Oligarchy or not

One of the hardest questions ever asked of me came in a political science class at the University of Kentucky. Who holds power in the U. S., the people or the elite of our society?


Of course, the majority said it was the people. Power derives from mandates given by the voters of the country. Once the people lose confidence, then power will change hands.

Plenty of evidence could be introduced to support either viewpoint, and any judgment would be subjective. Still, the question had done its job; it made us think about who wields political power and from whom it is derived.

Of course, in any election, there are any number of variables that will shape the outcome. From the time of President Clinton, for instance, we have a phrase made popular by his campaign: “It’s the economy, stupid!” Put simply, any chance of his getting elected depended on his ability to shape the country’s perception of how well off they were. By being successful, Mr. Clinton defeated an incumbent whose popularity ratings had been close to 90% at the end of the first Iraqi war, or one year prior, plus or minus a little one way or the other.

But there is another variable in any election, and that is the amount of money that is available to help make the case for any politician or party. The more of this commodity there is, the better able either is to make sure the voters see things their way.

Money has always been seen as the corrupter in politics in this country. Money once made its way into the process at precinct levels when unscrupulous politicians paid the voters to cast a ballot for them. This is frowned upon today, so you no longer see vote buying practiced as openly as it once was.

Buying the vote of the office holders, though, is another matter. Well-heeled organizations and individuals can still grease the skids whenever they choose. And it is sure that once a politician becomes the beneficiary of a large donation from a powerful special interest, that individual does not forget it when the special interest needs a favor between elections.

By special rules, though, this is not defined as vote buying. Representatives of special interests may visit an office holder and discuss how things should be done. And they can also donate money to that office holder. They just cannot do both at the same time. That is in bad taste.

There have been, at various times, efforts to minimize the effect that money has on our election process, but each time, such as was the case in Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission, bans on special interest money are often overturned. The result of this ruling by the U. S. Supreme Court has been to turn loose a veritable flood of special interest money.

In effect, if this tide elects a Congress that is beholden to the font of the campaign cash, doesn’t power then derive, not from the people but from contributions from the elite? We can only hope not, because that would change the very nature of who we are as a nation, from a democracy to an oligarchy, and that is not a change for the better.