates that adopt their agenda is old.

Krugman has been one of their advocates:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/24/opinion/paul-krugman-plutocrats-against-democracy.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/16/opinion/krugman-why-inequality-matters.html
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/06/08/musings-on-inequality-and-growth/ (rejecting that increasing inequality has increase grow of the economy)

Also Chomsky: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTMqEn8HSow ("Requiem for the American Dream").

And Robert Reich: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GojnBUIz0o ("Inequality for all")

But others have adopted the same perspective:
http://billmoyers.com/story/the-plutocrats-are-winning-dont-let-them/
https://books.google.com/books?id=Rl_vCgAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://blog.seattlepi.com/robertbrown/2014/12/14/the-superrich-have-hijacked-our-democracy/

Even the New York Times it self published reports with the same vision:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/10/11/us/politics/2016-presidential-election-super-pac-donors.html?_r=0


But the thesis has its critics too:

http://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/how-to-think-about-inequality
http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2007/08/krugman_on_inequality_and_demo

[ridery99]

Soon only homosexuals and corporate CEOs have right to have opinions or vote.

[Balthazar]

Hm, american democracy, what is this? Is this somehow related to NSA mass surveillance or Guantanamo concentration camp?

[Spendulus]

The thesis that the growing inequality since the eighties is allowing a few people to determine in great measure the candidates from (especially) the Republican party...

You mean like they picked Hillary?

Wait, that's not Republican...

Wait, the Republican rank and file have revolted against the "picks of the few..."

So what the fuck you talking about, dude?

[Trading]

The thesis that the growing inequality since the eighties is allowing a few people to determine in great measure the candidates from (especially) the Republican party...

You mean like they picked Hillary?

Wait, that's not Republican...

Wait, the Republican rank and file have revolted against the "picks of the few..."

So what the fuck you talking about, dude?

Even if with some exceptions (like Ben Carson or Trump, but they are outsiders), GOP candidates received much more money from super PACs or big donations (so, from wealthy individuals) than democrats

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2014/07/16/the-massive-difference-in-how-democrats-and-republicans-raise-money/

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/us/elections/election-2016-campaign-money-race.html?_r=0 (example, J. Bush vs H. Clinton or Bernie Sanders)

[Trading]

In the OP, I assumed that inequality in the USA (and the way it increased since the 80s) is a general accepted fact.

But one can read a few interesting articles on it:

http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

http://blogs.reuters.com/david-cay-johnston/2011/10/25/beyond-the-1-percent/

http://time.com/3855971/us-economic-inequality/

http://fortune.com/2015/06/11/income-inequality/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_inequality_in_the_United_States

[Beliathon]

Capitalism consumes democracy as fire consumes oxygen. We will all suffocate if we fail to revolt / recreate / transcend the neofeudal structural genocide in which we live.

[Snail2]

The thesis that the growing inequality since the eighties is allowing a few people to determine in great measure the candidates from (especially) the Republican party, and also their political agenda (rejecting that climate change has a human cause, rejecting any increase in taxes for the richest, defending the annulment of measures to regulate financial markets adopted after 2008, etc.), thanks to their financial capacity that allows them to pay huge contributions to the candidates that adopt their agenda is old.

I think this problem isn't limited to the republicans. The same thing applies to the democrats as well, with a different political agenda. Actually you find the same issues in all western type representative democracies without a single exception. Without making party finance and donations 100% transparent (what is more or less impossible) you have no chance to deal with these issues. This is how plutocracy/oligarchy working. 

[criptix]

The thesis that the growing inequality since the eighties is allowing a few people to determine in great measure the candidates from (especially) the Republican party, and also their political agenda (rejecting that climate change has a human cause, rejecting any increase in taxes for the richest, defending the annulment of measures to regulate financial markets adopted after 2008, etc.), thanks to their financial capacity that allows them to pay huge contributions to the candidates that adopt their agenda is old.

I think this problem isn't limited to the republicans. The same thing applies to the democrats as well, with a different political agenda. Actually you find the same issues in all western type representative democracies without a single exception. Without making party finance and donations 100% transparent (what is more or less impossible) you have no chance to deal with these issues. This is how plutocracy/oligarchy working. 

Imho that is only partly correct. There are measures you can take to avoid this massive lobbying.
For example the german voting system: the different parties are getting tax money for their campaigns depending on how much votes they get. There is free time on tv and other stuff.

[Snail2]

Imho that is only partly correct. There are measures you can take to avoid this massive lobbying.
For example the german voting system: the different parties are getting tax money for their campaigns depending on how much votes they get. There is free time on tv and other stuff.

As far as I know parties in Germany are also accepting corporate and private donations. Until they doing that nobody can guarantee their independence. Lobbies in Germany just as strong as everywhere else.

[criptix]

Imho that is only partly correct. There are measures you can take to avoid this massive lobbying.
For example the german voting system: the different parties are getting tax money for their campaigns depending on how much votes they get. There is free time on tv and other stuff.

As far as I know parties in Germany are also accepting corporate and private donations. Until they doing that nobody can guarantee their independence. Lobbies in Germany just as strong as everywhere else.

Yes that is sadly correct too. It wasn't my intention to deny it.
I just wanted to point out there exist measures in other nations that help reduce the power of "big money".

[Daniel91]

I think that in modern democracy and political system is impossible to separate political campaign from money support.
Money is everything now and can buy influence in media, brainwash people with strong and expensive propaganda, create events which helps politicians etc.
Politic really become dirty job in modern time but it seems it's to late to change it now.
If you have enough money you can buy all of them so it seems there are no real independent politicians in western world.
To sad reality.

[bitsmichel]

o a
Re: Is inequality and money hijacking the American Democracy?

To a large extend yes. Politicians can be bought or seduced and corporations have been hijacking our democracy for a while.

[BADecker]

Capitalism consumes democracy as fire consumes oxygen. We will all suffocate if we fail to revolt / recreate / transcend the neofeudal structural genocide in which we live.

Free trade is the thing that gives the average person the incentive to excel. It is the hope of finding riches that pushes people to dig all the wonderful technology out of nature that nature has within itself. It is the further marketing of those technologies that lets us all enjoy new things with more leisure time.

[bitsmichel]

Capitalism consumes democracy as fire consumes oxygen. We will all suffocate if we fail to revolt / recreate / transcend the neofeudal structural genocide in which we live.

Free trade is the thing that gives the average person the incentive to excel. It is the hope of finding riches that pushes people to dig all the wonderful technology out of nature that nature has within itself. It is the further marketing of those technologies that lets us all enjoy new things with more leisure time.

I'm skeptical that capitalism consumes democracy.  Money in itself is a 'vote'. The problem is not enough freedom. Let me explain:

Free trade gives people the ability to improve their lives. Modern life does not have free trade because the money gets stuck in the institutions and governments forbid free trade (economic boycott, slow bank transfers, corruption at al). This is why bitcoin will gives us a breath of freedom for a while (as Satoshi said).

[Trading]

The main problem is indeed the way parties obtain its financial resources.

In some countries the money comes mainly from the state budget. Each party receives money in proportion to the number of votes it gets and there are mandatory limits for the amounts each can spend in the electoral campaign.

But paying parties with tax money doesn't look very sound.

But there should be mandatory limits on the electoral expenses and on each donation. Probably, corporations shouldn't be allow to donate to parties, since they have no political rights. The only explanation for a corporation to pay money to a party is getting political leverage and that is close to corruption.

[adverbelly]

Hm, american democracy, what is this? Is this somehow related to NSA mass surveillance or Guantanamo concentration camp?

yes .. this is the true definiton of american democracy.. congrats..

[Trading]

The ruling of the Federal Supreme Court on unlimited political donations to parties is a major problem. Maybe now with Scalia gone and a new less conservative judge on his place the Supreme will elaborate on this rule.

The so-called "everything goes" in the name of freedom usually means that the powerful will oppress the weak under the benevolent watch of the State.

[designerusa]

Hm, american democracy, what is this? Is this somehow related to NSA mass surveillance or Guantanamo concentration camp?

yes .. this is the true definiton of american democracy.. congrats..

you dont know anything about american democracy.. it is best of all so called democracy all over the world but i agree a point that something must be done for the wrong parts of it..

[Trading]

Like many Democracies, the American Political System has some strong and weak aspects:

1) Real freedom of expression and of political activity (except if you are communist, as a heritage of the sad McCarthy period, and recent repression on matters of State secrets).

2) Great system of direct choice of the presidential candidates of the major parties.

3) Strong and independent judicial system and some positive aspects of the trial by jury, even if the practice of electing people with responsibilities on the judicial system can have some weak aspects.


1) Major economic inequality.

2) As stated on the OP, this inequality is having political consequences on the quality of the American Democracy.

3) Weak social protection of poor people (for instance, health protection of the poor, even after the Obama reformations, is still incomplete).

4) A social culture of violence and, in reaction, massive penal repression, including abusive use of the death penalty (I wouldn't like to live in a country where the State only needs a good pretext to kill me). The USA has almost 1% of its population jailed. That is crazy compared with Europeans numbers.

5) Still some problems of racial discrimination, even if the USA is still far to be the worst Democracy with this problem.

6) Some periods of abusive external policy, recently, especially under republican administrations. But in the past, the democrats weren't better. Of course, any country in the world, probably including the Europeans, would do the same or even worst if they had the power the USA has. Power has always ruined the legitimacy of every external policy.