1% versus 99% -- is this the modus operandi of American politics?

Since the "occupy wall street" movement started in NYC, and through its expansion across the US and the world, there is one consistent message that is coming out of it: the current imbalance of 1% taking more than 99% does not work any longer. This disequilibrium has and will come to an end somehow. The only remaining question is "how and at what cost."

On October 31st, a majority of countries (107 yes versus 14 no) voted for the recognition of Palestine as a full member of the UNESCO. Despite the overwhelming majority of those in favor, the United States proceeded to withdraw its contribution to the agency that constitutes 20% of its total funding.

What was fascinating to me about this move was the similarity between this and what the "occupy wall street" movement is protesting against: a small minority having full control over a large majority. By withdrawing the funding, the US tried to show the world "who the boss is." Is this any different from those hedge fund CEOs and monied individuals who threaten to move 'their' capital from one State to another should the legislature refuses to listen to their tax concerns!? Is it different from when big banks and financial institutions directly and indirectly declared that if they don't get bailed-out by tax payer money, they will take the entire economy down with them (suicide bombing style)?

These to me are all manifestations of the same imbalance and disequilibrium. A few have the power and the money to rule over many in a purely authoritarian manner. It seems that in the world of realpolitik, democracy is only good for amateurs!