In a democracy, power becomes an “empty place,” to use an expression of French political philosopher Claude Lefort. This does not mean that nobody occupies the place of power. Rather it means that those who occupy the place, do so circumstantially, and as a result of the periodic outcomes of the democratic, electoral struggle. That power is an empty place means that nobody can occupy it permanently, that nobody can “embody” it, and that no social group can claim to be entitled to rule.
My question is: in America, can we still consider political power to be the circumstantial result of the democratic electoral struggle?
Obama’s short political journey so far has proven two apparently contradictory facts related to the empty place, in my judgment. On the one hand, he has shown that the American electoral process is still able to make room for unexpected victories, for political actors defying political machineries and early financial disadvantages. On the other hand, however, his victory, together with his party’s victory, giving them ample majorities in both chambers of Congress, have indicated, in my opinion—and in that of most of those behind the famous “enthusiasm gap” between the parties—that neither decision-making nor legislative processes seem to be closely related to the electoral outcomes any longer.
The New York Times’ columnists Frank Rich and Nicholas Kristof have been using the word “plutocracy” in their columns to describe the problem I see. Would it be too strong of a claim to say that we have to take seriously the hypothesis of an at least partial plutocratic re-embodiment of power in America?
The historical and seemingly unlikely nature of Barack Obama’s election victory should be tempered by the fact that he, like his immediate precessors, received amble corporate sponsorship. The influence of corporate money in politics was painfully evident during the often ugly fight for health care reform, and the Citizens United case decision has made corporate money in politics a political fact in no uncertain terms. So the fact that “neither decision-making nor legislative processes seem to be closely related to the electoral outcomes any longer” has a lot to do with the previously mentioned, and quite regrettable, circumstances. Corporate money in politics is nothing new, yet every year, the flow of corporate money increases; and that’s just fine with so called Tea Party politicians such as Rand Paul are trying to formalize what is already painfully evident that is legitimize inequality, “We all either work for rich people or we sell stuff to rich people,” while as the same time denying their is inequality, “There are no rich. There are no middle class. There are no poor.” (And if you wish to point out the obvious, that America is not a classless society, you might be quickly targeted as a “class warrior.”)
Is this just plain ignorance, a willful denial of reality, or the latest round of electioneered talking points? I think such statements make perfectly clear that there “at least partial plutocratic re-embodiment of power in America.” I would go as far as to say it is not so much that this is not a new development as much as that recent developments have brought to light a process which has been going on since the Constitution formalized democracy in America, and intentionally tilted the scales in favor of the wealthy; the degree to which the scales are tilted in favor of the aristocracy has now become painfully obvious and has no doubt intensified since Clinton’s second term.
The issue raised relates to having great and undue influence in the political process. Do you think that plutocracy is the best description of what is happening today; or are we just seeing once more the battle between interest groups, and the exercise of power by career politicians and regulators? Personally, I lean towards the later.
The articles cited also referenced the Forbes 400: the Richest People in America. I haven’t looked at this in a long time. Actually, it would be a good project for someone to analyze this. I was actually surprised to find a high portion of entrepreneurs in the mix, and what appeared to me to be relatively few professional investors. I would also be interested in knowing what portion is related to inherited wealth.
My sense is the wealth is more concentrated because of the shift from a manufacturing based economy to services based economy. The remaining companies are consolidating in order to survive and be competitive. The irony is that workers do best when their employers create value and do well. If they don’t, then wages, benefits and employment stagnates or decline. In part, this is caused by the almost impossible task of obtaining approvals to do new projects. There are so many roadblocks that many companies just give up, including a resistance to adopt best organizational work practices.
Given this situation, I’m actually pleasantly surprised to see that a number of entrepreneurs have been successful, and many of them are benefactors to their communities — look at Warren Buffet and Bill Gates.
My sense is that the chances for social mobility to really work, we need a growth economy where value is created. Few people are going to do well in rudimentary service jobs.