Paul Krugman's article today on the closeness of the Democratic Party to corporate America is a good read but hardly surprising or unanticipated. The corporate powers in the United States have been hedging their bets since money became instrumental in determining political outcomes (ie since basically forever). Krugman:
...yesterday ABC News reported on its Web site that the Clinton campaign is holding a “Rural Americans for Hillary” lunch and campaign briefing — at the offices of the Troutman Sanders Public Affairs Group, which lobbies for the agribusiness and biotech giant Monsanto.
Monsanto? AYFKM?
It's a cliche to say so, but nonetheless patently accurate. The lobbying culture and vast amount of cash spent to win political office in the United States makes a joke of the claims of an American democracy.
The country should clearly be referred to as it actually is; a polyarchy. (I certainly don't want to claim that the United States is the only important example, though given their power, arrogance and influence in the world, along with their now constant talk of democracy promotion they are undoubtedly where the focus must be). Polyarchy originated from theories of elitism dating back as far as WWII with its characteristics ultimately defined in Robert Dahl's 1971 study Polyarchy. Professor William I. Robinson explains polyarchy as
a system in which a small group actually rules, and mass participation in the decision making is confined to choosing leaders in elections that are carefully managed b y competing elites...
...In contrast to more popular conceptions of democracy, which see political power as a means for transforming unjust socioeconomic structures and democratizing social and cultural life, the polyarchic definition explicitly isolates the political from the socioeconomic sphere and restricts democracy to the political sphere. And even then, it limits democratic participation to voting in elections. ["Promoting Polyarchy in Latin America," William I Robinson in Latin America After Neoliberalism, pg 99, 100]
This isn't some Naderite rant. It is simply stating what is baldly and undeniably true and has been for decades. Of course this should render the country's criticisms and lectures to the Chavezes and Morales of the world empty and ludicrous. But, then again, the country is also known for its tendency to carry and use "the big stick" and we know in this cynical world that far too often might makes right.
Comments