4 ms·

Maybe 4 and 5 are not quite so aligned? In democracies, governments should still be viewed as instruments of the voters to a significant extent. Significant qu

Maybe 4 and 5 are not quite so aligned? In democracies, governments should still be viewed as instruments of the voters to a significant extent. Significant quantities of French voters have supported a government that tries to preserve and extend the French language and culture. In some ways, countering the influence of a large American company and the culture it imports can be seen as a legitimate expression of French voters, n'est-ce pas?

zanny 10y ago
> governments should still be viewed as instruments of the voters to a significant extent. At least in the US at the federal level, certainly not.[1] [1]: https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/fi...
- HillaryBriss 10y ago
  Does that mean the presidential election's outcome won't make a significant difference for the vast majority of Americans, that whoever is elected - Sanders, Clinton, Trump, et al - will basically administer the Federal government the same way?
  - zanny 10y ago
    I wouldn't say that. The president has a tremendous amount of international influence, and they have control over federal departments and the military to direct a significant amount of their behavior. They just aren't the people that will change campaign finance reform, build walls, or raise the minimum wage. That is kind of what congress does. So you could elect any president and only see legislation they want passed because either they bargained with the other party in congress or their party had a majority in it already to pass the legislation. It is only force of habit that most people expect the president's party to go with their policy ideas in congress. If Bernie were president, for example, you would not expect the Dems or Reps in congress to ever support him on anything, because hes anti-establishment.
    - HillaryBriss 10y ago
      The study's abstract says, among other things, ".. 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." Toward the end the study notes: "When the preferences of economic elites and the stands of organized interest groups are controlled for, the preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy." At the national level, US democracy is an illusion.
      - jaccklimet 10y ago
        http://navimumbaiescorts.co.in/ http://navimumbaiescorts.co.in/
      - jaccklimet 10y ago
        http://navimumbaiescorts.org.in http://navimumbaiescorts.org.in
      - jaccklimet 10y ago
        http://navimumbaiescorts.in http://navimumbaiescorts.in
Bartweiss 10y ago
On the cultural control issue, I can grant this. On the surveillance issue (US companies are suspect because of US government behaviors), not so much. American voters may not love Snowden, but they're largely indifferent-to-opposed on mass surveillance. Since the 70s or so they've had essentially no say in the behavior of intelligence and security organizations - all credible candidates have had broadly-similar views, and it's not even a votable topic when what's being done is only known in retrospect.

zanny 10y ago

> governments should still be viewed as instruments of the voters to a significant extent. At least in the US at the federal level, certainly not.[1] [1]: https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/fi...

HillaryBriss 10y ago
Does that mean the presidential election's outcome won't make a significant difference for the vast majority of Americans, that whoever is elected - Sanders, Clinton, Trump, et al - will basically administer the Federal government the same way?
- zanny 10y ago
  I wouldn't say that. The president has a tremendous amount of international influence, and they have control over federal departments and the military to direct a significant amount of their behavior. They just aren't the people that will change campaign finance reform, build walls, or raise the minimum wage. That is kind of what congress does. So you could elect any president and only see legislation they want passed because either they bargained with the other party in congress or their party had a majority in it already to pass the legislation. It is only force of habit that most people expect the president's party to go with their policy ideas in congress. If Bernie were president, for example, you would not expect the Dems or Reps in congress to ever support him on anything, because hes anti-establishment.
  - HillaryBriss 10y ago
    The study's abstract says, among other things, ".. 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." Toward the end the study notes: "When the preferences of economic elites and the stands of organized interest groups are controlled for, the preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy." At the national level, US democracy is an illusion.
    - jaccklimet 10y ago
      http://navimumbaiescorts.co.in/ http://navimumbaiescorts.co.in/
    - jaccklimet 10y ago
      http://navimumbaiescorts.org.in http://navimumbaiescorts.org.in
    - jaccklimet 10y ago
      http://navimumbaiescorts.in http://navimumbaiescorts.in

Bartweiss 10y ago

On the cultural control issue, I can grant this. On the surveillance issue (US companies are suspect because of US government behaviors), not so much. American voters may not love Snowden, but they're largely indifferent-to-opposed on mass surveillance. Since the 70s or so they've had essentially no say in the behavior of intelligence and security organizations - all credible candidates have had broadly-similar views, and it's not even a votable topic when what's being done is only known in retrospect.