We, the Plutocrats vs. We, the People: Saving the Soul of Democracy

By Bill Moyers, TomDispatch

12 September 16

 

---

Hope: it’s in short supply in America this year. I was reminded of that recently when I spoke at a kick-off event for the school year hosted by the Dole Institute of Politics at the University of Kansas. The Institute’s namesake is, of course, Bob Dole, the war hero turned Republican congressman, senator, minority and then majority leader, and finally presidential nominee in 1996. On a beautiful summer evening, on the front lawn of the Institute, my host, a KU senior named Cody, and I discussed -- what else is there to talk about this year? -- The Donald, Hillary, and Bernie. Then we plunged into the perilous topic of the media and its curious future and the life of a journalist (me) covering the gravity-defying spectacle commonly known as election 2016. More than 100 students showed up -- nothing to do, I’m sure, with the free burgers and soda -- and when it came time for the Q-and-A portion of the event, I couldn’t help but be struck by the acuity and thoughtfulness of their questions.

Afterward, I met a smaller group of them at a nearby basement bar. During my five years as an undergraduate, I can’t recall having a conversation as substantive as that evening’s. Kansas’s state government, led by its governor, Sam Brownback, has plunged into a radical experiment in “conservative” governing, and it was on their minds. We talked about a variety of depressing topics, including the devastating effects of the legislature’s repeated budget cuts to higher education and another grim signature legislative issue: the open carry of guns on campus. “No gun” signs were ubiquitous there, but everyone wondered: For how long? The students spoke eloquently and knowledgeably. More than that, they spoke with passion and in detail about how such problems might be dealt with and even fixed, and they did so with the Dole Institute’s bipartisan ethos in mind. Some of it may have been the youthful idealism of the undergraduate but, believe me, it was refreshing.

I say all this because, as a journalist in this crazy year of our lord 2016, on a good day the temptation is to tilt toward cynicism. It’s our job to rake the muck and expose the trolls, to cast light on the wrongdoing and the failings in our society, but it’s up to others to set them right. Today, at this site, Bill Moyers writes about the greatest failing, the true disaster, of our time: the scourge of growing inequality, economic and political. He describes it as “a despicable blot on American politics,” as the very wealthy convert their financial might into political power to guard that wealth while exacerbating inequality further. The statistics Moyers deploys are chilling. Consume enough of them and you’re liable to feel a bit gloomy. But like those undergraduates, Moyers (very distinctly a post-graduate of our difficult political world) holds onto the hope, as today’s piece suggests, that Americans can still fix our world, make it a better place. 

Those students I met gave me hope and Moyers does the same -- hope for a more equitable future brought on by the hard work of Americans, whether as journalists, legislators, or activists, as lawyers, doctors, engineers, or teachers. These are strange, often grim, times, and such bursts of hope are what keep us going.

-Andy Kroll, TomDispatch

---

We, the Plutocrats vs. We, the People
Saving the Soul of Democracy

ixty-six years ago this summer, on my 16th birthday, I went to work for the daily newspaper in the small East Texas town of Marshall where I grew up. It was a good place to be a cub reporter -- small enough to navigate but big enough to keep me busy and learning something every day.  I soon had a stroke of luck.  Some of the paper's old hands were on vacation or out sick and I was assigned to help cover what came to be known across the country as "the housewives' rebellion."

Fifteen women in my hometown decided not to pay the social security withholding tax for their domestic workers.  Those housewives were white, their housekeepers black. Almost half of all employed black women in the country then were in domestic service.  Because they tended to earn lower wages, accumulate less savings, and be stuck in those jobs all their lives, social security was their only insurance against poverty in old age. Yet their plight did not move their employers.

The housewives argued that social security was unconstitutional and imposing it was taxation without representation. They even equated it with slavery.  They also claimed that "requiring us to collect [the tax] is no different from requiring us to collect the garbage."  So they hired a high-powered lawyer -- a notorious former congressman from Texas who had once chaired the House Un-American Activities Committee -- and took their case to court. They lost, and eventually wound up holding their noses and paying the tax, but not before their rebellion had become national news.

The stories I helped report for the local paper were picked up and carried across the country by the Associated Press. One day, the managing editor called me over and pointed to the AP Teletype machine beside his desk. Moving across the wire was a notice citing our paper and its reporters for our coverage of the housewives' rebellion.

I was hooked, and in one way or another I've continued to engage the issues of money and power, equality and democracy over a lifetime spent at the intersection between politics and journalism. It took me awhile to put the housewives' rebellion into perspective.  Race played a role, of course.  Marshall was a segregated, antebellum town of 20,000, half of whom were white, the other half black.  White ruled, but more than race was at work. Those 15 housewives were respectable townsfolk, good neighbors, regulars at church (some of them at my church).  Their children were my friends; many of them were active in community affairs; and their husbands were pillars of the town's business and professional class. 

So what brought on that spasm of rebellion?  They simply couldn't see beyond their own prerogatives.  Fiercely loyal to their families, their clubs, their charities, and their congregations -- fiercely loyal, that is, to their own kind -- they narrowly defined membership in democracy to include only people like themselves.  They expected to be comfortable and secure in their old age, but the women who washed and ironed their laundry, wiped their children's bottoms, made their husbands' beds, and cooked their family's meals would also grow old and frail, sick and decrepit, lose their husbands and face the ravages of time alone, with nothing to show from their years of labor but the crease in their brow and the knots on their knuckles. 

In one way or another, this is the oldest story in our country's history: the struggle to determine whether "we, the people" is a metaphysical reality -- one nation, indivisible -- or merely a charade masquerading as piety and manipulated by the powerful and privileged to sustain their own way of life at the expense of others.

"I Contain Multitudes"

There is a vast difference between a society whose arrangements roughly serve all its citizens and one whose institutions have been converted into a stupendous fraud, a democracy in name only.  I have no doubt about what the United States of America was meant to be.  It's spelled out right there in the 52 most revolutionary words in our founding documents, the preamble to our Constitution, proclaiming the sovereignty of the people as the moral base of government:  

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

What do those words mean, if not that we are all in the business of nation-building together?

Now, I recognize that we've never been a country of angels guided by a presidium of saints.  Early America was a moral morass.  One in five people in the new nation was enslaved.  Justice for the poor meant stocks and stockades.  Women suffered virtual peonage. Heretics were driven into exile, or worse. Native people -- the Indians -- would be forcibly removed from their land, their fate a "trail of tears" and broken treaties.

No, I'm not a romantic about our history and I harbor no idealized notions of politics and democracy.  Remember, I worked for President Lyndon Johnson.  I heard him often repeat the story of the Texas poker shark who leaned across the table and said to his mark: "Play the cards fair, Reuben. I know what I dealt you." LBJ knew politics. 

Nor do I romanticize "the people." When I began reporting on the state legislature while a student at the University of Texas, a wily old state senator offered to acquaint me with how the place worked.  We stood at the back of the Senate floor as he pointed to his colleagues spread out around the chamber -- playing cards, napping, nipping, winking at pretty young visitors in the gallery -- and he said to me, "If you think these guys are bad, you should see the people who sent them there."            

And yet, despite the flaws and contradictions of human nature -- or perhaps because of them -- something took hold here. The American people forged a civilization: that thin veneer of civility stretched across the passions of the human heart. Because it can snap at any moment, or slowly weaken from abuse and neglect until it fades away, civilization requires a commitment to the notion (contrary to what those Marshall housewives believed) that we are all in this together.

American democracy grew a soul, as it were -- given voice by one of our greatest poets, Walt Whitman, with his all-inclusive embrace in Song of Myself:

"Whoever degrades another degrades me,
and whatever is done or said returns at last to me...
I speak the pass-word primeval -- I give the sign of democracy;
By God! I will accept nothing which all cannot have their counterpart of on the same terms...
(I am large -- I contain multitudes.)"

Author Kathleen Kennedy Townsend has vividly described Whitman seeing himself in whomever he met in America. As he wrote in I Sing the Body Electric:

"-- the horseman in his saddle,
Girls, mothers, house-keepers, in all their performances,
The group of laborers seated at noon-time with their open dinner-kettles and their wives waiting,
The female soothing a child -- the farmer's daughter in the garden or cow-yard,
The young fellow hoeing corn --"

Whitman's words celebrate what Americans shared at a time when they were less dependent on each other than we are today.  As Townsend put it, "Many more people lived on farms in the nineteenth century, and so they could be a lot more self-reliant; growing their own food, sewing their clothes, building their homes.  But rather than applauding what each American could do in isolation, Whitman celebrated the vast chorus: 'I hear America singing.'" The chorus he heard was of multitudinous voices, a mighty choir of humanity.

Whitman saw something else in the soul of the country: Americans at work, the laboring people whose toil and sweat built this nation.  Townsend contrasts his attitude with the way politicians and the media today -- in their endless debates about wealth creation, capital gains reduction, and high corporate taxes -- seem to have forgotten working people. "But Whitman wouldn't have forgotten them." She writes, "He celebrates a nation where everyone is worthy, not where a few do well."

President Franklin Delano Roosevelt understood the soul of democracy, too.  He expressed it politically, although his words often ring like poetry.  Paradoxically, to this scion of the American aristocracy, the soul of democracy meant political equality.  "Inside the polling booth," he said, "every American man and woman stands as the equal of every other American man and woman. There they have no superiors. There they have no masters save their own minds and consciences." 

God knows it took us a long time to get there.  Every claim of political equality in our history has been met by fierce resistance from those who relished for themselves what they would deny others. After President Abraham Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation it took a century before Lyndon Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act of 1965 -- a hundred years of Jim Crow law and Jim Crow lynchings, of forced labor and coerced segregation, of beatings and bombings, of public humiliation and degradation, of courageous but costly protests and demonstrations. Think of it: another hundred years before the freedom won on the bloody battlefields of the Civil War was finally secured in the law of the land. 

And here's something else to think about: Only one of the women present at the first women's rights convention in Seneca Falls in 1848 -- only one, Charlotte Woodward -- lived long enough to see women actually get to vote.

"We Pick That Rabbit Out of the Hat"

So it was, in the face of constant resistance, that many heroes -- sung and unsung -- sacrificed, suffered, and died so that all Americans could gain an equal footing inside that voting booth on a level playing field on the ground floor of democracy.  And yet today money has become the great unequalizer, the usurper of our democratic soul.

No one saw this more clearly than that conservative icon Barry Goldwater, longtime Republican senator from Arizona and one-time Republican nominee for the presidency. Here are his words from almost 30 years ago:

"The fact that liberty depended on honest elections was of the utmost importance to the patriots who founded our nation and wrote the Constitution.  They knew that corruption destroyed the prime requisite of constitutional liberty: an independent legislature free from any influence other than that of the people.  Applying these principles to modern times, we can make the following conclusions: To be successful, representative government assumes that elections will be controlled by the citizenry at large, not by those who give the most money. Electors must believe that their vote counts.  Elected officials must owe their allegiance to the people, not to their own wealth or to the wealth of interest groups that speak only for the selfish fringes of the whole community."

About the time Senator Goldwater was writing those words, Oliver Stone released his movie Wall Street.  Remember it? Michael Douglas played the high roller Gordon Gekko, who used inside information obtained by his ambitious young protégé, Bud Fox, to manipulate the stock of a company that he intended to sell off for a huge personal windfall, while throwing its workers, including Bud's own blue-collar father, overboard.  The younger man is aghast and repentant at having participated in such duplicity and chicanery, and he storms into Gekko's office to protest, asking, "How much is enough, Gordon?"

Gekko answers:

"The richest one percent of this country owns half our country's wealth, five trillion dollars... You got ninety percent of the American public out there with little or no net worth. I create nothing. I own. We make the rules, pal. The news, war, peace, famine, upheaval, the price per paper clip.  We pick that rabbit out of the hat while everybody sits out there wondering how the hell we did it.  Now, you're not naïve enough to think we're living in a democracy, are you, Buddy?  It's the free market. And you're part of it."

That was in the high-flying 1980s, the dawn of today's new gilded age.  The Greek historian Plutarch is said to have warned that "an imbalance between rich and poor is the oldest and most fatal ailment of a Republic." Yet as the Washington Post pointed out recently, income inequality may be higher at this moment than at any time in the American past.

When I was a young man in Washington in the 1960s, most of the country's growth accrued to the bottom 90% of households.  From the end of World War II until the early 1970s, in fact, income grew at a slightly faster rate at the bottom and middle of American society than at the top.  In 2009, economists Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez explored decades of tax data and found that from 1950 through 1980 the average income of the bottom 90% of Americans had grown, from $ 17,719 to $ 30,941.  That represented a 75% increase in 2008 dollars.

Since 1980, the economy has continued to grow impressively, but most of the benefits have migrated to the top.  In these years, workers were more productive but received less of the wealth they were helping to create. In the late 1970s, the richest 1% received 9% of total income and held 19% of the nation's wealth. The share of total income going to that 1% would then rise to more than 23% by 2007, while their share of total wealth would grow to 35%. And that was all before the economic meltdown of 2007-2008.

Even though everyone took a hit during the recession that followed, the top 10% now hold more than three-quarters of the country's total family wealth. 

I know, I know: statistics have a way of causing eyes to glaze over, but these statistics highlight an ugly truth about America: inequality matters. It slows economic growth, undermines health, erodes social cohesion and solidarity, and starves education. In their study The Spirit Level: Why Greater Equality Makes Societies Stronger, epidemiologists Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett found that the most consistent predictor of mental illness, infant mortality, low educational achievement, teenage births, homicides, and incarceration was economic inequality.  

So bear with me as I keep the statistics flowing.  The Pew Research Center recently released a new study indicating that, between 2000 and 2014, the middle class shrank in virtually all parts of the country.  Nine out of ten metropolitan areas showed a decline in middle-class neighborhoods. And remember, we aren't even talking about over 45 million people who are living in poverty.  Meanwhile, between 2009 and 2013, that top 1% captured 85% percent of all income growth.  Even after the economy improved in 2015, they still took in more than half of the income growth and by 2013 held nearly half of all the stock and mutual fund assets Americans owned. 

Now, concentrations of wealth would be far less of an issue if the rest of society were benefitting proportionally.  But that isn't the case.

Once upon a time, according to Isabel Sawhill and Sara McClanahan in their 2006 report Opportunity in America, the American ideal was one in which all children had "a roughly equal chance of success regardless of the economic status of the family into which they were born." 

Almost 10 years ago, economist Jeffrey Madrick wrote that, as recently as the 1980s, economists thought that "in the land of Horatio Alger only 20 percent of one's future income was determined by one's father's income." He then cited research showing that, by 2007, "60 percent of a son's income [was] determined by the level of income of the father. For women, it [was] roughly the same." It may be even higher today, but clearly a child's chance of success in life is greatly improved if he's born on third base and his father has been tipping the umpire.

This raises an old question, one highlighted by the British critic and public intellectual Terry Eagleton in an article in the Chronicle of Higher Education:

"Why is it that the capitalist West has accumulated more resources than human history has ever witnessed, yet appears powerless to overcome poverty, starvation, exploitation, and inequality?... Why does private wealth seem to go hand in hand with public squalor? Is it... plausible to maintain that there is something in the nature of capitalism itself which generates deprivation and inequality?"

The answer, to me, is self-evident.  Capitalism produces winners and losers big time.  The winners use their wealth to gain political power, often through campaign contributions and lobbying.  In this way, they only increase their influence over the choices made by the politicians indebted to them. While there are certainly differences between Democrats and Republicans on economic and social issues, both parties cater to wealthy individuals and interests seeking to enrich their bottom lines with the help of the policies of the state (loopholes, subsidies, tax breaks, deregulation).  No matter which party is in power, the interests of big business are largely heeded.

More on that later, but first, a confession.  The legendary broadcast journalist Edward R. Murrow told his generation of journalists that bias is okay as long as you don't try to hide it. Here's mine: plutocracy and democracy don't mix. As the late (and great) Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis said, "We may have democracy, or we may have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." Of course the rich can buy more homes, cars, vacations, gadgets, and gizmos than anyone else, but they should not be able to buy more democracy. That they can and do is a despicable blot on American politics that is now spreading like a giant oil spill.

In May, President Obama and I both spoke at the Rutgers University commencement ceremony.  He was at his inspirational best as 50,000 people leaned into every word.  He lifted the hearts of those young men and women heading out into our troubled world, but I cringed when he said, "Contrary to what we hear sometimes from both the left as well as the right, the system isn't as rigged as you think..."

Wrong, Mr. President, just plain wrong. The people are way ahead of you on this.  In a recent poll, 71% of Americans across lines of ethnicity, class, age, and gender said they believe the U.S. economy is rigged.  People reported that they are working harder for financial security.  One quarter of the respondents had not taken a vacation in more than five years.  Seventy-one percent said that they are afraid of unexpected medical bills; 53% feared not being able to make a mortgage payment; and, among renters, 60% worried that they might not make the monthly rent. 

Millions of Americans, in other words, are living on the edge.  Yet the country has not confronted the question of how we will continue to prosper without a workforce that can pay for its goods and services.

Who Dunnit?

You didn't have to read Das Kapital to see this coming or to realize that the United States was being transformed into one of the harshest, most unforgiving societies among the industrial democracies.  You could instead have read the Economist, arguably the most influential business-friendly magazine in the English-speaking world.  I keep in my files a warning published in that magazine a dozen years ago, on the eve of George W. Bush's second term.  The editors concluded back then that, with income inequality in the U.S. reaching levels not seen since the first Gilded Age and social mobility diminishing, "the United States risks calcifying into a European-style class-based society."

And mind you, that was before the financial meltdown of 2007-2008, before the bailout of Wall Street, before the recession that only widened the gap between the super-rich and everyone else. Ever since then, the great sucking sound we've been hearing is wealth heading upwards. The United States now has a level of income inequality unprecedented in our history and so dramatic it's almost impossible to wrap one's mind around. 

Contrary to what the president said at Rutgers, this is not the way the world works; it's the way the world is made to work by those with the money and power.  The movers and shakers -- the big winners -- keep repeating the mantra that this inequality was inevitable, the result of the globalization of finance and advances in technology in an increasingly complex world.  Those are part of the story, but only part. As G.K. Chesterton wrote a century ago, "In every serious doctrine of the destiny of men, there is some trace of the doctrine of the equality of men.  But the capitalist really depends on some religion of inequality." 

Exactly.  In our case, a religion of invention, not revelation, politically engineered over the last 40 years. Yes, politically engineered.  On this development, you can't do better than read Winner Take All Politics: How Washington Made the Rich Richer and Turned Its Back on the Middle Class by Jacob Hacker and Paul Pierson, the Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson of political science.

They were mystified by what had happened to the post-World War II notion of "shared prosperity"; puzzled by the ways in which ever more wealth has gone to the rich and super rich; vexed that hedge-fund managers pull in billions of dollars, yet pay taxes at lower rates than their secretaries; curious about why politicians kept slashing taxes on the very rich and handing huge tax breaks and subsidies to corporations that are downsizing their work forces; troubled that the heart of the American Dream -- upward mobility -- seemed to have stopped beating; and dumbfounded that all of this could happen in a democracy whose politicians were supposed to serve the greatest good for the greatest number. So Hacker and Pierson set out to find out "how our economy stopped working to provide prosperity and security for the broad middle class."

In other words, they wanted to know: "Who dunnit?" They found the culprit. With convincing documentation they concluded, "Step by step and debate by debate, America's public officials have rewritten the rules of American politics and the American economy in ways that have benefitted the few at the expense of the many."

There you have it: the winners bought off the gatekeepers, then gamed the system.  And when the fix was in they turned our economy into a feast for the predators, "saddling Americans with greater debt, tearing new holes in the safety net, and imposing broad financial risks on Americans as workers, investors, and taxpayers." The end result, Hacker and Pierson conclude, is that the United States is looking more and more like the capitalist oligarchies of Brazil, Mexico, and Russia, where most of the wealth is concentrated at the top while the bottom grows larger and larger with everyone in between just barely getting by.

Bruce Springsteen sings of "the country we carry in our hearts." This isn't it.

"God's Work"

Looking back, you have to wonder how we could have ignored the warning signs.  In the 1970s, Big Business began to refine its ability to act as a class and gang up on Congress.  Even before the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision, political action committees deluged politics with dollars. Foundations, corporations, and rich individuals funded think tanks that churned out study after study with results skewed to their ideology and interests. Political strategists made alliances with the religious right, with Jerry Falwell's Moral Majority and Pat Robertson's Christian Coalition, to zealously wage a cultural holy war that would camouflage the economic assault on working people and the middle class. 

To help cover-up this heist of the economy, an appealing intellectual gloss was needed.  So public intellectuals were recruited and subsidized to turn "globalization," "neo-liberalism," and "the Washington Consensus" into a theological belief system.  The "dismal science of economics" became a miracle of faith.  Wall Street glistened as the new Promised Land, while few noticed that those angels dancing on the head of a pin were really witchdoctors with MBAs brewing voodoo magic.  The greed of the Gordon Gekkos -- once considered a vice -- was transformed into a virtue.  One of the high priests of this faith, Lloyd Blankfein, CEO of Goldman Sachs, looking in wonder on all that his company had wrought, pronounced it "God's work."

A prominent neoconservative religious philosopher even articulated a "theology of the corporation."  I kid you not.  And its devotees lifted their voices in hymns of praise to wealth creation as participation in the Kingdom of Heaven here on Earth.  Self-interest became the Gospel of the Gilded Age.

No one today articulates this winner-take-all philosophy more candidly than Ray Dalio.  Think of him as the King Midas of hedge funds, with a personal worth estimated at almost $16 billion and a company, Bridgewater Associates, reportedly worth as much as $154 billion.  

Dalio fancies himself a philosopher and has written a book of maxims explaining his philosophy. It boils down to: "Be a hyena. Attack the Wildebeest." (Wildebeests, antelopes native to southern Africa -- as I learned when we once filmed a documentary there -- are no match for the flesh-eating dog-like spotted hyenas that gorge on them.)  Here's what Dalio wrote about being a Wall Street hyena:

"...when a pack of hyenas takes down a young wildebeest, is this good or bad? At face value, this seems terrible; the poor wildebeest suffers and dies. Some people might even say that the hyenas are evil. Yet this type of apparently evil behavior exists throughout nature through all species... like death itself, this behavior is integral to the enormously complex and efficient system that has worked for as long as there has been life... [It] is good for both the hyenas, who are operating in their self-interest, and the interests of the greater system, which includes the wildebeest, because killing and eating the wildebeest fosters evolution, i.e., the natural process of improvement... Like the hyenas attacking the wildebeest, successful people might not even know if or how their pursuit of self-interest helps evolution, but it typically does."

He concludes: "How much money people have earned is a rough measure of how much they gave society what it wanted..."

Not this time, Ray.  This time, the free market for hyenas became a slaughterhouse for the wildebeest. Collapsing shares and house prices destroyed more than a quarter of the wealth of the average household.  Many people have yet to recover from the crash and recession that followed. They are still saddled with burdensome debt; their retirement accounts are still anemic.  All of this was, by the hyena's accounting, a social good, "an improvement in the natural process," as Dalio puts it.  Nonsense.  Bull.  Human beings have struggled long and hard to build civilization; his doctrine of "progress" is taking us back to the jungle.

And by the way, there's a footnote to the Dalio story.  Early this year, the founder of the world's largest hedge fund, and by many accounts the richest man in Connecticut where it is headquartered, threatened to take his firm elsewhere if he didn't get concessions from the state. You might have thought that the governor, a Democrat, would have thrown him out of his office for the implicit threat involved.  But no, he buckled and Dalio got the $22 million in aid -- a $5 million grant and a $17 million loan -- that he was demanding to expand his operations. It's a loan that may be forgiven if he keeps jobs in Connecticut and creates new ones. No doubt he left the governor's office grinning like a hyena, his shoes tracking wildebeest blood across the carpet.  

Our founders warned against the power of privileged factions to capture the machinery of democracies.  James Madison, who studied history through a tragic lens, saw that the life cycle of previous republics had degenerated into anarchy, monarchy, or oligarchy. Like many of his colleagues, he was well aware that the republic they were creating could go the same way.  Distrusting, even detesting concentrated private power, the founders attempted to erect safeguards to prevent private interests from subverting the moral and political compact that begins, "We, the people." For a while, they succeeded.

When the brilliant young French aristocrat Alexis de Tocqueville toured America in the 1830s, he was excited by the democratic fervor he witnessed.  Perhaps that excitement caused him to exaggerate the equality he celebrated.  Close readers of de Tocqueville will notice, however, that he did warn of the staying power of the aristocracy, even in this new country.  He feared what he called, in the second volume of his masterwork, Democracy in America, an "aristocracy created by business."  He described it as already among "the harshest that ever existed in the world" and suggested that, "if ever a permanent inequality of conditions and aristocracy again penetrate the world, it may be predicted that this is the gate by which they will enter." 

And so it did.  Half a century later, the Gilded Age arrived with a new aristocratic hierarchy of industrialists, robber barons, and Wall Street tycoons in the vanguard.  They had their own apologist in the person of William Graham Sumner, an Episcopal minister turned professor of political economy at Yale University.  He famously explained that "competition... is a law of nature" and that nature "grants her rewards to the fittest, therefore, without regard to other considerations of any kind." 

From Sumner's essays to the ravenous excesses of Wall Street in the 1920s to the ravings of Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and Fox News, to the business press's wide-eyed awe of hyena-like CEOs; from the Republican war on government to the Democratic Party's shameless obeisance to big corporations and contributors, this "law of nature" has served to legitimate the yawning inequality of income and wealth, even as it has protected networks of privilege and monopolies in major industries like the media, the tech sector, and the airlines.  

A plethora of studies conclude that America's political system has already been transformed from a democracy into an oligarchy (the rule of a wealthy elite).  Martin Gilens and Benjamin Page, for instance, studied data from 1,800 different policy initiatives launched between 1981 and 2002.  They found that "economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy while mass-based interest groups and average citizens have little or no independent influence."  Whether Republican or Democratic, they concluded, the government more often follows the preferences of major lobbying or business groups than it does those of ordinary citizens.

We can only be amazed that a privileged faction in a fervent culture of politically protected greed brought us to the brink of a second Great Depression, then blamed government and a "dependent" 47% of the population for our problems, and ended up richer and more powerful than ever. 

The Truth of Your Life

Which brings us back to those Marshall housewives -- to all those who simply can't see beyond their own prerogatives and so narrowly define membership in democracy to include only people like themselves.

How would I help them recoup their sanity, come home to democracy, and help build the sort of moral compact embodied in the preamble to the Constitution, that declaration of America's intent and identity? 

First, I'd do my best to remind them that societies can die of too much inequality. 

Second, I'd give them copies of anthropologist Jared Diamond's book Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed to remind them that we are not immune.  Diamond won the Pulitzer Prize for describing how the damage humans have inflicted on their environment has historically led to the decline of civilizations.  In the process, he vividly depicts how elites repeatedly isolate and delude themselves until it's too late.  How, extracting wealth from commoners, they remain well fed while everyone else is slowly starving until, in the end, even they (or their offspring) become casualties of their own privilege.  Any society, it turns out, contains a built-in blueprint for failure if elites insulate themselves endlessly from the consequences of their decisions.

Third, I'd discuss the real meaning of "sacrifice and bliss" with them.  That was the title of the fourth episode of my PBS series Joseph Campbell and the Power of Myth.  In that episode, Campbell and I discussed the influence on him of the German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer, who believed that the will to live is the fundamental reality of human nature.  So he puzzled about why some people override it and give up their lives for others.

"Can this happen?" Campbell asked. "That what we normally think of as the first law of nature, namely self-preservation, is suddenly dissolved. What creates that breakthrough when we put another's well-being ahead of our own?"  He then told me of an incident that took place near his home in Hawaii, up in the heights where the trade winds from the north come rushing through a great ridge of mountains.  People go there to experience the force of nature, to let their hair be blown in the winds -- and sometimes to commit suicide. 

One day, two policemen were driving up that road when, just beyond the railing, they saw a young man about to jump.  One of the policemen bolted from the car and grabbed the fellow just as he was stepping off the ledge.  His momentum threatened to carry both of them over the cliff, but the policeman refused to let go.  Somehow he held on long enough for his partner to arrive and pull the two of them to safety.  When a newspaper reporter asked, "Why didn't you let go? You would have been killed," he answered: "I couldn't... I couldn't let go.  If I had, I couldn't have lived another day of my life." 

Campbell then added: "Do you realize what had suddenly happened to that policeman? He had given himself over to death to save a stranger.  Everything else in his life dropped off. His duty to his family, his duty to his job, his duty to his own career, all of his wishes and hopes for life, just disappeared." What mattered was saving that young man, even at the cost of his own life.

How can this be, Campbell asked?  Schopenhauer's answer, he said, was that a psychological crisis represents the breakthrough of a metaphysical reality, which is that you and the other are two aspects of one life, and your apparent separateness is but an effect of the way we experience forms under the conditions of space and time.  Our true reality is our identity and unity with all life.

Sometimes, however instinctively or consciously, our actions affirm that reality through some unselfish gesture or personal sacrifice. It happens in marriage, in parenting, in our relations with the people immediately around us, and in our participation in building a society based on reciprocity.

The truth of our country isn't actually so complicated.  It's in the moral compact implicit in the preamble to our Constitution: we're all in this together.  We are all one another's first responders.  As the writer Alberto Rios once put it, "I am in your family tree and you are in mine."

I realize that the command to love our neighbor is one of the hardest of all religious concepts, but I also recognize that our connection to others goes to the core of life's mystery and to the survival of democracy.  When we claim this as the truth of our lives -- when we live as if it's so -- we are threading ourselves into the long train of history and the fabric of civilization; we are becoming "we, the people."

The religion of inequality -- of money and power -- has failed us; its gods are false gods.  There is something more essential -- more profound -- in the American experience than the hyena's appetite.  Once we recognize and nurture this, once we honor it, we can reboot democracy and get on with the work of liberating the country we carry in our hearts.

---

Bill Moyers has been an organizer of the Peace Corps, a top White House aide, a publisher, and a prolific broadcast journalist whose work earned 37 Emmy Awards and nine Peabody Awards. He is president of the Schumann Media Center, which supports independent journalism. This essay is adapted from remarks he prepared for delivery this past summer at the Chautauqua Institution's week-long focus on money and power. He is grateful to his colleagues Karen Kimball and Gail Ablow for their research and fact checking.

Follow TomDispatch on Twitter and join us on Facebook. Check out the newest Dispatch Book, Nick Turse's Next Time They'll Come to Count the Dead, and Tom Engelhardt's latest book, Shadow Government: Surveillance, Secret Wars, and a Global Security State in a Single-Superpower World.

The Alt-Right Gives a Press Conference

By Marin Cogan, New York Magazine

12 September 16

 

n Friday afternoon, Richard Spencer, president of the innocuously named National Policy Institute, a white nationalist think tank, took the podium at a tiny conference room at the Willard Hotel in downtown Washington. Earlier this week, Spencer and his guests, Jared Taylor, editor of the white supremacist site American Renaissance, and Peter Brimelow, of the anti-immigration site VDARE, announced they would hold a discussion called “What is the alt-right?” ahead of Trump’s speech at the Values Voter Summit across town at the Omni Shoreham Hotel.

The alt-right, as you may have heard, is having a bit of a moment. In earlier years, the movement — which combines elements of racism, anti-Semitism, and a general preference for nationalist strongmen over the candidates of either party — was mostly confined to the realm of dark web message boards, 4chan, and obscure blogs. About a year ago, they burst onto the scene and established a new home for themselves in Donald Trump’s campaign. In Trump, they found a candidate uniquely suited to the movement’s interests: funny, eminently meme-able, and promising to fix America’s worst problems through the sheer force of his will. Perhaps most important, they found a man willing to say the racist things no other mainstream politician would. As Trump steamrolled his way through the primaries, the newly emboldened alt-righters emerged as a force on social media. Among their targets were liberals (otherwise known as libtards), Jews, feminists, the media, and insufficiently reactionary conservatives, whom they called “cucks” — an insult that reveals more about the person delivering it than it does the target of the insult.

Still, the alt-right mostly avoided mainstream recognition until last month, when Hillary Clinton took to the national stage to verbally bludgeon Trump for enabling the alt-right’s emergence into mainstream American politics.

Up until now, the public face of the movement, if you can call it that, has largely been Pepe the frog. Spencer and his fellow alt-righters wanted to seize the moment to explain their beliefs to journalists, but even the logistics were controversial: A few days before the event was to happen, Spencer sent out a press release — complete with a logo spelling AR in triangles, set on a celestial backdrop — advertising the talk as taking place at the National Press Club. The day before the event, though, the press contact announced the alt-right had been dropped from the venue. Spencer, decrying the press club’s censorship, moved it to an undisclosed location owing to unspecified security concerns. When I emailed the press contact asking how to attend, I was directed to go to Old Ebbitt Grill, a lunch spot popular among tourists and downtown D.C. office dwellers, to await instruction. When I arrived, a man wearing a gray suit and brown tie pointed me down the street to the Willard Hotel, where the press conference was being held at the end of an ornately tapestried hall, in the appropriately named Peacock Room.

Excellent Turnout at Alt Right press conference pic.twitter.com/b5epQLuBTb

— Jack Posobiec (@JackPosobiec) September 9, 2016

“So, who are we?” Spencer said. “I think if I were to describe what a lot of people know about the alt-right, it’s probably some things they’ve seen online — it’s Pepe memes, it’s the parenthesis,” he said, referring to the practice, first used by anti-Semites but later reclaimed by Jews, of putting parentheses around the names of Jewish writers to signify their ethnicity. “It’s the take-no-prisoners attitude on places like Twitter and things like that. I think people have a superficial understanding about who we are by looking at those things.”

Spencer tried to elaborate: “I don’t think the best way of understanding the alt-right is strictly in terms of policy. I think metapolitics is more important than politics. I think big ideas are more important than policies,” he said. If the alt-right were in power, he argued, the world would be a happier place, and “we all would have arrived here via magnetic levitation trains.” A good mantra that encapsulates the beliefs of the alt-right, he said, is that “race is real, race matters, and race is the foundation of identity. You can’t understand who you are without race.” The refugee crisis in Europe, he said, by way of illustration, “is something like a world war, something like a race war.”

“I would say another aspect of the alt-right is don’t be a cuck. Cuckservative is probably a term that all of you know,” he continued. “This is a term that was organically invented, it came into being on Twitter and other places a year ago — it’s obviously a reference to being a cuckold — raising other people’s children, knowingly or unknowingly. It’s also a reference of the cuckoo bird. The cuckoo bird will fly into another bird’s nest and lay eggs with the other eggs.”

This is, to put it mildly, a very polite gloss on the much more graphic popular conception of what a cuckold is, especially on the internet. And if Spencer, Taylor, and Brimelow were attempting to put a more human face on a social-media movement that has made a name for itself by publishing the most vile shit imaginable, it was going to take a little more work. While Spencer spoke, someone with an alt-right hashtag in their Twitter bio and a background image of a swastika rising like a golden sun over the countryside was adding me to a Twitter list called “cattle cars” — as in, the vehicles used to send Jews to death camps during the Holocaust. Another was inviting his internet friends to “rate this yiddess’s aesthetic.” “The frog is an expression of — it’s a smug frog that’s an expression of someone who’s willing to speak the truth,” he said, as young men in the audience snickered.

Donald Trump Jr & Roger Stone both put out this pic, w/the winking symbol of white nationalism right at Trump's side pic.twitter.com/9kinDUoFZo

— Edward-Isaac Dovere (@IsaacDovere) September 11, 2016

But in some ways, Spencer was just the warmup act. After a brief talk from Brimelow, a silver-mop-haired man in a three-piece suit warning of America’s inevitable crackup, Spencer introduced Jared Taylor as the man who “red-pilled me” with his writings about race.

A key thing to know about Taylor — other than that he is a virulent racist — is that he pronounces whites wuh-hites, with extra emphasis on the h. “We have very good data on this subject, going back 100 years now,” said Taylor. “It’s very, very clear that Asians have the highest IQ, then wuh-hites, then Hispanics, then blacks.” Taylor went on like this, noting that the kinds of bacteria that make up a person’s mouth could be used to determine their race, that there was a reason that Haiti and Africa were both poor. The idea that race is a social construct, he said, “is so wrong and so stupid that only very intelligent people could convince themselves of it.” It was the most apt — and ironic — thing that any of them, including Taylor, a Yale graduate, said all afternoon.

A photo posted by Alt-Right (@the.alternative.right) on Sep 8, 2016 at 7:56pm PDT

If there were ever any real security concerns, they never materialized. In all, the event lasted over two hours, and most of the question-and-answer segment was taken up by alt-right supporters and members of the media asking about Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump. Spencer was happy to oblige. “I don’t think our support of Trump is really about policy at the end of the day. It’s about style over substance. Because, you know, policy, what does that really matter? I think it’s really about Trump’s style, the fact that he doesn’t back down, the fact that he’s willing to confront his enemies, especially on the left … you look at that and think, this is what a leader looks like, this is what we want,” he said. “He seems to be willing to go there. He seems to be willing to confront people. That’s very different than a cuckold.”