The Crumbling Plutocracy Votes

Lawrence Lessig bemoans the influence of the wealthy on American politics:

Here's what we must come to see: America has lost the capacity to govern. On a wide range of critical issues -- from global warming to tax reform, from effective financial regulation to real health-care change, from the deficit to defense spending -- we have lost the capacity to do anything other than suffer through a miserable status quo. If there is a ship of state, its rudder has been lost. We are drifting. We can't change course. And eventually, and with absolute certainty, in waters such as these, a drifting ship will sink.

...[B]ecause of the way we fund the campaigns that determine our elections, we give the tiniest fraction of America the power to veto any meaningful policy change. Not just change on the left but also change on the right. Because of the structure of influence that we have allowed to develop, the tiniest fraction of the one percent have the effective power to block reform desired by the 99-plus percent.

Yet by "the tiniest fraction of the one percent" I don't necessarily mean the rich. I mean instead the fraction of Americans who are willing to spend their money to influence congressional campaigns for their own interest. That fraction is different depending upon the reform at issue: a different group rallies to block health-care reform than rallies to block global warming legislation. But the key is that under the system we've allowed to evolve, a tiny number (with resources at least) has the power to block reform they don't like.

A tiny number of Americans -- .26 percent -- give more than $200 to a congressional campaign. .05 percent give the maximum amount to any congressional candidate. .01 percent give more than $10,000 in any election cycle. And .000063 percent -- 196 Americans -- have given more than 80 percent of the super-PAC money spent in the presidential elections so far.

These few don't exercise their power directly. None can simply buy a congressman, or dictate the results they want. But because they are the source of the funds that fuel elections, their influence operates as a filter on which policies are likely to survive. It is as if America ran two elections every cycle, one a money election and one a voting election. To get to the second, you need to win the first. But to win the first, you must keep that tiniest fraction of the one percent happy. Just a couple thousand of them banding together is enough to assure that any reform gets stopped.

Some call this plutocracy. Some call it a corrupted aristocracy. I call it unstable.

I, for one, call it plutocracy. For more America-bashing made in the USA, visit Post-masculine for 10 Things Most Americans Don't Know About America. Some are pretty standard, others more original. An example:

The problem with the US is that everyone thinks they are of talent and advantage. As John Steinbeck famously said, the problem with poor Americans is that “they don’t believe they’re poor, but rather temporarily embarrassed millionaires.” It’s this culture of self-delusion that allows America to continue to innovate and churn out new industry more than anyone else in the world. But this shared delusion also unfortunately keeps perpetuating large social inequalities and the quality of life for the average citizen lower than most other developed countries. It’s the price we pay to maintain our growth and economic dominance.

In my Guide to Wealth, I defined being wealthy as, “Having the freedom to maximize one’s life experiences.” In those terms, despite the average American having more material wealth than citizens of most other countries (more cars, bigger houses, nicer televisions), their overall quality of life suffers in my opinion. American people on average work more hours with less vacation, spend more time commuting every day, and are saddled with over $10,000 of debt. That’s a lot of time spent working and buying crap and little time or disposable income for relationships, activities or new experiences.

 

Comments

[Martin]

Andrew,

thanks for the link to Post-masculine.

I just read the blog post. Obviously, beeing a prejudiced German, I feel confirmed. But instead to be smug about it, it made me sad.

What really got we were the comments. Many Americans agreed at least to a some extent to the author. Often they had experience living abroad. They deeply care for their country but feel completely powerless.

Some comments tempted me to step in and comment as well. But I refrained from doing so because the discussion was so American that I thought comments from some smug European might only disturb

BTW:
I can not say I "love" Germany or that I am "proud" of it - that's not a German thing. (Even if some want to copy the US here by trying to implement those feelings and expressions here. They are not likely to succeed.)
But I would never consider giving up my German citizenship. Germany has it's faults but it's the country I know, where I know which buttons to push and where I can get comfortable. I like living here. And I also like visiting other countries and do so as often as possible.

Martin

[Ralph]

The gap between the rich and the poor is widening in Germany, too.

Note the following ("Gestiegene Vermögensungleichheit in Deutschland" by J.R. Frick, analysis based on 2007 data):

(Begin quotes)

Das individuelle Nettovermögen in Deutschland betrug zum Jahresbeginn 2007 im Durchschnitt rund 88 000 Euro und ist damit gegenüber 2002 um rund zehn Prozent gestiegen. Maßgeblich für diese Entwicklung war die Zunahme des Geldvermögens sowie der Vermögen aus privaten Versicherungen. Im Zusammenhang mit der insgesamt sehr ungleichen Verteilung des Vermögens liegt der Median, also der Wert, der die reiche Hälfte der Bevölkerung von der ärmeren trennt, weiterhin nur bei etwa 15 000 Euro. Immerhin rund zwei Drittel der Bevölkerung ab 17 Jahren verfügten über kein oder nur ein sehr geringes Geld- und Sachvermögen. Insgesamt hat die Vermögensun- gleichheit in Deutschland seit 2002 weiter zugenommen."

"Rund zwei Drittel der Bevölkerung wiesen 2007 kein oder nur ein sehr geringes individuelles Nettovermögen (Geld- und Sachvermögen ohne Pkw und Hausrat) auf. Im Gegensatz dazu verfügten die reichsten zehn Prozent über einen Anteil am Gesamtvermögen von mehr als 60 Prozent."

Inequalities are particularly striking between East and West Germany and between civil servants and non-civil servants not among the ranks of wealthy entrepreneurs.