Political science recognizes an organized tendency referred to as the Iron Law of Oligarchy. Again, this is an effort to describe objective reality, and science does that using effective models.
There are three models used to analyze objective reality: elitist, pluralist, and bureaucratic. Analysts pick a model for a specific purpose. So, for example, if the objective is to predict probable events in the Middle East, using an elitist model gets close to the objective, but since power is not completely consolidated, having jurisdictional boundaries, there is also a pluralist dimension added to form a more effective, predictive model at the margin.
Models are used to predict the outcome–the effect, which is measurable, but that does not mean the outcome or the measures are actually described as being the result of the model really being used. This is the kind of ambiguity and arguable ambivalence that occurs when we talk about Fed policy, for example, and trending analysis.
The Fed has a dual mandate–low inflation and high employment, which are the measurable effects of what, exactly?
What the measurable effects are depends on the model being used, which conforms to the rule of law. If the elitist model is being used against the rule of law, there is an arguable ambivalence, and the result is a risk premium that derives from disambiguation of the argument, effectively determining the model actually being used, described then as being a standard business practice by default.
The result is an organized psychopathy, argued to be a natural condition. Everybody is expected to just accept the model as a given attribute. It just happens no matter what, forming the Iron Law, for example.
When Sanders says he is going to resist oligarchic tendencies so we can enjoy a more pluralistic model, conservatives, like Mrs. Clinton, are going to say it is unnatural–needlessly adversarial and counterproductive, like Objectivists argue.
What is the Golden Rule, here?
Is it really, like Rubio keeps saying, a model that allows the rich to get rich without making poor people poorer? If so, how do we measure that, exactly, but by always arguing it in the futures.
Using a circular argument, having a hysteron-proteron effect, keeps the right thing to do just below the horizon so that the hope never changes (just below the margin).
(Johnny Depp does a spoof on Donald Trump, for example, a work of art that imitates life, conjuring the absurdist image of objective reality in which the measure of success is the force of its natural resistance. He portrays the model of the American Dream, in the form of ignoring the golden rule, in order to know the value of its natural existence.
Since Mr. Trump has played the role of reality TV star, he is well qualified to play the role of success that, by the numbers, is destined to be resisted. Funny how he is the model of success determined to save us from the measurable effects, or is that the tragedy part of the comedy, hidden in the widening margin of errors just below the horizon.)