As the election results in favor of Joe Biden are becoming officially certified, and the courts are consistently denying credence to Trump’s frivolous claims of election fraud, many Americans concerned about the state of democracy are breathing a sigh of relief. But, was American democracy that great in the first place? A look under the hood reveals the troubling fact that U.S. “democracy” functions more like an oligarchy.
Joseph Schumpeter1 argues in his prominent definition that the procedural heart of democracy boils down to the presence of free and fair elections that decide who gets power. While protecting this procedural core of democracy in the recent election is no small feat, Americans ought to also be concerned with whether their democratic procedures yield the intended outcomes.
As for these intended outcomes, Acemoglu and Robinson2 argue that fundamentally, a democratic government should represent the preferences of the whole population, and not just a small elite group. But are U.S. lawmakers representative of and responsive to the preferences of the whole population? Gilens and Page3 look at this question empirically by analyzing how well the preferences of citizens predict policy outcomes, and their findings are displayed in the figure below:
Summarizing these findings in words, they write ominously that “the preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy.” Yes, you read that correctly. This is deeply troubling, as it undermines the basic feature that should define the policymaking of a democratic government. But as it turns out, lawmakers are highly responsive to the preferences of a small, powerful group: the economic elite. An analogous figure from Gilens and Page illustrates this:
Upon focusing on policy outcomes, as opposed to procedure, the U.S. much more closely resembles what Acemoglu and Robinson see as the common thread that unites nondemocracies: a government acting in line only with the preferences of a select elite. Clearly, the Schumpetarian procedural core of democracy has somehow yielded profoundly undemocratic policymaking in the U.S.
What has allowed the economic elite in the U.S. to so forcibly subordinate the interest of everyday citizens in a democracy? I’ll suggest a few reasons. First, funding is crucial in winning elected office, and the funds come largely from a select few. In 2012, the candidate that spent more in House races won about 85% of the time, and the candidate that spent more in Senate races won about 70% of the time. This means that it takes a lot of money to win elected office: an estimated $1.6 million to win a House election, $10.4 million to win a Senate election, and $1 billion to win the race for the presidency. Making matters worse, the very richest supply an extremely disproportionate share of this money, reflecting the enormous levels of income inequality in the U.S. In 2010, .26% of the population gave 68% of all political contributions, making candidates reliant on the ultra-rich for most of their campaign funds. This means that what Schumpeter envisions as “competitive struggle for the people’s vote” may actually entail a competitive struggle for campaign contributions from the ultra-rich. Naturally, this will involve politicians disproportionately catering to the interests of the economic elite.
Second, the richest people and corporations have highly disproportionate means to put forth organized interest. Lobbying, the predominant means through which groups put forth organized interest, necessitates significant financial resources; groups looking to lobby have to hire lobbyists, education themselves on the relevant legislation, put together an agenda, and identify potential points of entry. Because of this, only the wealthiest and largest firms have been found to lobby consistently. From 1998-2014, the telecommunications, finance, health, and energy sectors each spent between $4 and $6 billion on federal lobbying. On the other hand, groups based around ideology spent only $2 billion combined over the same time period, and labor unions only mustered $590 million. This is especially important upon considering that in a democracy, there are relatively few opportunities for everyday citizens to express their specific policy preferences. People can vote every once in a while, and may attend a few protests or town halls, but in general these means are infrequent and often imperfect opportunities to convey specific policy preferences. This leaves organized interest as one of the rare avenues for groups to clearly and persistently communicate their preferences to elected officials. Unsurprisingly, politicians are much more responsive to this; Gilens and Page in the same study find that organized interest groups exert significant independent influence on policy (even when controlling for wealth). Upon considering that most of this organized interest is controlled by the wealthy and corporations, it simply acts as another means through which the economic elite disproportionately influence policy.
Third, businesses can offer lucrative lobbying jobs to elected officials after they leave office. This is important, because the evidence shows that officials who do the bidding of businesses while in office are significantly more likely to gain employment by those businesses once they leave, giving these officials a perverse policymaking incentive. Many politicians take advantage of this pipeline: in 2018, ⅔ of the 44 members that left congress went on to assume lobbying positions.
But why don’t voters simply vote out politicians who act most disproportionately in the interests of the wealthy? Pavão4 suggests one potential reason, finding that when voters perceive corruption to be widespread, they tend to vote on other issues and subordinate corruption as a concern. This may well be the case in the U.S., as polling shows that sizable majorities of both Democrats and Republicans believe that elected officials don’t listen to “people like them” and are skewed by special interest money. And with the explosive culture wars between conservatives and liberals gaining more prevalence in U.S. politics, there are plenty of highly resonant issues for Americans to vote on instead of the seemingly lost cause of curbing the influence of moneyed interests.
The fact that the U.S. has maintained the procedural essence of democracy, in the form of free and fair elections, should not make citizens complacent in recognizing this long-running democratic crisis. Moneyed interests have found holes in the democratic process that have allowed them to systematically displace the interests of the people, in favor of their own. Until this changes, perhaps we should start calling U.S. democracy what it functions like: an oligarchy.
- Schumpeter, Joseph. 1947. Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy. New York: Harper & Brothers. Chapter 22
- Acemoglu, Daron and James Robinson. 2006. Economic Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy. New York: Cambridge University Press. Chapter 2.
- Gilens, Martin and Benjamin Page. 2014. Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens. American Political Science Association.
- Pavão, Nara. 2018. “Corruption as the Only Option: The Limits to Electoral Accountability.” Journal of Politics 80(3): pp. 996-1010.
Great article! The kleptocratic issues of the United States are something that has to be reckoned with. This is an issue that was exacerbated by the Citizens United supreme court decision that allowed essentially limitless campaign funding. This kleptocracy was the backbone of the occupy movement as well as Bernie Sanders’ campaign. I do not believe that the centrist democrats will do anything to alleviate these issues. Biden received record-level funding from billionaires and promised that “things won’t fundamentally change.” While this is the case, the populist left (and to a lesser extent, the right) have had serious gripes with the share of power that billionaires hold. That is not going away. Both parties will have to address this issue going forward or we are going to see more populism as populism is always directed at the elites. This issue isn’t even a leftist or Marxist position it is literally affecting the quality of our democratic institutions.
Hi, Connor. I enjoyed reading your thought-provoking post on whether or not the United States is a democracy or an oligarchy. I believe it lies somewhere in the middle, but slightly more towards democracy if I had to pick a side. It would be inaccurate to say that the interests of all people are equally represented in the halls of congress and the White House. As you’ve pointed out, statistics show that the interests of the wealthy, for a plethora of reasons, are far more represented than those of the average citizen. Where I find trouble in condemning the United States as an oligarchy is the fact that the politicians we elect, whoever may be donating to their campaign, are popularly elected (with the exception of the occasional president) by the people. Laws are then passed democratically, by the people’s representatives. So while the wealthy may exert the most influence over our political process, thanks to cases like Citizens United, we the people must also take some responsibility for electing these folks in the first place. President-elect Biden defeated Senator Sanders in the primaries. Not just in terms of fundraising, but in raw number of votes. While many like to claim the process was rigged against Bernie, at the end of the day Joe Biden, all financing aside, simply won more votes. So yes, the extreme influence that the wealthy hold over our political process indicates that the United States has some oligarchical tendencies. But when you look at how our officials are elected, the fact is every person, no matter their income or background, gets one vote, and whoever gets the most votes wins.
This is such an eye-opening article! The data you added really put the severity of this issue into perspective. It is honestly unbelievable how much politicians try to convince the American public of how democratic our processes are when each election it becomes more and more obvious that they don’t always work in our best interests. Campaign financing, like the Electoral College, is just a facet of our democracy that is unlikely to be reformed as the very people that benefit from these systems are the only ones in a position to enact change. Though, I understand Christian’s point that the people ultimately decide the victor of these elections despite the amount these campaigns raise, the real issue comes into play when legislation is drafted and voted upon. These elites pay for loyalty and that is what they get from these politicians.
First of all, I would like to thank you Connor, for an excellent analysis on the distinction between oligarchies on the one hand and democracies on the other for the point of demonstrating that democracies are built on fragile institutions that require our vigilance, not only as witnesses, but as actors.
I agree that democratic backsliding does not occur spontaneously, but rather through slow incrementations that attempt to lessen institutional forbearance and tolerance. While your analysis focuses on the economic elite and the moneyed interests of those in power, C. Wright Mills’ book, The Power Elite, offers an exceptionally nuanced view of political dominance. Mills articulates in his conception of elites that their status is not defined by their wealth, but rather by their ability to occupy certain positions in society, namely in the economy, military, and politics. Technically, this subsumes part of your argument, which makes for an interesting extension to your point regarding the elites unfair accumulation of power. Mills notion of power explicitly accounts for the pursuit of higher education and high levels of social mobility for a few amount of people. His conception explains that some of these elites might not know of their supreme status and are able to reach their position without conscious effort. He dictates that by being a part of a quasi hereditary caste, they managed to become the elites of society. This speaks loudly to not only the undermining of, what you outline, as free and fair elections, but to the prevalence of social and economic inequality within this country. As you correctly cited, Gilens and Page offer empirical evidence that shows legislative policy bearing no comparison to the predilections of those in the lower and middle classes.
Robert Dahl argues that one of the triumphs of democracy rests on the responsiveness to the preferences of its citizens, not as the minorities, but as equals. America often prides itself on the very notion of one person one vote, meaning that the suffrage power of every person is equal. However, this is simply not the case. This is not only problematic, but undemocratic at its very core.
Not only is this exemplified economically as you demonstrate, but ideologically. We can see this in the very structure of the electoral college, which ironically acts as a protective mechanism against populism. When protecting against the dangers of popular sovereignty, the electoral college attempts to account for the fact that people are often subject to manipulation by the propaganda of a populous autocrat. Given that Adolf Hitler was elected democratically, it is fair to assume that this protective mechanism is prima facie.
Assuming that the electors are faithful, the electoral college creates the problem of drowning out. 48/50 states have a winner take all system which means that no matter how many popular sovereign votes above 50.1 percent a candidate gets, he or she will get all of the electoral college votes. Conversely, no matter how many popular sovereign votes a candidate gets below 49.9 percent, he or she won’t get any electoral college votes. If you want an example of this, look to the state of Wisconsin in 2016. Former President Donald Trump won the state of Wisconsin in 2016, 47.22 to 46.45, which translated to him only getting 18,000 votes more, but ultimately led to him getting all of the electoral votes. By giving all of the electoral college votes in the state of Wisconsin to Donald Trump, the current electoral college system in the state inaccurately represents the popular sovereign will of the people. To put it another way, the minority got drowned out. The negative impacts of this is that it nullifies the votes of the minority in these winner takes all states, which effectively disenfranchises these voters. Because of this, the electoral college gives an overinflated view of the majority popular sovereign in these states. We can see this in our colloquial expression when referencing these states: “blue” or “red”. This can be harmful because when we look at Wisconsin, it’s a “red” state, but the difference in votes is not large enough to justify this distinction. As a reminder, this analysis views the qualified electors in a charitable light, with the purpose of simply pointing out that the electoral college in itself does not act with nuanced responsiveness to its voters. Given that the economic elite disproportionately influence policy and the very processes of our voting system do not maximize the preferences of the people, the magnitude of disparate effect that certain groups have in politics is more than I would have originally anticipated.
I truly believe that while the United States may function at times like an oligarchy given the elites propitious time in politics, it is a democracy at heart. It is up to the citizens to use the appropriate avenues, through assembly, petition, or speech, to ameliorate these violations of democratic ideals and attain equal representation. While this may have been a theoretical precursor to democracy, its practice is not acting optimally today, so we must act just as you said, without “complacency.”