The Political Duopoly And Its Potential Competition

January 12, 2011

In an MIT lecture on The Financial Crisis, the Recession, and the American Political Economy, Charles Ferguson, author of the documentary Inside Job, describes the U.S. political system as follows:

The two parties have formed a duopoly in which both parties have agreed to agree on money issues and to disagree on social issues.
Both parties serve the financial sector and the wealthy. Thus they agree on (de-regulation) / (non-)enforcement / (no )criminal prosecution for the financial sector, as well as on antitrust, campaign financing and tax policies.
Both parties agree to retain their base through conflict over social policy: Religion, education, evolution/creationism, gay rights, abortion, environment, war, terrorism.
The sustainability of the duopoly depends upon barriers to entry against newcomers via ballot qualification, redistricting/gerrymendering, campaign and advertisement costs, lack of parliamentary system and lack of ranked-order voting.

While I agree on this 'duopoly' description, Ferguson has a few points wrong.

War and terrorism are no longer social issues but are about money making as well as about keeping potential competitors away from the system. Therefore both parties agree on keeping the wars going and on keeping the terrorism bogeyman alive.

That a parliamentary system instead of a presidential one is better in keeping the overwhelming influence of the financial sector and the wealthy away is disproved by the United Kingdom. In economic matters it works just the same way as the United States with the same catastrophic results. Even a parliamentary system like Germany's, which allows new parties to grow and to catch decent shares of votes (the Greens, the Left), is not that much different. After a few years the new parties simply get cooped by the system be that by bribes or other inducement.

A solution could come from a constitution and the judiciary. But at least in the case of the U.S., the judiciary has been bought too.

A widely known and successful alternative system in a different country or bloc of countries could create public demand to adjust the duopoly system and the reign of money. The existence of the example of the Soviet bloc was the reason for some decent social-democratic policies in Western Europe after WWII. The elimination of that example and competition moved the "western" systems to the right.

There are currently three areas where a new better system could grow and set an example which would necessitate the "western" model to be adjusted to better care for its people. One is the bloc of social-democracies in South America. One is the Confucian system in China and potential third candidate could be a system based on Islam.

How much the-powers-that-be of the current "western" systems fear the competition of these other social-system can probably be evaluated by measuring the amount of energy they put into fighting each of them.

Posted by b on January 12, 2011 at 14:01 UTC | Permalink

Comments

b,
What concerns me most about Sec. Gates’ recent announcement that he is willing to see $80 billion cut from the defense budget, despite it being very minor, is that the for-profit war industry will try to prevent these cuts from happening by convincing Congress and the White House that there are numerous terrorist threats looming on the horizon in places like Yemen and Somalia and especially Iran. Some of our congressional warmongers are already claiming that because China is on the verge of becoming a military threat to us, it would be suicidal for us to make any cuts to the military budget. This goes to show how extraordinarily two-faced these folks are, given they have no qualms whatsoever about US-based firms having their toys and even their weapons made in China. Too bad that federal outfits like NASA and NIH, who aren’t in the war-making business, can’t get away with making bogus claims that cutting their budgets will make us vulnerable to terrorist attacks!
The late great Chalmers Johnson was right when he predicted that we’ll experience considerable blowback from the Muslim World. Let’s just hope that his prediction is wrong about our excessive military expenditures driving us into bankruptcy. But even if he turns out to be wrong on this, it wouldn’t hurt for us to cut our military budget by more than a mere 80 billion dollars!
http://www.commondreams.org/video/2010/11/22-0

Posted by: Cynthia | Jan 12 2011 16:55 utc | 1

@Cyntia – there was no “cut” in the defense budget, none at all.
And yes, the MIC uses China to make more money.

Posted by: b | Jan 12 2011 18:58 utc | 2

the cuts are coming from people mostly. there will be a reduction in total force and the medical costs will go up for dependents and retirees. this supposed saving is equivalent to about one year in Afghanistan or Iraq and will not affect business at all. if anything business will be better and better as only the rate of increase is being diminished.

Posted by: dan of steele | Jan 12 2011 20:59 utc | 3

@Dan – there will no “cut”. There will be less money for soldiers, but more money for weapon manufacturers. The taxpayer will have to pay more, so there is no “cut” at all in the total budget.

Posted by: b | Jan 12 2011 21:10 utc | 4

A few more points I’ve observed (not in any cogent order, mind you, and I’m at work so I don’t have tome to flesh them out appropriately):
1) Identity politics has basically shattered any hopes to build consensus for a viable third party. The issues that are allowed to be seen and debated publicly are so divisive that they cannot be effectively used as rallying points for any new political movements. As soon as a third party takes a stand on any of these ‘hot button’ issues, the movement is pushed to either side of the existing fence.
2) The duopoly has also agreed to erode the balances within the structure of the government. For example, many people on both sides (even some I respect) are now calling for abolition of the Senate, citing what seems to be inordinate power held by that body. However, the Senate is important for defending minority rights. The Senate was meant to be a counterbalance to the House of Representatives, but lately they are acting in collusion, with only a facade of occasional conflict.
3) Santa Clara County v Southern Pacific Railroad – this is one of the cornerstones of the ‘corporation as equal citizen’ bullshit that is causing a great deal of the anguish. Reverse this decision and start dismantling the structures that have sprung from this font and grown like kudzu. The recent Citizens United decision would not have been remotely possible without this odious bit of judicial activism.
4) Proportional representation and coalition governance – These would be a tough sell. Constitutionally, the government is not structured to allow for this kind of system. Socially, the populace is conditioned against it (‘You didn’t get the most votes…you’re the loser, take a hike!’) Also, without more parties involved, a coalition of R and D would simply add legitimacy to the actions of the ruling elite.
5) Too big to fail and too big to govern. The country really should be split, but anyone talking secession is branded a lunatic and sent to the corner of the room to mutter amongst the libertarians and communists.
I’ve got more, but my writings always seem to degenerate if I drag them out, and I’m currently distracted by work issues…to which I must now return.

Posted by: Dr. Wellington Yueh | Jan 13 2011 0:42 utc | 5

“The existence of the example of the Soviet bloc was the reason for some decent social-democratic policies.” And, I believe, the Russian workers revolution spooked elements of the American elites to the point they were willing to create a New Deal during the Great Depression. Absent such a threat, the Great Recession will only lead to more abuses by predatory corporations and the Oligarchs.

Posted by: JohnH | Jan 13 2011 2:15 utc | 6

From Naked Capitalism: Matt Stoller: Understanding the Strategy of the Democratic Power Class

By Matt Stoller, the former Senior Policy Advisor for Rep. Alan Grayson. His Twitter feed is @matthewstoller
Since the 1970s, Democratic elites have focused on breaking public sector unions and financializing the economy. Carter, not Reagan, started the defense build-up. Carter, not Reagan, lifted usury caps. Carter, not Reagan, first cut capital gains taxes. Clinton, not Bush, passed NAFTA. It isn’t the base of the Democratic party that did this, but then, voters in America have never had a lot of power because they are too disorganized. And there wasn’t a substantial grassroots movement to challenge this, either.
Obama continues this trend. It isn’t that he’s not fighting, he fights like hell for what he wants. He whipped incredibly aggressively for TARP, he has passed emergency war funding (breaking a campaign promise) several times, and nearly broke the arms of feckless liberals in the process. I mean, when Bernie Sanders did the filiBernie, Obama flirted with Bernie’s potential 2012 GOP challenger. Obama just wants policies that cement the status of a aristocratic class, with crumbs for everyone else (Republican elites disagree in that they hate anyone but elites getting crumbs). And he will fight for them.
There is simply no basis for arguing that Democratic elites are pursuing poor strategy anymore. They are achieving an enormous amount of leverage within the party. Consider the following. Despite Obama violating every core tenet of what might have been considered the Democratic Party platform, from supporting foreclosures to destroying civil liberties to torturing political dissidents to wrecking unions, Obama has no viable primary challenger. Moreover, no Senate Democratic incumbent lost a primary challenge in 2010, despite a horrible governing posture. Now THAT is a successful strategy, it minimized the losses of the Democratic elite and kept them firmly in control of the party. Thus, the political debate remains confined to what neoliberals want to talk about. It’s a good strategy, it’s just you are the one the strategy is being played on.
…

Posted by: b | Jan 13 2011 12:38 utc | 7

b,
“There are currently three areas where a new better system could grow and set an example which would necessitate the “western” model to be adjusted to better care for its people. One is the bloc of social-democracies in South America. One is the Confucian system in China and potential third candidate could be a system based on Islam.”
Not sure about South America, but China is also on a central bank, money printing spree just like the west. Islam, as far as I know, forbids the kind of trade in treasuries or MBS, where debt is used as if it’s money. But I’m not sure any Islamic country follows its own rules (Iran? I don’t know enough to say)
Ultimately, no system of government will preserve civil liberties. Government by its nature is a system of coercion and the powerful, wealthy and clever will eventually take control of its reigns and use it as the enforcement arm to bend others there will. The false legitimacy government provides also helps the powerful who control it.
I’m afraid the only answer lies public organization and information. An informed public willing to organize, agitate, demonstrate, that is not in awe of uniformed authority is the best answer.
Given that, it’s easy to see why the US public is totally screwed. One might as well ask the sheep to rebel against the shepherd.
Still, if one were to try to fight back, start with information and changing how people think about authority. I don’t hold out hope, but you certainly are doing your part, b.

Posted by: Lysander | Jan 13 2011 15:51 utc | 8

Dr. Wellington Yueh whote:

5) Too big to fail and too big to govern. The country really should be split, but anyone talking secession is branded a lunatic and sent to the corner of the room to mutter amongst the libertarians and communists.

I believe the above is how the country was originally organized: the thirteen original colonies considered themselves sovereign independent states, the Federal government was supposed to be nothing more than a body that helped regulate trade between states as well as providing a common defensive force to protect our trade routes… but of course that illusion was shattered – first during the Whisky Rebellion and for the second time during the Civil War. Yeah, slavery sucked, but look where that fight has led: right to the here and now, and a monster of a Federal Government that marches over the earth maiming, killing and jailing, all in the name of me and my fellow countrymen. State’s Rights are in the Constitution, we’ve just let the corporate whores piss all over them, and that my friends, is why the world is such a stinking mess.
How much are me and my generation to blame? It’s hard to be good patriots when you’re being raised like mushrooms. The PTB are laughing their asses off because unlike the Soviet Union where information was minimalized, we have a flood of the stuff and the population spends it’s days in television trances. “HaHaHa”, can’t you hear them laughing? I can… or maybe those are just the voices in my head 😉

Posted by: DaveS | Jan 13 2011 17:42 utc | 9

That a parliamentary system instead of a presidential one is better in keeping the overwhelming influence of the financial sector and the wealthy away is disproved by the United Kingdom. – b.
Absolutely.
(i listened to the speech while cooking)
In the US, comparisons in terms of regimes or types of Gvmt. organization, distribution of power, serves to obfuscate, distract, and thus gain prominence. Framing systems in terms of -isms (communism, socialism, dictatorship, etc. etc.) feeds American hubris, the US system with democracy blah blah, must be best because all other systems are just plain inferior, or have been proved failures… Ferguson only makes a mild little nick at this world view. He does temper the pro-parliament talking point in the questions.
Ferguson on the financial melt down (US sub-prime, banksters, etc.) is acceptable.
On the duopoly, good too.
He supports rank-order voting, that is naive. The Mafia and similar, not to name anyone, do not puzzle over or care about voting systems.
This paper about Ireland (linked below, PDF) by Clancy, O’Connor and Dillon, TASC, Mapping the Golden Circle, is succint – only! 77 pp., admirable, yes a quick read – lays out the structure and functioning of crony capitalism (as it is usually called, now I’m using the -ism myself) in Ireland.
Eire is a tiny country and does have public records and much transparency of the ‘modern type’, compare w Tunisia, for ex. so one can study this stuff.
One guesses the situation in Iceland was pretty similar.
The get-rich-quick scheme originated in the US and was adopted by (or forced on, c’est selon) vulnerable and peripheral European countries. The core remained mostly immune, Germany, France, Austria, Switz, Sweden, for ex. had no housing booms, but those under occupation / dictators (back to the original topic), for long and until recently, such as Greece, Spain, Ireland, did.
Now I’m done with grandiose generalizations and back to basting the roast.
http://www.tascnet.ie/upload/file/MtGC%20ISSU.pdf

Posted by: Noirette | Jan 13 2011 18:10 utc | 10

Has anyone else noticed how half the P.I.G.S. (Portugal, Ireland, Greece & Spain) have got themselves out of the shit without having to introduce further austerity packages the way that Greece and Ireland have had to?
On Tuesday Portugal as first cab outta the rank raised 1.1 billion euros by way of a good old fashioned bond issue. Then on Thursday Spain netted 6 billion euros on a bond float.
This is not what was meant to happen, not that you could tell from what the duplicitous europoliticians smarmy rumblings. The Irish Times has an interesting take on the Portuguese ploy here . They can’t scare the Irish or even worse acknowledge that they were played for fools a few months ago when they had to mortgage their future, and accepted wage cuts and job cuts because their government was too spineless to stand up the eurocrats and their insane rationalist arguments, so the Irish Times claimed this:

PORTUGAL HAS strengthened its determination not to follow Greece and Ireland in seeking an international financial rescue after successfully concluding a bond issue seen as a crucial test of the country’s ability to finance its debt.
The relative success of the auction, which was welcomed by the German government, helped to ease fears of a rapid spread of the euro zone debt crisis to Spain and other debt-laden economies on Europe’s periphery.
The debt issue was greeted with relief in European capitals and by the European Central Bank, which is thought to have intervened in the Portuguese government bond market before yesterday’s sale.
However, politicians and economists warned that Lisbon might still be forced to turn to the European Financial Stability Facility, the European Union’s bailout fund, if bond yields remained at current levels.
French government officials said it was unlikely that Portugal would have to seek help from the EFSF within the next 15 days.

15 days eh? We shall see despite their outward messages of joi de vivre the Brussels bastards will be fuming. If they can’t get Portugal to swallow their cruel & reactionary medicine, how the hell are they gonna get any other countries to?
amerika will be fuming too because the eurocratic regimen of thin cruel with lashings of unemployment was originally dreamt up by the IMF and its bastard step brother the world bank.
Ever since the collapse of the USSR momentum has been building up around peel back the social programs that had been rolled out during the course of the 20th century all around the world.
So this is just a small battle in a long war but there is one particularly heartening element. According to Tom Naylor in today’s Counterpunch it was China who grabbed the bulk of the US$7.8 billion Spanish bond issue.
Naylor points out that China currently has US$2.7 trillion in foreign currency reserves which is a healthy sort of a wedge for anyone to have in their kick.
I think Naylor may be being a little optimistic when he claims that China bailed Spain because they (the Chinese) like the Spanish PM is about the only true lefty (well according to Naylor) ‘on the job’ in europe.
He also claims that China’s anger with amerikan harassment of Iran is what led them to decide to help Spain.
Hmm Naylor sounds as though he is quite the naïf.
Since most of the current mob of Chinese ruling elite spent the Mao years on the inside of a re-education camp, somehow I doubt the Beijing economists are seeking to uplift the huddled masses of europe or re-iterate Zhou Enlai’s entreaty for non-interference in sovereign states.
The Chinese leadership does favour John Keynes over Milton Friedman and the Chicago sociopaths, so it IMO more likely the Chinese recognise that they do better when western consumers have a few dollars to blow on plastic tat. Bailing out Iberia is good for China cause it will undoubtedly lead to more sales of consumerist crap to the Spanish & Portuguese.
Naylor is certainly correct that China has chosen an ideal moment to flex its economic muscle.
Oblam and the imperialists are far too busy attempting to simultaneously placate amerikans about their own government’s lies while riling them against ‘yella fellas’ n ‘ragheads’ to stay up to nuance on the Iberian ploy.
So maybe we’ll all manage to keep a few crumbs from old hoover lips and the capitalists for long enough that the pendulum swings back against the fascist oligarchy. I don’t much like using fascist, but how else can we describe a govt that uses tax revenue to subsidise privately owned & corporate capitalist enterprises?

Posted by: Debs is dead | Jan 14 2011 9:08 utc | 11

Back to Main