Heck no and no. Good grief, what are they teaching in schools these days?

I don’t normally do this kind of immediate reaction to events but I’m going to make an exception today. Dr. Steve Turley brought up a study on one of his videos today that I’m going to take major issue with that relates to the Tucker Carlson ouster. I like Dr. Steve despite his being pretty stuck on the whole ‘civilization state’ idea that I find absurd and I tend to agree with him on most issues but for the record I am not criticizing his commentary.

That stupid study is a whole ‘nother matter. First, I haven’t read it. The gist I got from Dr. Steve is that Princeton cross referenced policy outcomes to poll results by income. That’s just poli sci for they looked to see if policy outcome matched to income bracket. According to Dr. Steve, they found that it did.

Then they concluded that this meant the US is an oligarchy. I swear, I’ve seen first graders that understood scientific reasoning better than that. So, being a good little political scientist, I looked up an article about it. The BBC cites a 2014 study. I believe this is the article in Dr. Turley’s video.

If I were being a really good little political scientist, I’d pull the study and read it. But since the articles I skimmed describe the same idiotic methodology, I will pass. Now, that’s inherently unfair and I know it. Don’t think I’m PROVING diddly squat because I’m not. Proof requires really digging in and analyzing the study. All I’m doing is commenting on the reported methodology.

But the converse is also true. Please stop thinking that a single study is proof of ANYTHING because it isn’t. Results that can’t be replicated or faulty methodology both disqualify a study. So until a methodology passes muster and the results are returned in an independent study, it’s just a study, not a proof.

First problem: polls are ALWAYS cross sectional. Fancy schmancy for polls measure only a single moment of time. This means that a poll only tells you what people were thinking the day they took the poll, assuming it was done correctly. If they change their minds later, a poll can’t show that.

The problem of wealth in politics is that money can buy a lot of things besides direct influence (bribery is still illegal). It can buy all kinds of marketing and PR advertising aimed at getting people to change their minds. In fact, this is a LOT of what wealthy people do when what they want conflicts with public opinion. So if we poll about Issue X and wait until it is resolved, usually months later, have rich people bought ads to change the public’s mind? If so, it’s not an oligarchy.

No one bothers to try to influence the powerless in politics. If America were a true oligarchy, there would be no point in trying to influence voters and a whole lot of people and parties are wasting a whole lot of money.

Second: let’s assume that the correlation the study finds is actually causative (correlation isn’t necessarily causative) and rich people tend to get their way a lot. That doesn’t prove an oligarchy. Given how often they don’t get their way, it would better fit an outsized influence of wealth on political outcomes. Don’t let the fancy words get in the way – they aren’t the same thing.

Oligarchy is being ruled by the wealthy. Russia is only technically an oligarchy because Putin is rich. It is more correctly an authoritarian system AKA a dictatorship. China is a totalitarian dictatorship. The difference is that Xi seems to have more complete control than Putin. Neither is an oligarchy because they aren’t ruled by a wealthy class despite their upper leadership frequently being wealthy. Power coming before wealth is the difference.

I think a very good case can be made that America needs a good old fashioned round or two of trust busting and I strongly suspect that’s coming, but that is a far cry from a true oligarchy. Look at the supposed representatives: Gates, Musk, Zuckerberg, Bezos, Soros, Buffet. Most of these guys don’t come from monied backgrounds. Either they created an oligarchy while we weren’t looking or they aren’t running the country from their status. We’d expect to see more ‘old money’ as oligarchs would prefer to keep their power within their ‘family’ or at least their class.

So why dredge up a 2014 study if America isn’t a failed state? Simple, the more hopeless people feel, the less they will try to change things. If Americans start believing this nonsense they will start believing that they have no agency – no ability to change things. The more of this ‘you can’t win’ and ‘you’ve already lost’ crap the Left can get Americans to believe, the more power they will gain.

And what better time than after what feels like a major blow, like the loss of Tucker Carlson?

I am strongly suspicious of the timing of Carlson’s ouster. It comes on the heels of the Bud Light fiasco which is a major coup for the Right as well as on the same day as Don Lemmon’s firing, a loss for the Left. Hysterically, it also knocked Joe Biden’s announcement that he is running for the 2024 Democrat Party Nomination clean off the news cycle.

Carlson’s ouster gave the Left a much needed, if totally Pyrrhic, victory. Gee, must be a coincidence, huh?

I don’t believe in coincidence, especially not in politics. If the Left can convince conservatives that they are losing it stands a chance of breaking the boycott and taking a lot of the wind out of the Right’s sails.

The other reason that Carlson’s ouster isn’t proof of a grand oligarchy is that Fox is taking a major financial hit. Stocks fell significantly over the announcement that Carlson was out at Fox. Fox bled viewers after the 2020 election debacle and this won’t improve matters. Alternatives exist and people will eventually figure out that watching people who hate you is dumb.

Why the hit if people have no power? Those aren’t individuals – those are stockholders spooked by the ouster. They are concerned that Fox will lose value – and rightly so. Why would that be the case if our rich overlords can just spend a few billion and convince us to tune back in to CNN?

Obviously, because they can’t.

The next week’s ratings will likely be somewhere below the gutter. Even more Bud Light will likely get left on the store shelves. People are voting with their wallets.

At this rate, they may just vote these wannabe oligarchs out of house and home.