media-cross dressing....

From Counter Punch

...

So, perhaps one explanation for Republicans winning most political contests is that most Americans are voting their ideological self-identity instead of their Party self-identity and their actual policy-positions and policy-values — which are liberal. If that’s so, then one might say that the conservative mystique ever since the time of Ronald Reagan overwhelms voters’ Party affiliation and policy-positions and thus determines their actual voting, more than anything rational actually does.

Perhaps part of this conundrum is also a result of Americans being heavily inundated with conservative propaganda from the aristocracy, who are overwhelmingly conservative.

For example, a study, to appear in the Fall 2014 issue of the academic journal Perspectives on Politics, finds that the U.S. is no democracy, but instead an oligarchy, meaning profoundly corrupt, ruled by an aristocracy, so that the answer to the study’s opening question, “Who governs? Who really rules?” in this country, is:

“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, …” and then they go on to say, it’s not true, and that, “America’s claims to being a democratic society are seriously threatened” by the findings in this, the first-ever comprehensive scientific study of the subject, which shows that there is instead “the nearly total failure of ‘median voter’ and other Majoritarian Electoral Democracy theories [of America]. When the preferences of economic elites and the stands of organized interest groups are controlled for, the preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy.”

To put it short: The United States is no democracy, but actually an oligarchy.

The authors of this historically important study are Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page, and their article is titled “Testing Theories of American Politics.” The authors clarify that the data available are probably under-representing the actual extent of control of the U.S. by the super-rich:

“Economic Elite Domination theories do rather well in our analysis, even though our findings probably understate the political influence of elites. Our measure of the preferences of wealthy or elite Americans – though useful, and the best we could generate for a large set of policy cases – is probably less consistent with the relevant preferences than are our measures of the views of ordinary citizens or the alignments of engaged interest groups. Yet we found substantial estimated effects even when using this imperfect measure. The real-world impact of elites upon public policy may be still greater.”

Nonetheless, this is the first-ever scientific study of the question of whether the U.S. is a democracy. “Until recently it has not been possible to test these contrasting theoretical predictions [that U.S. policymaking operates as a democracy, versus as an oligarchy, versus as some mixture of the two] against each other within a single statistical model. This paper reports on an effort to do so, using a unique data set that includes measures of the key variables for 1,779 policy issues.” That’s an enormous number of policy-issues studied.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/04/15/the-contradictions-of-the-american-electorate/

Today's must-read

The US is dominated by a rich and powerful elite.

So concludes a recent study by Princeton University Prof Martin Gilens and Northwestern University Prof Benjamin I Page.

This is not news, you say.

Perhaps, but the two professors have conducted exhaustive research to try to present data-driven support for this conclusion. Here's how they explain it:

Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organised groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on US government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence.

In English: the wealthy few move policy, while the average American has little power.

The two professors came to this conclusion after reviewing answers to 1,779 survey questions asked between 1981 and 2002 on public policy issues. They broke the responses down by income level, and then determined how often certain income levels and organised interest groups saw their policy preferences enacted.

"A proposed policy change with low support among economically elite Americans (one-out-of-five in favour) is adopted only about 18% of the time," they write, "while a proposed change with high support (four-out-of-five in favour) is adopted about 45% of the time."

On the other hand:

When a majority of citizens disagrees with economic elites and/or with organised interests, they generally lose. Moreover, because of the strong status quo bias built into the US political system, even when fairly large majorities of Americans favour policy change, they generally do not get it.

They conclude:

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 organisations and a small number of affluent Americans, then America's claims to being a democratic society are seriously threatened.

Eric Zuess, writing in Counterpunch, isn't surprised by the survey's results.

"American democracy is a sham, no matter how much it's pumped by the oligarchs who run the country (and who control the nation's "news" media)," he writes. "The US, in other words, is basically similar to Russia or most other dubious 'electoral' 'democratic' countries. We weren't formerly, but we clearly are now."

http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746

---------------------------

On a smaller scale, Australia is in the same basket... It boils down very quickly as to "who control the nation's "news" media" as mentioned above. Uncle Rupe is a warrior for the elite. Not the elite with say scientific intelligence but the elite of geezers who are cunning enough to place their hands in your pocket and "steal" your cash... Well they don't steal as much as make you buy stuff that suits a particular infrastructure of cash rotation in which they have invested, including your debts. Advertising and "news" are the crucial centre of this loop, in which we, the plebs, run like hamsters to make the wheel turn, while the rich smoke the cigars... 

The "news" cycle and the spruikers for the right wing masters is important as to make sure we don't awake from the matrix... Those like us, here on this site, who cry foul say at an Abbott, have basically no chance to be heard... Presently, the news is being swamped by the little royals tour. At no point during the news report is the anachronism of such a tour going to be mentioned. But the dresses, the bows, the smiles and all the pomps will be "regaled" upon. Traditions runs the roost, even in one of the most egalitarian country on earth, such as Australia. We don't question those traditions that have been written in deceit, in blood and that have used dubious alliances to create "superior dynasties". This is what it's all about: a dynasty with the self-appointed "godly right" to be at the top of the tree. Inconceivable.

Rupert Murdoch may be about to throw his support behind Hillary Clinton as the first performers appear in the next U.S. presidential circus, writes Rodney E. Lever.

The next United States presidential election is still a year and a half away, but speculation about the most likely candidates has already begun.

The idea of a woman president is beginning to enter the minds of U.S. voters for the first time in its history.

Unlike Australia, where election fever usually only lasts for a few weeks, theU.S. election program is always the longest and most ballyhooed political event in the world, and dominates headlines for more than a year. Nowhere else is an election such a long-running drama that climaxes in November voting and runs until the winning candidate takes the oath of office in January 2016.

Rupert Murdoch is merely a minor element in U.S. elections. He loves to feel he is central and important, but he will never be able to exercise the level of influence in America that he has shown in Australia and Britain.

Rupert has always played his cards on both sides of the political fence. His history has bounced between conservative politics and Labor — whoever will give him the best deal, the most power, the best financial return.

In America, in recent years, he has had to concede his debt to the Wall Street Republicans and bankers who saved him from the edge of bankruptcy. His Republican-Tea Party loyalty may be thinning now as he considers his own immediate future and that of his two sons.

read more: http://www.independentaustralia.net/business/business-display/the-next-us-president-the-murdoch-clinton-match,6409

See toon at top...

Eugene Robinson

Writes about politics and culture in twice-a-week columns and on the PostPartisan blog.

Republican panic at the prospect of facing Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential race has suddenly reached Godzilla-nearing-Tokyo proportions.

The election is more than two years away, and Clinton hasn’t even decided whether to run. But none of this seems to matter to the GOP strategists and spinmeisters who are launching the whole arsenal at her — smears, innuendo, false charges. Already, they’ve moved beyond distorting her record to simply making stuff up.

As these damp squibs clatter harmlessly to the ground, it’s useful to remember that Clinton has seen it all before. And I mean all . Anyone who thinks she’ll be rattled or intimidated hasn’t been paying attention the past few decades.

read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/eugene-robinson-clinton-gets-the-gop-treatment/2014/05/15/6e3eaf4a-dc60-11e3-8009-71de85b9c527_story.html

The Murdoch's are under deep pressure over Rupert and James' roles in alleged criminal UK phone hacking, which could see the family empire come crashing down, writes Rodney E Lever.

THE MURDOCHS are hedging their bets on the next US presidential election. It is another signal of their fear that their power within the media could one day come crashing down with all the force of an irresistible mudslide. 

The younger of Rupert’s two sons, James Murdoch, is quietly throwing money at the Democrats, as well as the Republicans, who his dad has been more than generously supporting since Ronald Reagan was President.

Rupert Murdoch is still seen regularly turning up at candidate parties and fund-raising, but is showing less enthusiasm for the current Republican presidential hopefuls. Some who believed they had his support are beginning to plead more anxiously for his favour, while he has never denied the rumour that he might offer his full support to the likely Democrat candidate, Hillary Clinton.

James Murdoch has donated $2,600 of his own money to the elderly Republican Senate Minority Leader, Mitch McConnell, to help McConnell’s primary election campaign; plus another $2,400 to McConnell’s general election fund. On the other hand James has made donations to no less than five Democrat candidates and a further donation to the Republican Congressional Committee.

Unlike in Australia, where politicians try to hide the back-handed donations they receive, the United States is awash with well-publicised political generosity. The Murdoch involvement seems to have a meaning of its own that smacks of the recent revelations of the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) in New South Wales, which is where Rupert began to lift his career far beyond the level of the ordinary media magnate and far greater than the level of power once held by his own father and the Packer and the Fairfax families.

read more: http://www.independentaustralia.net/business/business-display/murdoch-and-the-law,6492

See toon at top... and pay attention to the story below it:

Murdoch said his strongest disagreements with Paul were about foreign policy. He also was asked if he could “envision” Hillary Clinton as president.

“I could live with Hillary as president. We have to live with who we get. We don’t have any choice,” said Murdoch

Please note that Uncle Rupe and his media empire work hard to support whomever he wants to get... In Australia his empire sub-branch, News Corp, has worked tirelessly to control the entire media and to promote the dorkest kid on the beach to the role of PM. Ugly.