We are told that we can either have security or democracy, that one comes at the expense of the other. But democracy is stronger — even militarily — than dictatorship or martial rule. In a democracy, the state does not have to devote resources to control its own population. When people share common ideals and work together, they provide more imagination and plain hard work without the requirement of coercion.
Why, for instance, did two Jewish immigrants write a letter to the President of the United States and not another country? Why was our president willing to accept such a letter? Leo Szilard and Albert Einstein contributed their understanding of the potential power of nuclear fission because they trusted America.
That president, Franklin D. Roosevelt, defined fascism simply as private power owning or controlling the government. Roosevelt opposed it, abroad and at home.
Clearly, we have entered an era in which private power — largely from the concentration of wealth among a few hundred people — is asserting control over the government.
But how?
Consider this. The Washington Post estimates that campaign spending by both sides of the presidential election totaled $2.3 billion. That was the whole show, including the two campaign organizations, the parties, and the Super PACs. Incidentally, Forbes Magazine estimates conservative funders David and Charles Koch’s wealth in 2016 at $42 billion — each.
Well, so what if they are rich? It’s not like they took it away from me. As the saying goes, “more power to them.”
But here’s the thing. If just one of the brothers invested his $42 billion in a plain old index fund, he could expect it to earn at least 6% each year. Six percent of $42 billion is $2.5 billion. In other words, just one of the brothers could have funded the entire election cycle without losing a dime of his existing wealth.
Politicians have no choice but to please people with that kind of money or they will soon see the money used to support their opponents.
Yeah, but what about liberal George Soros?
He’s not as wealthy, but that is still the point. Elections should not be decided by a handful of people. Which takes me back to Roosevelt’s warning about the concentration of wealth, which is also, after all, power.
I believe we had a better chance of reigning in the growth of private power under the Democrats. The Citizens United decision equating campaign contributions with free speech came from the conservative side of the Supreme Court. That ruling effectively took the limits off how much one person could give. PAC donations can remain anonymous.
The Supreme Court will soon be tainted by an illegitimate member sitting in a seat stolen when Congress broke precedent and refused to consider President Obama’s choice. Future rulings will carry a scarlet asterisk — like Lance Armstrong’s bicycling records, except we have to live by them. And they are likely to provide legal support for the very administration that completed the theft.
Many people hoped a wealthy candidate would not be beholden to other big money — much like Franklin Roosevelt. But the new Cabinet is pasted, Nascar-style, with the logos of some of the richest interests in the country. They are already busy revoking protections against their predation. I see no sign that private power will be reduced by the current administration, only further consolidated on the right.
I thought patriotism was about protecting democracy and that what makes laws legal is our accurately informed consent? Not divine right. Not force. Not wealth.
Yet, private control of our government may actually prove popular, at least for a while. Now that Obama won’t get credit, Congressional Republicans will discover the folly of austerity and release money for infrastructure spending that will boost employment. Russia demonstrates the popularity of privatized government.
Vladimir Putin would likely win an open election by a large margin. But he would still be “president” even if he lost, because his power does not come from the support of the people, but from control of the sources of wealth. Russia’s mastery of fake news is only part of its greater deception — fake democracy. And wherever the state’s interests veer away from popular support, it has means of control at its disposal, from propaganda and show trials to murder.
Many disagree with me that we are at a tipping point. I hope they are right. Others are willing to accept the deal on the table, to ignore erosion of their control over who governs them under what laws in return for promises of increased security.
I haven’t gotten there. The history is very clear. The trains run on time for a while, but then everything always goes off the rails. And it isn’t an accident, it’s built in.
David Gilbert Keith lives in Deerfield.