Who wields predominant power in the United States?
From 1776 to the present, the answer is and always has been those who have the money.
It's no coincidence that the first president,
George Washington; was one of the biggest landowners of his day.
Late 19th century presidents were close to the railroad interests and the 'robber barons'.
For the Bush family, it was oil and other natural resources, agribusiness, and finance.
Today it's the banks, corporations, agribusinesses,as well as big real estate developers.
They work separately on many policy issues, but in combination on general issues like
taxes, opposition to labor unions, and trade agreements.
They set the rules within which all policy battles are waged.
How and why does it differ from other nations?
This conclusion may at first glance strike you as too simple or direct,
leaving out the effects of elected officials or voters.
Yet it is not simple at all. The reasons behind it are ripe with
complexity.
Understanding the deviations and contrasts with other democratic nations
require an understanding of social classes, the role of
"experts",
the two-party system, and the history of the United States,
(especially Southern slavery).
In terms of the larger world-
historical picture, large economic interests rule the U.S.
because there are no rival networks that grew in U.S.
history.
- There is no one big church, as in many countries in Europe
- No big government, as it took to survive as a nation-state in Europe
- No big military until after 1940 (which is not very long ago) to threaten to take over the government
So, the only power network of any consequence in the history of the
United States has been the economic one, which under capitalism
generates a business-owning class and a working class, along with small
businesses and skilled craft workers who are self-employed, and a
relatively small number of highly trained professionals such as
architects, lawyers, physicians, and scientists etc.
In this context, the
key reason why money can rule -- i.e., why the business owners who hire
workers can rule -- is that the people who worked in the factories and
fields were divided from the outset.
They were divided into free and slave, white and
black, and into numerous immigrant ethnic groups as well.
Divide and ConquerThe divisions created by the ruling class made
it difficult for workers as a whole to unite politically to battle for
higher wages or better lots in society. The divisions couldn't be more obvious today.
Look at our presidential race. Observe how the various groups are incited on many fronts including the major media (which now is 'occupied'. Owned by very few corporate interests) to be angry with each other rather than at the very people doing the inciting and dividing.
The simple answer that money rules has to be qualified
somewhat.
Domination by the few does not mean complete control, but
rather the ability to set the terms under which other groups and classes
must operate. Highly trained professionals with an interest in
environmental and consumer issues have been able to couple their
technical information and their understanding of the legislative process
with timely publicity to win governmental restrictions on some
corporate practices. Wage and salary workers, when they are organized or
disruptive, sometimes have been able to gain concessions on wages,
hours, and working conditions.
Most of all, there is free speech and the right to vote. While voting
does not necessarily make government responsive to the will of the
majority, under certain circumstances the electorate has been able to
place restraints on the actions of the wealthy elites, or more often, to decide
which elites will have the greatest influence on policy. This is
especially a possibility when there are disagreements within the higher
circles of wealth and influence.
There is global stratification and there is American stratification.
The effect in the US is more pronounced.The Poor never have any power and are at the mercy of others, in the US the Middle and Working Class, once robust in the post WWII era have been decimated and have less power than in nearly all other democracies. Still, the idea that a relatively fixed group of privileged people
dominate the economy and government goes against the American grain and
the founding principles of the country. "Class" and "power" are terms
that make many Americans a little uneasy, and concepts such as "upper class"
and "power elite" immediately put many people on guard. Americans may differ
in their social and income levels, and some may have more influence than
others, but it is felt that there can be no fixed power group when
power is constitutionally dwelling in all the people.
We observe democratic participation through elections.
There is
evidence of social mobility. So we conclude that elected officials, along with
"interest groups" like "organized labor" and "consumers," have enough
"countervailing" power to say that there is an open, "pluralistic"
distribution of power rather than one with only the very richest people and corporations
at the top. But this is just denial.
Contrary to this pluralistic view, rule
by the wealthy few is possible despite free speech, regular elections,
and organized opposition.
- The ruling wealthy coalesce into a social upper class that has developed
institutions by which the children of its members are socialized into an
upper-class worldview, and any newly wealthy people are assimilated.
- Members of this upper class control corporations, which have been
the primary mechanisms for generating and holding wealth in the United
States for over of 150 years now.
- There exists a network of nonprofit organizations through which
members of the upper class and their hired corporate leaders not yet in the
upper class shape the policy debates in the United States.
- Members of the upper class, with the help of their high-level
employees in profit and nonprofit institutions, are able to dominate the
federal government in Washington.
- The rich, and corporate leaders, nonetheless claim to be relatively powerless.
- Working people have less power than in other democratic countries.
Let's take a moment to define the
term "power" and to explain the "indicators" of power that determine who has it.
Power
Power is one of those words that is easy to understand but hard to
define in a precise manner.
We know it means "clout" or "juice" or
"muscle" or "the ability to make things happen." We know it comes from
words implying the ability to act in a strong, compelling, and direct
way, but we also know that power can be projected in a very quiet or
indirect manner.
Let's define power as "the capacity of some persons to produce intended
and foreseen effects on others" This is a general
definition that allows for the many forms of power that can be changed
from one to another, such as economic power, political power, military
power, ideological power, and intellectual power (i.e., knowledge,
expertise). It leaves open the question of whether "force" or "coercion"
is always lurking somewhere in the background in the exercise of power,
as many definitions imply. Power can be thought of as an underlying
"trait" or "property" that is measured
by a series of signs, or indicators, that bear a probabilistic
relationship to it. (Bet you didn't see quantum physics coming into play in an article about policy making!)
There are three primary indicators of power, which can be summarized
as (1) who benefits? (2) who governs? and (3) who wins? In every society
there are experiences and material objects that are highly valued. If
it is assumed that everyone in the society would like to have as great a
share as possible of these experiences and objects, then the
distribution of values in that society can be utilized as a power
indicator. Those who benefit the most, by inference, are powerful. In
American society, wealth and well-being are highly valued. People seek
to own property, earn high incomes, to have interesting and safe jobs,
and to live long and healthy lives. All of these "values" are unequally
distributed, and all are power indicators.
Power also can be inferred from studies of who occupies important
institutional positions and takes part in important decision-making
groups. If a group or class is highly over-represented in relation to
its proportion of the population, it can certainly be inferred that the group is
powerful.
If, for example, a group makes up 10% of the population but
has 50% of the seats in the main governing institutions, then it has
five times more people in governing positions than would be expected by
chance, and there is thus probable reason to believe that the group is a powerful
one.
There are many policy issues over which groups or classes disagree.
In the United States different policies are suggested by opposing groups
in foreign policy, taxation, the general welfare of the people, research, public education, and the
environment. Power can be inferred from these issue conflicts by
determining who successfully initiates, modifies, or vetoes policy
alternatives. This indicator, by focusing on actions within the
decision-making process, comes closest to approximating the process of
power that is contained in the formal definition. It is no less an inference to say that who wins on issues
is an indicator of "power" than with the other two types of empirical
observations -- value distributions and positional over-representation
-- that we must also use as power indicators.
The Upper Class
The upper class makes up only a few tenths of one percent of the population.
Members of the upper class live in exclusive suburban neighborhoods,
expensive downtown co-ops, and large country estates. They often have
far-away summer and winter homes as well. They attend a system of
private schools that extends from pre-school to the university level;
the best known of these schools are the "day" and "boarding" prep
schools that take the place of public high schools. Adult members of the upper class socialize
in expensive country clubs, downtown luncheon clubs, hunting clubs, and
garden clubs. Young women of the upper class are "introduced" to high
society each year through an elaborate series of debutante teas,
parties, and balls. Women of the upper class gain experience as
"volunteers" through a nationwide organization known as the Junior
League, and then go on to serve as directors of cultural organizations,
family service associations, and hospitals (see
http://book-me.net/a/power-of-good-deeds-privileged-women-and-the-social-reproduction-of-the-upper-class.pdf Kendall, 2002, for a
good account of women of the upper class by a sociologist who was also a
participant in upper-class organizations).
These various social institutions are important in creating "social
cohesion" and a sense of in-group "we-ness." This sense of cohesion is
heightened by the fact that people can be excluded from these
organizations. Through these institutions, young members of the upper
class and those who are new to wealth develop shared understandings of "
how to be wealthy".
Because these social settings are expensive and
exclusive, members of the upper class usually come to think of
themselves as "special" and "superior." They think they are better than
other people, and certainly better able to lead and govern. Their
self-confidence and social polish become useful in dealing with people from
other social classes, who are taught to admire them and defer to their
judgments. Findings by economists on the wealth and income distribution say that the upper class, comprising 0.5% to 1% of the
population, owns 40-50% of all privately held wealth in the United
States and receives gains of 12-15% of total income yearly on average. In short, the upper
class scores very high on the "who benefits" power indicator.
The Role of Corporations
Major economic power in the United States is concentrated in an
organizational and legal form known as the corporation, and has been
since the last several decades of the 19th century. No one doubts that
individual corporations have great power in the society at large. For
example, they can hire and fire workers, decide where to invest their
resources, and use their income in a variety of tax-deductible ways to
influence schools, charities, and governments. Are the large corporations united enough to exert a common
social power? Are they
controlled by members of the upper class?
The unity of the corporations can be demonstrated in a numerous
ways. They share a common interest in making profits. They are often
owned by the same families or financial institutions. Their executives
have very similar educational and work experiences. It is also important
for their sense of unity that corporate leaders see themselves as
sharing common opponents. Largely organized labor, environmentalists, consumer
advocates, and regulation from government officials. A sense of togetherness is created
as well by their use of the same few legal, accounting, and consulting
firms.
However, the best way to demonstrate the unity among corporations is
through what sociologists call "interlocking directors," meaning
those individuals who sit on two or more of the boards of directors that
are in charge of the overall direction of the corporation. Boards of
directors usually include major owners, top executives from similar
corporations or corporations located in the same area, financial and
legal advisors, and the three or four officers who run the corporation
on a daily basis. Several studies show that those 15-20% of corporate
directors who sit on two or more boards, who are called the "inner
circle" of the corporate directorate, unite 80-90% of the largest
corporations in the United States into a well-connected "corporate community."
Most all social scientists agree that corporations have a strong basis for cohesion.
So members of the upper class have power based on
their wealth, and corporate executives have organizational power.
Contrary to the claim of some, that there is a division between owners and managers, I
think there is strong evidence for the idea of great overlap in
membership and interest between the upper class and the corporate
community. The wealthiest and most cohesive upper-class families often
have "family offices" through which they can bring to bear the
concentrated power of their collective stock ownership, sometimes
placing employees of the office on boards of directors. Then too,
members of the upper class often control corporations through financial
devices known as "holding companies," which purchase a controlling
interest in operating companies. More generally, members of the upper
class own roughly half of all corporate stock . Then too, upper-class
control of corporations can be seen in its over-representation on boards
of directors. Several past studies show that members of the upper class
sit on boards far more than would be expected by chance. They are
especially likely to be part of the "inner circle" that has two or more
directorships. According to the "who governs" power indicator, the upper
class absolutely controls the corporate community.
Government Policy Is Shaped From Outside GovernmentThe upper class and the closely related corporate community do not
stand alone at the top of the power structure. They are supplemented by a
wide range of nonprofit organizations that play an important role in
framing debates over public policy and in shaping public opinion. These
organizations are often called "nonpartisan" or "bipartisan" because
they are not officially identified with politics or with either of the two major
political parties. But they are the real "political party" of the upper
class in terms of insuring their stability and domination of society and the
compliance of government to their wishes.
Upper-class and corporate dominance of the major nonprofit
organizations can be seen in their founding by wealthy members of the
upper class and in their reliance on large corporations for their
funding. However, dominance is once again most readily demonstrated
through studies of boards of directors, which have ultimate control of
the organizations, including the ability to hire and fire top
executives. These studies show that members of the upper class are
greatly over-represented on the boards of these organizations, and that nonprofit organizations share a large number of directors in common
with the corporate community, particularly directors who are part of
the "inner circle." In effect, most large nonprofit organizations are merely part of the corporate community.
All the organizations in the nonprofit sector have a hand in creating
the framework of the society in one way or another, and hence in
helping to shape the political climate. The cultural and civic
organizations set the standard for what is beautiful, important, and
"classy." The elite universities play a determine what is
important to teach, learn, and research, and they train most of the
professionals and experts in the country. However, it is the
foundations, think tanks, and policy-discussion organizations that have
the largest, most direct, and important influence. Their ideas, criticisms, and
policy suggestions go out to the general public through a wide array of
avenues, including pamphlets, books, local discussion groups, mass
media, endless internet sites and echo chamber blogs as well as the public relations departments of major
corporations. The foundations,
think tanks, and policy-discussion organizations function as a "policy-planning network."
Tax-free foundations receive their money from wealthy families and
corporations. Their primary purpose is to provide money for education,
research, and policy discussion. They have the power to encourage
those ideas and researchers they find compatible with their personal goals, and to withhold funds from others. Support by major foundations
often has had a significant impact on the direction of research in
agriculture, social science, and the health sciences. However,
foundations also create policy projects on their own. The role of the think tanks is to suggest new policies to deal with
the problems facing the economy and government. They do so using money from wealthy
donors, corporations, and foundations, think tanks hire the experts groomed by the graduate departments of particular elite universities. These policy-discussion organizations are the hub of the
policy-planning network. They bring together wealthy individuals,
corporate executives, experts, and government officials for lectures,
forums, meetings, and group discussions of issues that range from the
local to the international, and from the economic to the political to
the cultural. New ideas are tried out in weekly or monthly discussion
groups, and differences of opinion are aired and compromised. These
structured discussion groups usually begin with a presentation by the
invited experts, followed by questions and discussion involving all
participants. Such discussion groups may range in size from ten to 50,
with the usual group having fifteen to 25 members.
The many discussion groups that take place within the several
policy-discussion organizations have several functions that do not
readily meet the eye. First, these organizations help to familiarize corporate leaders with policy options outside the view of their
day-to-day business concerns. This gives these executives the ability
to influence public opinion through the mass media and other outlets, to
argue with and influence experts, and to accept appointments for
government service. Second, the policy-discussion organizations give
members of the upper class and corporate community the opportunity to
see which of their colleagues become the best natural leaders
through watching them in the give and take of the discussion groups.
They can see which of their counterparts understand the issues quickly,
offer their own ideas, facilitate discussions, and relate well to
experts. The organizations thus serve as sorting and screening
mechanisms for the emergence of new leadership for the corporate rich in
general.
Third, these organizations disseminate their participants to the media
and public as knowledgeable experts or leaders who deserve to be tapped
for public service because they have used their free time to acquaint
themselves with the issues in nonpartisan forums. The organizations
thereby help make wealthy individuals and corporate executives into
"national leaders" and "statesmen." Finally, these organizations provide
a forum wherein members of the upper class and corporate community can
come to know policy experts. This gives them a pool of people from which
they can draw advisors if they are asked to serve in government. It
also gives them a basis for recommending experts to politicians for
government service.
The organizations also serve obvious functions for the experts.
First, presenting their ideas and policies to these organizations gives
them an opportunity to have influence. Second, it gives them a chance to
advance their own careers if they can impress the upper-class and
corporate participants.
The policy-planning network is not totally homogeneous. There are basically two ideologies represented. There are
moderate-conservative and ultra-conservative wings within it. Moderate
conservatives may favor foreign aid, low tariffs, and increased economic
expansion overseas, whereas the ultra-conservatives tend to see foreign
aid as a giveaway. Moderate conservatives tend to accept the idea that
governmental taxation and spending policies can be used to stimulate and
stabilize the economy, but ultra-conservatives insist that taxes should
be cut to the very minimum and that government spending is the devil. Moderate conservatives accept some welfare-state
measures, or at least they support such measures in the face of serious
social disruption. Where ultra-conservatives have consistently opposed any
welfare spending, claiming that it destroys moral fiber and saps
individual initiative, so they prefer to use arrest and detention when
faced with social unrest.
The reasons for these differences are not well understood. There is a
tendency for the moderate-conservative organizations to be directed by
executives from the very largest and most internationally oriented of
corporations, but there are numerous exceptions to that generalization.
Moreover, there are corporations that support policy organizations
within both camps. However, for all their differences, leaders within
the two clusters of policy organizations have a tendency to search for
compromise due to their common membership in the upper-class and
corporate community. When compromise is not possible, the final
resolution of policy conflicts often takes place in legislative
struggles in Congress.
The existence of the policy-planning network provides evidence for
yet another form of power possessed by the wealthy few: expertise on social
and political issues. It is an important complement to the naked
economic power possessed by the corporations. One that plays a larger role in directing and forming public opinion as time goes on.
The Power Elite
Now that the upper class, corporate community, and policy-planning
network have been defined and described, it is possible to discuss the the "power elite."The power elite is the leadership group of the upper class. It consists of
active-working members of the upper class and high-level employees in
profit and nonprofit institutions controlled by members of the upper
class through stock ownership, financial support, or involvement on the
board of directors. This does not mean that all members of the upper
class are involved in governing. Some are only playboys and socialites;
their social gatherings may provide a setting where members of the power
elite mingle with celebrities, and sometimes they give money to
political candidates, but that is about as close as they come to
political power.
Conversely, not all those involved in the power elite are members of
the upper class. They are sons and daughters of the middle class, and
occasionally, the blue-collar working class, who do well at any one of
several hundred private and state universities, and then go to grad
school, MBA school, or law school at one of a handful of elite
universities -- e.g., Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Columbia, MIT, Johns
Hopkins, University of Chicago, and Stanford. From there they go to work
for a major corporation, law firms, foundations, think tanks, or
universities, and slowly work their way into the 'elite' group.
The idea of the power elite intertwines class theory and
organizational theory, two theories which are often thought of as
distinctive or even as rivals. The basis for the intertwining of the two
theories is to be found in the role and composition of the boards of
directors that govern every large profit and nonprofit organization in
the United States. It is on boards of directors that the values and
goals of the upper class are integrated with those of the organizational
hierarchy. Upper-class directors insure that their interests are
infused into the organizations they control, but the day-to-day
organizational leaders on the board are able to harmonize class
interests with organizational principles.
It is important to stress that not all experts are
members of the power elite. People have to be high-level employees in
institutions controlled by members of the upper class to be considered
part of that realm. Receiving a fellowship from a foundation,
spending a year at a think tank, or giving advice to a policy-discussion
organization does not make a person a member of the power elite. It
also may be useful to note that there are many experts who never go near
the policy-planning network. They focus on their teaching and research,
or work for groups that oppose the policies of the power elite.
Direct Control Of GovernmentMembers of the power elite directly involve themselves in the federal
government through three basic processes, each of which has a slightly
different role in ensuring "access" to the White House, Congress, and
specific agencies, departments, and committees in the executive branch.
Although some of the same people are involved in all three processes,
most leaders specialize in one or two of the three processes. These
three processes are:
- The special-interest process, through which specific families,
corporations, and industrial sectors are able to realize their narrow
and short-run interests on taxes, subsidies, and regulation in their
dealings with congressional committees, regulatory bodies, and executive
departments;
- The policy-making process, through which the policies developed in
the policy-planning network described earlier are brought to the White
House and Congress;
- The candidate selection process, through which members of the power
elite influence electoral campaigns by means of campaign donations to
political candidates.
Power elite domination of the federal government can be seen most
directly in the workings of the corporate lobbyists, backroom
super-lawyers, and industry-wide trade associations that represent the
interests of specific corporations or business sectors. This
special-interest process is based in varying combinations of
information, gifts, insider dealing, friendship, and, not least,
promises of lucrative private jobs in the future for compliant
government officials. This is the aspect of business-government
relations described by journalists and social scientists in their case
studies. While these studies show that the special interests usually get
their way, the conflict that sometimes erupts within this process,
occasionally pitting one corporate sector against another, reinforces
the image of widely shared and fragmented power in America, including
the image of a divided corporate community. Moreover, there are some
defeats suffered by the corporate rich in the special-interest process.
For example, laws that improved auto safety standards were passed over
automobile industry objections in the 1970s, as were standards of water
cleanliness opposed by the paper and chemical industries.
Policies of concern to the corporate community as a whole are not the
province of the special-interest process. Instead, such policies come
from the network of foundations, think tanks, and policy-discussion
organizations. The plans developed in
the organizations of the policy-planning network reach the federal
government in a variety of ways. On the most general level, their
reports, news releases, and interviews are read by elected officials and
their staffs, either in pamphlet form or in summary articles in the
Washington Post,
New York Times, and
Wall Street Journal.
Members of the policy-planning network also testify before
congressional committees and subcommittees that are writing legislation
or preparing budget proposals. More directly, leaders from these
organizations are regular members of the dozens of little-known
committees that advise specific departments of the executive branch on
general policies, making them in effect unpaid un-elected temporary members of the
government. They are also very prominent on the extremely important
presidential commissions that are appointed to make recommendations on a
wide range of issues from foreign policy to highway construction. They
also serve on the
little-known federal advisory committees that are part of just about every department of the executive branch.
Finally, and crucially, they are appointed to government positions
with a frequency far beyond what would be expected by chance. Several
different studies show that top cabinet positions in both Republican and
Democratic administrations are held by members of the upper class and
corporate executives who are leaders in policy-discussion organizations.
The general picture that emerges from the findings on the
over-representation of members of the power elite in appointed
governmental positions is that the highest levels of the executive
branch are interlocked constantly with the upper class and corporate
community through the movement of executives and lawyers in and out of
government. Although the same person is not in governmental and
corporate positions at the same time, there is enough continuity for the
relationship to be described as one of "revolving interlocks."
Corporate leaders resign their numerous directorships in profit and
nonprofit organizations to serve in government for two or three years,
then return to the corporate community or policy-planning network. This
system gives them temporary independence from the narrow concerns of
their own organizations and allows them to perform the more general
roles they have learned in the policy-discussion groups. They then
return to the private sector with useful personal contacts and
information.
As important as the special-interest and policy-planning processes
are for the power elite, they could not operate successfully if there
were not sympathetic, business-oriented elected officials in government.
That leads us to the third process through which members of the power
elite dominate the federal government, the candidate-selection process.
It operates through the two major political parties. For reasons to be
discussed in a moment, the two parties have very little role in
political education or policy formation; they are reduced to the
function of filling offices. That is why the American political system
can be characterized as a "candidate-selection process."
The main reason the political system focuses on candidate selection
to the relative exclusion of political education and policy formulation
is that there can be only two main parties due to the structure of the
government and the nature of the electoral rules. The fact that
Americans select a president instead of a parliament, and elect
legislators from "single-member" geographical areas (states for the
Senate, districts for the House) leads to a two-party system because in
these "winner-take-all" elections a vote for a third party is a vote for
the person's least desired choice. A vote for a very liberal party
instead of the Democrats, for example, actually helps the Republicans.
Under these rules, the most sensible strategy for both the Democrats and
Republicans is to blur their policy differences in order to compete for
the voters with middle-of-the-road policy views, or no policy views at
all.
Contrary to what many believe, then, American political parties are
not very responsive to voter preferences. Their candidates are fairly
free to say one thing to get elected and to do another once in office.
This contributes to confusion and apathy in the electorate. It leads to
campaigns where there are no "issues" except "images" and
"personalities" even when polls show that voters are extremely concerned
about certain policy issues.
It is precisely because the candidate-selection process is so
personalized, and therefore dependent on name recognition, images, and
emotional symbolism, that it can be in good part dominated by members of
the power elite through the relatively simple and direct means of large
campaign contributions. Playing the role of donors and money raisers,
the same people who direct corporations and take part in the
policy-planning network have a crucial place in the careers of most
politicians who advance beyond the local level or state legislatures. Their support is especially important in
party primaries, where money is an even larger factor than in general
elections.
The two-party system therefore results in elected officials who are
relatively issueless and willing to go along with the policies advocated
by those members of the power elite who work in the special-interest
and policy-planning processes. They are motivated by personal ambition
far more than they are by political conviction. Still, there are some
extremely conservative elected Republicans who often oppose power elite
proposals, claiming that such policies are the work of secret communists
or pointy-headed intellectuals out to wreck the "free enterprise"
system. There also are many Democrats from blue-collar and university
districts who consistently oppose power elite policies as members of the
liberal-labor coalition. However, both the ultra-conservatives and the
liberals are outnumbered by the "moderates" of both parties, especially
in key leadership positions in Congress. After many years in Congress
the elected liberals decide to "go along to get along." "This place has a
way of grinding you down," explained Abner Mikva a former liberal Congressman of the
early 1970s in a classic summary of what happens.
Although members of the power elite are far and away the most
important financial backers for both parties, this does not mean that
there are no differences between the two parties. The leadership levels
have intra-class differences, and the supporters tend to have
inter-class differences. The Republican Party is controlled by the
wealthiest families of the upper class and corporate community, who are
largely Protestant in background. The Democratic Party, on the other
hand, is the party of the "fringes" of the upper class and power elite.
Although often called "the party of the common person," it was in fact
the party of the Southern segment of the upper class until civil rights issues chased them away. The power of the Southern Democrats in the party and in
Congress was secured in a variety of ways, the most important of which
was the seniority system for selecting committee chairs in Congress. (By
tradition, the person who has been on the committee longest just about
automatically becomes the chair; this avoids conflict among members of
the party.) However, the underlying point is that the one-party system
in the South and the exclusion of African-Americans from the voting
booth until the mid-1960s gave the Southern planters and merchants power
at the national level through the Democratic Party out of all
proportion to their wealth and numbers. Thus, it is not necessarily the
wealthiest people who rule. The nature of the political system also
enters into the equation. But the Southern elites are not poor; they are
only less rich than many of their Northern counterparts. The Southerners dominated the Democratic Party in alliance with the
"ethnic rich" in the North, meaning essentially wealthy Jews and Catholics who were
shunned or mistreated by the rich Protestants in the Republican party. The businesses they owned
were often local or smaller than those of the Republican backers, and
they usually were excluded from the social institutions of the upper
class. These ethnic rich were the primary financial supporters of the
infamous "political machines" that dominated Democratic politics in most
large northern cities.
The alliance between the Southern segment of the upper class and the
Northern ethnic rich usually was able to freeze out the policy
initiatives of the party's liberal-labor coalition through its control
of congressional committees, although there was a time (1940 to 1975)
when labor unions had significant influence on the Democrats. When that
alliance broke down because the machine Democrats
sided with the liberals and labor, then the Southern Democrats joined
with Northern Republicans to create the "conservative coalition," AKA
"the conservative voting bloc," wherein a majority of Southern Democrats
and a majority of Northern Republicans voted together against the
Northern Democrats. This conservative coalition most often formed around
the issues that reflect class conflict in the legislative arena --
civil rights, union rights, social welfare, and business regulation.
Legislation on any of these issues weakens employers in the face of
workers and their unions, so it is not surprising that the conservative
coalition is based on the shared interests of Northern and Southern
employers. This alliance won far more often than it lost in the years
between 1937, when it was formed, and the 1990s, when it disappeared for
the simple reason that many of the Southerners had become Republicans.
Once the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was in effect, the Democratic
Party was slowly changed because African-Americans in the South were
able to vote against the worst racists in the party primaries. The
gradual industrialization also was causing changes. As a result of these
two forces, Southern whites started to move into the Republican Party,
which thus became the party of wealthy employers in both the North and
South. In that context, the Democratic Party is slowly becoming what
many always thought it to be, the party of liberals, minorities,
workers, and the poor.
In summary, the special-interest process, policy-planning process,
and campaign finance make it possible for the power elite to win far
more often than it loses on the policy issues that come before the
federal government. The power elite is also greatly over-represented in
appointed positions, presidential blue-ribbon commissions, and advisory
committees within the government. In terms of both the "who wins" and
"who governs" power indicators, the power elite dominates the federal
government.
However, this domination does not mean control on each and every
issue, or lack of opposition, and it does not rest upon government
involvement alone. Involvement in government is only the final and most
visible aspect of power elite domination, which has its roots in the
class structure, the nature of the economy, and the functioning of the
policy-planning network. If government officials did not have to wait on
corporate leaders to decide where and when they will invest, and if
government officials were not further limited by the acceptance of the
current economic arrangements,
then power elite involvement in elections and government would count for
a lot less than it does under present conditions.
There are many democratic countries where the working class --
defined as all those white-collar and blue-collar workers who earn a
salary or a wage -- has more power than it does in the United States.
This power is achieved primarily through labor unions and political
parties. It is reflected in more egalitarian wealth and income
distributions, a more equitable tax structure, better public health
services, subsidized housing, and higher old-age and unemployment
benefits.
How is it possible that the American working class could be
relatively powerless in a country that prides itself on its
long-standing history of pluralism and elections? There are several
interacting historical factors. First, the "primary producers" in the
United States, those who work with their hands in factories and fields,
were more seriously divided among themselves until the 1930s than in
most other countries. The deepest and most important of these divisions
was between whites and African-Americans. In the beginning, of course,
the African-Americans had no social power because of their enslavement,
which meant that there was no way to organize workers in the South. But
even after African-Americans gained their freedom, prejudices in the
white working class kept the two groups apart.
This black/white split in the working class was reinforced by later
conflicts between craft workers -- also called "skilled" workers -- and
industrial workers -- also called mass-production or "unskilled"
workers. Craft workers usually tried to keep their wages high by
excluding industrial workers. Their sense of superiority as skilled
workers was reinforced by the fact that they were of Northern European,
Protestant origins and the industrial workers tended to be Catholics and
Jews from Eastern and Southern Europe. Some African-Americans were also
found in the ranks of the industrial workers, along with other racial
minorities.
It would have been difficult enough to overcome these divisions even
if workers had been able to develop their own political party, but they
were unable to develop such a party because the electoral system greatly
disadvantages third parties. Workers were stuck. They had no place to
go but the Republicans or Democrats. In the late 19th and early 20th
centuries the craft workers often supported the Democrats, while the
recent immigrant industrial workers tended to support the Republicans.
Even when craft and industrial workers moved into the Democratic Party
en masse in the 1930s, they couldn't control the party because of the
power of the wealthy Southern planters and merchants.
Nor did the workers have much luck organizing themselves through
unions. The employers were able to call upon the government to crush
organizing drives and strikes through both court injunctions and police
arrests. This was not only because employers had great influence with
politicians then, just as they do now, but because the American
tradition of law, based in laissez faire (free market) liberalism, was
so fiercely opposed to any "restraint of trade" or "interference" with
private property. It was not until the 1930s that the liberal-labor
coalition was able to pass legislation guaranteeing workers the right to
join unions and engage in collective bargaining. Even this advance was
only possible by excluding the Southern workforce -- i.e., agricultural
and seasonal labor -- from the purview of the legislation.
Industrial unions were defeated almost completely in the South and
Southwest.
Unions thrived in a few major industries in the North in the
years after World War II, but then their power was eroded beginning in
the 1970s as the big corporations moved their factories to other
countries or lost market share to European and Japanese companies culminating with the absolute all out war on American laborers since the 1990s.
Given this history of internal division, political frustration, and
union defeat, American workers continue to
accept the highly individualistic ideology that has characterized the
United States since its founding. This acceptance in turn makes it even
more difficult to organize workers around "bread-and-butter" issues.
They often vote instead on the basis of bait traps...social issues or religious
convictions, with those who are deeply religious, opposed to affirmative
action, or opposed to gun control voting for the avowedly anti-union anti-worker
Republican Party.
We must not confuse freedom with social power.
Between 1962 and the 1990s there was a great expansion in individual
rights due to the civil rights, feminist, and lesbian-gay movements, but
during that time the ratio of a top business executive's pay to a
factory worker's pay increased from 41 to 1 to about 300 to 1. American
workers can say what they want and do what they want within very broad
limits, and their children can study hard in school so they can go to
graduate school and join the well-off professional class as doctors,
lawyers, architects, or engineers, but when it comes to social power the vast majority of Americans have very little of it and have no real path to becoming a part of the
power elite. The economic division has only gotten far worse since the 1990s.
So who benefits? Who sits? Who wins?
All the indicators point to only one conclusion.
You know the answer.
It isn't you.
So Why Are The Rich And The Businessmen Moaning?
Despite these various kinds of objective evidence that the power
elite have nearly absolute power in relation to the federal government, we witness many
corporate leaders claiming that they are relatively powerless in the face of
government. To hear them tell it, Congress is more responsive to
organized labor, environmentalists, and consumers. They also claim to be
harassed by willful and arrogant bureaucrats. These negative feelings
toward government are not a new development, contrary to those who blame
the New Deal and the social programs of the 1960s. A study of
businessmen's views in the 19th century found that they believed
political leaders to be "stupid" and "empty" people who went into
politics only to earn a living, and a study of businessmen's views
during what are thought of as their most powerful decade, the 1920s,
found the exact same mistrust of government.
The emotional expressions of business leaders about their lack of
power cannot be taken seriously as a power indicator This is little more than childish emotional outburst...entirely based on their feelings and not in any tangible reality. It may be a psychological uneasiness with power. Feelings are one thing, the effects
of one's actions another. But it is difficult to try to
understand why businessmen complain about a government they completely dominate.
I imagine complaining about government is a useful political strategy.
It
puts government officials on the defensive and forces them to keep
proving that they are friendly to business. Also, businessmen complain
about government because in fact very few civil servants are part of
the upper class and corporate community. The anti-government ideology in
the United States tends to restrain members of the upper class from
government careers except in the State Department, meaning that the main
contacts for members of the power elite within government are at the
very top. There is uncertainty and mistrust about how the middle levels will
react to new situations, and therefore a feeling that there is a
necessity to "ride herd" on or "reign in" the potentially troublesome
"bureaucrats" who are not necessarily in their pocket.
There also seems to be an ideological level to the business leaders'
attitudes toward government. There is a fear of the populist, democratic
ideology that underlies American government. Since power is (in theory only)
in the hands of all the people, there always is the possibility that
someday "the people," in the sense of the majority, will make the
government into the reflection of pluralist democracy that it is
actually supposed to be. In a very real way the great power of the
upper class and corporate community are culturally illegitimate, and
the existence of their power is always vigorously denied. It is okay
to be rich, and even to brag about wealth a little bit, but to flaunt that power becomes problematic, and they sense that. It's a sort of masquerade, maybe even one that due to limited experience with the reality 99% of people have to deal with, they actually believe is so.
Finally, the expressions of anguish from individual corporate leaders
concerning their powerlessness also suggests an explanation in terms of
the intersection of social psychology and sociology. It is the upper
class and corporate
community that have power, not
individuals within that community. Apart
from their institutional context psychologically they
feel powerless.
As individuals, they
feel hurt that they are not always
listened to, and that they have to convince their peers of the reasonableness
of their arguments before any actions are taken.
Moreover, policy that
is adopted is a group decision, and it is sometimes hard for people to
identify with group actions to the point where they
feel personally
powerful. It is not surprising then, that specific individuals might
actually feel powerless within the context of this monied and powerful group which is the only experience they have.
Consider for a moment the absurdity of the powerful & privileged Donald Trump representing a revolt against the privileged and powerful. He champions 'populist' causes such as complaining about the bad trade deals made, yet if you look at what little specifics he offers, his "deals" are no more beneficial domestically to workers. They favor the same people who benefited from the original deals & his record of manufacturing his namesake goods is the same as the people he demonizes on the campaign trail. He claims to represent the "common" people's interest in "helping" the middle class.
Yet his economic proposals only give even more tax cuts to the wealthiest such as himself...many of whom (Trump included) don't pay federal taxes at all thanks to their ability to write the tax codes in their favor through their power structure. I have no idea personally why Trump is doing this, other than I imagine his ego is just so big he feels he needs a crown to wear. Maybe, in terms of the power structure allowing this absurd charade, it's a way to control the anger of the electorate. Certainly something similar occurred with the "Tea Party". Media and folks like the Koch brothers, guided and financed that "rebellion" which used frustrated angry voters to put candidates friendly to Koch industry wants in government. One thing I can tell you is that any political operative who inherited a fortune, who owns 600,000 dollar portraits of themselves (which they charged to an alleged "charity") and sits on gold chairs and toilets has no understanding of what could possibly improve the lot of a working family and little or no interest in doing so. With all the evidence presented here that the power is in the hands of such people, why on earth would they want to be the "face" of it and in what universe would they fight against themselves?
Why would they want even more power?
Well that's another discussion.
The Nature Of Greed.
Postlogue
"Concentration of wealth yields concentration of political power.
And concentration of political power gives rise to legislation that
increases and accelerates the cycle." - Noam Chomsky
Concentration of wealth
yields concentration of political power. And concentration of political
power gives rise to legislation that increases and accelerates the
cycle.
Read more at: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/n/noamchomsk635835.html
Concentration of wealth
yields concentration of political power. And concentration of political
power gives rise to legislation that increases and accelerates the
cycle.
Read more at: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/n/noamchomsk635835.html
Concentration of wealth
yields concentration of political power. And concentration of political
power gives rise to legislation that increases and accelerates the
cycle.
Read more at: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/n/noamchomsk635835.html
Concentration of wealth
yields concentration of political power. And concentration of political
power gives rise to legislation that increases and accelerates the
cycle.
Read more at: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/n/noamchomsk635835.html
More Than EconomicsGOP presidential candidate Donald Trump’s ego may be larger than the size of his real estate empire, but that doesn’t
mean he leads a happy satisfying life...or enjoys mental health. Indeed the extreme wealth inequity the US system has produced also tends to produce psychopathologies.
On the other hand, the self-esteem of people who are living from paycheck to paycheck, or become
unemployed tends to erode as well.
Research from UC Berkeley has revealed this mind-wallet connection. The Study finds self-worth plays a key role in the development of mental disorders. Researchers concluded that one’s perceived social status or the lack
thereof; is at the heart of a wide range of mental illnesses. Researchers have linked inflated or deflated feelings of
self-worth to such afflictions as bipolar disorder, narcissistic
personality disorder, anxiety and depression, providing yet more
evidence that the chasm of ever widening distance between rich and poor is also bad for
your health.
Moreover, the richest of the rich think differently than the rest of us, see
themselves differently than the rest of us see them, and inhabit an
alternate reality exclusive to themselves. In other words, they
function very much like any
16th century European aristocracy. Oh yeah, and they're deeply paranoid.
Extreme inequality, it turns out, creates a class of people
who are alarmingly detached from reality — and simultaneously gives
these people great power.
Today’s Masters of the Power Universe are insecure about
the nature of their success. We’re not talking captains of industry
here in modern times folks, not men who make stuff.
We are, instead, talking about
wheeler-dealers, men who push money around and get rich by skimming off the top as it sloshes by.
They boast that they are job
creators, the people who make the economy work.
But that is a blatant lie. Many of us know it — and so, I suspect, do some of the wealthy
themselves, as a form of self-doubt causes them to lash out even more
furiously at their critics.
Unlike the robber barons of the past age, the endeavors of these people simply DO NOT really add any value whatsoever to the economy.
References
Kendall, D. (2002). The power of good deeds: Privileged women and the social reproduction of class. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
Wrong, D. (1995). Power: Its Forms, Bases, and Uses (2nd ed.). New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.
by
G. Williams Domhoff
