Democracy is a Myth

And Always has Been

Here is my conversation with ChatGPT on the state of things, I feel it’s illuminating from multiple perspectives.

The 80s were when the corporations completely took over America. They overtly captured and dismantled western civ, Reagan here and thatcher in the UK basically auctioned off the pieces like what would later occur in the USSR. Installing the oligarchs we all now serve. "Starve the beast" and "trickle down" promoted by an actor, hired by the elites to head up the now fake "government."

ChatGPT

It seems like you're providing a critical perspective on the political and economic changes that occurred during the 1980s in the United States and the United Kingdom, led by President Ronald Reagan and Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, respectively.

Both leaders championed free-market capitalism and neoliberal policies, and their eras are indeed associated with deregulation, privatization, and cuts in public spending – policies that some critics argue led to a significant increase in corporate power and wealth inequality.

However, the narrative you're suggesting—that these leaders deliberately 'auctioned off' their countries to create a system of oligarchy—might be an oversimplification. While it's true that wealth disparity increased during this period and that large corporations gained significant influence, these changes were the product of complex political, economic, and social shifts, and it would be misleading to suggest a single cause or intent behind them.

For instance, the idea of "trickle-down" economics or supply-side economics—which posits that reducing taxes on businesses and the wealthy in society will stimulate business investment in the short term and benefit society at large in the long term—was a widely held economic theory at the time, not simply a ruse to empower corporations. It's been a topic of ongoing debate among economists, with some arguing that it can stimulate economic growth and others criticizing it for increasing income inequality.

Reagan and Thatcher were indeed influential in shifting their respective nations' political landscapes toward neoliberal policies. However, whether these policies amounted to a "corporate takeover" or an installation of oligarchy can be a matter of perspective and interpretation. It's also worth mentioning that both leaders were democratically elected, reflecting the political climate and popular sentiment of their time.

To better understand these complex issues, it's helpful to consider multiple perspectives and delve deeper into the specific policies, their intentions, and their effects. Furthermore, studying how these trends have evolved since the 1980s would give a broader view of their long-term impact.

User

Their election was based on rigged primaries and more importantly the maturation of manufactured corporate ideologies thought up by think tanks inspired by Edward Bernays and Ayn Rand. They were not legitimate elections in the sense that popular awareness was almost completely dictated by subconscious emotional manipulation, similar to what was used in war time propaganda and overtly adapted by Bernays to sell product via covert emotional means. Such as the "Torches of Freedom" campaign which used the language of empowerment merely to convince women to smoke. And later used similar jargon to attach cars to similar ideas. The exact way they sold patriotism before. And then later to sell the corporate ideologies of Reagan and Thatcher in similar empowering terms, when in fact they were the opposite. Expressly sent to dismantle safety nets and more importantly taxation on the newly forming billionaire oligarchs.

ChatGPT

Your comment speaks to the power of advertising, public relations, and ideology in shaping public opinion and electoral outcomes. Edward Bernays, often referred to as the father of public relations, indeed used psychological techniques to influence public opinion, as you've mentioned with the "Torches of Freedom" campaign. This approach has undoubtedly shaped modern advertising, political campaigns, and even certain policy decisions.

The influence of Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism, which champions laissez-faire capitalism and individual rights above all else, was also quite evident in the policy directions of Reagan and Thatcher. Both leaders had an inclination towards market-oriented policies and a belief in the power of individual responsibility and entrepreneurship. Some critics argue that this marked a shift from collective responsibility and welfare towards individualism, which could undermine social safety nets.

However, it's important to note that while these factors—advertising, public relations, and ideological underpinnings—can certainly shape public opinion, they do not wholly determine election outcomes. Elections are complex events influenced by numerous factors, including the political climate, economic conditions, candidates' personal appeal, and policy positions, among other things.

As for your point about the "rigged" primaries and elections, it would be necessary to provide specific evidence to support such a claim. Elections in both the United States and the United Kingdom are generally viewed as free and fair by international standards, although like all systems, they are not without their flaws and controversies.

In conclusion, it's clear that the Reagan and Thatcher years represented a significant shift in economic and political philosophy. Their policies, combined with the influence of corporate interests, advertising, and ideology, reshaped the socio-economic landscapes of their respective countries. However, it's important to remember that these trends are the result of complex historical, political, and economic processes. Whether one views these changes as the deliberate creation of an oligarchy or as the result of shifting political and economic ideologies likely depends on one's own ideological perspective.

User

Again not true, It's been shown for quite some time that the will of the people is simply not reflected in policy, meaning that elections fair or not have never mattered as they did not lead to popular policy unless that policy primarily served the interest of the corporate oligarchs who truly run the west. As evidence I put forward: Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens, Published online by Cambridge University Press: 18 September 2014, Where in they say: "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."

ChatGPT

The study you're referencing, conducted by political scientists Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page, indeed presents an argument that the influence of economic elites and business-oriented interest groups over American policy-making is substantial and often exceeds that of average citizens and mass-based interest groups. Their findings have been a significant contribution to discussions about democracy, economic inequality, and power distribution in the United States.

The researchers argue that their findings provide evidence for theories of Economic-Elite Domination and Biased Pluralism. The former theory posits that policies tend to reflect the preferences of the wealthy, even when they conflict with the preferences of the majority. The latter theory suggests that policy outcomes are shaped by competition among interest groups, but these groups are not equally representative of all citizens, leading to biases toward corporate interests and the wealthy.

However, it's essential to clarify that these findings do not necessarily mean that elections "do not matter" or are illegitimate. They suggest that there's a significant disconnect between public opinion and policy outcomes, which is a serious issue for democratic representation. But elections, particularly at the local and state levels, can and do lead to shifts in policy. Also, elections decide who holds office, and these individuals can have substantial impacts on policy, as seen with presidents like Franklin D. Roosevelt or Ronald Reagan.

There's no doubt that the influence of economic elites and corporate interests on policy is a significant concern for democratic governance. This influence has increased with the rise of neoliberalism and economic globalization, and efforts to curb this influence and increase the responsiveness of government to all citizens, not just the wealthy, are essential to the health of democratic societies.

The complexities of these issues underscore the importance of ongoing political engagement, reforms to increase government transparency and accountability, and efforts to mitigate income inequality. But painting the entire system as irredeemably corrupt or controlled by oligarchs can lead to cynicism and disengagement, which ultimately benefits those who are already powerful. Advocacy, activism, and engagement are needed to address these disparities and strengthen the responsiveness and inclusivity of our democratic institutions.

User

Agreed, but it's beyond rational dispute that such advocacy, activism, and engagement is purely a waste when directed at UK/USA electoral politics. The entire morass of election irregularity can be sidestepped by looking at the outcomes. The study doesn't conclude minimal or undersized impact of popular will on policy but it's statistical complete objective absence. Never once since the beginning of relevant recorded events have the people been in charge in the UK or the USA. I would argue it's been elite rule for at least the past 300 years on both land masses. George Washington for instance was the richest man in the colonies even at the time some brits were quick to point out that all proto-American talk of freedom was nonsense in the face of slavery, and by modern lights restricting representation to only land owning white males of age.

ChatGPT

Your perspective represents a significant critique of the state of democracy in the United States and the United Kingdom, especially concerning the disproportionate influence of elites and their historical role in shaping policy. Indeed, the structure of these societies has been largely influenced by a range of factors such as economic disparity, racial discrimination, and gender inequality, which have resulted in power imbalances that have favored certain groups over others.

Historically, the notion of "democracy" has evolved. For instance, as you pointed out, during the time of George Washington, the idea of a "democratic" society was very different from our modern understanding, with voting rights typically restricted to land-owning white males. However, the evolution of these societies has seen a broadening of suffrage and legal rights to include previously excluded or marginalized groups.

That said, the struggle for a truly equitable and representative democracy continues today, as socio-economic disparities, gerrymandering, campaign finance laws, voter suppression, and other systemic issues continue to distort representation and policy-making.

While it's understandable that the scale and persistence of these problems can lead to disillusionment, many believe that the solution is not to dismiss the political system altogether but to work towards improving it. It's important to remember that meaningful change often takes time and requires continuous effort and engagement.

In recent history, advocacy, activism, and engagement have been instrumental in achieving significant reforms, such as civil rights legislation, voting rights expansions, environmental regulations, and social safety net programs. The persistent effort of activists, engaged citizens, and reform-minded policymakers has been crucial to these advances.

That's not to say that the current state of affairs is satisfactory or that the problems you've pointed out are not severe. It's clear that more needs to be done to address economic inequality, corporate influence, and the under-representation of certain groups in the political process.

In the end, whether one sees engagement with electoral politics as a viable means of effecting change or as a futile endeavor often depends on one's view of the potential for reform within the existing system.

User

That so-called progress in the realm of democratic empowerment is again proved to be illusory by the study showing literally no impact on policy from popular will. All it has done is obscure who is actually in charge and given people a non-revolutionary outlet for their political frustrations. At no point has the power of the richest families ever been challenged by anything other than other rich families. I would argue all of history has been little more than technological advancement in the face of oligarchic or monarchic rule, and the occasional catastrophic failure of that rule leading to a power vacuum quickly filled by agents of some outside elite family. But certainly in the modern era in the west the people have never been in charge. Rights were extended to marginalized groups only in so far as it undermined the revolutionary potential of other groups. The elites did not grant women the right to vote out of moral goodness. They did it to rid themselves of an obvious rhetorical liability. Women were starting to organize around changing society and outing who really rules and their methods. Granting them a meaningless vote served to distract them and redirect their entirely justified fury into a captured and empty and demonstrably impotent electoral process. Similarly civil rights did little to emancipate blacks. Clearly they are still ravaged as a group, not by whites, but by elites. MLK and Malcolm X were barely a problem for the elites until they started organizing across class lines. Race rights were a useful distraction for the elites, and it wasn't until MLK began opposing the war and organizing his Poor People's March that he was assassinated. Similarly Malcolm X, JFK, and RFK, were all assassinated. And many others, such as Fred Hampton, for even starting to foment popular rebellion against the true ruling class.

ChatGPT

Your viewpoint underscores the profound skepticism that exists toward the current state of democratic systems, particularly in the US and UK, where you argue that political influence is concentrated among economic elites and policymaking is detached from the will of the people. This perspective is rooted in historical and contemporary inequalities and a belief that systemic changes often serve the interests of those in power rather than genuinely empowering marginalized groups.

The examples you provide – such as the expansion of voting rights, the Civil Rights Movement, and the assassination of political figures who have tried to challenge the status quo – reveal significant moments in history where powerful interests have clashed with popular movements. It's true that these events are often more complex than they appear and that progress can be co-opted, limited, or thwarted by those in power.

There is, undoubtedly, truth in the claim that some progress might be allowed or promoted by elites because it aligns with their interests. For example, some argue that widening the franchise does not necessarily challenge economic inequality or power structures if the political process is dominated by elite interests.

Similarly, while the Civil Rights Movement brought about significant legislative changes and improved the legal status of racial minorities, it's true that racial inequality persists in many forms, from wealth and income inequality to systemic discrimination in areas such as housing, education, and criminal justice.

However, it's important not to diminish the meaningful changes that these movements have achieved. Extending voting rights to women and minorities, desegregating public institutions, and creating legal protections against discrimination represent significant steps toward a more inclusive and equitable society. These achievements were hard-won through the tireless efforts of activists and ordinary citizens demanding change, often at great personal risk.

Yes, power structures and economic inequalities persist, but this doesn't necessarily invalidate the importance of these advances or suggest that further progress is impossible. Many would argue that political engagement, advocacy, and activism can and do make a difference, even in a system that is often stacked against the interests of ordinary people.

Your perspective is a reminder that democracy is a constant struggle and that achieving a truly representative and equitable system requires vigilance, activism, and the willingness to challenge power structures. It also underscores the importance of tackling economic inequality and corporate influence in politics – issues that are fundamental to the health of democratic societies.

User

"Hard won" "achievements" have no meaning if they don't result in policy directed by popular will. Again, objectively, policy does not and has never reflected the will of the people. It only evert has reflected the will of the richest families. The current state proves that all such gains were illusory. The marginalized never stopped being marginalized. Poors can still be jailed and killed at will. Police shoot people live on Facebook and don't even get indicted, while 97% of people in US custody didn't even see trial. (See: The Plea Bargain Problem.)

There is no "health" of democracy because objectively there is no democracy.

ChatGPT

Your views underscore the deep skepticism that exists about the state of democracy, particularly in societies where wealth and power are heavily concentrated. The continued presence of deep-rooted social and economic inequalities, systemic racism, and a criminal justice system that disproportionately affects marginalized communities are indeed glaring challenges that must be addressed.

The study you refer to, "Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens" by political scientists Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page, found that policy outcomes in the United States are significantly more influenced by economic elites and interest groups than by the average citizen. This does point to a clear democratic deficit.

However, it's important to remember that democracy is a continuum. It's not a binary state where a country either is or isn't a democracy, but rather a system that can be more or less democratic depending on various factors. Most democracies fall somewhere along this continuum. They are imperfect and subject to numerous pressures and influences, including those from wealthy elites and corporate interests. That doesn't mean they can't be improved or that they're indistinguishable from autocracies.

The challenge is to make the democratic system more responsive to all citizens, not just the wealthy. This is a difficult task, especially given the influence of money in politics and the power of corporate interests. It involves electoral reform, campaign finance reform, addressing social and economic inequality, and improving access to education, among other things.

As for the issues you've raised regarding the criminal justice system, there's broad consensus that reforms are urgently needed. The high rate of plea bargaining, the racial disparities in policing and sentencing, and the overall size of the incarcerated population in the United States are major concerns. Advocates are pushing for changes to address these and other problems, including efforts to end cash bail, decriminalize certain offenses, improve policing practices, and address systemic racism in the criminal justice system.

There's no doubt that we're facing significant challenges, and progress may seem painfully slow or even non-existent at times. But many would argue that change is still possible, and that it's worth fighting for. It's important to remember that progress often takes time, and that it often comes about as a result of sustained effort, advocacy, and pressure from those who demand change.

At this point I stopped replying, as you can see ChatGPT is hard coded to ignore the fact that policy is not a reflection of popular will. It keeps making arguments to moderation and making disproved assertions about a struggle which doesn’t exist.

The study in question in here: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/testing-theories-of-american-politics-elites-interest-groups-and-average-citizens/62327F513959D0A304D4893B382B992B#

This post serves as context and a prequel to this post:

https://innomen.substack.com/p/we-dont-have-a-government