I didn't see this study when it came out--not that it is any real surprise.

http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cass ... -oligarchy

According to France Fukuyama "Political Order and Political Decay" this is a natural outcome of the political system.
Too many checks and balances, too many entry points for the rich or powerful to influence policy, too expensive a system for grass roots movements to capture any kind of power.
He calls it a vetocracy. Where rich powerful groups or individual , at many points, have the ability to stop action that the majority of people might benefit from and demand.

Example: Every one agrees that the tax code needs to be simplified and made more efficient. Its the corporations, financiers and corporations that want it maintained because its complexity has afforded them so many advantages and loop holes. Through congress corporations continue to milk the code for advantages every day.

In parliamentary systems, with fewer checks and balances and a simpler electoral system corporations and lobby groups have less power. (although there are examples where oligarchs have controlled these systems for a time too)

Well I suppose this is just as good a time as any to jump back into the fray.

Ricky, you've fallen into your usual trap of thinking of politics in two-dimensions. Politics is a lot more than the theoretical structures: the legislative, executive, judicial; a bicameral parliament, a bicameral congress; presidents, prime ministers, etc. The features of a constitution can and do affect the outcome. But there's a lot more to it than that, don't you think?

I have not read Fukuyama; but it sounds to me like a less two-dimensional look of things would be the Dictator's Handbook by Bruce Bueno de Mesquita and Alastair Smith. They go into democracy not just dictatorship; and into the US system as well as others.

In other words, Ricky, I agree with your *what*, just not your *why*. I hope that makes me a bit more clear.

Hacker

I have not read Fukuyama;

But you are ready to judge it, without even a cursory look into what the fellow is writing about this time. Here's an over view for you...

Political Order and Political Decay: From the Industrial Revolution to the Globalization of Democracy
Writing in The New York Times Book Review, Michael Lind described The Origins of Political Order as “a major achievement by one of the leading public intellectuals of our time.” In Political Order and Political Decay, Francis Fukuyama completes the most important work of political thought in at least a generation. Taking up the essential question of how societies develop strong, impersonal, and accountable political institutions, Fukuyama follows the story from the Industrial Revolution to the globalization of democracy, from the rise of the Prussian bureaucratic state to the so-called Arab Spring and the deep dysfunctions of contemporary American politics. He examines the effects of corruption on governance and explains why only some societies have been successful at rooting it out. He explores the different legacies of colonialism in Latin America, Africa, and Asia, and offers a clear-eyed account of why certain regions have thrived and developed more quickly than others. And he boldly reckons with the future of democracy in the face of a rising global middle class and entrenched political paralysis in the West. A sweeping, masterful account of the struggle to create a well-functioning modern state, Political Order and Political Decay is destined to be a classic.

http://www.amazon.ca/Political-Order-De ... 1491584874

I haven't fallen into a two dimensional trap at all Hacker. You have assumed that the the oligarchs are influential on only one side of the US duopoly. And that simply isn't true or what I said.
I said that the rich and powerful have many entry points into which they can exert influence and control public policy to their benefit. More so than in most parliamentary systems or in undemocratic states. And this is access that ordinary citizens don't have. Those access points include; Congress, the Senate, the executive, the various committees of the Senate and congress, the various regulatory bodies, commissions and agencies that might influence public policy and the courts. Organizations like ALEC actually write much of the proposed legislation for congressmen and senators....on both sides of the aisle. Lobbying is a huge industry.
And when we say the courts, that can mean many levels of courts.Corporations (representing the oligarchs) can litigate a matter to death and alter or at least delay policy decisions that they don't like for years
The problem for public policy in the US is that a decision is seldom ever "fait accompli". .
Its pointed out on these boards that Democrats get as much money from billionaires (a good way to identify an oligarch member is by the size of their check book) as Republicans. In order to control the political agenda they need to control both sides of the aisle as much as possible.

Hacker

But there's a lot more to it than that, don't you think?

I do. And Fukuyama would agree since he's taken about 1400 pages in my Kobo to explain. The part that really dwells on the repatrimonialization of American politics explains how the oligarchs have regained control over the American political agenda and system of governance in the last decades. (Repatrimonialization because the clientelism that developed after Jackson politicized the bureaucracy that represented the first period of great corporate and oligarchical control. )
By the way, his tome is apolitical. He is trying to understand political development and political decay. Not recommend solutions.
What he has said is that there are three basic ingredients required for successful nations.
A strong state
The rule of Law
Democracy.

He has said that the UK developed a strong state and rule of law and then slowly developed democracy.
In the US the Rule of Law came first, then the introduction of democracy, then the strong state (and it has never been as centralized and strong as in the UK, nor had as independent nor professional a bureaucracy as in say Prussia, of China...).
That lead to a period of 100 years of clientelism that actually worked pretty well economically as the nation developed but failed to function for the burgeoning urban middle class that grew with industrialization.
All of the efforts of the middle class that grew out of industrialization in many nations brought about changes in political institutions that benefited the middle class generally. And in the US particularly. At least until the 1980s when things began to change in the direction of the oligarchs. (You can call them elites)
Its been easier for the elite in the US because they have more levers of power to influence, in a much more complex political system than a parliamentary system. And because the power of a majority government in a parliamentary system allows a period of time where stuff can get done, or at least tried, whereas in the US an obstinate oligarchy can politically obstruct and litigate "progress" to death. All the time getting wealthy from laws that they have supported (see Wall Street tax policies) .

Sounds like there is plenty of assuming and/or premature judging to go around:

You have assumed that the the oligarchs are influential on only one side of the US duopoly. And that simply isn't true or what I said.

Never, ever said that, Ricky. Here is a direct quote from ME:

In other words, Ricky, I agree with your *what*, just not your *why*.

That's totally opposite of "you have assumed....[etc]....only on one side..." Try to read what I write before you pass judgment on it.

And speaking of which, if I were a betting man; it seems (from what you have told me) that Fukuyama is actually a pretty smart cookie. Why do I bet that? Because if you misinterpret Fukuyama (for all I know) the same way you seem to misinterpret any one or more of us here on Redscape, myself included, you're likely not doing him justice.

So no, I am not passing judgment on Fukuyama.

Now can we stick to the subject? You always take disagreement so personally. I do not give a rodent's hindquarters if you disagree with me. But at least don't patronize me, OK? I can argue intelligently with people---if they will do me the same courtesy.

The "trap" I insist you are falling into is your usual rant that the United States is as screwed up as it is because it is a presidential democracy and, if our Constitution was just like Canada's , we'd be so much happier. It's really not unlike the attitude many Americans took with Iraq before the 2003 invasion: "gee, if they were JUST LIKE US (e.g., Democracy, etc.) they'd be so much happier." It seems to me that much harm has been done to the world when people start to think like that.

For the record: I agree the United States has some extremely grave problems and has become an oligarchy of those with greater wealth and/or power; to some degree (even to a great degree). Now I do not wish to get entrenched in yet another argument over the U.S. political system. However, your statement:

in a much more complex political system than a parliamentary system. And because the power of a majority government in a parliamentary system allows a period of time where stuff can get done, or at least tried, whereas in the US an obstinate oligarchy can politically obstruct and litigate "progress" to death.

This argument is flawed. The real difference between two governments has nothing to do with whether the head of government is a president or a prime minister; or whether the head of state is independent from the head of government or whether the system is parliamentary or presidential (or even the French "semi-presidential" model). It has a lot more to do with the size of the "selectorate" (those involved in choosing the leader(s)) and the leader's "winning coalition" (his or her inner circle, the people who, if their support suddenly vanished, their power would evaporate) and the relation between the two. This can be different from one government to another, even if both have almost identical constitutions on paper.

My point? I will make it in bold face just so you do not miss it.

The problems in the United States--both its society and its political system--will NOT be solved by making our governmental structure just like Canada's.

Not only that your view of our history is also flawed. There has been an economic elite since the beginning. Now I have also read that the elite did not own as much of a percentage of the country's wealth circa 1790 as today's elite do. That I find also likely. But then again, 1790 was before modern industrial capitalism. Have you heard of the "Gilded Age"? What you are describing in your argument above reads almost exactly like the conditions inherent at that time (the 1890's, and so on). What I mean is that the oligarchs have been there for quite a while. The trend "in favor of the oligrachs" is not a development "since the 1980s" as you put it.

He has said that the UK developed a strong state and rule of law and then slowly developed democracy.
In the US the Rule of Law came first, then the introduction of democracy, then the strong state (and it has never been as centralized and strong as in the UK, nor had as independent nor professional a bureaucracy as in say Prussia, of China...).
That lead to a period of 100 years of clientelism that actually worked pretty well economically as the nation developed but failed to function for the burgeoning urban middle class that grew with industrialization.
All of the efforts of the middle class that grew out of industrialization in many nations brought about changes in political institutions that benefited the middle class generally. And in the US particularly. At least until the 1980s when things began to change in the direction of the oligarchs. (You can call them elites)

The American civil service today is professional and meritocratic, whatever you may say. Granted there are political appointments at the top, but even for the number that there are with any new administration (I was given the number 3,000 but I am not entirely sure of that) it's a drop in the bucket compared with the overall number of the entire federal civil service--approximately 2,790,000 as of Dec., 2011--and we no longer operate via a "spoils system". That's LONG GONE. The United States federal government has a professional, meritocratic civil service.

What I am saying is that Mr. Fukuyama--IF you are correctly representing him--is only partially correct.

And AGAIN:

I agree that what you say is wrong is wrong. But I do not agree that what you think causes it really does cause it.

And define "a strong state", please. Because Canada's federal government is a far weaker state than the United States. And you've said as much yourself in other arguments we've had.

By the way, his tome is apolitical.

Depends what you mean by apolitical.

Not everything is as black and white as you're cutting it.

hacker

The American civil service today is professional and meritocratic, whatever you may say

its not what I say.

The United States has the most political appointees in government than any other industrialized democracy in the world. Even though the United States has one of the largest populations of political appointees in the system, the efficiency of political appointees is constantly shifting. Political appointees are engraved in everyday decisions even making the final call on major events. President Barack Obama has been criticized for his controversial appointments throughout the years and has also been criticized for not filing appointments. As of 2013, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services was lacking a Senate-confirmed administrator since 2006 when Marilyn Tavenner was acting administrator.[7] At least 60 positions for appointment remain vacant and 45 positions have remained vacant for more than a year.

Judicial vacancies have also become a problem as well with numerous open seats for circuit and district judges left to be filled.[8] At the end of President Obama's first term, thirteen% of presidential-appointee positions had not been filled.[9] Political appointees also come under heat for their own actions including Ben Bernanke's involvement with private banks and also Michael Brown's involvement in Hurricane Katrina.[10] One study published in the Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory by Nick Gallo and David Lewis[disambiguation needed] evaluated more than 350 managers with a program assessment rating tool ("PART") to determine efficacy and found that programs run by political appointees tended to be less effective.[11] Furthermore, those with previous government experience or appointees who had not worked for a political campaign tended be more effective than appointees with experience in the business or non-profit sectors. Gallo and Lewis stated that they thought careerist and appointees should work in a balanced atmosphere to be more productive and share skills. Professional rapport between careerists and appointees is considered in a study of presidential environmental appointees by Matthew Auer.[12] Auer found that oft-mentioned problems in the appointment system, such as short time-in-office and lack of government experience were less pronounced among top federal environmental appointees, across both Republican and Democratic administrations

hacker

This argument is flawed. The real difference between two governments has nothing to do with whether the head of government is a president or a prime minister; or whether the head of state is independent from the head of government or whether the system is parliamentary or presidential (or even the French "semi-presidential" model). It has a lot more to do with the size of the "selectorate" (those involved in choosing the leader(s)) and the leader's "winning coalition" (his or her inner circle, the people who, if their support suddenly vanished, their power would evaporate) and the relation between the two. This can be different from one government to another, even if both have almost identical constitutions on paper

.

The United States, Fukuyama argues, “democratized before it had a modern state.” This resulted in a power vacuum at the top, which allowed patronage and corruption to thrive. The problem persists to this day but in entirely legal form. In no other country do paid lobbyists, out of touch with public sympathy, exert so much influence over government

.
The reasons they can exert so much influence is that power is dispersed throughout the complex American system, but more centralized in in most parliamentary systems.
It may seem to you that Canada's system, for instance, is more decentralized. And it is true that provinces retain more autonomous powers than US States. However, if a Canadian majority government wants a law passed, it generally gets passed and implemented in a fairly short time.,
If an American President wants a law passed that isn't the case.
And once a law is passed in most parliamentary nations, its execution and implementation occurs. Opposition to a new law is seldom litigated. In the US, it is normal for new laws and regulations to be litigated for years...

Hacker

What I mean is that the oligarchs have been there for quite a while. The trend "in favor of the oligrachs" is not a development "since the 1980s" as you put it.

You must have missed when I wrote this....

The part that really dwells on the repatrimonialization of American politics explains how the oligarchs have regained control over the American political agenda and system of governance in the last decades. (Repatrimonialization because the clientelism that developed after Jackson politicized the bureaucracy that represented the first period of great corporate and oligarchical control. )

The US started out as largely patrimonial. The extension of the vote to larger and larger sections of the populace, affected this somewhat, but the spoils system of political appointees devolved it into a clientelist system. (What the Greek and Italian systems are described as...)
Modernizing the bureaucracy, and eliminating much of the spoils system, but not to the point of the UK for instance, did make improvements. Especially through the 1930s. But these changes don't affect how a sophisticated lobbying system can control the political agenda ....

http://www.alecexposed.org/wiki/ALEC_Exposed

www. alec.org

Hacker, of western democracies, this is unique. And the reason is in large part structural. The system provides more points of entry for this activity than in a more structure with power centralized in an executive structure like a parliamentary system . (The cabinet has the executive power, not the parliament.)

If you say so, Ricky.

Except of course that the cabinet/executive is drawn from among the members of the House of Commons, who are members of the majority [governing] party...am I correct?

I also wonder if all Canadians would enthusiastically agree with your views. Perhaps I'll see one of my friend's (the one on the city council who is quite otherwise connected, federally and state-wise) friends who has dual citizenship on Saturday, hopefully. We had a discussion on the system, as I told her I was curious. While she feels her system is superior as well, she did not put it quite as [forgive me] "faultlessly enthusiastic" (my polite way of putting it) as you have.

While I admit there are advantages to your system there are also disadvantages. Why do you automatically believe Fukuyama (if you're interpreting him correctly)? You strike me (and this is a compliment by the way) as the sort of person who has a mind of his own, who can question the "experts" rather than automatically believe them, verbatim.

Take in mind that political scientists have a habit of readily agreeing with each other about as much as two Greek philosophers who have imbibed too much wine. That is the reason I find some (not all) of his opinions questionable.

And remember, I am not questioning your WHAT but merely your WHY/HOW.

Also:

You must have missed when I wrote this....

No, I didn't.

hacker

Except of course that the cabinet/executive is drawn from among the members of the House of Commons, who are members of the majority [governing] party...am I correct?

When a sitting member is elevated from the back benches to a cabinet post they are elevated to a position of influence and power. Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau once sniffed that backbench MPs were nobodies once they were a few feet away from Parliament Hill
That's the nature of a parliamentary system where the governing party has a majority.
The cabinet makes decisions and executes policy. Back bench MPs toil in committee work and behave themselves, hoping for a cabinet appointment
Still, it works.

I'm not trying to say we're superior (we're not) but dude, every system has its flaws. In fact, your last sentence kind of implies that.

You mentioned above the flawed electoral system in the United States. You have almost (I said almost so don't try to misquote me) the same system in the House of Commons: first past the post. Granted, no one is gerrymandering the crap out of it I will admit. But you still use FPTP elections for multiple (more than just two prominent) candidates. If I remember correctly, when I granted you emergency powers to re-write the American constitution, you used proportional representation for the new American Parliament, which---from what you have told me so far---was quite different from your House of Commons.

It's just that you have made this argument before---many, many times---and I already said let's agree to disagree quite a while ago because you're not convincing me that a Canadian-style government would solve these problems, nor that our problems are due to the American presidential system. And I have never convinced you of the fact that neither system is superior, nor are our problems due to the presidential system in the U.S., and that there are likely a myriad of other factors of which you haven't even scratched the surface causing these problems. Nor that you come off---whether you intended to or not and I'm honestly willing to be you're not---as somewhat jingoistic in your appraisal of your own system.

After all, there's a crap-ton of Americans on Redscape. Do we all agree on everything? No. And if I were a betting man, I'd be willing to wager that, if there were as many Canadians on Redscape as there are us Yanks, there'd be Canadians diametrically opposed to your own assessments on this or that issue, perhaps even on this thread, and perhaps even on the merits and/or demerits of the Canadian government.

Besides, as we all know, on Redscape, EVERYBODY here is an "expert".

Can we agree to disagree on this issue? you've made your point before. Many times. I'm sorry if that comes off as a little harsh but I just want to point out, it's getting boring. That's all I was trying to say above. OK?