Tim Dickinson's How The Gop Became The Party Of The Rich

As the 2016 United States election is fast approaching, the debates on wealth inequality has once again captured the public’s attention. The society is divided in its opinion of whether the government is responsible for allowing the leading financial institutes and business tycoons to accumulate their affluence within a lax regulatory environment. Others argue that the imbalance of income distribution between the rich and the poor are just simply part of the capitalism package. In order to understand the roots of wealth inequality and to review some of the key concepts that are fundamental to these discussions, former Reuters editor Chrystia Freeland’s "Plutocrats" is a riveting account on the rise of plutocracy.

In the United States, public policy is shaped by multiple factors, from average citizens voices in elections to interest groups and organizations. In their study, “Testing theories of American politics”, scholars Benjamin Page and Martin Gilens explore the impact of average citizens, the economic elite and interest groups have on the passage of public policy. Additionally through their, Page and Gilens(2014) have found “that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while mass-based interest groups and average citizens have little or no independent influence” (Pg 535). This means that when it comes to the creation of public policies, rich people and groups

During the past couple of decades, the decline in the middle class has been associated to the political agenda of the Republican Party. By ending governmental subsidies and other programs created to build the middle class, has ultimately ceased the growth. However, realizing the importance of the middle class to our fragile economic platform, the Democratic and Independent political parties are desperately trying to create and revamp the middle class

The Gilded age was the period in U.S. history where politics had caused a halt in social advancement. The Robber Barons had become so rich and powerful that the country had plunged into an era of corruption. As illustrated in Joseph Keppler’s , “The Bosses of the Senate,” the monopolies of the rich had garnered immense influence in the government, effectively removing the people

It can be said that money is power in the United States, and this is brought out in the essay, “Class in America---2012” written by Gregory Mantsios. He says that even though many Americans do not like to discuss class, “it can determine where people live, who their friends are, how well they are educated, and what they do for a living” (Mantsios). Many Americans do not speak about class type, and most find it unacceptable (Mantsios). Unfortunately, we can see that there are laws that are built to help and better the wealthy, while it cripples the rest of us. According to the Economic Policy Institute, “The richest twenty percent of Americans hold nearly ninety percent of the total household wealth in this county” (Institute) Gregory Mantsios without reserve describes the majority of people are at a disadvantage in their social class, while the upper class is compensated.

There is no doubt that wealth inequality in America has been escalating quickly; the portion of total income earned by the top one percent has doubled since the beginning of the 1970’s. The wealthy are the main beneficiaries

The American government has struggled with the issue of taxes and the budget for over a hundred years. Class conflict, adversarial political parties, and convoluted economic philosophies have resulted in a never-ending debate over taxation. The New York Times newspaper article, “Senate Panel Vote Backs Budget Plan”, from June 1993, discusses the current feelings of the time in regards to the budget and taxation. Moreover, the article mentions factors such as democrat-republican debate, trickle down economics, and high verse low taxes for the middle class. The issues discussed in this 1993 article differ only slightly from the taxation conversation of today. However, now in 2011, we face a budget crisis that threatens the American economy

As we move closer to the 2016 national elections in the United States, claims of a growing wealth gap between the supposed “haves” and “have-nots” becomes more pronounced. Democratic Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton even went so far as to caution us that we are advancing towards a repeat of the “Gilded Age of the robber barons”. The insinuation in this claim creates a perception that there are a growing number of individuals within American society using questionable methods to increase their wealth, all at the expense of the not so fortunate. So-called culprits of these activities are often referred to as the “top 1 percent”; a term gaining a strong foothold in our current vernacular. Although the existence of an income inequality gap is evident, subjectively misinterpreted data is the primary culprit driving the perception that the income inequality gap is expanding.

Without a doubt, the gilded era mocks a political corruption in post–Civil War in America. The term Glided era deserves the title for its rotten underlying system, marked by monopoly and oligopoly system, where the wealthy became richer and the poor disfavored. Although great economic growth occurred through railroads, technology, and industries, the working class was brainwashed to accept the idea of social Darwinism while the great tycoons like Rockefeller, Vanderbilt, and Carnegie would get the biggest piece of the pie while controlling the worker’s class. The government’s laissez-faire’s attitude generated corrupted politics, whom considered only their personal interests. In other words, America was controlled by the wealthy and corrupted

In Nicholas Kristof’s article “America’s Stacked Deck,” his main point is to inform readers about the rigged economic system. Kristof presents this problem by addressing the faults with both political parties. He claims that majority of people represented by the political system are wealthy and explains that the changes being made do not benefit ordinary people. Kristof reassures his readers that they have a right to be angry and demand change, but blaming somebody is not the way to seek a solution. Kristof suggests that targeting solutions is more logical and beneficial than participating in scapegoats. He depicts that reducing the influence of money in politics is a starting point that must be orchestrated, while also reducing inequality. He persuades the readers to

Rich people’s movements at first glance are a tradition of failure. However, the more accurate assessment is a tradition of making a big ruckus through grassroots movements because of policy threats, but then fizzle out of the public eye when the threats didn’t pan out. Sometimes, though, radical proposals like Clark and Jarvis’s balanced budget influence policies even when they are not ratified. Their movement’s demands had an influence on the provisions of the ERTA of 1981 (Martin 2013). Since rich people’s movements traditionally align with the interests of conservative Republicans, “a movement may be most influential when its grassroots campaign is timed to match a window of political opportunity opened by its partisan allies in office” (Martin 2013:203). In the case of Clark and Jarvis, they took advantage of the political opportunity Ronald Reagan’s conservative government gave them and clever policy crafting that would appease

Wealth in relation to the upper class is defined not as income, but “the value of everything a person or family owns, minus any debts” (Domhoff 2005). Income according to Domhoff, “is what people earn from work, but also from dividends, interest, and any rents or royalties that are paid to them on properties they own” (Domhoff 2011). Those who own a great deal of wealth do not derive it from income, although they may have a high income resulting from the returns on their wealth. (Domhoff 2011) As for the power the upper class wields on politics, the economy and the government, it is indirectly carried out “through the activities of a wide variety of organizations and institutions. These organizations and institutions are financed and directed by those members of the upper class who have the interest and ability to involve themselves in protecting and enhancing the privileged social position of their class” (Domhoff 2005). This description of the upper class by Domhoff provides the basis for the argument that it institutionally exist - an organized, cohesive group set apart by its wealth and power.

The government in the United States supposedly revolves around American ideals such as equality and diversity; however, this is simply not the case as perpetuated by class inequalities. The meaning of democracy has been skewed in the United States to represent something entirely different than it did in 1776. Today, American democracy behaves more like an aristocracy, where the upper class exercises power within the government and state, influencing discourse and therefore the laws and resources in our country, which are purportedly “for the people”. Democracy is presumed to provide everyone with equal political power, but the government in today’s America, although seemingly following this ideal model, does not. Instead, the elite upper class has a monopoly over the political influence and are the sole benefactors from public policies due to their influence over the policy making process. The upper class has an overall benefit from class inequality, as it greatly impacts American ‘democracy’ through the significant power gained through money and status, leadership roles that impact government, and the influence in the policymaking process that creates upper class advantages.

The United States of America was once renowned for and demarcated by the size and successfulness of its middle class. Currently, America faces a shrinking middle class and a new rising oligarchy that is creating the largest wealth disparity in eighty years. Robert B. Reich wrote Saving Capitalism: For the Many, Not the Few, for the sole purpose of exposing the reasons why the wealthy get wealthier and poor get poorer. Reich contends that the free market vs government debate serves as a means of distraction, covering up the real issues of the top one percent reaping economic gains. Reich states in the book that the “free market” is a myth that prevents us from examining the rule changes and questioning who they serve. Reich further states “it is no accident that those with disproportionate influence over these rules, who are the largest beneficiaries of how the rules have been designed and adapted, are also among the most passionate supporters of the “free market” and the most ardent advocates of the relative superiority of the market over the government.”

The era of volatility has created a shift from America being the middle-class society to simply rich or poor (Sachs, 2011). A gap this large has not been experienced since the 1920’s (Sachs). “The top 1% of households takes almost a quarter of all household income” but an economy this top heavy will not be able to succeed (Sachs, 2011, p. 30). The working classes are struggling with housing, wage, and employment issues. Rich individuals are ignoring these troubles, shipping their business operations out of the country, thus furthering the downward spiral of the economy (Sachs). To make matters worse, this has become in a large part a political issue, because the rich can influence candidates with funding, where the poor and working