[ImPostingOnHN]

> This is my problem with the “elites in control” hypothesis. It seems to rely on voters’ power existing, but being circumvented because said voters are too stupid to handle it.

You are correct (except that it need only be a subset of voters).

Now that you've done a good job of elaborating on the hypothesis, what exactly is your problem with it?

[JumpCrisscross]

> what exactly is your problem with it?

It doesn't work. Its testable predictions preclude a good amount of extant politics, including practically all populism. Elites the world over are losing in democracies because they presupposed, from afar, that they knew what their constituents wanted. Voters' interests are complex, and they can't be so easily bought.

[ImPostingOnHN]

> Its testable predictions preclude a good amount of extant politics, including practically all populism.

How so?

> Elites the world over are losing in democracies because they presupposed, from afar, that they knew what their constituents wanted

Elites the world over are winning in democracies (take the US for example), which could feed into the hypothesis. Indeed, nonzero voters of these elites were easily bought.

[llamaimperative]

That is a huuugely presumptive interpretation.

Here’s another possible interpretation: our information environment makes people extremely vulnerable to actual bullshit in massive volume.

[JumpCrisscross]

> Here’s another possible interpretation: our information environment makes people extremely vulnerable to actual bullshit in massive volume

That is also true. People get angry and then misdirect it. But the anger is real, and it filters up through the political system when the valves aren't clogged. They aren't, not anywhere in the West. Voters across the West have essentially begun a wholesale replacement of their stable of elites. That is not what happens in an oligarchic system.

[ImPostingOnHN]

> That is not what happens in an oligarchic system.

The person USAns just voted in is literally an oligarch, as is his co-president, and he has indicated that he will populate his cabinet and advisory board with still more oligarchs. His "inauguration" slush fund has already received hundreds of millions of dollars from other oligarchs to secure their place in the new oligarchy*

*: Pure or otherwise

[JumpCrisscross]

> person USAns just voted in is literally an oligarch, as is his co-president, and he has indicated that he will populate his cabinet with still more oligarchs

America is tending towards an oligarchic system. (This is a history of weak democracies, historically, and a reason we were founded as a republic and not pure democracy.) That doesn't prove it currently is one. Trump's election is largely about replacing the technocratic and cultural elite with a commercial one.

[nico]

> America is tending towards an oligarchic system. (This is a history of weak democracies, historically, and a reason we were founded as a republic and not pure democracy.) That doesn't prove it currently is one

Maybe that doesn't. But this study does:

> Princeton University study: Public opinion has “near-zero” impact on U.S. law.

> One thing that does have an influence? Money. While the opinions of the bottom 90% of income earners in America have a “statistically non-significant impact,” economic elites, business interests, and people who can afford lobbyists still carry major influence

Source: https://act.represent.us/sign/problempoll-fba

The study is from 2004. I'd say things have gotten a lot more "oligarchic" in the last 20 years, and seems like it might get even worse in the next few years

[llamaimperative]

That is absolutely how oligarchic systems supplant democracies.

Hitler was elected, Orban was elected, Bukele was elected.

[immibis]

And Putin and the first supreme leader of North Korea. Democracies can turn into dictatorships quickly. But don't worry - it can't happen here.

[JumpCrisscross]

> Hitler was elected, Orban was elected, Bukele was elected

None of them emerged from oligarchic political systems.

[llamaimperative]

If your argument is "the US was not a pure oligarchy 4, 8, or 12 years ago", sure.

I don't think that's what people are pointing out.

[CamperBob2]

Elites the world over are losing in democracies because they presupposed, from afar, that they knew what their constituents wanted.

... or perhaps because you've misidentified the "elites."

Voters' interests are complex, and they can't be so easily bought.

No need to buy cattle you already own. You just herd them.

[JumpCrisscross]

> perhaps because you've misidentified the "elites."

If the elites are constantly changing then the 'elites' being in power is about as threatening as the 'people' holding it.

[CamperBob2]

If the elites are constantly changing

Honestly I don't think there's a rivalry among equals in play. I think the previous "elites" slacked off on the job. What's happening now looks less like a transfer of power than a vacuum being filled.

Regardless, it is the height of absurdity to argue that the "elites" aren't in charge now. A New York billionaire teamed up with the world's wealthiest man and the country's most influential cable news network to buy the Presidency, and the rest are now lining up to pay tribute.

The other "elites," to the extent there are any, are short on ambition, short on cash, and short on media reach.

[JumpCrisscross]

> the previous "elites" slacked off on the job. What's happening now looks less like a transfer of power than a vacuum being filled

True. But this is how all depositions go. When that process is blocked is when the process stops being peaceful.

> it is the height of absurdity to argue that the "elites" aren't in charge now

Some elites are always going to be in charge. That's almost tautology. The point is there is no the elites who were in charge and are now.

> other "elites," to the extent there are any, are short on ambition, short on cash, and short on media reach

And/or. Plenty have some of those but not all, or at too stupid to know how to wield it. Point remains: we have an amorphous elite with contrasting interests who are constantly fighting because power is fractured among them.

[CamperBob2]

Some elites are always going to be in charge. That's almost tautology.

Sure, but pro-Trump voters will tell you that they were striking a blow against the "elites." Apparently rule by elites is OK, though, as long as they believe the elites in question are on their side. It's only those other elites that are the problem.

Which goes back to my earlier point: why spend money buying votes the old-fashioned way, when a personality cult can actually be profitable?