American Democracy?

A study by Martin Gilens of Princeton University and Benjamin Page of Northwestern University examines the evidence for four theories of American politics.  Who has the most influence--average citizens, economic elites, mass-based interest groups, or business-oriented interest groups?  It is probably not a surprise that elites and business groups have the most influence while the rest of us have essentially none.

Despite the seemingly strong empirical support in previous studies for theories of majoritarian democracy, our analyses suggest that majorities of the American public actually have little influence over the policies our government adopts. Americans do enjoy many features central to democratic governance, such as regular elections, freedom of speech and association, and a widespread (if still contested) franchise. But we believe that if policymaking is dominated by powerful business organizations and a small number of affluent Americans, then America’s claims to being a democratic society are seriously threatened.

Update (April 26):  Michael Lind discusses the Gilens/Page study.

Update (June 22):  In a discussion on the relevance of Marx for today's politics, Sean McElwee argues that the political left needs to focus on the working class.  He notes Gilens and Page observed that "[t]he preferences of average citizens are positively and fairly highly correlated, across issues, with the preferences of economic elites".  And quotes Steinbeck:  "Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires."

Education and persuasion remain major components of the socialist project.

The implications of ideology are important and numerous. The left must not fall into the trap of believing that all Americans actually do share our views, but that a conspiracy of the wealthy, or the power of GOP framing, or the influence of money are preventing us from succeeding. To some extent, these things may indeed harm the left, but widespread ideology — the automatic assumption of capitalism’s unmitigated merit, for example — is just as big a problem. We must win the war of ideas before we can win the war of democracy.

Update (July 11, 2015):  In a paper called "Political Powerlessness", Nicholas Stephanopoulos incorporates Gilens' data to illustrate the "predicted likelihood of Federal policy change versus group support for policy change".  Finally, things are looking up for rich, white guys.

Update (September 2):  Sean McElwee reports on a paper by Larry Bartels that describes the governments of other "democratic" countries as being unresponsive to public opinion on social issues.

Update (December 4, 2015):  A paper by Benjamin Page, Larry Bartels, and Jason Seawright reports on a survey of wealthy individuals showing how their values and policy priorities differ from the general public.

We find that they are extremely active politically and that they are much more conservative than the American public as a whole with respect to important policies concerning taxation, economic regulation, and especially social welfare programs. Variation within this wealthy group suggests that the top one-tenth of 1 percent of wealthholders (people with $40 million or more in net worth) may tend to hold still more conservative views that are even more distinct from those of the general public. We suggest that these distinctive policy preferences may help account for why certain public policies in the United States appear to deviate from what the majority of US citizens wants the government to do. If this is so, it raises serious issues for democratic theory.

Update (January 31, 2016):  An interview with Tova Wang and Nick Nyhart about the report "Democracy at a Crossroads: How the One Percent Is Silencing Our Voices".

Update (December 17, 2018):  A study from the University of California and Columbia University finds that staff for Republicans in Congress tend to overestimate how conservative constituents are. 

This stunning misperception can largely be explained by the disproportionate attention lawmakers and their aides lavish on donors and special interest groups.