Political and Economic Elites

I submit that in virtually every political party, a distinction can be made between the “rank and file” and the political elite. Kamala Harris may have lost to Donald Trump in the 2024 U.S. federal-presidential race in part because Harris had not spoken out enough on economic issues amid soaring inflation on groceries and rents to gain traction with Democratic and Independent voters who had had enough of the “woke” ideological agenda, which includes, for example, moral pressure and even demands that people announce their “pronouns” before speaking. Although President Biden had initiated some anti-trust judicial action, the industry-oligopoly of meat producers, for example, was left untouched. So too were the mega-grocery-store chains. Kroger was later found to have spiked egg and milk prices above the increased costs with impunity, yet Harris did not suggest that the Sherman or Clayton anti-trust acts should be taken out of the garage for spin on the American judicial highways that connect the rank-and-file party-members to party elites mainly in New England, New York, and California. I contend that U.S. Senator Bernie Sander’s anti-oligopoly speeches in conservative Congressional districts gained such numbers in 2025 precisely because the Democratic Party’s elite had lost touch with the party’s “rank and file” voters on economic issues.[1]

In early May, 2025, Faiz Shakir, a top advisor to Sanders, castigated elected Democrats who want “to talk down to” voters as if ordinary people are “just too dumb to understand the general notions of powerful elites running” the show, presumably both in politics and business.[2] I don’t think it is lost on many Democratic voters that Democratic office-holders taking campaign donations from oligopolistic companies have been less than willing to urge the U.S. Department of Justice to prosecute large companies on the basis of restraint of trade. Virtually no elected official in government who takes a significant amount of “corporate cash” would be willing to propose a law strengthening anti-trust law such that governments in the U.S. would have a duty to restore monopolistic and oligopolistic industries to market-competition even if the existing firms are not colluding on price or other matters.

For example, since its early days, Facebook (then Meta) has actively bought out budding potential competitors. Social media became an oligopolistic industry in part because of that strategy. Whether or not Meta has engaged in restraint of trade, the U.S. Department of Justice could be given the legal mandate to break up the large American social-media companies in order to bring about a competitive industry. A monopolistic or oligopolistic industry cannot be counted upon to metamorphosize itself naturally into a competitive market; rather, the reverse tends to occur. Hence the need for government to act to perpetuate competition in industries.

This is not to say that Democratic and Independent voters would or should accept Sanders’ platforms of “Medicare for All” and free college-tuition at public colleges and universities. Rather, his “relentless focus on economic policy” could have improved his party’s chances to retain the federal presidency by countering “swing voters’ belief [that] Democrats are too close to feckless institutions and too obsessed with culture war issues.”[3] U.S. Senator Chris Murphy, also a Democrat, observed about six months after the 2024 election, “We viewed people like Bernie as an outlier threat to the institutional Democratic Party, when in fact what he was talking about and is still talking about is the crossover message. And it pulls Trump voters back into the Democratic coalition.”[4] Both the Hilary-Clinton-dominated party elite in 2016, which was rather unfair to Sanders, and the Kamala-Harris presumptive-nominee fiat in 2024 demonstrate the lack of willingness of the party’s elite to select its nominees for president by competitive (and fair, open) contests. This lack of political competition mirrors the lack of economic competition that has continued to plague many American industries at the expense of consumers.

Lest the attention on price-spikes from President Trump’s tariffs monopolize the public discourse on prices that American consumers must pay to have even staple products, another, more widespread, reason for higher prices may be right under their proverbial noses and yet many Americans, both as voters and consumers, may continue to be oblivious to the bad odor of greed that has fueled collusion not only within industries, but also between business and government. An anti-elite populism preached by Democratic candidates and office-holders who refuse corporate donations could really make a difference in setting the Democratic Party apart from not only Trump’s Republican Party, but also the status quo itself, whose gravitas can be likened to that of the Earth in its magnitude and relentlessness. Elites may have such a foothold in American politics and business that many party-members and consumers may be left with only a vague instinctual sense that “the gig is rigged.” For the powers that are able to frame the contours of debates on issues, including on which issues will be debated publicly, do so with a keen eye on retaining and even gaining power and wealth. Hence making the contours explicit, and uncovering the underlying vested interests, is vital to restoring bottom-up democracy and competitive markets in the United States. Faith in American democracy may boil down to the precipitate of ordinary people resisting entrenched, powerful interests even in their own political parties.

---

1. An oligopoly is an industry in which a few companies dominate. An oligopoly is between a monopoly and a competitive market. Prices on products can be higher than necessary, the surplus revenue going to profits. Sellers are price-takers rather than price-setters in a competitive market, whereas companies in an oligopolistic industry have sufficient market-power to set prices because consumers have few choices.

2. Igor Bobic, “Bernie Sanders: Resisting Trump Is ‘Not Good Enough’,” The Huffington Post, May 6, 2025.

3. Ibid.

4. Ibid.

An Analysis of the 2024 U.S. Presidential Election: On a Party's Self-Serving Elite

The 2024 U.S. Presidential election warrants a post-partem analysis, not so much to affix blame, but primarily so the electorate might grasp the perils when the elite of a political party refuses to apply self-restraint in order to keep the party-wide platform and campaign speeches from reducing to the elite’s own favorite ideology even though it is not held by a significant number of the “rank and file” members (i.e., voters), not to mention independents. In other words, running a massive political party to serve the ideological agenda of what Bertrand Russell calls “the inner ring” can cost a party dearly on election day. I contend that this applied to the Democratic Party, which had become a center-left party still dependent on its non-college, working-class, members, whose cultural values were not necessarily progressive. To be sure, substituting managerially-oriented political calculation for visionary leadership and broad policy proposals that are based on principles rather than particular political interests can easily be perceived generally as small, especially in the context of the horrific military attacks against civilians in Ukraine and Gaza. It is paradoxical that Harris lost working-class voters who were socially conservative, and thus “anti-woke” (e.g., against men in women’s bathrooms and playing in women’s sports) even as she lost some liberals who believed that Harris, in explicitly stating on The View that she would not deviate from Biden, was too timid in standing up to Russia’s Putin (e.g., by withholding long-range missiles) and Israel’s Netanyahu rather than enabling the horrific military crimes against humanity with continued shipments of weapons as if the UN’s court were irrelevant to international law.

I begin with the immediate historical context of center-left parties. The parties on the left in the U.S. and E.U. shifted to the center in the 1990s and 2000s. The parties were able to pick up moderate voters, but at the risk of losing ideological distinctiveness (from the center-right parties), and thus their raison d’etre in terms of broad principles and policies.  The 2024 U.S. Presidential election can be fit within the broader shifts since the 2000s that have rendered center-left (rather than far-left, or even socialist) parties less successful in elections. Bill Clinton brought the Democratic Party closer to the center in part due to the losses of Edward Kennedy in challenging the center-left Jimmy Carter in 1980 and of Walter Mondale in challenging Ronald Reagan in 1984. The party’s political elite paid attention to these losses, which went down like lead balloons, and Bill Clinton was a result of the ensuing effort to move the party closer to the political center. Crucially, both he and Barak Obama were able to win with support from the middle class (i.e., labor), which was still primarily voting on the basis of economic interest, including redistribution.

Then, two shifts began that caused the Democratic Party’s working-class, relatively conservative, faction to gradually peel off. The first shift can be described as a negative reaction to the increasingly business-friendly aspect of the party moving to the center. Historically, center-left parties in North America and Europe were critical of capitalism and wanted to constrain it. In reaction to the financial crisis of 2008, however, center-left parties let go of the even more important role of constraining capitalism that had frozen up from within due to uncorrected increased market volatility.

In the E.U. state of Greece, for example, the Syriza Party campaigned against austerity measures during the state’s legislative election in 2015 by promising to renegotiate the state’s bailout agreements. However, just after winning the election, the party’s head, Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras, accepted the existing austerity conditions in spite of there having recently been a referendum in which the Greek citizens overwhelmingly rejected those very conditions. Considering that the austerity resulting from the government’s required budget-cuts was especially harsh on the working class, Tsipras’ betrayal in going along with the creditor-beholden E.U. state of Germany doubtlessly cost the center-left party votes and Tsipras was ultimately defeated (though strangely, after being reelected again).  

In the U.S., Barak Obama entered the office of federal president in 2008 at the worst of the financial crisis, and he stocked his administration with plenty of folks from Wall Street. It is no coincidence that Obama went along with financial bailouts for the banks without conditions, even in terms of putting ceilings on the bonuses of the banks’ executives. Considering that they had displayed incredibly bad judgment in over-leveraging their respective banks by packaging and even buying bonds based on risky sub-prime residential mortgages, the bankers not only did not deserve bonuses, but arguably should have been fired as a condition of getting the funds appropriated by Congress and those created by the Federal Reserve Bank. Instead, the culpable bankers received hefty bonuses out of the TARP money provided by the U.S. Treasury—money that was supposed to be lent out to stimulate the economy so the working class would not suffer from traumatic unemployment. It was not lost on the Democratic Party’s non-college working-class segment that the incompetent but wealthy bank executives got bonuses in the political elite and the financial elite being cozy. Ironically, it was not until the first Trump administration that Treasury issued checks to every American.

Unfortunately, the trajectory of the partial unraveling of the Democratic Party is not so simple, for it was not only the growing perception that the party had joined de facto with the Republican Party in siding with corporate America at the expense of workers that caused the latter to gradually but steadily peel off from the center-left party—after having asked, perhaps, what was still left about the Democratic Party.

Firstly, structural changes in the economy also had an impact. Economic inequality was increasing, and workers could see that the Democratic Party had done nothing substantial to stop even the increase. That the party had missed an opportunity to come up with its own, alternative economic policies with which to differentiate itself from the Republican Party was especially important because the Democratic Party had moved closer to the center, and away from the wing associated with U.S. senators Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren.  

Secondly, another structural change, not economic in nature, also had an impact. Since 2000, a shift towards identity/cultural grievances had been occurring in the middle class wherein a gradually increasing number of voters have been less interested in economic redistribution than in opposing the “woke” ideology, which is centered on legalizing rights of certain groups of Americans based on group-identity. Historically, religious wars in Europe had been based on the premise that group-identity is primary in human consciousness; race riots share that assumption. The failure of the Democratic Party to constrain the excesses of capitalism during the financial crisis may be a factor in this shift away from economic distribution, as increasing numbers of working-classed voters came to realize that both major parties had become bought and paid for by the business sector through its political campaign contributions and promises of executive jobs. Regulatory capture of the regulator agencies by the regulated companies is but one result of the inordinate influence of business in government.

The shift in the American working-class voting increasingly on social issues affected the Democratic as a wedge. The “woke” ideology in favor of defunding the police, transsexual rights (i.e., men in women’s bathrooms and sports), reparations for Black Americans, sanctuary cities wherein illegal immigrants are legally protected, university “cancel culture,” such as in mislabeling pro-human-rights protests as antisemitic, and diversity programs gripped the political elite of the party and its left-wing more generally even though Kamala Harris did not emphasize “woke” planks in her speeches. Meanwhile, the “anti-work” political reaction had been gaining speed since at least 2015 among the non-college-educated working folks. This reaction viewed the gay “rainbow” flag as a cult symbol that was being imposed seemingly everywhere, and was viscerally opposed to transsexual men being able to play in women’s sports and use women’s locker rooms, the notion that illegal immigrants somehow had a right to be in the U.S. even though they had committed a crime in entering the country illegally, the proposal that even people living paycheck to paycheck should be taxed more to pay for reparations to Black people, and that certain words could no longer be spoken or written in college courses and even in political protests. Indeed, protests against Israel had practically been banned at many universities, including Yale, where 47 pro-human-rights students were arrested by private university police employees, and Harvard, which had turned Harvard Yard into a preemptive police presence by September, 2024. So much for academic atmosphere and academic freedom; non-academic employees with guns were in charge as scared academic administrators looked on as if proud mice.  My point is that Harris didn’t have to say anything “woke” on the campaign trail; non-college educated workers in the Democratic Party had by then viewed their party’s elite as very “woke” indeed. 

It can be argued that in having no internal check or self-restraint, the party's political elite had pushed the “woke” ideology too hard and too far (and perhaps, most importantly, too fast), and thus naturally had prompted a political reaction against both the elite itself and its favored ideology. That is, the political elite of the Democratic Party refused to constrain itself from pushing its mandatory ideology even though it was clear, or should have been clear without the blocking self-centeredness, that non-college-educated workers, especially in small towns, would bolt. Even with the mistaken assumption that the working class would still vote on an economic basis, the fact that the anti-woke movement was gaining steam should not have been missed or so easily dismissed for being illegitimate. Presumptuousness can indeed be blinding or distortive, as can the underlying self-centeredness and primitive desire to use power to enact one’s own ideology. This is ultimately why Donald Trump was able to win in spite of his own voters acknowledging that he was admittedly a flawed man.

The elite of a political party does its party a disservice by stubbornly pushing whatever ideology that elite loves, as if it were a fact of reason and thus should be imposed on detractors whether they like it or not, rather than applying self-discipline and a little humility to back off the ideology so as to retain the socially-conservative workers for the sake of governing to constrain capitalism. The ancient Confucian scholar, Xunzi, points to “a degree of self-restraint and even virtue, namely trustworthiness ,” as one reason why a hegemon, a ruler who is not as virtuous as is a sage (i.e., a wise and virtuous person) but is more virtuous than is a vicious tyrant, can be “a strong and successful ruler.”[1] Even though a hegemon “is not committed to moral cultivation of himself or those he rules,” applying the virtue of self-restraint, such as channeling away one’s instinctual urge to promote one’s own preferred ideology over others in a political party, can make a ruler successful (and not tyrannical) anyway.[2] The political elite of the Democratic Party could have benefited from this ancient lesson. That an increasing number of voters in the working class were more interested in voting against the societally interlarding “woke” ideology and especially its demands than in voting for economic redistribution means that the self-centered and haughty ideological stubbornness of the Democratic political elite really costed Harris votes.

Thirdly, even given the ongoing shift among working-class Democrats toward voting on the basis of cultural issues, economic pressure from the price increases, especially in gas and groceries, even after the temporary bump from supply shocks and higher transportation costs during the pandemic, prompted a significant number of voters in the middle class (and poor), which is especially vulnerable to price increases on necessities such as food and transportation, to vote on the basic of their bank accounts.

Harris’s promise to reduce grocery-store prices rung hollow because Biden had failed to do it and she said she would not differ from Biden on policies. Even given the trend in the working class to vote on the basis of social over economic issues, the center-left party erred in failing to recharge its historic mission to constrain the excesses of capitalism. Pledges to use federal anti-trust law to break up the meat-producer and grocery-chain concentrated rather than competitive industries would have differentiated the party from Trump’s rightward shift of the Republican Party. Even the Democratic Party, in accepting so much corporate money from lobbyists, was susceptible to enabling rather than lessening the tendency of markets to consolidate—to go from competition, by which food prices would have gone down after the supply shocks during the pandemic, to just a few giant companies with enough market-power to hold prices high and even convince consumers to expect even higher prices in the expectation of inflation as inevitable. As my academic advisor at Yale, who was an Episcopalian priest, once said, “If you must sin, then sin boldly!” Andrew Jackson and Teddy Roosevelt would not have lost much time translating that advice into political terms in terms of bold policy in place of political calculation and capitulation to even the private powers behind the proverbial throne. Unfortunately, neither Biden nor Harris was a Jackson or Roosevelt.

Fourthly, as for the shock that many “far-left” Democrats and even some independents had after the election that a convicted felon and narcissist had just won the popular vote (as well as the Electoral College), the explanation for Trump’s success with labor is not only due to the reasons I have just discussed, but also because Trump was very wealthy and bold in a way that vote-maximizer politicians usually are not. That these personal attributes could possibly “trump” the man’s flaws, such as admitting that he could get away with touching women sexually without their consent, allegedly pressuring Georgia to come up with more votes for him, and allegedly prompting a mob to riot through Capitol Hill as electoral votes were being counted by Congress on January 6, 2021, would shatter the ideological view held by the Democratic Party’s elite on what matters in a presidential character. Indeed, the nature of the alleged crimes may actually have augmented or strengthened Trump’s stature to working-class voters, given that their paradigmatic criteria for leadership differed so from those of the political elite (of both parties!).

Whereas America’s political elite and the left-wing of the Democratic party believed that voters should vote at least in part based on whichever candidate is most wise and virtuous, Trump himself might counter that the masses vote instead on the basis of wealth and being bold even in speech as well as action, rather unlike the typical people-pleasing politician, such as Bill Clinton and Barak Obama. Taking into consideration the fact that the level of education (college versus no-college) had been the single best indicator during the arduously long campaign “season” of which candidate a voter favored, it is likely that the criteria valued by the working class differed paradigmatically from the criteria valued by college-educated voters, including the political elite. Unconsciously, the elite of the Democratic Party projected its own paradigm of character-leadership onto how the non-college-educated laborers of the party’s “rank and file” see things. This can explain why even the criminal charges against Trump did not dint his base.

According to Adam Smith in his text, The Theory of Moral Sentiments, “the great mob of mankind are the admirers and the worshipers . . . of wealth and greatness.”[3] These two things are contrast to wisdom and virtue, which the masses “are perhaps incapable of even discerning.”[4] I don’t think Smith is being fair to the “masses” here, but his main point concerning the different criteria is important for college-educated Americans to grasp. Like people outside of a political (and economic) elite, Smith eschews “the proposition that people of superior wisdom and virtue possess a title to rule.”[5] He maintains that birth (family) and wealth are more visible and certain to the masses than are virtue and wisdom.[6] Wealth and greatness, Trump doubtlessly could have said during his 2024 campaign, “are my two middle names.” By “greatness,” even as he applied the adjective to the country itself in terms of its potential, consists not only of wealth, but also the kind of strength that is bold rather than timid, or limited to political calculation at home and abroad. Thinking that they too could someday be rich and admiring bold people, working-class voters could very well have loved him for being both. Again, the shift away from being concerned with redistribution to wanting to push back against the presumptuously encroaching, passive aggressive antagonistic “woke” advocates means that Trump’s “offensive” statements were viewed by the working-class as a plus rather than a minus in terms of character. In other words, few labor-union members would be likely to quote from Aristotle’s Ethics to insist that a virtuous person is necessary to put into effect Trump’s policies.

As for Trump’s pathological lying, the heads of the Democratic Party were hardly blameless in falsely claiming that Harris had been selected as the nominee in an “open, bottom-up” process. With a hundred days to go before election day, the party had time for a primary, which could have been set to take place forty days out, with the general election following after sixty more days. In the same year, the E.U. state of Germany set an election just sixty days after a scheduled no-confidence vote at a time in which that vote was just a month away. To claim that Harris’ chances were diminished by having only a hundred days fails to recognize that the year-plus long campaign season for U.S. president was excessively long. Lacking in boldness in terms of proposed policies was more of a hindrance than just having a hundred days. In other words, she had more than enough time to distinguish herself by departing from Biden’s policies, especially given his unpopularity for not going far enough in terms of a variety of areas. In fact, Harris’ lack of boldness took votes away even from the left-wing of the Democratic Party!

Going on the basis of political calculation, or “the political reality,” based on the presumed power of AIPAC (American Israeli Political Action Committee) in U.S. politics, produced political timidity just as cowering to corporate interests, even of the oil and food industries, presented Harris as a politician rather than as a leader. Leadership does not operate by calculation, but by broad principles. Whether those principles are standing up to an aggressor ravaging through Gaza rather than enabling him by being in favor of continuing to supply weapons to his military, or enforcing market competition (and a windfall-profits tax) rather than suggesting that the government give Americans money to spend in the oligarchic grocery chains that would feel free to raise prices even more rather than cut prices to compete for buyers, boldness of policy can be appreciated even more when it involves standing up to entrenched political and economic interests that have turned squalid in part because of the U.S. Government.

Management differs from leadership in part because management is narrowly focused and incremental rather than being oriented to formulating and promoting a vision of society in ideal, paradigmatic terms. I submit that both Biden and Harris were managerial in nature, whereas Ronald Reagan can be studied in terms of providing a vision (e.g., “Government is the problem.”). To be sure, not every vision that a political leader espouses is ethical. Hitler, for example, provided a vision of a strong Germany without weakness enervating the country from within. That vision can be challenged ethically both in regard to how Hitler conceptualized strength and weakness, and his government officials could be challenged for how they implemented Hitler’s vision by literally exterminating what they saw as weakness from the country and even in trying to free up living space for Germans from the U.S.S.R.—Hitler having promised Hindenburg that Communists would be eliminated within Germany, which in turn could mean going after the source further east.

What to a working-class Trump voter was boldness was viewed by some Harris voters and the Democracy Party’s elite as fascist. The claims that democracy was in the balance may have been fueled in part by the fact that Trump working-class voters tended to value wealth and political boldness over wisdom and virtue. To people who value or follow political calculation to minimize political risk, a candidate not speaking as a politician and advocating bold policies would of course be viewed with fear.

It is possible, even ironic in this case, that representative democracy can be put at risk by a cleft or division existing between a party’s elite and a significant part of its “rank-and-file” base. To be effective electorally and in sync with democracy itself, the elite of a party needs to remember that its perspective is not necessarily that of the whole of the party, and if the respective perspectives do indeed differ, the elite needs to exercise some self-constraint in place of self-centeredness and a self-assumed mandate to impose, ideologically, even on the party’s membership. In short, a party’s elite needs to put that membership first if electoral success is desired as a means to being in power.  The refusal to exercise self-restraint deserves to be voted against. Trump’s lack of self-restraint in his use of vitriol against his “enemies,” which included anyone who criticized him publicly, and even in his use of lying habitually to get out of trouble was in line with the boldness atypical of politicians that the working-class valued in a leader, whereas Harris’ lack of self-restraint regarding highlighting aspects of “wokeness” and in not standing up to big business and Israel worked against her. Not that Trump would stand up to big business, for he himself was a part of it, and not that he would stand up to Netanyahu (or Putin), but all that Trump too may have appealed to greatness-as-strength as construed and valued by enough of the the non-college-educated working-class voters.

1. Eric L. Hutton, “Introduction,” in Xunzi: The Complete Text, Eric L. Hutton, trans. (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2014), p. xxviii.
2. Ibid.
3. Adam Smith, The Theory of Moral Sentiments, Ed. D. D. Raphael and A. L. Macfie (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1976), I. iii.3.2.
4. Adam Smith, The Theory of Moral Sentiments, Ed. D. D. Raphael and A. L. Macfie (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1976), VI.ii.I.20, quoted by Peter Minowitz, Profits, Priests, and Princes: Adam Smith’s Emancipation of Economics from Politics and Religion (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1993), p. 42.
5. Peter Minowitz, Profits, Priests, and Princes: Adam Smith’s Emancipation of Economics from Politics and Religion (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1993), p. 44.
6. Ibid., p. 45.

Two Sizes Fit All: America’s Two-Party-System Stranglehold

A Rasmussen Reports poll conducted in early August 2011 found that “just 17% of likely U.S. voters think that the federal government . . . has the consent of the governed,” while 69% “believe that the government does not have that consent.”[1] Yet an overwhelming number of Congressional incumbents is reelected. Is it that many Americans stay away from the polls on election day, or does the two-party system essentially force a choice? Voting for a third-party candidate risks the defeat of the candidate of the major party closest to one’s views. Such a vote is typically referred to as a protest or throw-away vote. Is it worth driving to the polls to do that?
A poll of 1,000 Americans conducted by Douglas E. Schoen LLC in April 2011 found that a solid majority of Americans were looking for alternatives to the two-party system. A majority of the respondents (57%) said there is a need for a third party. Nearly one-third of the respondents said that having a third party is very important. In the next month, 52% of respondents in a Gallup poll said there is a need for a third party. For the first time in Gallup’s history, a majority of Republicans said so. These readings point to more than simply a desire to vote against the closest major party without merely being a protest or throw-away vote.
Even as Republican and Democratic candidates were at the time in tune with their respective bases, these two segments of the population were becoming two legs of a three-leg stool, rather than remaining as the two defining pillars holding up the American republics. In fact, with the number of independents growing, the two bases combined no longer made up a majority of the citizens able to vote.
To be sure, the electoral systems of the American states and the federation itself have been rigged against  aspiring third parties. For example, a Green Party presence in the U.S. House of Representatives would require one of that party’s candidates to snag the highest percentage of the vote in one of the 435 legislative districts. Were fifteen percent of Floridians vote for Green Party candidates in every House district, Florida's delegation would still not include any Green Party presence. In terms of the Electoral College, many of the states have a winner-take-all system in selecting electors. Furthermore, a third-party candidate doing well in electoral votes could keep none of the candidates from getting a majority, in which case the U.S. House of Representatives would elect the U.S. President (each state delegation getting one vote). A third party would have to be dominant in that chamber, or at least in a few of the state delegations, to have any impact. The proverbial deck, ladies and gentlemen, is stacked against any third party, so merely getting one started is not apt to eventuate in much of anything, practically speaking. For fundamental reform, one must think (and act) structurally, and Americans are not very good at that, being more issue- and candidate-oriented.

The real elephant in the room is the fact that the two animals are the only ones allowed in the room. Image Source: Wikimedia Commons

If the American political order has indeed been deteriorating and disintegrating, its artificial and self-perpetuating parchment walls might be too rigid to allow the vacuum to be filled by anything less than whatever would naturally fill the power-void in a complete collapse. The two major political parties, jealously guarding their joint structural advantages, have doubtlessly been all too vigilant in buttressing the very walls that keep real reform—real change—from happening at the expense of the vested interests. As a result, the electorate may be convinced that it is not possible to venture outside of the political realities of the two major parties that stultify movement. If a majority of Americans want a third party, they would have to apply popular political pressure to the two major parties themselves to level the playing field. A huge mass of dispersed political energy would be necessary, however, given the tyranny of the status quo. Indeed, such a feat might require going against the natural laws of power in human affairs. If so, the already-hardened arteries will eventually result to the death of the "perpetual union." Sadly, the determinism is utterly contrived rather than set by the fates.

1. Patrick H. Caddell and Douglas E. Schoen, “Expect a Third-Party Candidate in 2012,” Wall Street Journal, August 25, 2011.

Protest Movements 101

David Johnston of Reuters opined on October 7, 2011, the Occupy Wall Street “protests show signs of sparking a major change in U.S. politics by creating common ground among people with wildly divergent views. The key to their significance will be whether they foster a wholesale change in political leadership in 2013 or whether Americans return a vast majority of incumbents in both parties at all levels of government.” But are “wildly divergent views” really represented, and did the movement translate dramatic camera-ready protest parades and sit-ins into grassroots work to get specifically anti-corporate candidates past the primaries and into office in 2012?  I contend that from the get-go, the Occupy Wall Street movement set itself on a trajectory antithetical to being able to answer both of these questions in the affirmative. In so doing, the movement’s “non-leaders” sowed the seeds of the movement’s demise—or at the very least of being relegated as partisan and thus contained as a sub-part in the system.

In terms of a diversity of views, a poster board in McPherson Square, where “Occupy D.C.” pitched camp, listed, according to USA Today, “the group’s wide-ranging goals, including economic justice, education reform, repealing the Patriot Act, District of Columbia home rule and an end of the two-party system.” One protester claimed all these agendas are related because, “Everyone has a voice here.” That doesn’t really explain why the goals are related. I contend that the reason is because the group is populated by liberal Democrats.

While symmetrical with the Tea Party in the Republican Party, my pigeon-holing of the Occupy Wall Street movement deprives it of the anti-big-business populism that is salient in much of the Tea Party. Indeed, traditional agrarian Republicanism contained a strident thread of anti-corporatism, as big business, like big government, is fully capable of trampling over the individual. As Sen. Alan Simpson (R-WY) used to say on the U.S. Senate floor, “I’m for the little guy.” This is vintage Republican populism, which the “Occupy Wall Street” excluded from the get-go by failing to delimit itself in terms of topics. In other words, the “Occupy Party” may be undercutting itself by association.

It is in the corporate interest that the movement be relegated as partisan and left-wing. It is in the political interest (and comfort) of Republican officials to keep the movement from engaging in joint operations with Tea Party organizations or absorbing some Tea Party members; that would essentially muzzle representatives like Eric Cantor who would not want to insult those members.

The movement’s organizers (and there are leaders even if they claim to have a “leaderless” movement) failed to resist the ideological temptation to permit liberal Democrats who are “off topic” with respect to Wall Street and big business generally and with respect to government officials to join in anyway. Even apart from being stigmatized as simply partisan, the group ran the risk of running off course, like a sailboat without a rudder in the water. The boat goes wherever the wind takes it. To get an idea of how even just one protest event can slide, a nebulous “Stop the Machine” protest in Freedom Plaza in Washington, D.C. on October 6, 2011 “was intended to protest the ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan . . . but morphed into a multigroup demonstration that decried corporate greed as well as drone attacks.” Even the best placed intentions can find themselves on the losing end of a “morphing” if the boat had no rudder in the water. So a protest event against the corporate takeover of Congress (i.e., a plutocracy) could easily morph into an anti-war rally where pot-smokers beat bongos and dance in tie-dye shirts, while singing songs from another century that was anything but peace and love. While convenient and fun to the protesters, they would quickly lose credibility in much of the wider American society. Considering how much of that society might subscribe to an anti-Wall Street and big business lobby movement, the ideological convenience came at a steep, though perhaps hidden, cost.

As far as the impact of the Occupy Wall Street movement on the primaries and general election in 2012, the most likely scenario is that turnout of liberal Democrats gets a boost. This marginal impact would be indirect, rather than from a deliberate strategy in the movement to transition protesters into campaign volunteers for anti-corporate candidates urged to run by the movement. Ideally, such candidates could be found and supported for the primaries of both of the major parties. For example, agrarian populist Republicans could readily support a Republican candidate who advocates repealing the “legal person” corporate judicial doctrine (and thus corporate political spending), capping executive compensation on Wall Street, and breaking up the banks as well as companies that are too big to fail (or simply a danger to the republic form of governance).  In short, the notion that there is no ceiling for economic liberty can be replaced by a social-contract notion of solidarity based in the viability of a republic form of government and of market competition. As such, the movement’s goals could easily have been bipartisan, with only the Rockefeller Republicans in opposition.  Alas, so close but so, so far.

Had the Occupy Wall Street movement’s leaders been oriented to getting specifically anti-corporate candidates elected on both sides of the aisle, the movement would have limited itself to a few specific policy proporals. The very existence of the mega-corporation (and the mega-compensation levels) could have been at issue. Indeed, specific proposals capable of fundamentally redefining capitalism from its mega-corporate (with mega-lobbies) variety could have been linked to setting up and supporting particular candidates for a variety of state and federal offices. The movement’s leaders would have had to bend over backwards to make sure that Republican populist (e.g., agrarian) candidates were given just as much support. This would likely have included supporting some Tea Party candidates—the movement’s litmus test being stridently narrow yet uncompromising on providing the corporations with some loop holes or watered-down policies. Most importantly, for the movement to have succeeded in terms of policy would have meant supporting candidates who are not liberal! It could almost be said that such self-discipline alone would merit success at the ballot box. In contrast, taking the road most convenient has meant that making a radical change in corporate capitalism is not likely, at least from the “Occupy Wall Street” crowd.

Consider the following observation from Brendan Burke, a truck driver and punk rock musician who studied philosophy in college. “I have heard a thousand different things people are concerned about — inadequate teacher pay, no jobs, the rich not paying their fair share of taxes and all of it was about how we working people are not getting a fair shake.” The thousand points of light here sound to me like a grab-bag from the left wing of the Democratic Party. A small town Republican who is skeptical of big business (and big government) would naturally take one look at these causes and view the entire enterprise as partisan and left-wing. In other words, Burke’s observation confirms my sense that the movement quickly tracked to the liberal Democrat agenda writ large without even attempting to achieve a sufficient focus either on topic or on grass roots mobilization to significantly change the election results in 2012. At most, liberal Democrats will be more likely to make it to the ballot box on election-day in November, 2012. The usual suspects re-elected who had been sympathetic to the movement will have no fire under their bellies to maintain the movement’s push for fundamental change. Once again, real change will be in terms of incremental regulations rather than systemic change. Perhaps this is simply how American governance gets done.

If I am correct in my prediction, the culprit was none other than ideological selfishness or greed at the expense of driving home one radical change. It is ironic that greed (i.e., the desire for more) compromises efforts to curtail monetary greed. Perhaps the protesters were so upset in part because they knew deep down that they shared something with the bankers on Wall street: being driven by an unwillingness to resist the temptation to have more of whatever is in line with self-interest. I suspect that the corporate (and political) elite depended on this selfishness to derail the protest movement, and the protesters did not disappoint.

Given the immense wealth (and thus power) that the large American corporations and banks have, I am utterly astonished that a window could open even a crack to occasion a societal decision on whether the large corporation—the so-called “legal person”—should continue to exist in the United States. Less astonishing, the window began to close even as the movement was beginning to spread. It was a self-inflicted wound. The movement’s fate, as if predestined, will likely be taken to mean that the modern corporation itself has become virtually untouchable, meaning that it cannot be challenged politically within the system. The mega-corporate form thus ensconced in American society, pressure from the related increasing economic inequality will likely build until the system ultimately bursts open, at a much, much greater cost.

There are indeed huge costs in keeping the party going, whether in Goldman Sachs’ tower or on the street below. I suspect that neither Wall Street nor its antagonists—both of whom have been acting like predictable character-actors— grasp this point; both appear so narrow-minded yet proud. I can’t be wrong, they were undoubtedly thinking as they gazed at each other in 2011 from afar. The bankers refused even to acknowledge any culpability for the financial crisis of 2008 and the protesters were so sure they were on the right side of truth that they provided free admission to virtually any friendly agenda. What if a pro-life protester had shown up?

It would be nice if the great silent majority—those Americans who simply go about their daily business while quietly but astutely observing Wall Street and the protesters from afar—would take the reins from the arrogant and the proud in order to enact systemic change. At least from the vantage-point of a decade into the twentieth century, I suspect that many ordinary Americans like you and me had come to the uncomfortable conclusion that our political-economic system had in all likelihood been wrecked along the rocks of unbridled ambition. At the very least, many of us probably felt that, given the financial crisis of 2008 and the consolidation of special-interest power in Washington, both the financial system and the federal system were in need of major repairs, but had received only fine-tuning at most from vested interests. In other words, most citizens were probably wondering: where are the adults? It is indeed difficult to detect any such creatures among either the childish CEOs, such as Fuld (truly a lunatic), Coyne (a card-playing child), O’Neil (an insecure tyrant), Thain (selfishness incarnate) and Lewis (just plain dumb), or the angry yet somehow playful protesters. Tweedledum and Tweedledee could not put Humpty Dumpty back together again. Unfortunately, there is no Mother Goose either; sorry to say, but I'm afraid we must tackle the hard egg ourselves. Hopefully, we will muster the requisite determination before that egg completely spoils amid the stench of the sordid spoils of corporate capitalism in the stygian halls of Congress.

Sources:



David C. Johnston, “Occupy Wall Street,” Reuters, October 7, 2011. 

Donna L. Leger, “Protesting ‘Occupiers’ Spread Message Beyond Wall St.,” USA Today, October 7, 2011. 




See related essays: "Occupying Wall Street" and "A Self-Regulated Protest?"

A Self-Inflicted Compromise on the Debt-Ceiling in the U.S.

On August 1, 2011, the Republican and Democratic Congressional leaders and the Democratic President came to an agreement--a compromise of sorts--on raising the debt-ceiling and spending. According to the deal, cuts of roughly $920 billion over ten years would be followed either by adopting a twelve-member Congressional committee's recommendations (including possible cuts and revenue increases) or watching another round of automatic across-the-board spending cuts. Structurally, this arrangement is unbalanced with respect to the nature of compromise between the two parties. In short, it proffers a relatively easy out for the Republicans.

Specifically, the "enforcement mechanism" that would automatically activate should the "super" committee's recommendations not be voted and signed into law contains only cuts even though the Democratic position is for a mix of cuts and revenue. In other words, the mechanism itself is biased to the default of one of the parties. The only incentive the Republican party would have to accept the committee's recommendation would be to avoid the military cuts in the automatic cuts. To obviate any revenue increases, even if only for the wealthy, the Republicans in Congress need only scuttle the committee's work or vote it down. The mechanism being counted on as "teeth" for the committee's work to be adopted should have included both across the board cuts AND revenue increases (including on the very rich). The incentive would have been on BOTH parties to work something out in committee.

Therefore, if I am correct, the structure, or arrangement, of the compromise is itself unbalanced, at least from the standpoint of incentives. It would seem that even with the possible cuts to defense, the compromise itself is a win for the Republicans. Once again, Democrats can be left wondering why their representatives gave up the store, or at least kept the door unlocked. In terms of the public option in the health-insurance reform, the matter of breaking up the biggest banks (too big to fail), and finally in permitting a spending-cuts-only outcome to the debt problem, Democrats, it seems to me, have real cause in withholding their votes from "their" man in the White House in 2012. Yet they have no practical alternative absent a primary challenger. They may be in a very tight box in "staying the course," lest they want to risk seeing the keys of the White House store formally change hands to the other party.