Carter is telling
us what we already know. Our democracy is a sham and an oligarchy.
As others as myself have pointed out the problems with US democracy
are:
-In our system it is that wealthy people who can buy influence policy and
elections while less wealthy and poor can only vote. They can work on a
candidates campaign, but it is the wealthy who have the ability to influence
the issues. Others, with out means, find they have no influence over the issues
and are left only to vote yes or no on someone else's defined issues.
-The US
Supreme Court, especially in the decision Citizens United V. The Federal Election Commission,
has constantly ruled against any curbs on corporate spending in our election
process. By kicking out any campaign financing laws and declaring that
corporations are people, the courts reshuffled the playing field leaving
corporate giants to spend millions against individuals who may not have any
money to spend on influencing elections. In a real democracy no one would be allowed to spend money trying to influence public policy.
This creates a corporate oligarchy.
-Our news media is biased and acts as the "gatekeeper." They decide what is considered news.
They decide (and always cover the two parties) which parties get to take part
in debates and who gets news coverage. This leaves a corporate sponsored news
media to pick and chose who the public can take seriously in an election. The
news media has more affect on political ideas than the people they are supposed
to be informing and serving.
-The two political parties, Democrats and Republicans, are sewn into the
system. They get nearly all the news coverage and they are the only parties to
have local, state and national primaries that serve the two parties and those
parties only. They are able to keep out ideas that they consider outside the
mainstream. The two parties are designed to prevent really big changes, even
when the people want them.
-Large families, such as the Bush family (George H.W. and George W. for
example) are tied to their own business interest and yet they also have a lot
of political power. As with the Roosevelts and the Kennedys, such families
often dominate the entire country as if they were dukes or earls.
-Otto
On July 28, Thom
Hartmann interviewed former U.S. President Jimmy Carter, and, at the very end
of his show (as if this massive question were merely an afterthought), asked
him his opinion of the 2010 Citizens United decision
and the 2014 McCutcheondecision, both decisions by the five
Republican judges on the U.S. Supreme Court. These two historic decisions
enable unlimited secret money (including foreign money) now to pour into U.S. political and judicial campaigns.
Carter answered:
It violates the essence of what made America a great country in its political
system. Now it's just an oligarchy with unlimited political bribery being the
essence of getting the nominations for president or being elected president.
And the same thing applies to governors, andU.S. Senators and congress members. So, now
we've just seen a subversion of our political system as a payoff to major
contributors, who want and expect, and sometimes get, favors for themselves
after the election is over. ... At the present time the incumbents, Democrats
and Republicans, look upon this unlimited money as a great benefit to
themselves. Somebody that is already in Congress has a great deal more to
sell."
He was then cut off by the program, though that statement
by Carter should have been the start of
the program, not its end. (And the program didn't end with an invitation for
him to return to discuss this crucial matter in depth -- something for which
he's qualified.)
So, was this former president's provocative allegation
merely his opinion? Or was it actually lots more than that? It was lots more than that.
Only a single empirical study has actually been done in
the social sciences regarding whether the historical record shows that the
United States has been, during the survey's period, which in that case was
between 1981 and 2002, a democracy (a nation whose leaders represent the
public-at-large), or instead an aristocracy (or 'oligarchy') -- a nation in
which only the desires of the richest citizens end up being reflected in governmental
actions. This study was titled "Testing Theories of American Politics,"and
it was published by Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page in the journalPerspectives on Politics, issued by the American
Political Science Association in September 2014. I had summarized it earlier,
on April 14, 2014, while the article was still awaiting its publication.
The clear finding is that the U.S. is an oligarchy, no democratic
country, at all. American democracy is a sham, no matter how much it's pumped
by the oligarchs who run the country (and who control the nation's 'news'
media).
I then quoted the authors' own summary: "The
preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero,
statistically non-significant impact upon public policy."
The scientific study closed by saying: "In the United States, our findings
indicate, the majority does not rule -- at least not in the causal sense of
actually determining policy outcomes." A few other tolerably clear
sentences managed to make their ways into this well-researched, but, sadly,
atrociously written, paper, such as: "The preferences of economic elites
(as measured by our proxy, the preferences of 'affluent' citizens) have far more
independent impact upon policy change than the preferences of average citizens
do." In other words, they found: The rich rule the U.S.
Their study investigated specifically "1,779
instances between 1981 and 2002 in which a national survey of the general public
asked a favor/oppose question about a proposed policy change," and then
the policy-follow-ups, of whether or not the polled public preferences had been
turned into polices, or, alternatively, whether the relevant corporate-lobbied
positions had instead become public policy on the given matter, irrespective of
what the public had wanted concerning it.
The study period, 1981-2002, covered the wake of the
landmark 1976 U.S. Supreme Court decision, Buckley v. Valeo, which had started the aristocratic
assault on American democracy, and which seminal (and bipartisan)
pro-aristocratic court decision is described as follows by wikipedia:
[It] struck down on First Amendment grounds several
provisions in the 1974 Amendments to the Federal Election Campaign Act. The
most prominent portions of the case struck down limits on spending in
campaigns, but upheld the provision limiting the size of individual
contributions to campaigns. The Court also narrowed, and then upheld, the Act's
disclosure provisions, and struck down (on separation of powers grounds) the
make-up of the Federal Election Commission, which as written allowed Congress
to directly appoint members of the Commission, an executive agency.
Basically, the Buckley decision,
and subsequent (increasingly partisan Republican) Supreme Court decisions, have
allowed aristocrats to buy and control politicians.
Already, the major 'news' media were owned and controlled
by the aristocracy, and 'freedom of the press' was really just freedom of
aristocrats to control the 'news' -- to frame public issues in the ways the
owners want. The media managers who are appointed by those owners select, in
turn, the editors who, in their turn, hire only reporters who produce the
propaganda that's within the acceptable range for the owners, to be 'the news'
as the public comes to know it.
Of the earliest writings
on Democracy we have the Greeks. Pericles was one of the earliest politicians
to give pro-democracy speeches. Democracy came from words that mean "the
people rule." Today that can't really be said.
From a speech by Pericles:
"Our form of
government is called a democracy because..."
"... Our form of does not imitate the laws of neighboring states. On the
contrary, we are rather a model to others. Our form of government is called a
democracy because its administration is in the hands, not of a few, but of the
whole people. In the settling of private disputes, everyone is equal before the
law. Election to public office is made on the basis of ability, not on the
basis of membership to a particular class. No man is kept out of public office
by the obscurity of his social standing because of his poverty, as long as he
wishes to be of service to the state. And not only in our public life are we
free and open, but a sense of freedom regulates our day-to-day life with each
other. We do not flare up in anger at our neighbor if he does what he likes.
And we do not show the kind of silent disapproval that causes pain in others,
even though it is not a direct accusation. In our private affairs, then, we are
tolerant and avoid giving offense. But in public affairs, we take great care
not to break law because of the deep respect we have for them. We give
obedience to the men who hold public office from year to year. And we pay
special regard to those laws that are for the protection of the oppressed and
to all the unwritten laws that we know bring disgrace upon the transgressor
when they are broken.
"Let me add another point. We have had the good sense to provide for our
spirits more opportunities for relaxation from hard work than other people.
Throughout the year, there are dramatic and athletic contests and religious
festivals. In our homes we find beauty and good taste, and the delight we find
every day in and this drives away our cares. And because of the greatness of our
city, all kinds of imports flow in to us from all over the world. It is just as
natural for us to enjoy the good products of other nations as it is to enjoy
the things that we produce ourselves.
"The way we live differs in another respect from that of our enemies. Our
city is open to all the world. We have never had any aliens' laws to exclude
anyone from finding our or seeking anything here, nor any secrets of the city
that an enemy might find out about and use to his advantage. For our security,
we rely not on defensive arrangements or secrecy but on the courage that
springs from our souls, when we are called into action. As for education, the
enemy subjects their children from their earliest boyhood to the most laborious
training in manly courage. We, with our unrestricted way of life, are just as
ready to face the dangers as they are. And here is the proof. The Spartans
never invade Attica using only their own troops, but they
bring along all their allies. But when we attack a nearby city, we usually win
by ourselves even though we fight on enemy soil against men who defend their
own homes. No enemy, in fact, has even engaged our total military power because
our practice is constantly to attend to the needs of our navy, as well as to
send our troops on many land excursions. Yet, if our enemies engage one
division of our forces and defeat it, they boast that they have beaten our
entire army, and if they are defeated they say that they lost to our whole
army. So it is not painful discipline that makes us go out to meet danger, but
our easy confidence. Our natural bravery springs from our way of life, not from
the compulsion of laws. Also we do not spend our time anticipating the
sufferings that are still in the future, and when the test is upon us, we show
ourselves no less brave than those who are continually preparing themselves for
battle. Athens deserves
to be admired for these qualities and for others as well......
