OPINION:
Forget for a moment the pressing question of who is going to win this year’s presidential election. Think instead about a broader question emanating from this campaign year: Is American political power flowing inexorably to an entrenched oligarchy that is becoming increasingly impervious to popular sentiment?
Begin with billionaire Donald Trump, who bought the Republican nomination with his own money. Of course, this allowed him to say he wasn’t beholden to any special interests, a powerful boast in a time of dysfunctional government beset by special interests. But it also means that, should he become president, he would be free of the constraints once imposed on chief executives.
Of course, America has had since its founding extremely rich people, who lived in multiple mansions, carried on like kings on two or three continents, and could buy anything they wanted. But nobody ever thought they could buy the presidency. It wasn’t for sale.
Not even Joseph P. Kennedy’s vast wealth was sufficient for that. The party system was too strong. When his son John F. Kennedy was running for president in 1960, the father could ensure a robust and efficient campaign of the highest quality. But, when the young Kennedy won the Wisconsin primary with an insufficient vote to impress the party bosses, the bosses imposed a requirement that Kennedy prove his vote-getting ability in the West Virginia primary. He did, and the bosses rallied to his cause. Had he lost, he never would have been nominated. The bosses would have prevented it.
And who were those bosses? They were Democratic Party stalwarts with deep roots in their communities, who took care of people through political patronage and local support initiatives, who understood thoroughly the sentiment of the citizens they served. Individually, they represented entrenched power in their local fiefdoms, but nationally they were part of a decentralized system that required presidential aspirants to fan out across the country seeking support from local power brokers whose job was to filter out the lesser figures of presidential ambition.
This system didn’t require much money. Thus the barriers to entry were very low compared to today, when the bosses are relics of the past, the filter is gone, and the vehicle of success is television, a medium that allows the candidate to get to the voters but gives the voters no means of getting to the candidate. It’s also hugely expensive.
There is much hand-wringing these days about the evils of campaign finance, with many Americans — and all liberals — concluding the answer is to impose limits on spending (tantamount to limits on speech) and to bring elections more and more under the control of federal bureaucrats. This of course would simply move the country closer to oligarchy, with those in power controlling who will be allowed to challenge their power.
No, the evil in the system is the system, a marathon of frenzied debates, polls, breathless television commentators, vast advertising budgets, and endless travel — all requiring huge pools of cash in amounts that preclude most people, even highly qualified people, from competing. Into this mess walked Donald Trump, who could simply write a check for his nomination effort and dispense with the fundraising rigamarole. He didn’t have to listen to anybody, and it shows.
Does anybody think Donald Trump will be the last billionaire to seek to leverage himself or herself into the White House in an era when so much of the process comes down to money? Not likely. Thus does the push toward oligarchy proceed.
Which brings us to Bill and Hillary Clinton. They don’t have billions. But they have the Clinton Foundation, a money-gathering machine that does some good works around the world but exists primarily to provide the former president and his ambitious wife with what The Wall Street Journal calls “a shadow super PAC,” designed to serve as a kind of base of political operations. Forget those little urban bosses who once held sway over nominations even in the face of Joe Kennedy’s millions. Now we have a political institution that bypasses those mere citizens in seeking cold cash from foreign nations, many of them unsavory, and global fat cats. The cash is used to fuel the Clintons’ lavish lifestyle, keep them in the national limelight, and succor those paladins-in-waiting who will man their next campaign.
Leave aside the suggestion, which seems to getting more serious, that this was used as a kind of “pay to play” leverage point during Hillary Clinton’s tenure as secretary of State, bringing huge amounts of money into foundation coffers from foreigners with interests before the government and vast stores of cash into the Clintons’ bank account via speaking fees to Bill. Even putting that aside, it represents yet another push toward oligarchy — powerful people cadging a corner on the political market by entrenching their power and raising the barriers to entry for those who might challenge them. If that wasn’t enough, the Democratic National Committee was ready to place a thumb upon the scales of political competition during the primaries.
A century ago the German sociologist Robert Michels wrote a book called “Political Parties,” positing what he called the “iron law of oligarchy” — elites always emerge and zealously protect their power, while the masses ultimately depend psychologically upon autocratic leadership. Is that happening today in America? The Trump candidacy and the Clinton Foundation suggest the answer may be yes.
• Robert W. Merry, longtime Washington journalist and publishing executive, is the author of books on American history and foreign policy.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.