“Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens
Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page
Each of four theoretical traditions in the study of American politics—which can be characterized as theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy, Economic-Elite Domination, and two types of interest-group pluralism, Majoritarian Pluralism and Biased Pluralism—offers different predictions about which sets of actors have how much influence over public policy: average citizens; economic elites; and organized interest groups, mass-based or business-oriented. A great deal of empirical research speaks to the policy influence of one or another set of actors, but until recently it has not been possible to test these contrasting theoretical predictions against each other within a single statistical model. We report on an effort to do so, using a unique data set that includes measures of the key variables for 1,779 policy issues. 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. The results provide substantial support for theories of Economic-Elite Domination and for theories of Biased Pluralism, but not for theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy or Majoritarian Pluralism. “
My takeaway from this article was the quote from the two republican senators that totally mirrors the blind imperialism of the current democratic administration, putting the folly of any real voter choice in this country in stark relief.
With 2022 just around the corner, what exactly are our real options for change? Bubkis. Squat. Nada. Zilch. Zero.
Oh, we can tweak tax policy here and there; we can have less wokeness in public discourse; we can redefine who gets what regarding public assistance, but the overall trajectory of empire remains on course.
America has some of the lowest voter participation of any developed country, and those who don't vote tell interviewers the main reason is they feel that voting will make no difference in their lives. We're told by our media that this amounts to apathy on their part instead of what it is: a totally valid assessment of our politics' actual priorities.
I imagine elites are fine with this lack of participation, and for the others who split their votes between democrats and republicans, I'd have to imagine that elites are just fine with that too.
While it's certainly true that US elections are pretty rotten, it's also certainly true that they are vastly superior to Saudi Arabia's (non-elections). The relatively good deal US citizens get is almost certainly largely due to their enfranchisement (which strongly correlates with good treatment in general). In going for too much and making statements like this you compromise your ability to effectively criticize things like US press coverage of Venezuelan elections while denigrating a thing which has considerable value for the average citizen.
The truth about the efficiency of various voting systems in available as a chart showing bayesian regret ranges for different systems at the bottom of this page: https://rangevoting.org/BayRegsFig.html
. Saudi Arabia's system is effectively "random winner", which tends to produce considerably worse results than even the plurality voting system used in the US. The fact that the world's greatest current atrocity (Yemen) was initiated and continues to be led by a young random winner thug is consistent with the estimate provided there.
“While it's certainly true that US elections are pretty rotten”, it's also certainly true that they are vastly superior to Saudi Arabia....”
Please consider that once we start using relativism to justify anything, we can always claim that the penultimate evil is “vastly superior” to the ultimate evil. But aren't both are still evil?
If we are trapped 50 feet underwater and running out of air and the Saudi solution raises us ten feet toward the surface while the U.S. system raises us twenty feet toward the surface, the U.S. system is, I suppose, twice as good. But we still drown.
Let’s agree “it is certainly true that US elections are pretty rotten.” If so, then I think we can also agree that for the US to assert that another’s country’s elections are flawed is an absurd hypocrisy that cannot be made with a straight face except by a certifiable imperialist.
So we agree about the US voting system being rotten. I guess I didn't explicitly say it but I agree that criticizing e.g. Venezuela is hypocritical. But I stand by statement that saying the US system is as bad as Saudi Arabia's is ridiculous and alienates people.
No but it's not hard to imagine who they are. With Saudi Arabia in particular you're lumping the US in with one of the most notoriously non-democratic countries on earth, doesn't this seem likely to turn off a lot of potential new readers?
If I could imagine them I wouldn't have posed the question. If they stumble across Caitlin, it could be by way of Glenn Greenwald or even Jimmy Dore, so their brains may not already be stuffed with tapioca pudding as you imagine.
Maybe they do all come from those quarters, but if so there may not be many gains to be made anyway. I imagine the spooks at facebook/twitter/medium etc could identify people who show up once, react negatively to eg the saudi stuff and never show again, but I don't see how anyone else could do so.
You are serious aren't you -- "... the relatively good deal US citizens get..."
If you wanted to promote a different type of voting system (which appears to be the case) you could not have undermined your campaign more effectively. Many, if not most, of Caitlin's readers are ROTFL after your first paragraph, and when (if) they get to your Second Grade quality "range voting" graph they've dismissed you as a kook.
And then you don't acknowledge the US role in the destruction of Yemen. That "random thug" is an American tool, if not a puppet.
If one were as conspiracy minded as me, they'd look at the US voter turnout and wonder at the nearly unprecedented 62% turnout for the 2020 election and then realize -- "That's how Biden cheated!"
Serious yep. It *is* a relatively good deal most US citizens get, and this is the main reason the left and the anti-imperialist movement has always had trouble making headway. Their opponents are good at co-opting people and they're bad at recognizing how much it's happening and how well it works. In general enfranchisement even at plurality voting level is really good for you and anyone who says otherwise is lying.
About Caitlin's readers you may well be right. But personally I'd like to see her readership expand by 100x, and for that larger group you're probably wrong.
"2nd grade graph" the guy who made it is Princeton PhD math and you should look at the rest of his pages.
MBS -- if he's only a tool, he's a really really enthusiastic one. The Economist and other western propaganda organs have at times called Yemen "pointless" which seems like a little more than they would likely say if they really were driving the whole thing, rather than just indulging MBS.
So if I've successfully navigated through all your smarty pants clutter, you believe Cailtin undercuts herself by denigrating our wonderful electorial process, the same one that a majority of Americans have stopped participating in because they see no value in doing so? That one? The one that allowed a 20 year war in Afghanistan to rumble on year after year regardless of which party occupied the White House?
Your learned assessments seem to allow little room for the boatloads of propaganda churned out domestically by our alphabet agencies and the complete corporate control of our media. If all is so hunky-dory in voterland, why are these actions even necessary?
Your concern for Caitlin's readership is touching, but as Mark Twain noted, "There are lies, damnable lies, and statistics."
Yes I think she does with respect to a broad audience. I might be wrong but it bugs me at any rate, so I suspect that it alienates others who know less about e.g. US foreign policy even more. I'm sorry if this offends you. I could be wrong.
Your examples of the uselessness of voting in the US all seem to center on foreign policy. In this sphere you're absolutely correct, but that's kind of my point: disenfranchised people get far far worse treatment from the empire than enfranchised ones. You're of course correct that propaganda is used extensively, but co-opting is too, and the latter gets comparatively little attention. I think the problem is that it's hard to attack the state for making people rich and comfortable in a popular way, and hard to acknowledge while arguing that the state deliberately impoverishes people. But the co-opt is in a way as evil as the propaganda, since it effectively makes citizens partners in the murder of foreigners. So it would be nice to find a way to discuss it.
Not offended at all. My mistake for only using examples of foreign policy. Maybe I should have led with a $15 minimum wage, wealth tax, Medicare for All, and a Green New Deal. There. Now we also have domestic examples of the uselessness of voting under our current duopoly.
I still don't feel I have a good handle on your main point. Caitlin offends people by saying truthful (by my way of thinking) things about the American government? Is that it? So she should tone down her criticism hoping for an MSNBC contract, and become the new Rachel Maddow?
Who are these people she's offending, BTW? Jimmy Dore has just under a million subscribers, which is more than many cable "news" programs, so there is an audience for Cailtin-like unvarnished commentary. I have no idea how widespread Cailtin's voice is. I agree with you that I would like it spread further, but disagree that it needs tempering in order to do so (Here's where those gobs of domestic propaganda come in).
You claim the state makes people rich and comfortable in a popular way. Excuse me, but what a fucking bizarre take on things. People are hurting and protesting and the state ignores them. And propagandizes them. And politicians blame them when they lose elections instead of providing representation. Yes, both Caitlin and Dore decry our co-opted politicians; pointedly, CNN and MSNBC don't. Ever.
I feel Caitlin speaks for a lot of us but sadly her brand of insight is all too rare. Currently, you have to look for it, like finding a cool shirt at Goodwill, while bullshit is ubiquitous. It shouldn't be this way, but it is, and it's not because too many people love the system. The system's just been really good at disguising the exit door.
If you really regard lumping US and Saudi voting together as truthful there is nothing wrong with Caitlin's statements. One should never censor oneself and avoid criticizing the powerful in order to be popular. But neither is it necessary or (IMO) advisable to distort things in the other direction. I could be wrong. Shock jocks are a thing.
Regarding minimum wage etc. I agree US deliberately impoverishes a lot of citizens, but that doesn't mean it doesn't deliberately enrich (co-opt) a lot of others. The left's difficulty seeing this is IMO a big problem for them. I'm going by my own experience living in a smallish right-leaning town. The place is stuffed full of people who are not especially rich but reasonably comfortable, and telling them they're poor and as unrepresented as saudis is simply never going to work. It's not true, and it makes them much less likely to believe anything else you say. IMO it's much more effective to try to get across exactly where the goodies come from and what the maintenance of the US position means for people elsewhere. It sounds snotty to say but most really don't know.
“Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens
Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page
Each of four theoretical traditions in the study of American politics—which can be characterized as theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy, Economic-Elite Domination, and two types of interest-group pluralism, Majoritarian Pluralism and Biased Pluralism—offers different predictions about which sets of actors have how much influence over public policy: average citizens; economic elites; and organized interest groups, mass-based or business-oriented. A great deal of empirical research speaks to the policy influence of one or another set of actors, but until recently it has not been possible to test these contrasting theoretical predictions against each other within a single statistical model. We report on an effort to do so, using a unique data set that includes measures of the key variables for 1,779 policy issues. 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. The results provide substantial support for theories of Economic-Elite Domination and for theories of Biased Pluralism, but not for theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy or Majoritarian Pluralism. “
https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf
My takeaway from this article was the quote from the two republican senators that totally mirrors the blind imperialism of the current democratic administration, putting the folly of any real voter choice in this country in stark relief.
With 2022 just around the corner, what exactly are our real options for change? Bubkis. Squat. Nada. Zilch. Zero.
Oh, we can tweak tax policy here and there; we can have less wokeness in public discourse; we can redefine who gets what regarding public assistance, but the overall trajectory of empire remains on course.
America has some of the lowest voter participation of any developed country, and those who don't vote tell interviewers the main reason is they feel that voting will make no difference in their lives. We're told by our media that this amounts to apathy on their part instead of what it is: a totally valid assessment of our politics' actual priorities.
I imagine elites are fine with this lack of participation, and for the others who split their votes between democrats and republicans, I'd have to imagine that elites are just fine with that too.
No doubt
While it's certainly true that US elections are pretty rotten, it's also certainly true that they are vastly superior to Saudi Arabia's (non-elections). The relatively good deal US citizens get is almost certainly largely due to their enfranchisement (which strongly correlates with good treatment in general). In going for too much and making statements like this you compromise your ability to effectively criticize things like US press coverage of Venezuelan elections while denigrating a thing which has considerable value for the average citizen.
The truth about the efficiency of various voting systems in available as a chart showing bayesian regret ranges for different systems at the bottom of this page: https://rangevoting.org/BayRegsFig.html
. Saudi Arabia's system is effectively "random winner", which tends to produce considerably worse results than even the plurality voting system used in the US. The fact that the world's greatest current atrocity (Yemen) was initiated and continues to be led by a young random winner thug is consistent with the estimate provided there.
More details on bayesian regret:
https://rangevoting.org/BayRegExec.html
https://rangevoting.org/BayRegDum.html
Britton Leo Kerin, you wrote:
“While it's certainly true that US elections are pretty rotten”, it's also certainly true that they are vastly superior to Saudi Arabia....”
Please consider that once we start using relativism to justify anything, we can always claim that the penultimate evil is “vastly superior” to the ultimate evil. But aren't both are still evil?
If we are trapped 50 feet underwater and running out of air and the Saudi solution raises us ten feet toward the surface while the U.S. system raises us twenty feet toward the surface, the U.S. system is, I suppose, twice as good. But we still drown.
Let’s agree “it is certainly true that US elections are pretty rotten.” If so, then I think we can also agree that for the US to assert that another’s country’s elections are flawed is an absurd hypocrisy that cannot be made with a straight face except by a certifiable imperialist.
So we agree about the US voting system being rotten. I guess I didn't explicitly say it but I agree that criticizing e.g. Venezuela is hypocritical. But I stand by statement that saying the US system is as bad as Saudi Arabia's is ridiculous and alienates people.
Could please point out these alienated people for me? Thanks.
No but it's not hard to imagine who they are. With Saudi Arabia in particular you're lumping the US in with one of the most notoriously non-democratic countries on earth, doesn't this seem likely to turn off a lot of potential new readers?
If I could imagine them I wouldn't have posed the question. If they stumble across Caitlin, it could be by way of Glenn Greenwald or even Jimmy Dore, so their brains may not already be stuffed with tapioca pudding as you imagine.
Maybe they do all come from those quarters, but if so there may not be many gains to be made anyway. I imagine the spooks at facebook/twitter/medium etc could identify people who show up once, react negatively to eg the saudi stuff and never show again, but I don't see how anyone else could do so.
LOL, thank God for trolls.
You are serious aren't you -- "... the relatively good deal US citizens get..."
If you wanted to promote a different type of voting system (which appears to be the case) you could not have undermined your campaign more effectively. Many, if not most, of Caitlin's readers are ROTFL after your first paragraph, and when (if) they get to your Second Grade quality "range voting" graph they've dismissed you as a kook.
And then you don't acknowledge the US role in the destruction of Yemen. That "random thug" is an American tool, if not a puppet.
If one were as conspiracy minded as me, they'd look at the US voter turnout and wonder at the nearly unprecedented 62% turnout for the 2020 election and then realize -- "That's how Biden cheated!"
Serious yep. It *is* a relatively good deal most US citizens get, and this is the main reason the left and the anti-imperialist movement has always had trouble making headway. Their opponents are good at co-opting people and they're bad at recognizing how much it's happening and how well it works. In general enfranchisement even at plurality voting level is really good for you and anyone who says otherwise is lying.
About Caitlin's readers you may well be right. But personally I'd like to see her readership expand by 100x, and for that larger group you're probably wrong.
"2nd grade graph" the guy who made it is Princeton PhD math and you should look at the rest of his pages.
MBS -- if he's only a tool, he's a really really enthusiastic one. The Economist and other western propaganda organs have at times called Yemen "pointless" which seems like a little more than they would likely say if they really were driving the whole thing, rather than just indulging MBS.
So if I've successfully navigated through all your smarty pants clutter, you believe Cailtin undercuts herself by denigrating our wonderful electorial process, the same one that a majority of Americans have stopped participating in because they see no value in doing so? That one? The one that allowed a 20 year war in Afghanistan to rumble on year after year regardless of which party occupied the White House?
Your learned assessments seem to allow little room for the boatloads of propaganda churned out domestically by our alphabet agencies and the complete corporate control of our media. If all is so hunky-dory in voterland, why are these actions even necessary?
Your concern for Caitlin's readership is touching, but as Mark Twain noted, "There are lies, damnable lies, and statistics."
Yes I think she does with respect to a broad audience. I might be wrong but it bugs me at any rate, so I suspect that it alienates others who know less about e.g. US foreign policy even more. I'm sorry if this offends you. I could be wrong.
Your examples of the uselessness of voting in the US all seem to center on foreign policy. In this sphere you're absolutely correct, but that's kind of my point: disenfranchised people get far far worse treatment from the empire than enfranchised ones. You're of course correct that propaganda is used extensively, but co-opting is too, and the latter gets comparatively little attention. I think the problem is that it's hard to attack the state for making people rich and comfortable in a popular way, and hard to acknowledge while arguing that the state deliberately impoverishes people. But the co-opt is in a way as evil as the propaganda, since it effectively makes citizens partners in the murder of foreigners. So it would be nice to find a way to discuss it.
Not offended at all. My mistake for only using examples of foreign policy. Maybe I should have led with a $15 minimum wage, wealth tax, Medicare for All, and a Green New Deal. There. Now we also have domestic examples of the uselessness of voting under our current duopoly.
I still don't feel I have a good handle on your main point. Caitlin offends people by saying truthful (by my way of thinking) things about the American government? Is that it? So she should tone down her criticism hoping for an MSNBC contract, and become the new Rachel Maddow?
Who are these people she's offending, BTW? Jimmy Dore has just under a million subscribers, which is more than many cable "news" programs, so there is an audience for Cailtin-like unvarnished commentary. I have no idea how widespread Cailtin's voice is. I agree with you that I would like it spread further, but disagree that it needs tempering in order to do so (Here's where those gobs of domestic propaganda come in).
You claim the state makes people rich and comfortable in a popular way. Excuse me, but what a fucking bizarre take on things. People are hurting and protesting and the state ignores them. And propagandizes them. And politicians blame them when they lose elections instead of providing representation. Yes, both Caitlin and Dore decry our co-opted politicians; pointedly, CNN and MSNBC don't. Ever.
I feel Caitlin speaks for a lot of us but sadly her brand of insight is all too rare. Currently, you have to look for it, like finding a cool shirt at Goodwill, while bullshit is ubiquitous. It shouldn't be this way, but it is, and it's not because too many people love the system. The system's just been really good at disguising the exit door.
If you really regard lumping US and Saudi voting together as truthful there is nothing wrong with Caitlin's statements. One should never censor oneself and avoid criticizing the powerful in order to be popular. But neither is it necessary or (IMO) advisable to distort things in the other direction. I could be wrong. Shock jocks are a thing.
Regarding minimum wage etc. I agree US deliberately impoverishes a lot of citizens, but that doesn't mean it doesn't deliberately enrich (co-opt) a lot of others. The left's difficulty seeing this is IMO a big problem for them. I'm going by my own experience living in a smallish right-leaning town. The place is stuffed full of people who are not especially rich but reasonably comfortable, and telling them they're poor and as unrepresented as saudis is simply never going to work. It's not true, and it makes them much less likely to believe anything else you say. IMO it's much more effective to try to get across exactly where the goodies come from and what the maintenance of the US position means for people elsewhere. It sounds snotty to say but most really don't know.