One-Finger Salute

Bush, American Democracy, and the Class War

Recently Michael Kinsley wrote a column in Slate about Bush's newest offensive against everyone who is not in the upper classes in America. Kinsley's premise is that there are two distinct systems operating in parallel in American society - democracy in the political or civic "sphere" and capitalism in the economic "sphere". He reviews some recent Bush administration actions concerning taxes and benefits that work to the detriment of the unfortunate unwashed masses and concludes that the Bush administration is breaking down the "border" separating the two "spheres" to the detriment of democracy.

Kinsley says a few things that need to be said, frequently and loudly. Bush and his gang of merry men and women are out to screw over America's poor. They are doing this by means of tax cuts that hypocritically target low-earners in favor of high-earners (the word "earners" in the latter phrase being used in a very loose sense). Congress, supposedly there to represent and work for the interests of ordinary Americans, is happily assisting the Bush regime - which comprises people connected with the oil industry and other large corporations - in this project. The net result of the Bush administration's domestic policies will be an America where large corporations and the wealthiest individuals control an increasingly inordinate amount of political power.

However, Kinsley's underlying premise - that there is, or was, some kind of policed "border" between American capitalism and American democracy - is false. It's poppycock. There has never been any kind of "border" between the functioning of the economy and politics in the United States. The whole idea of separate "spheres" (which, incidentally, Kinsley borrows from Michael Walzer - so one might already suspect that it's probably a bad idea) can stand neither historical nor theoretical scrutiny. Yet this idea is particularly widespread in the contemporary US, as Kinsley points out. The fact that many people believe that a social system can enshrine inequality at the level of distribution of wealth and still yield overall democratic policies is a major problem, and one that stands in the way of genuinely democratic reforms. This matter should be tackled seriously and frequently. Below, I look at the historical side of the issue before moving on to some proposals, including a real "campaign finance reform" plan, that will clearly show why there is not a barrier between capitalism and democracy in the US, and why there won't be as long as capitalism (or at least the multi-national, corporate/industrial variety) is able to operate unchecked.

Historically, it is easy to demonstrate that economic interests (i.e., those of capitalists) have always driven American public policy. The US was founded by white landowning males, and these are the types who ran the place, largely for the benefit of themselves, for nearly 100 years before anyone not matching this description was voted into national office. Even then, Congress really only took the still-preliminary steps towards integration in the 1960s. The most "democratic" ideas, reforms, and changes to the political structure - the abolition of slavery, universal suffrage, state-sponsored health care, the eight-hour workday, the 40-hour work week, consumer protections, civil rights - were all either made possible or almost entirely brought about by widespread, grassroots level agitation, and usually led, at least initially, by fringe "lunatics", not by "democratically" minded legislators. That is, the majority of the politically most progressive innovations in American society were made possible by people working long enough and hard enough outside of the system supposedly representing them until the people inside the system (i.e., the public's "representatives") were forced to legalize popular demands, to the detriment of their capitalist patrons. The "representatives" were reacting instead of working for the true interests of their constituents. On the other hand, "representatives" have never had to "react" when it comes to developing legislation which furthers commerce - at most, a few discussions and, in difficult cases, a few dollars smoothes things over.

Even the few "top-down" efforts at political and social liberalization (e.g., Johnson's Great Society and the New Deal) were necessitated by economic and social (and therefore political) crises in America. It is these protective laws - the results of previous popular agitation - that are now being rolled back and demolished. This is why it is not possible to say something like Bush is "bringing back the class war", for the simple fact that it never "went away". Winning certain, albeit important, reforms did not signal the end of the class war, because if it had, there would be no attempts at present to dismantle socially and politically progressive legislation. Therefore, it is only possible (but entirely correct) to say that his administration is working to intensify the class war, to strengthen and expand the grip of the wealthy on the American political machinery. It is a quantitative, not qualitative, difference.

Theoretically, the idea that there are distinct "capitalist" and "democratic" spheres is easy to dismiss as well. The few traditional Marxists still around, for example, are probably still having a good laugh (assuming they laugh, that is) at Kinsley's suggestion, since it almost completely severs the superstructure ("democracy") from the base ("capitalism"), leaving the two floating in a completely hazy manner [NOTE: small editing here]. However, as I am not a "traditional Marxist", I'll point out some other problems that people holding less marginal views can agree with. Wealth can be defined as control over goods and services. The more wealth, the more control over more goods and services. In a society based on the rule of the law, the flow and exchange of wealth will be regulated largely through legal channels. Since groups or individuals with more wealth control more goods and more services than those with lesser wealth, they can direct more resources towards influencing legal policies than their poorer competitors, leaving the latter (in every known human society so far, the decided majority) at a distinct disadvantage.

Many of the preferred policies of the wealthy will be concerned with creating favorable economic legislation that enables them to maintain and increase their wealth. Since it is more "economical" to exploit humans and in effect treat them as simply another good to employed in wealth generating schemes, rather than treat them as humans, it follows that most of these policies will not be in the interests of the majority of humans who do not control appreciable amounts of wealth - the same majority who, under every mainstream definition of "democracy", should be the ones devising legislation that furthers their interests. In other words, control over finite resources and services cannot fail to influence decisions on how those resources are distributed. When a minority of people and groups control those resources, decisions on how to distribute them will be inordinately influenced by that minority - a situation which is antithetical to "democracy".

If it is accepted that there is no real "border" between democracy and capitalism and that the latter will always influence the former to the detriment of the majority of people, where does that leave us in 21st century America? Even if Kinsley's underlying premise is false and should be exposed as such, his conclusion can be modified to describe accurately what is now going on in Bush's America: the administration is not "breaking down" barriers between the two "spheres", it is erecting barriers that will make democratic control over, or even modest checks on, the corporations controlling the economy impossible. It is an integrated attack designed to weaken "democracy" on all fronts. Benefits to the lower classes are being slashed. Under new legislation, poorer students will be less likely to go to college, leaving higher education - traditionally the best route for social mobility - for wealthier young adults who already have a stake in the system and therefore will be less likely to entertain radical or even reformist changes to it. Erosion of civil liberties is already well under way via the "PATRIOT" Act and its successor. The Bush administration is attempting to stack the federal courts with deeply anti-democratic judges, a situation which is already found in the Supreme Court.

Particularly important in this campaign is control over education/information/propaganda outlets. The increasing consolidation over the mass media is the most visible of the Bush administration's efforts on this front. Further corporate control over the mass media will lead to increasing conflicts of interest between profit and factual information and will further diminish what variety of opinion one currently finds there. To refer to Marxist terminology again, what the Bush administration is doing is taking control of the "commanding heights" of information production and distribution, or consolidating the grip of large corporations over the "means of production" of social consensus (and a quick note to Democrats: one could see a similar, albeit less in-your-face, process during the Clinton years, e.g., with the Time-Warner-AOL merger). While people like well-known liberal leader Atrios will be "free" to reach their 20,000 people per day on the internet (itself mainly accessible to wealthier individuals), the mass media will be able to spew their messages into up to 45% of American households (a potential audience of 100 million or more). Who will have a greater potential for persuasive arguments and propaganda? What we face, then, is the problem of a greatly intensified class war against the lower and lower-middle middle classes. If the Bush regime is able to carry out its aims, even to a modest extent, it will take decades of struggle to undo them that will essentially reenact earlier struggles but from a much more difficult position.

What can be done, besides bending over and acknowledging the rule of our wealthier, fresher-smelling, natural betters? First of all, there needs to be a frank admission that there is a class war. Democratic "liberals" and progressives, and especially leftists, need to stop turning tail and running when they hear Republicans utter the words "class war". They need to accept the challenge and demonstrate that the Republicans, representing the interests of multi-national corporate capitalists, are the ones pressing home the class war and not vice versa. The class war has been going on for at least the last 11,000 years, since the beginning of regular agriculture first necessitated decisions on the redistribution of durable goods. It hasn't stopped, it hasn't taken a break or gone on vacation, it's not over. Pretending like it has is being in denial of a problem, which will be insoluble unless it is admitted. I am reminded of Zizka's suggestion that what is needed is someone from "Middle America" who hates the Republicans to speak to Middle America and tell them that Bush, despite his charming goofiness, despite his "aww-shucks" manners, and despite his low intellect, is out to fuck them over good. He doesn't wear that omnipresent shit-eating grin for nothing.

Second, we need to take a good look at the current "representative democracy" that is in place here in the US. The last time I checked, 40% of Americans were not millionaires - but this is the percentage of Senators who are. In addition, the size of Congress seriously impairs its ability to represent all of America. Both houses of Congress have a total of 535 members. That means 1 representative for every 544,381 citizens (working from the population of 291,244,004 given at the US Census Popclock site). Looking just at the House of "Representatives", there are 435 members, which translates to 1 Representative for every 669,526 citizens. This is not "representational" politics - how could it possibly be? This is exceedingly clear when we compare the US's version of "representational democracy" to the versions found in the liberal democracies of Europe, where there is actual oppositional politics. In Germany (total population approximately 82,400,000), there are 603 members of the Bundestag, a ratio of 1 representative to every 136,650 German residents. In France (population 59,329,691), there are 577 members of the National Assembly, which means 1 representative for every 102,824 French citizens. In Britain (population 58,789,194), there are 659 members of the House of Commons of Parliament, translating to 1 MP for every 89,209 British citizens. And so forth. There needs to be a relatively large expansion of both houses of Congress to increase its "representativeness". This would be one early stage towards a more democratic America.

Third, there needs to be a serious campaign financing reform proposal. The operative word here is "serious". Specifically, we need to make Kinsley's "separate spheres" concept a reality. Although Kinsley notes correctly that campaign contributions are simply the crudest means by which corporations control politicians, it is the best and most logical place to start on the project to democratize America.

Under this plan, no contributions to finance politicians' campaigns would be allowed allowed. This includes personal wealth. People involved with the "capitalism" sphere can make all of the money they can, put as much in the bank or give as much to charity, buy as many widgets as they want - but they can't use a cent of it to fund political campaigns. Politicians' campaigns would be financed by a special "democracy fund" from the federal government, which would in turn subsidize state and local elections (it would cost something, but hey, no one, except the Angelic Upstarts, ever said liberty should be free). This fund would be split evenly among the candidates, who would be able to use their monies on their campaign as they see fit.

Some might say that such legislation was "undemocratic", because capitalists would be not be able to use their wealth in defense of their "free speech" or whatever. This is nonsense. Such legislation would not impact their political rights - the freedom they enjoy in the "democracy" sphere - one bit. They would still have the same exact political rights as, for example, a bicycle messenger or a burger flipper at a fast-food restaurant. For example, they would be able to vote, argue endlessly with relatives, friends, and neighbors about the relative merits of candidates, write letters to the editor, run a blog, and donate their own time and effort to campaigns - putting up posters and signs on suburban lawns, organizing political rallies, and stuffing and licking envelopes. They just wouldn't be able to spend their money licking the ass of the candidate of their choice.

More modest, "reasonable", campaign finance reform proposals are simply aimed at perpetuating a rotten situation. It takes only one person or a small group of people at a large commercial firm - a CEO or a board of directors - to make a decision to give a few thousand dollars to a candidate to get him or her to make decisions that negatively impact millions of people. That's just in the US. Usually, these little decisions affect the lives of billions of people globally (which is why people such as the Conservative-Female-Commentator-Who-Cannot-Be-Named so vehemently oppose extending the franchise any further). Meanwhile, people without access to loads of cash must spend thousands of hours of their time, use what little money they have (nearly always a much greater percentage of their disposable wealth than with the upper classes), and agitate long enough to bring millions of people on board at the grassroots level to enact the smallest change in public policy. When the policy issue at stake is enormous, often there are human lives added to these other costs. This might be considered "democratic", but only in the original, classical Athenian sense, in which 25% or less of the population enjoyed full civic and voting rights, while 75% were stuck with whatever was decided for them.

Think this proposal sounds "unreasonable" or "impossible"? Of course it is. It would greatly reduce the primary benefit of wealth, which is not widget- or trinket-purchasing power but rather the power to influence or force other people who lack wealth to behave in a desired manner. People acquire wealth not as an end unto itself, but rather to be able to influence the behavior of others, to be shielded from such influence, or both. Removing the ability to use wealth to influence others would remove much of the incentive of acquiring it in the first place. Wealth beyond what an individual judges to be necessary for his or her own comfort of living would increasingly provide less in return for the effort expended in acquiring it. Such an idea would spell the end of large scale corporate capitalism, which is predicated on continuous expansion of markets and increasing profitability.

In conclusion, the next time anyone tries to tell you that American democracy is shielded, even to a very modest degree, from the effects of capitalism, you can feel free to laugh in their face. What the Bush administration is trying to do in America is serious and needs to be fought against by everyone interested in democracy and/or having a say in how their life is run by whatever means are at their disposal. But it's nothing new. It's still the class war in action, and even if Bush's plans are turned back this time, there will still be similar people in the future ready to enact similar programs as long as wealth is permitted to provide a competitive advantage in setting public policy.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I will go and drink some inexpensive but nevertheless superior beer whose production was subsidized by the federal government of the state in which I am currently resident. It's one of the smaller benefits of living in a social democratic welfare state that hasn't been completely infected yet by American capitalism.