The Democrats’ Quandary
In a struggle between oligarchy and democracy,
something must give
By Michael Hudson
February 26, 2020 "Information
Clearing House" - To hear the candidates
debate, you would think that their fight was over
who could best beat Trump. But when Trump’s
billionaire twin Mike Bloomberg throws a
quarter-billion dollars into an ad campaign to
bypass the candidates actually running for votes in
Iowa, New Hampshire and Nevada, it’s obvious that
what really is at issue is the future of the
Democrat Party. Bloomberg is banking on a brokered
convention held by the Democratic National Committee
(DNC) in which money votes. (If “corporations are
people,” so is money in today’s political world.)
Until Nevada, all the presidential candidates
except for Bernie Sanders were playing for a
brokered convention. The party’s candidates seemed
likely to be chosen by the Donor Class, the One
Percent and its proxies, not the voting class (the
99 Percent). If, as Mayor Bloomberg has assumed, the
DNC will sell the presidency to the highest bidder,
this poses the great question: Can the myth that the
Democrats represent the working/middle class
survive? Or, will the Donor Class trump the voting
class?
This could be thought of as “election
interference” – not from Russia but from the DNC on
behalf of its Donor Class. That scenario would make
the Democrats’ slogan for 2020 “No Hope or Change.”
That is, no change from today’s economic trends that
are sweeping wealth up to the One Percent.
All this sounds like Rome at the end of the
Republic in the 1st century BC. The way Rome’s
constitution was set up, candidates for the position
of consul had to pay their way through a series of
offices. The process started by going deeply into
debt to get elected to the position of aedile, in
charge of staging public games and entertainments.
Rome’s neoliberal fiscal policy did not tax or
spend, and there was little public administrative
bureaucracy, so all such spending had to be made out
of the pockets of the oligarchy. That was a way of
keeping decisions about how to spend out of the
hands of democratic politics. Julius Caesar and
others borrowed from the richest Bloomberg of their
day, Crassus, to pay for staging games that would
demonstrate their public spirit to voters (and also
demonstrate their financial liability to their
backers among Rome’s One Percent). Keeping election
financing private enabled the leading oligarchs to
select who would be able to run as viable
candidates. That was Rome’s version of Citizens
United.
But in the wake of Sanders’ landslide victory in
Nevada, a brokered convention would mean the end of
the Democrat Party pretense to represent the 99
Percent. The American voting system would be seen to
be as oligarchic as that of Rome on the eve of the
infighting that ended with Augustus becoming Emperor
in 27 BC.
|