3 ms·

Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens “Abstract Each of four theoretical traditions in the study of American po

Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens “Abstract 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.” Please provide me with your sources on the “Deep State” (0) https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/testing-theories-of-american-politics-elites-interest-groups-and-average-citizens/62327F513959D0A304D4893B382B992B# https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-poli...

aguaviva 2y ago
Yes, there are studies and I think they're great and largely valid, but there are also rebuttals (easily findable). At the end of the day, I don't think these assessments can be proven or disproven by theoretical models and numerical analysis. It's not like trying to establish the effect of a certain kind of monetary policy. It's more a matter of understanding the basic ideology on which the country runs (even as many aspects of American society do change over time, for example in regard to racial/social tolerance, appetite for foreign intervention, etc). On top of broad-scale character observation, in terms of what seems to make people really tick (and to make so many of them get so caught up in things like their guns, their pet conspiracy theories, or in their idea of some lost "greatness" that America supposedly once had, in ways that do end up moving the needle on the larger political stage, but which aren't simply the outcome of a coin-op lobbying system, gerrymandering or a muzzled press, i.e. the levers of influence that oligarchs typically work through, though of course they do get to lean on these levers and they do have disproportionate influence). As to "deep state" -- sorry, no sources and it's an entirely unscientific assessment as well. Plenty of people have written about it though, and their stuff is easy to find also.
- AndrewKemendo 2y ago
  This is a meandering rant that doesn’t support even its own positions or claims with sources. You even go so far as to dismiss the entire source which perfectly debunks your position, with no actual rebuttal, but a hand waving, and then questioning the methodology with no epistemological reference frame. I’m sorry. You know what, disregard all that. I keep thinking that reasoning with sources and deep epistemological foundations works - I just need to try hard enough to explain it all! Right!? lolzzz Then I remember that you can’t reason out of a position you didn’t reason into Have a great day
  - aguaviva 2y ago
    You don't have to like my argument. But you didn't even attempt to articulate one yourself. As in, using your own thoughts and words. You just posted a quote from somebody else, and threw down a "source needed" gauntlet in regard to something that's basically pretty obvious.
aguaviva 2y ago
Not that the above commenter is reading anymore, but I just noticed something: I'm guessing they were spooked by the "deep state" reference, and all the alt-right/conspiratorial baggage it seems to imply. Actually, I tend to ignore that community entirely, so I wasn't thinking in terms of their paranoid drivel at all. But rather the far more mundane sense of a "national security establishment" as it used to be called, or "institutional government" in the sense of authors like David Rohde. Which is why I meant it's something whose existence is perfectly obvious (and hence not needing any kind of source to substantiate) -- every working state has one to some degree. And in the US, that sector is of course very significant. And another indication of the basic (and basically obvious) point I was making that power and corruption in the US are decentralized, and not strongly tilted to any one group or flavor. Especially not its oligarchs. The US is certainly corrupt and dysfunctional, but it's not banana republic. So if they thought I was going to indulge them with some kind of predictable alt-right take on the subject, it's only natural for them to be disappointed.
- AndrewKemendo 2y ago
  It’s a crackpot theory that doesn’t rate discussion - I was a federal employee for 17 years. You have no clue what you’re talking about and aren’t worth the effort. A professional bureaucracy is a hallmark of centrally planned economies - which ALL economies that see property as real eventually turn into This is invariant of what a system decides to call itself The US government looks exactly like the CCP and USSR in practice
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
aguaviva 2y ago
The irony here is that Gilens and Page specifically do not make the claim that "the US is an oligarchy". The claim they do make is that it exhibits a certain aspect of oligarchy, and even in this, their specific subclaims are quite reserved. But at no point do they flat-out say "the US is an oligarchy", as a label. Likely for the most obvious reason, which is that no one has a precise definition of what that means. From its very nature, it's an untestable assertion. But news outlets like the BBC did pick up that label, and happily churned out articles with headlines saying "The US is an oligarchy, not a democracy". To make it, you know, easy and intuitive for the regular person to understand. Which apparently lots of people caught glimpse of, and thought to themselves: "Yup, that's what I've always thought. And now it's proven by science."

aguaviva 2y ago

Yes, there are studies and I think they're great and largely valid, but there are also rebuttals (easily findable). At the end of the day, I don't think these assessments can be proven or disproven by theoretical models and numerical analysis. It's not like trying to establish the effect of a certain kind of monetary policy. It's more a matter of understanding the basic ideology on which the country runs (even as many aspects of American society do change over time, for example in regard to racial/social tolerance, appetite for foreign intervention, etc). On top of broad-scale character observation, in terms of what seems to make people really tick (and to make so many of them get so caught up in things like their guns, their pet conspiracy theories, or in their idea of some lost "greatness" that America supposedly once had, in ways that do end up moving the needle on the larger political stage, but which aren't simply the outcome of a coin-op lobbying system, gerrymandering or a muzzled press, i.e. the levers of influence that oligarchs typically work through, though of course they do get to lean on these levers and they do have disproportionate influence). As to "deep state" -- sorry, no sources and it's an entirely unscientific assessment as well. Plenty of people have written about it though, and their stuff is easy to find also.

AndrewKemendo 2y ago
This is a meandering rant that doesn’t support even its own positions or claims with sources. You even go so far as to dismiss the entire source which perfectly debunks your position, with no actual rebuttal, but a hand waving, and then questioning the methodology with no epistemological reference frame. I’m sorry. You know what, disregard all that. I keep thinking that reasoning with sources and deep epistemological foundations works - I just need to try hard enough to explain it all! Right!? lolzzz Then I remember that you can’t reason out of a position you didn’t reason into Have a great day
- aguaviva 2y ago
  You don't have to like my argument. But you didn't even attempt to articulate one yourself. As in, using your own thoughts and words. You just posted a quote from somebody else, and threw down a "source needed" gauntlet in regard to something that's basically pretty obvious.

aguaviva 2y ago

Not that the above commenter is reading anymore, but I just noticed something: I'm guessing they were spooked by the "deep state" reference, and all the alt-right/conspiratorial baggage it seems to imply. Actually, I tend to ignore that community entirely, so I wasn't thinking in terms of their paranoid drivel at all. But rather the far more mundane sense of a "national security establishment" as it used to be called, or "institutional government" in the sense of authors like David Rohde. Which is why I meant it's something whose existence is perfectly obvious (and hence not needing any kind of source to substantiate) -- every working state has one to some degree. And in the US, that sector is of course very significant. And another indication of the basic (and basically obvious) point I was making that power and corruption in the US are decentralized, and not strongly tilted to any one group or flavor. Especially not its oligarchs. The US is certainly corrupt and dysfunctional, but it's not banana republic. So if they thought I was going to indulge them with some kind of predictable alt-right take on the subject, it's only natural for them to be disappointed.

AndrewKemendo 2y ago
It’s a crackpot theory that doesn’t rate discussion - I was a federal employee for 17 years. You have no clue what you’re talking about and aren’t worth the effort. A professional bureaucracy is a hallmark of centrally planned economies - which ALL economies that see property as real eventually turn into This is invariant of what a system decides to call itself The US government looks exactly like the CCP and USSR in practice
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]

aguaviva 2y ago

The irony here is that Gilens and Page specifically do not make the claim that "the US is an oligarchy". The claim they do make is that it exhibits a certain aspect of oligarchy, and even in this, their specific subclaims are quite reserved. But at no point do they flat-out say "the US is an oligarchy", as a label. Likely for the most obvious reason, which is that no one has a precise definition of what that means. From its very nature, it's an untestable assertion. But news outlets like the BBC did pick up that label, and happily churned out articles with headlines saying "The US is an oligarchy, not a democracy". To make it, you know, easy and intuitive for the regular person to understand. Which apparently lots of people caught glimpse of, and thought to themselves: "Yup, that's what I've always thought. And now it's proven by science."