Do You Agree With George Carlin's View of American Society?

post said:

You seem in command of the facts but can you actually post the totality of the "contributions" of one family, the Mercers, to the Trump campaign?
I doubt you can, raising a troubling issue of lack of transparency hopefully one result of the Mueller Investigation will be to reduce.

Click to expand...

Whatever it was, it was chump change compared to what Hillary got from her bi-coastal pals in tech and finance. Hillary received almost $800 million from all sources, while Trump received about half that. Even all of the "Make American Great Again" hats Trump sold couldn't make up the difference. :lol: So maybe money doesn't talk as loudly as George Carlin thought it did, since the candidate with the most money in spades lost. Having a successful presidential campaign might actually include showing up in Wisconsin at least once. :shrug:

But tell me, how does Robert Mercer own me? Do you think the people from his old stomping ground, Renaissance Technologies, who donated more than $16 million to Hillary, feel Robert owns them? How about the Pritzker Group ($16.6 million)? Or the folks at Soros Fund Management ($10.6 million)? Or Hillary's old friends from Paloma Partners ($21.6 million :shock? I mean, imagine spending tens of millions of dollars to get Hillary elected just to end up as what? Robert Mercer's bitch? Honestly, I think they all got owned by Donald Trump and his army of working stiffs sporting the red hats. :lol:

Ahlevah said:

I disagree. Isn't Trump Exhibit A on that point?

Click to expand...

Oh HELL NO!! Guy was born on 3rd base and wants everyone to think he hit a triple.
All that crap he spews, it's a reality show script!! Are you really honestly falling for that hokum?

Checkerboard Strangler said:

Oh HELL NO!! Guy was born on 3rd base and wants everyone to think he hit a triple.
All that crap he spews, it's a reality show script!! Are you really honestly falling for that hokum?

Click to expand...

All I've gotten from politicians my entire life is hokum. I could care less about where Trump was born (and what sort of spoon he had in his mouth when it happened). I do care about whom he appoints to the federal bench, the regulations he scraps, getting criminal aliens out of the country, the taxes he cuts, just generally being a fly in the ointment of the Global Establishment....

Captain Adverse said:

I just ran across this neat little video taking a bit out of George Carlin's last routine "Life Is Worth Losing" (2005).

I like the way the artists in the video translate his statements into visual art.



The video speaks for itself.

Poll Question:

Do you agree or disagree with his viewpoint that "We The People" really have no choice in American society?

I even added "Other" for those who want to explain (waffle ) the issue.

Click to expand...

I agree with my DEAR FRIEND Kelly Carlin, who HATES when other people appropriate her Dad's stuff to push their own agenda.

That said, George definitely wasn't saying that one should not do everything possible to FIGHT, just be aware of the situation as it is and don't lie to yourself about how deep the doo-doo is.

PS: He hated Republicans and he hated most libertarians and anarchists. The last one being funniest of all because he was something of a libertarian and anarchist himself. The trick, he said, was to respect the fact that libertarianism and anarchy are permanently limited to being aspirational and forever bound by considerations of the practical, thus it is not always practical to be libertarian or anarchist ABOUT EVERY GODDAM THING.

Ahlevah said:

All I've gotten from politicians my entire life is hokum. I could care less about where Trump was born (and what sort of spoon he had in his mouth when it happened). I do care about whom he appoints to the federal bench, the regulations he scraps, getting criminal aliens out of the country, the taxes he cuts, just generally being a fly in the ointment of the Global Establishment....

Click to expand...

He is a New York City CON MAN.

Waddy said:

That's life; it's a gamble. Here and everywhere else, any time in history. And that's what makes this a bad country? That it's a gamble? Life is a gamble. That never scared me. Governments fold, SS could be changed and means tested, so I would be out. Even land is no guarantee. Values can crash. Just ask the people in Florida. The USA is still a great place to live, and you can succeed with some effort on your part. Carlin got it totally wrong. BTW; the Roth took a hit but it's now made up the loss and a lot more. But that's what life is; I could die tomorrow. But it's a great ride while it lasts. I wouldn't have it any other way.

Mostly I wish young people wouldn't be influenced by the Carlin's of the world. That defeatist attitude instills in them a loser's approach to the world. If they listen to the Carlin's they are beaten before they get started. It is a crutch they learn to lean on to explain their inability to sustain the persistence needed to be successful at this gamble we call America. You don't have to be a genius to make it in this country, but you do have to be persistent. And that's a very difficult thing. Much easier to make excuses or blame it on others. And then talk yourself into believing the government owes you cradle to grave support. That attitude does indeed make you into the slave Carlin describes.

Click to expand...

Carlin's realism about the actual state of America as a de facto plutocracy, which it very much is per the evidence as it stands today, doesn't necessary mean that as an individual you can't succeed, even if it is harder because they're (as in Carlin's 'owners') pretty keen on eroding/removing various ladder rungs for their benefit; I think this is totally the wrong take away. That the rich rule is no absolute obstacle to living a comfortable/fulfilling life, nor did Carlin claim as much.

Surrealistik said:

Carlin's realism about the actual state of America as a de facto plutocracy, which it very much is per the evidence as it stands today, doesn't necessary mean that as an individual you can't succeed, even if it is harder because they're (as in Carlin's 'owners') pretty keen on eroding/removing various ladder rungs for their benefit; I think this is totally the wrong take away. That the rich rule is no absolute obstacle to living a comfortable/fulfilling life, nor did Carlin claim as much.

Click to expand...

It's true the rich have greater influence in politics, because they have money to spend on it. But that in no way means they can block individuals from succeeding. It in no way means an outsider can't be elected. It happens all the time. Carlin is totally wrong on this one. One of the most defeatist attitudes I've ever run across.

Waddy said:

It's true the rich have greater influence in politics, because they have money to spend on it. But that in no way means they can block individuals from succeeding. It in no way means an outsider can't be elected. It happens all the time. Carlin is totally wrong on this one. One of the most defeatist attitudes I've ever run across.

Click to expand...

He's not wrong about the US being in a state of de facto plutocracy; the evidence is pretty clear about the hegemony of the rich (and there can be no doubt whatsoever that things have only worsened since 2014): https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites...testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf

Surrealistik said:

He's not wrong about the US being in a state of de facto plutocracy; the evidence is pretty clear about the hegemony of the rich (and there can be no doubt whatsoever that things have only worsened since 2014): https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites...testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf

Click to expand...

I disagree. The wishes of ordinary citizens are often ignored because they are not politically organized. Organization - the ability to marshal resources, both financial and human - is what influences politics. Just about everywhere on the planet, in the democracies at least. Politicians aren't stupid. Politicians pay attention to people and groups that can get out the vote and/or finance campaigns. Unfortunately, most individual "voters" aren't politically active. And they don't contribute much to campaigns (compared to organizations).

There is no "plutocracy". Show me ANY American politician and I can show you how they got elected and why they got elected.

A senator from Kansas, let's say Pat Roberts, is very supportive of agriculture and the Second Amendment. He listens to organizations and lobbyists representing wheat, pork and meat producers. He also endorses the NRA, guns being common in that state. And he listens and works for the oil, gas and trucking industry lobby. He also accepts their contributions and endorsements.

A Rep from California, let's say Nancy Pelosi, representing mostly San Francisco, having a very anti-gun constituency, would never hook up with the NRA. She is also very concerned with the environment, and is sympathetic to all types of immigration, legal and illegal. Not surprising since there are many immigrant organizations active in politics in the Bay area. She welcomes contributions from these same lobbyists and their endorsements.

We could go through EVERY member of Congress this way. EACH ONE, without fail, listens to their constituency, important donors, lobbies, and organizations. Because those organizations are important to their constituency. They generally vote that constituency. If they don't there won't be re-elected. So there is no "plutocracy".

What we do have is over 500 elected officials at the national level alone, coming from diverse geographical, demographic, and economic regions. Urban and rural. All representing different constituencies. So it's not surprising that modern politics is such a fight to get anything done. Counting all elected officials at every level across the nations and you have thousands of politicians, and many thousands of different constituencies wanting something from them. I agree that money in politics is important, but money can come from many sources, not just the rich; though they are somewhat over-represented because they can donate so much, ala the Koch Bros or George Soros. They may have some influence, but they don't run things.

So tell me who is this "plutocracy"? How exactly does it operate so politicians can ignore the voters who elected them?

BTW; I read that article, and they really overstate the case. As Samuel Clemens said; there are lies, damn lies and statistics. They did some cherry picking. And they undervalued some things not easily put into statistical form.

Waddy said:

I disagree. The wishes of ordinary citizens are often ignored because they are not politically organized. Organization - the ability to marshal resources, both financial and human - is what influences politics. Just about everywhere on the planet, in the democracies at least. Politicians aren't stupid. Politicians pay attention to people and groups that can get out the vote and/or finance campaigns. Unfortunately, most individual "voters" aren't politically active. And they don't contribute much to campaigns (compared to organizations)..

Click to expand...

I trust the systemic, statistical review of Princeton researchers vastly more than this sort of superficial, anecdotal analysis; their numbers and the resulting conclusions seem pretty clear to me: that when it comes to policy and what's passed into law, the preferences of the rich and business groups, when in conflict with those of others, including popular, broadbased support, are overwhelmingly decisive per their summary below. Combined with the inordinate amount of political expenditure that has exploded since 1976 when SCOTUS declared political spending to be speech, and the evolution of campaigning and lobbying into a massive industry worth billions, the fact that that those providing donations in the tens of millions or more obviously expect some kind of return on investment, that candidate choice is limited (you don't in practice have many alternatives to bought politicos taking in millions each from corporate sponsors, and the establishment of each party is fierce about defeating/hedging out those that don't) and federal level elections are prohibitively expensive, I can't possibly come away with any other conclusion.

The US may not be a de jure plutocracy in that we have elections, but de facto in the sense that, at the end of the day, when all the dust has settled and the legislation is written, the votes tallied, and bills passed into law, do the wealthy have demonstrably outsized influence over public policy? Do preferences of the average citizen when put into contest with them have little to no correlation with what is passed when in conflict with the former? The answer is, absolutely.

Further, what cherry picking or flaws did they commit to specifically that undermine their conclusion?

Martin Gilens and Benjamin Page said:

But the picture changes markedly when all three independent variables are included in the multivariate Model 4 and are tested against each other. The estimated impact of average citizens’ preferences drops precipitously, to a non-significant, near-zero level. Clearly the median citizen or “median voter” at the heart of theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy does not do well when put up against economic elites and organized interest groups. The chief predictions of pure theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy can be decisively rejected. Not only do ordinary citizens not have uniquely substantial power over policy decisions; they have little or no independent influence on policy at all.

By contrast, economic elites are estimated to have a quite substantial, highly significant, independent impact on policy. This does not mean that theories of Economic-Elite Domination are wholly upheld, since our results indicate that individual elites must share their policy influence with organized interest groups. Still, economic elites stand out as quite influential—more so than any other set of actors studied here—in the making of U.S. public policy.

Similarly, organized interest groups (all taken together, for now) are found to have substantial independent influence on policy. Again, the predictions of pure theories of interest-group pluralism are not wholly upheld, since organized interest groups must share influence with economically-elite individuals. But interest-group alignments are estimated to have a large, positive, highly significant impact upon public policy. These results suggest that reality is best captured by mixed theories in which both individual economic elites and organized interest groups (including corporations, largely owned and controlled by wealthy elites) play a substantial part in affecting public policy, but the general public has little or no independent influence.

The rather low explanatory power of all three independent variables taken together (with an R-squared of just .074 in Model 4) may partly result from the limitations of our proxy measures, particularly with respect to economic elites (since our “affluent” proxy is admittedly imperfect) and perhaps with respect to interest groups (since only a small fraction of politically-active groups are included in our measure). Again, the implication of these limitations in our data is that interest groups and economic elites actually wield more policy influence than our estimates indicate.

Click to expand...

But the picture changes markedly when all three independent variables are included in the multivariate Model 4 and are tested against each other. The estimated impact of average citizens’ preferences drops precipitously, to a non-significant, near-zero level. Clearly the median citizen or “median voter” at the heart of theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy does not do well when put up against economic elites and organized interest groups. The chief predictions of pure theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy can be decisively rejected. Not only do ordinary citizens not have uniquely substantial power over policy decisions; they have little or no independent influence on policy at all.

Click to expand...

To reference your own quote; "average citizens preferences" means individuals. As I stated, individuals have little power because they are not organized. But let's say this individual is pro-gun and an NRA member. Now this "average citizen" has some serious clout on the gun issue. Your researchers treat "organized interest groups" as an entity in and of themselves. To the contrary, "organized interest groups" are made up of like-minded INDIVIDUALS who act in concert to help elect candidates who reflect their special interests. That's called a constituency.

You can say that some "plutocracy" is ignoring the majority of the public who want tougher gun laws. That's true. And that's because that majority, when polled, say they want tougher gun laws, but they don't join anti-gun lobby organizations and contribute financially to anti-gun candidates. All while the NRA has over 6,000,000 members who are active politically and willing to cough up some dough when needed. Who gets listened to? This ain't rocket science. And there ain't no "plutocracy".

Less than half the people eligible to vote ever do so. If there is a "plutocracy" in this country it is the tiny minority of people who actually devote the time, effort and money necessary to have a voice in a democracy. We call them "special interests". Of course that includes corporations, but also unions, professional associations, teachers unions, and groups like the WWF, Greenpeace, and AARP. There's your "plutocracy".

Moderate Right said:

I stopped listening right away when he said all the wealthy people control everything. While that is true to a great extent, it is not 100% true as the left would have you believe.

Click to expand...

Sure, but comedians speak in hyperbole. He could have started breaking out the statistics, but nobody pays to hear that.

Waddy said:

To reference your own quote; "average citizens preferences" means individuals. As I stated, individuals have little power because they are not organized. But let's say this individual is pro-gun and an NRA member. Now this "average citizen" has some serious clout on the gun issue. Your researchers treat "organized interest groups" as an entity in and of themselves. To the contrary, "organized interest groups" are made up of like-minded INDIVIDUALS who act in concert to help elect candidates who reflect their special interests. That's called a constituency...

...Less than half the people eligible to vote ever do so. If there is a "plutocracy" in this country it is the tiny minority of people who actually devote the time, effort and money necessary to have a voice in a democracy. We call them "special interests". Of course that includes corporations, but also unions, professional associations, teachers unions, and groups like the WWF, Greenpeace, and AARP. There's your "plutocracy".

Click to expand...

To be absolutely clear, Giles and Page are not making the argument that an individual is ineffective at effecting change; what they are saying that the preferences of the average citizen virtually always lose when pitted against those of the wealthy and business interest groups (that largely correlate with and represent the interests of the wealthy indirectly), and that these preferences of the general populace have very little correlation with what actually gets passed to the point of being statistically non-significant.

Second, there is no real overall correlation between the preferences of the average citizen and those of organized interest groups (and there is in fact a negative correlation between the preferences of the average citizen and the business interest sub-category of organized interest groups). Again, for the sake of clarity, these interest groups are not a constituency (which is a populace of a given area/riding/jurisdiction that a politician represents); rather, they are a group or institution of like minded people who agree on an issue or a select set of issues, and lobby/advocate on its behalf. Lastly, as stated earlier, corporations and other such business lobbies are included with these interest groups mentioned in the summary (Gilens and Page provide separate numbers for business and 'mass-based interest groups', but talk about them as an aggregate in the final summary); when they talk about the influence of 'organized interest groups', these include such business lobbies which feature a significantly greater influence than mass-based interest groups (nearly 2 : 1), Meanwhile, the preferences of the rich are much more strongly correlated with policy still (with a greater than 3 : 1 differential vs mass-based interest groups).

A 'democracy' where the views of the average citizen are essentially inconsequential and largely irrelevant to the formation and ultimate passage of legislation, while non mass-based interest groups have significant but greatly inferior sway as compared to their business counterparts and the rich isn't really much of one; in fact I'd say that easily qualifies as a de facto plutocracy:

Gilens and Page said:

...Nor do organized interest groups substitute for direct citizen influence, by embodying citizens’ will and ensuring that their wishes prevail in the fashion postulated by theories of Majoritarian Pluralism. interest groups do have substantial independent impacts on policy, and a few groups (particularly labor unions) represent average citizens’ views reasonably well. But the interest-group system as a whole does not. Overall, net interest-group alignments are not significantly related to the preferences of average citizens. The net alignments of the most influential, business-oriented groups are negatively related to the average citizen’s wishes. So existing interest groups do not serve effectively as transmission belts for the wishes of the populace as a whole. “Potential groups” do not take up the slack, either, since average citizens’ preferences have little or no independent impact on policy after existing groups’ stands are controlled for.

Furthermore, 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. To be sure, this does not mean that ordinary citizens always lose out; they fairly often get the policies they favor, but only because those policies happen also to be preferred by the economically-elite citizens who wield the actual influence.

Click to expand...

Surrealistik;To be absolutely clear, Giles and Page are not making the argument that an individual is ineffective at effecting change; what they are saying that the preferences of the average citizen virtually always lose when pitted against those of the wealthy and business interest groups (that largely correlate with and represent the interests of the wealthy indirectly), and that these preferences of the general populace have very little correlation with what actually gets passed to the point of being statistically non-significant.

Click to expand...

That statement is a contradiction; you paraphrase GP that they are NOT making the argument that an individual is ineffective, but then say they "virtually always lose". They are "statistically non-significant". THAT is the DEFINITION of ineffective!!

Second, there is no real overall correlation between the preferences of the average citizen and those of organized interest groups (and there is in fact a negative correlation between the preferences of the average citizen and the business interest sub-category of organized interest groups). Again, for the sake of clarity, these interest groups are not a constituency (which is a populace of a given area/riding/jurisdiction that a politician represents); rather, they are a group or institution of like minded people who agree on an issue or a select set of issues, and lobby/advocate on its behalf. Lastly, as stated earlier, corporations and other such business lobbies are included with these interest groups mentioned in the summary (Gilens and Page provide separate numbers for business and 'mass-based interest groups', but talk about them as an aggregate in the final summary); when they talk about the influence of 'organized interest groups', these include such business lobbies which feature a significantly greater influence than mass-based interest groups (nearly 2 : 1), Meanwhile, the preferences of the rich are much more strongly correlated with policy still (with a greater than 3 : 1 differential vs mass-based interest groups).

Click to expand...

Wrong again on both counts. When a Senator Pat Roberts listens to special interest groups like the NRA, Meat Producers, Wheat Farmers Association, etc. he is listening to his voting constituency, as his voters are well represented in said special interest groups.

A 'democracy' where the views of the average citizen are essentially inconsequential and largely irrelevant to the formation and ultimate passage of legislation, while non mass-based interest groups have significant but greatly inferior sway as compared to their business counterparts and the rich isn't really much of one; in fact I'd say that easily qualifies as a de facto plutocracy

Click to expand...

I disagree. Those "business counterparts" are special interest groups which represent the like-mindedness of a large portion of his actual voting constituency. So they can be considered part of his constituency. If the aircraft industry has a large, important, even essential presence in the state of Kansas, and their lobby (special interest group) has a big influence on Senator Pat Roberts decisions, then both he and the lobby have done their job; represent the people of Kansas. If Rep Nancy Pelosi accepts lots of money from environmental groups, and there are lots of environmentalists in the Bay area, and she votes accordingly, then she and the environmental lobby have done their job.

The only time I suspect corruption or undue influence is when a politician votes against the special interests that are important to his/her state. It would raise a red flag if Nancy Pelosi voted for fracking in San Francisco Bay. I would be very suspect of Pat Roberts if he voted to end agricultural subsidies or crop insurance.

There is no "plutocracy" in the sense you mean it. The people who run this country are a small minority; the minority of the devoted, persistent, politically active citizens. If you want your "average citizen" to have a voice, tell them to join the fray. There's always room for one more.

Waddy said:

That statement is a contradiction; you paraphrase GP that they are NOT making the argument that an individual is ineffective, but then say they "virtually always lose". They are "statistically non-significant"...

Click to expand...

I am clarifying (or tried to apparently) that they are not talking about individuals and their ability to affect the legislative outcomes: this actually never comes up; perhaps I should have been clearer. What Gilens and Page _are_ stating, and very plainly, is that the overall, aggregate preferences of the general public do not translate into policy when in conflict with virtually any other interest group, particularly the wealthy or their indirect representatives in business.

Wrong again on both counts. When a Senator Pat Roberts listens to special interest groups... he is listening to his voting constituency, as his voters are well represented in said special interest groups.

I disagree. Those "business counterparts" are special interest groups which represent the like-mindedness of a large portion of his actual voting constituency. So they can be considered part of his constituency...

Click to expand...

That's not a voting constituency; that's an interest group. Your voter constituency is technically the people of your riding/district who directly vote for you; though some or even many or most of the voters of a politician's jurisdiction may also happen to be members of special interest groups that support him, that doesn't make those interest groups his actual constituency.

Regardless, the ultimate, indelible point being made here is that there is no overall correlation between the aggregate of organized interest groups and the general public, and a negative correlation between business interest groups and the general public; this is clearly shown and stated in the study: on the whole these groups do not represent the views of the general public even if there are occasional elements of overlap.

There is no "plutocracy" in the sense you mean it. The people who run this country are a small minority; the minority of the devoted, persistent, politically active citizens. If you want your "average citizen" to have a voice, tell them to join the fray. There's always room for one more.

Click to expand...

You may disagree, but per the facts as they exist in the study, you would be wrong; this is a de facto plutocracy by any reasonable standard. It's not that the general public never gets what it wants, it's that those preferences never win when they come into conflict with the elite:

Gilens and Page said:

Furthermore, 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. To be sure, this does not mean that ordinary citizens always lose out; they fairly often get the policies they favor, but only because those policies happen also to be preferred by the economically-elite citizens who wield the actual influence.

Click to expand...

To restate things plainly:

1. There is in fact a negative correlation between business interest groups specifically, and the general public (-.10 ; -1 is absolutely negatively correlated, 1 is absolutely correlated).
   
   
2. There is no meaningful correlation between 'public' interest groups as a whole, and the general public (.12 for mass interest groups, .04 for all, including business interest groups).
   
   
3. The overall preferences of the general public are without any kind of statistically significant influence on the formation of legislation and law (.05).
   
   
4. The overall preferences of mass interest groups (which again are not representative of the public's views) have a significant but modest and greatly overshadowed correlation with the formation of legislation and law (.24)
   
   
5. The overall preferences of business groups have a very substantive correlation with the formation of legislation and law (.43)
   
   
6. The overall preferences of the rich elite have by far the greatest influence on the formation of legislation and law (0.78!!),

In summary, it should be painfully apparent to anyone willing to take stock of the facts that Joe Public has basically no real influence on legislative outcomes, and that even if you were to totally ignore the fact that mass interest groups don't meaningfully correlate with the public and thus can't be used as a proxy for its will, their modest influence is absolutely dwarfed by the preferences of the rich and business groups. There can be no other reasonable conclusion: given these facts, the US is, in practice, a de facto plutocracy as the rich overwhelmingly dictate policy, even if their rule isn't absolute or direct; it may be a 'democracy' in the sense that there is a vote and elections, but it is factually not representative of any but these powerful minorities.

I think there's some definite truth to what he's talking about, money influencing politics, biased and incorrect information trying convince people one way or another, all that jazz, that's all stuff that is present in society in some form or another, but I feel he's a bit too cynical in his portrayal of those issues. He makes it seem borderline dystopian.

Of course, he could just be playing on hyperbole here, being a comedian and all.

Surrealistik said:

In summary, it should be painfully apparent to anyone willing to take stock of the facts that Joe Public has basically no real influence on legislative outcomes, and that even if you were to totally ignore the fact that mass interest groups don't meaningfully correlate with the public and thus can't be used as a proxy for its will, their modest influence is absolutely dwarfed by the preferences of the rich and business groups. There can be no other reasonable conclusion: given these facts, the US is, in practice, a de facto plutocracy as the rich overwhelmingly dictate policy, even if their rule isn't absolute or direct; it may be a 'democracy' in the sense that there is a vote and elections, but it is factually not representative of any but these powerful minorities.

Click to expand...

I told you that I agree that "Joe Public" has no real influence; UNLESS he/she is part of an organization that lobbies on the issues that are important to them. Then politicians listen. And while the rich do have their own agenda they are not in "control". They do have influence, ala George Soros or the Koch Bros. Those "business groups" you speak of do represent the politicians constituency, as I already pointed out. And it's not their job to represent "Joe Public"; if he wants to be represented he needs to get politically active and join some of those special interest groups and/or the "business group" that represents his/her business; like a Meat Producers business group if he produces and/or sells meat.

Democracy isn't free. The price is your time, becoming familiar with the issues and choices, joining special interest organizations, and some of your money. You gain access by joining groups that will represent your values. Only a few ever make the effort. They wield disproportionate power in our system. Remember I said that less than half the people vote? Well, if the rich do run this country, which they don't, it's our fault for abdicating our responsibility as citizens. There is no institutional reason why one particular group should dominate; it is a democracy after all. It is run by those that get organized and involved. I personally belong to several special interest groups working issues that are important to me. As an individual, I could never get a meeting with a politician. As a representative of the group, we always have access. That's how this democracy works. Or you can just throw up your hands and whine about how the rich and famous have everything.

Waddy said:

I told you that I agree that "Joe Public" has no real influence; UNLESS he/she is part of an organization that lobbies on the issues that are important to them. Then politicians listen. And while the rich do have their own agenda they are not in "control". They do have influence, ala George Soros or the Koch Bros...

Click to expand...

Democracy isn't free. The price is your time, becoming familiar with the issues and choices, joining special interest organizations, and some of your money... They wield disproportionate power in our system.

Click to expand...

Again, non-business interest groups don't actually have all that much power when contrasted with the rich and business groups, even if we assumed that they might be realized as a vehicle of advocacy on behalf of the general public. Further, I fundamentally disagree with the idea that these interest groups, businesses or otherwise represent the broad, actual constituencies of politicians; the facts and correlations just don't bear that out, nevermind the actual definition of a constituency.

Remember I said that less than half the people vote? Well, if the rich do run this country, which they don't, it's our fault for abdicating our responsibility as citizens. There is no institutional reason why one particular group should dominate; it is a democracy after all...

Click to expand...

Sure there are institutional reasons the rich and their proxies dominate despite the US being nominally a democracy; in fact there are many:

1. They have the money and resources to spend on effective, connective and persuasive private lobbyists.
   
   
2. They have the money and resources to fund PACs, SuperPACs and other political action groups and initiatives in support of preferred candidates.
   
   
3. They have the money and resources to purchase media, or even outright own media broadcasters with which they can propagandize on behalf of their interests or a candidate, or leverage technologies to the benefit of a favoured candidate (Cambridge Analytica).
   
   
4. They purchase influence among politicos that need millions in campaign donations, at the least, in an industry worth billions to be competitive for national office (the vast majority of federal politicos spend more time fundraising than on any other activity) and are largely uninterested in backing candidates that oppose their interests which, with few exceptions (Bernie's one of the few I can think of), kills the viability of candidates not beholden to or ingratiated by them. This is particularly prominent as there is no publicly funded component to federal elections.
   
   
5. As their money is so important to both parties, they exert considerable influence over the primary processes that determine who the public can even begin to choose from, and use that influence to attempt to skew these processes and filter out more integral candidates representative of Joe Public.
   
   
6. They preside over a rotating door between public office and private industry, where legislative compliance can and is rewarded with plausible deniability post-office payoffs in the form of overpaid speeches, cushy board, executive or lobbyist positions and so on; again, ingratiation.
   
   
7. Third parties are squeezed out due to fear of vote splitting/strategic voting per the FPTP system, and a general and glaring relative lack of resources/exposure.
   
   
8. The threat or promise of all this power being wielded for or against a candidate most certainly can frighten and/or ingratiate him.

Though the public can be partly saddled with the blame (though certainly not most of it, given who controls virtually all of the mass media, bankrolls the vast majority of electoral spending and lobbying, and the fact that is extremely difficult, and expensive, to dispel the disinformation circulated by wealthy elites and their proxies, and get 300+ million people, each with lives and work to conduct, onside in support of their collective desires), the balance of power, and thus the great majority of responsibility lies in the hands of these elites. Even in terms of collective action they have a much deeper warchest: the top 10% hold 76% of the wealth and can thus handily afford to leverage vastly more resources politically than the bottom 90%.

It is notable in most other first world countries, these above avenues of influence are generally either severely impeded or eliminated entirely, and thus they suffer consequently much less in the way of this sort of legalized corruption and egregiously undemocratic over-repesentation of the rich.

Theoretically yes, Joe Public could take back power at any time if he somehow managed to near-miraculously navigate all of the above obstacles, but in practice, these barriers are massive, systemic, and almost hopelessly insurmountable by design, and the facts are that, as federal politics stands and legislates today, de facto plutocracy reigns; we should try, but we should also be cognizant of this sad reality.

I totally agree with Carlin, the game is rigged. The 2008 meltdown was a prime example of it- the ones who did it bailed themselves out.

Im not for wealth redistribution by the way. The problem is that the system is accepted by most people- they want others to think for them- its the way human beings are built.

George Carlin made a lot of funny characterizations about human nature, and many are true. But in the end, he was just an asshole, that too many people espouse as a profound philosopher type.

I went with 'other'. The less intelligent and/or emotionally vulnerable people will be swayed by the media and fall into the trap Carlin mentions. These people will look to government or the media to solve their problems or make their lives better, which of course never happens.