Democracies can only be stable when the majority of the population believes that it is the only legitimate form of government. Although this seems intuitive, democracy has slowly been eroding. Roberto For and Yascha Mounk say that even though Americans still have emotional attachment to the Constitution, the norms that have kept the system stable are being disregarded. A main influence on this erosion is wealth and prosperity. Politics has become more of a business, with those who can pay their way to the top leading. As mentioned last class, candidates are not chosen freely, but rather are part of a larger system. Candidates who can afford to make campaigns and who have a large social backing can make their way into power, while those who may have better intentions and more “democratic” values are left in the dust. This article touches on how the rich are more likely to be critical of democracy than the poor, yet in majority of the situations, the rich are funding democracy. I don’t quite understand this statement, or maybe it was just a generalization. I think that since the wealthy are more skeptical, they are more willing to pay legislators and politicians in order to influence their decisions. One of the most important sentences in this article was, “Economic elites and narrow interest groups were very influential, while the views of the ordinary citizens and mass based interest groups had virtually no impact.” This reveals that the majority does not rule. Because of this, democracy cannot function properly, as it is led by self interested leaders with their eye on the bank accounts. In order to fix this situation, there needs to be reform between the government and Wall Street/economy, somehow blocking leaders from being influenced by outside sources.
Introduction to Comparative Politics: Nationalism, Ideology, and State Power
Professor Shervin Malekzadeh
Getting your music heard on Pandora can be testing, however purchasing Pandora plays from Dragcast can give your tracks enough openness. In this article, we’ll see the reason why purchasing Pandora plays matters, how Dragcast conveys genuine plays to assist you with getting seen, and tips to capitalize on this special help. Whether you’re a yearning or laid out craftsman, read on to figure out how Pandora plays can take your music further.
Napster was a music streaming service that was popular in the early 2000s. Playlist placement refers to the position of a particular song or playlist on a music service’s playlist carousel or grid. There are several ways to promote your playlist placement on music platforms, including purchasing ads or engaging with the platform’s community. Keep in mind that these methods may require payment and do not guarantee specific placement. Additionally, music promotion can be challenging and may require a lot of effort before seeing results.
In general, to attract attention to your project, you need to attract the attention of the target audience. For example, to make Instagram posts more engaging and influential, you can buy likes instagram. This site offers the ability to buy likes, which can dramatically increase the appeal of your posts. An increase in the number of likes contributes to higher activity on the page, which is important for attracting new followers.
I think you bring up an important point that money has become a large arbiter of power within the United States. I think, however, that Zakaria does not view majority rule as a solution to the decline in democracies throughout the world. I think it is important to note the correlation between the increase in wealth inequality and populist movements throughout the United States and Europe. While there were outside candidates in both Trump and Sanders that gained a popular following in the last election cycle, I disagree with the idea that populism rules the United States. While a populist politician was elected there is still not open elections in the United States, I think this last election was the exception to the rule. Polarization has become problematic and I think the winner take all dynamic within the United States has contributed to the decrease in democratic institutions and that this had led to populism as the primary frustration with the current U.S. government is overall inaction.
I definitely agree with your central argument Sasha, that wealth inequality is a large reason for the crumbling of liberal democracy. Katrina is right that Trump ran a populist campaign that had a strong focus on the rural poor, but the fact remains that the majority of Trump supporters earn at least $50,000 every year, putting them well in the middle class. That’s not even mentioning that someone like Trump could never have run if he didn’t have a large amount of money to start with. As long as our leaders solely consist of people with large amounts of money, they’re going to continue to cater towards people like them, a small minority of the country, and liberal democracy will continue on its path to plutocracy, if we’re not already there.
I agree that there is a strong relationship between wealth inequality and the erosion of liberal democracy. The Foa and Mounk article highlights the effects of tying political power to a minority of wealthy elites. However, I disagree that this process ultimately means that the majority does not rule. One consequence of the increasing wealth disparity has been a rise of populism in the U.S. and Europe. In the last U.S. election, populist candidates ran on both sides of the political spectrum. Bernie Sanders invigorated the left with rallies against Wall Street and the ‘one percent’, while Trump appealed to the rural poor and railed against career politicians. I think that the election of Donald Trump indicates that the majority (of the electoral college) does rule, and it is this majority rule and its inherent populist tendencies that ultimately undermine liberal democracy.