RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment

Robinson writes: "Minority rule has always been a feature of American democracy. These days, however, it is getting worse."

"In a country whose electoral system still somewhat functions, there is only so much a government can do to keep people from exercising their right to rule, without resorting to totalitarian measures." (photo: WP)

Rich White Men Rule America. How Much Longer Will We Tolerate That For?

By Nathan Robinson, Guardian UK

20 May 19

Minority rule has always been a feature of American democracy. These days, however, it is getting worse

he core democratic principle is that people should have a meaningful say in political decisions that affect their lives. In Alabama, we’ve just seen what the opposite of democracy looks like: 25 white male Republicans in the state Senate were able to ban almost all abortion in the state. The consequences of that decision fall exclusively on women, who will be forced to carry all pregnancies to term if the law comes into effect. And, as has happened in other countries with abortion bans, poor women will be hit hardest of all – the rich can usually afford to go elsewhere.

There is no reason to respect the legitimacy of this kind of political decision, in which those in power show no sign of having listened to the people they’re deciding on behalf of. Though plenty in the pro-life movement are female, the people who will be most impacted are nowhere in the debate. Unfortunately, structural problems with the US government mean that we’re heading for an even more undemocratic future.

White men have never made up the majority of the US population, and yet from the country’s beginnings they have made up most of its political decision-makers. The constitution itself is an outrageously undemocratic document. People today are bound by a set of procedural rules that were made without the input of women, African Americans or native people. The framers quite deliberately constructed a system that would prevent what they called “tyranny of the majority” but what is more accurately called “popular democracy”.

That set of rules has been very effective at keeping the American populace from exercising power. James Madison was explicit about the function of the United States Senate – it was “to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority”. Indeed, that’s precisely what it does. As Jamelle Bouie points out, the Senate has “an affluent membership composed mostly of white men, who are about 30% of the population but hold 71 of the seats” out of 100. Though popular opinion may overwhelmingly favor universal healthcare and more progressive taxation, these policies are said to be “politically impossible” because the millionaires who populate Congress do not favor them.

We hear a lot about how the electoral college, the US supreme court and gerrymandered districts are undermining democratic rule. But it’s worth reflecting on just how deep the disenfranchisement really is. The supreme court is the highest branch of government, in that it can overturn the decisions of the other two branches. It consists of just nine people, all of whom went to Harvard or Yale and two-thirds of whom are men. Ian Samuel has pointed out the remarkable fact that, thanks to the way the Senate is structured, the senators who voted to confirm Brett Kavanaugh to the court received represent 38 million fewer people than the senators who voted against him.

The implications here are extreme. It simply doesn’t matter where the people of the US stand on union dues, campaign finance reform, or abortion. What matters is the opinion of nine elites, in many cases appointed by presidents who did not win the popular vote. A constitution written by slaveholders is being interpreted by a tiny room full of elites who have been given no meaningful popular approval. When you step back and look at the situation objectively, it’s utterly farcical to call the US government democratic.

The electoral college is, of course, its own problem. It’s difficult to know how elections would have gone in its absence – after all, people would campaign differently if success were measured differently. But there is something perverse and troubling about a system in which the person who gets the most votes loses the election.

Things are only going to get worse. The good news is that America is becoming an ever-more-diverse and in many ways more progressive country. By 2045 the US will lose its white majority, and despite Trump’s efforts to whip the country into a xenophobic frenzy, the American people are becoming steadily more sympathetic to immigrants. Most young people identify as socialists instead of capitalists, and on the whole people want a far more progressive set of national policies on economics, foreign policy and immigration than are currently being practiced.

But demographic changes do not automatically change the power structure, and it’s likely that we’ll see a conservative white minority taking extreme steps to cling to power in the coming decades. That’s why you see new voter ID laws and resistance to restoring voting rights to felons who have served their sentence. That’s why state legislatures draw districts in a way that ensures the party that gets the most votes doesn’t necessarily get the most seats.

The undemocratic nature of our institutions means that conservatives might well succeed in overriding popular sentiment for many years to come. If, God forbid, Ruth Bader Ginsburg or Stephen Breyer left the supreme court during Trump’s term in office, the radical right would be all but assured to have complete veto power over US policy for the next several decades. It’s very hard to undo gerrymandered districts or loosen campaign finance laws if the whole point of these measures is to keep the left out of power.

It’s hard to say where all of this will lead. If the court pushes too far in overturning democratic measures it will lose legitimacy and schemes like “court-packing” will come to seem more like necessary correctives than revolutionary disruptions. In a country whose electoral system still somewhat functions, there is only so much a government can do to keep people from exercising their right to rule, without resorting to totalitarian measures.

But that’s precisely why we may see increasingly totalitarian measures, as the gap between the will of the people and the interests of the small minority in charge continues to widen. History’s bloody revolutions show us what happens when this gap becomes too large, and the government entirely ceases to effectively represent the governed. Conservatives will continue to push unpopular policies on an unwilling United States. But it’s unclear how long people will accept having decisions made for them by a few dozen rich white men.

Email This Page your social media marketing partner


A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

+18 # Anne Frank 2019-05-20 10:06
Why the racism? The problem with U.S. plutocracy is not that the ruling elite is overwhelmingly white or Jewish. The problem is that they are rich enough to buy the whole political process, and they do.
+1 # kyzipster 2019-05-23 10:39
..and they're using issues like abortion and guns to keep us permanently divided. The only reason these rich white men in Alabama can pull this off, is because poor and middle class women and men keep them in office. There are many religious conservatives among minority groups also, especially in the deep south. Bush got 40% of the Latino vote, Trump still managed 30% despite the xenophobia and racism. Liberals shouldn't make the assumption that religious conservatism is all about the 'evil white man.' Studies have shown that regular church attendance dictates conservative beliefs on social issues, more than any other factor. Both African Americans and Latinos trend higher, the two largest minority groups.

As much as I hate this attack on women, Democrats could do much more in trying to lead us past the culture war, headlines like this article are everywhere, pitting one identity against another. I think Sanders has tried repeatedly to shift focus back to taking on the economic establishment, met with much resistance.

Liberals have made an enemy of the rural, white working and middle class southerner, and non-southerner. Doing their part to keep us hateful and divided. Republicans are much better at the long game, changing our court system over the decades, that is the real threat to abortion rights.

1000 state legislature seats flipping to Republicans during the Obama years while liberals remain focused on identity politics, the Culture War.
+4 # silesian99 2019-05-20 14:00
We will continue to tolerate it for as long as we maintain the habit of using a preposition to end a sentence.
0 # insooth 2019-05-21 04:41
There is nothing grammatically incorrect about ending a sentence with a preposition. Churchill refuted this nonsense thus: ""This is the sort of nonsense up with which I will not put."
-1 # DongiC 2019-05-21 02:09
I feel one tremendous civil conflict coming where the men of power and privilege and money and the troops they hire fight it out with the progressive forces of America. Will there be anything left but radioactive rubble? Perhaps, the suffering precipitated by the coming climate changes will act as a trigger to this ubiquitous social discord. Humanity faces its biggest challenge . God help us all. (Maybe, that's why the divine people are coming.)
+2 # PABLO DIABLO 2019-05-21 10:02
Income inequality has always led to violence,
+1 # chapdrum 2019-05-22 17:25
Unfortunately, we will tolerate it until they're good and ready to give up (quite unlikely) their rule.
+1 # tidyidy 2019-05-23 07:38
Or until we're good and ready to get out there and fight. I feel and say that even though I consider myself to be on the side of diplomacy and negotiation. Reasoning and negotiating are hard work, often leaving many matters unclear, guaranteeing more reasoning and negotiating and time. They are preferable because they result in less death.


THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.