Is the United States a de facto plutocracy?

[HighStakesPro]

Plutocracy = rule by the rich. It doesn't appear to have any restrictions on exactly how the rich rule, just that the rulers are rich. We are not explicitly a plutocracy because we have elected officials and theoretically anyone can run for office. However the system is set up so that only rich people, or at least people who have connections with rich people, can have a legitimate chance to win a major house seat or any senate seat, nevermind president.

[Skidoo]

If the rich really rule, why don't they come out and say it?

[AlexM]

You could easily say that every government is a plutocracy.

[HighStakesPro]

I see; in that case, does the term "plutocracy" have any practical significance? Are there any governments past or present which are explicitly plutocracies?

[Woolygimp]

[ QUOTE ]
I see; in that case, does the term "plutocracy" have any practical significance? Are there any governments past or present which are explicitly plutocracies?

[/ QUOTE ]

A wild guess; Ones from Pluto?

[AzDesertRat]

Democracy implies "rule by the people"--I don't quite agree with plutocracy because I think we are ruled by special interest groups and I don't know what "ocracy" that would be in that case

[Woolygimp]

[ QUOTE ]
Democracy implies "rule by the people"--I don't quite agree with plutocracy because I think we are ruled by special interest groups and I don't know what "ocracy" that would be in that case

[/ QUOTE ]

I really don't like the party system, because they really get to decide who is the next President. For instance, a candidate has to win the primary election for their party and then they get to contend in the general election and I don't like that.

In simple terms... We don't get to choose who we can choose to vote for.

Oh, and where the hell are all the 'great' people. The Jeffersons, Washingtons, Adams, Lincolns.

Every politician today is dumb, corrupt, or mediocre.

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
You could easily say that every government is a plutocracy.

[/ QUOTE ]
No, you really couldn't. This is certainly not the case in Australia, Sweden, France...

In my country, most of the people who end up in the cabinet or in the Prime Minister's job aren't wealthy, nor do they belong to a privileged class.

America's government is distorted by:

- The influence of private business, which I daresay is linked to America's obsession with privatization of government supplied services, which passes far too much money and power off to private interests.

- The existence of privileged private schools, where the rich are given privileged access and connections. This would not happen in a system of public colleges with merit based criteria.

Remove (or regulate) these two things and America would move away from a plutocracy, IMO.

[Dynasty]

[ QUOTE ]
However the system is set up so that only rich people, or at least people who have connections with rich people, can have a legitimate chance to win...president.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bill Clinton wasn't wealthy when he became President. His connections were nothing special, perhaps even subpar, in 1992. Didn't he come from a lower middle class background?

Was Ronald Reagan rich? He had a reasonably successful film career and then was a spokesperson for GE after that. He definitely came from a poorer backgorund.

Jimmy Carter wasn't wealthy. He ran his family's peanut farming business. But, I don't think it was particularly large.

Richard Nixon was just plain poor growing up.



Exactly how wealthy are the Bush family? I've never gotten the impression they have anywhere near the wealth the Kennedy's or Roosevelt's had.

[Arnfinn Madsen]

I think you can become powerful without being rich, it is more about networking than money. But, it is probably much easier to get into position if you have an agenda that rich people appreciate due to campaigning etc., so indirectly they are more powerful.