Pro Case

Resolved: In the United States, current income disparities threaten democratic ideals.

Definitions:
Income: The amount of monetary or other returns, either earned or unearned, accruing over a given period
of time (World English Dictionary)
Democracy: A government in which supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly
or indirectly though a system of representation usually involving periodically held elections
Abraham Lincoln (1863 Gettysburg Address): Government of the people, by the people, for the people
People: The citizens of a country, especially when considered in relation to those who govern them (World
English Dictionary)
Threaten: To announce as intended or possible (Merriam-Webster Dictionary)

Judge, we would like to draw your attention particularly to the word threaten. Please take a look
at the wording of the resolution: In the United States, current income disparities threaten democratic ideals.
Does it indicate the degree to which the democratic ideals must be threatened? No. Therefore we would
like to introduce our case with the parameters of the affirmatives victory. If it can be verified that there is
even the slightest chance that democratic ideals may be threatened, we are deemed victorious. On the
other hand, our opposition must prove that there is a complete and undeniable impossibility that democratic
ideals are threatened by income disparities. They must establish that even with economic inconsistencies,
the democratic government is still indeed one that is of, by, and for the people.

Contention 1: Political outcomes are swayed largely by the wealthy upper class.
Frederick Solt, Professor of Political Science at Southern Illinois University, recently published his
research regarding the relationship between economic inequality and engagement in politics. Through a
series of national surveys he was able to report that there is a direct correlation between the two. In other
words, as a persons income declines, his or her interest, discussion, and participation in politics also
decrease. What can we conclude from this? Despite the statement, We the people found in the Preamble
of the Constitution, America is gradually moving towards a plutocracy, or rule by the affluent, the wealthy
few.
The right to vote is one of the most fundamental features of democracy, and therefore among its
most threatened. The American Political Science Association reports that only about half of all eligible
voters participate in the presidential election while a mere third shows up for congressional elections. The
statistics present another viewpoint to these numbers. Nine out of ten families with an income of $75,000 or
higher choose to vote for the president while less than half of those with an income of $15,000 or less are
known to do the same. Thus it is difficult to say that our nations leaders are chosen by the people, as
Abraham Lincoln intended it to be. They are rather chosen by the wealthy, the very definition of plutocracy.
In todays money driven world, it is almost impossible for a politician to gain enough publicity
without proper external funding. The American Political Science Association emphasizes that 95% of
households that made a financial contribution, worked in an electoral campaign, got in touch with a public
official, or joined a political organization in the election year 2000 were among the wealthiest in the nation.
Lets take a look at the most recent presidential election. In 2008, the top contributors to Barack Obamas
campaigns were private institutions and large corporations, such as Harvard, Microsoft, and Google. To add
on, Gar Alperovitz, Professor of Political Economy at the University of Maryland states that this
phenomenon arises due to the fact that the rich have superior education, more time, more developed

skills, greater personal security, and far greater and access and experience in managing politics and
government. In congressional campaigns, he noted that 81% of those who give at least $200 have an
income of $100,000 or more per year, while 46% make over $250,000.
What do the rich gain from providing monetary aid to these politicians? The answer is relatively
simple: power. Bill Moyers, in his 2004 speech, quoted two Time Magazine journalists saying, The
fortunate few who contribute to the right politicians and hire the right lobbyists enjoy all the benefits of their
special status. Make a bad business deal; the government bails them out. If they want to hire workers at
below market wages, the government provides the means to do so. If they want more time to pay their
debts, the government gives them an extension. If they want immunity from certain laws, the government
gives it. If they want to ignore rules their competition must comply with, the government gives its approval.
If they want to kill legislation that is intended for the public, it gets killed.
Contention 2: Income disparities are undermining the American economy and society.
In the words of Frdric Bastiat, a French political economist, a stable democratic government is
one where law is justice and Under such a regime, there would be the most prosperity. In recent years,
income disparities have clearly gone against these definitions, undermining the American democratic
system. For example, in 1999, Congress passed the Community Reinvestment Act, which allowed lowincome families to take out loans and own a home. The repercussions of this legislations were utterly
disastrous as mortgages could not be paid, causing a rapid decline in real estate values, and leading to one
of the worst recessions since the FDR administration. This subprime mortgage crisis is still one of the
largest problems being handled today.
Michael T. Klare, a professor of Peace and World Security Studies, states that as people lose
confidence in the ability of the government to fix such economic crises, violent protests and assaults are

bound to occur. Countries such as China, Bulgaria, and Greece have faced similar difficulties. Cities like
Dublin have experienced large scale protests over rising unemployment and falling wages. The Heritage
Foundation informs that 30% of American citizens are now living off of welfare while 53% are not paying
any tax money. Social upheavals such as the occupy movement are also troubling politicians by disabling
them from focusing on other important issues of the day.
Conclusion: We conclude with this quote from Larry Bartels, professor of Politics and Public Affairs at
Princeton University. Inequality poses a crucial challenge to Americas democratic ideals. For the
mentioned reasons, we would like to urge a pro ballot. Thank you.