(C) Daily Kos
This story was originally published by Daily Kos and is unaltered.
. . . . . . . . . .



Power Concedes Nothing Without a Demand [1]

['This Content Is Not Subject To Review Daily Kos Staff Prior To Publication.']

Date: 2025-01-07

In the 2024 U.S. presidential election, nearly 152 million Americans cast their vote for President, a decrease of 3.5 million from 2020. Around 93 million eligible voters chose not to participate. Many would argue that these non-voters did not vote because they believed their vote didn’t matter. Others may wag their fingers and say, “No, every vote counts.” But what if, in a larger sense, their vote doesn’t count or barely counts?

Certainly, a few hundred thousand additional votes out of those 93 million could have swung the election to Kamala Harris. And while her policies would have been more beneficial for the public, would they truly have led to significant improvements in the lives of average Americans? Unfortunately, the answer appears to be “No.” The fact is that the President, despite the prominence of their office, is not in full control of the country. The President is certainly in charge of the political sphere, but politics is not the only source of power in the U.S.

In 2023, public spending accounted for about 36.2% of total U.S. GDP. However, a significant portion of this is actually funneled to the private sector through contracts, defense spending, and outsourced services. Let’s assume that the true public share of GDP is closer to 25%. (Economists, please correct me.) considering the influence of the private sector through contracts and. This means that the private sector controls approximately 75% of the economy. In this scenario, who is truly leading: the government or private enterprise? Private enterprise is the “Big Dawg,” with politics the “tail.”

In 2014, political scientists Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page explored these dynamics in their influential study about, “Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens.” (Link below.) They asked fundamental questions about political power in America: “Who governs? Who really rules? To what extent are the citizens of the U.S. sovereign, semi-sovereign, or largely powerless?” Gilens and Page identified two dimensions of power.

The first dimension contrasts “Economic-Elite Domination” (the concentration of power in the hands of wealthy elites) with “Majoritarian Electoral Democracy” (the role of average citizens in electing their leaders). Unfortunately, the balance of power overwhelmingly favors economic elites, with only occasional overlap between their interests and those of average citizens.

The second dimension concerns the mechanisms of influence. It contrasts “Biased Pluralism” (influence exerted by economic elites, corporations, business associations, and professional groups) with “Majoritarian Pluralism” (influence exerted by mass-based interest groups, like unions, community organizations, and political movements). This dichotomy underscores the disparity in influence: on one side, economic elites have vast resources and networks; on the other, mass-based interest groups are often weak and fragmented.

Unfortunately, mass-based interest groups, which should be advocating for the average citizen, do a poor job of truly representing the people. These groups are often underfunded and lack the resources—both in terms of money and staffing—to mount an effective challenge to the political and economic status quo. Internal fragmentation and the failure to attract and mobilize allies further weaken their efforts. While their theoretical framework for change may be sound, their ability to initiate and coordinate large-scale efforts is often thwarted by a lack of public engagement and support. Too frequently, these groups are co-opted by political elites, whose loyalty to economic elites undermines the groups’ ability to act as genuine advocates for the public. Instead of playing “hardball” and challenging the status quo, they often settle for “softball” strategies, which, while easy, are ineffective when the challenges are so deeply entrenched.

As a result, mass-based interest groups often fail to adequately represent the interests of the majority of citizens, even though they are supposed to act in the public’s best interest.

On the other hand, economic elites—represented by Biased Pluralism—often work to advance their interests at the expense of average citizens. Their tremendous power comes from their ability to lobby, fund political campaigns, and shape public policy in ways that benefit their financial interests. Through lobbying and other forms of influence, these elites undermine the interests of the general public. Thus, the takeaway is clear: while average citizens may vote, their vote and voice have limited power in a system dominated by economic elites and corporate interests. This is a stark contrast to the civics course I took in high school, where I was taught that every citizen’s vote mattered in shaping America.

While we mustn’t give up on voting because the outcomes of elections do matter—especially when dangerous figures like Donald Trump run for office—the belief that voting alone can lead to meaningful, systemic change seems increasingly like a “pipe dream.” This term, originating from the 1800s, refers to the hallucinations experienced by opium smokers—a metaphor for wishful thinking disconnected from reality.

Regrettably, the accusation that it really doesn’t matter who wins because both parties are the same is truer than not. One reason for this is the constraints on political power because of the “three faces of power.” Average citizens may have more power at the level of state and local elections, but that merits a separate post.

Economic elites, leveraging the mechanisms often associated with what some refer to as “Biased Pluralism” (a term I find unsatisfactory), exploit the three faces of power as outlined by Steven Lukes in “Power: A Radical View.” Lukes’ framework highlights the multifaceted ways in which power operates within political and social systems.

1. The First Face: Decision-Making Power (Visible Power)

Decision-making power involves shaping policy outcomes on contested issues, such as legislation in Congress or rulemaking in federal agencies. Economic elites exert significant influence at this stage by direct lobbying, which shapes the specifics of legislation or regulations and campaign donations made earlier in the process to secure the support of legislators who align with donors’ interests. The financial resources of economic elites grant them a disproportionate advantage, enabling them to dominate this realm of power.

While public sentiment and protest can occasionally sway outcomes, the influence of economic elites has been greatly amplified by the 2010 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United v. FEC, which sanctioned unlimited political spending by corporations and unions. This decision entrenched the power of wealthy actors in elections and policymaking.

2. The Second Face: Non-Decision-Making Power (Agenda-Setting Power)

Non-decision-making power determines what issues are placed on the political agenda—or excluded from it. This face of power is critical because controlling the agenda prevents undesirable issues from being debated or contested in the first place.

Economic elites often prioritize agenda-setting, ensuring their interests are addressed while potentially disruptive topics—such as wealth inequality or corporate accountability—are sidelined. Without access to the agenda, the exercise of decision-making power (the first face) becomes irrelevant for marginalized groups or mass-based interest organizations.

3. The Third Face: Ideological Power (Shaping Perceptions)

Ideological power operates by shaping public beliefs, perceptions, and cultural norms to align with the interests of economic elites. This is achieved through propaganda and advertising campaigns, which frame narratives in ways that soften resistance to elite agendas and covert messaging, disseminated through social and political networks, often operating invisibly.

This face of power subtly influences political behavior and policy preferences, making it one of the most pervasive yet least visible forms of control. While it shapes the political agenda and informs decision-making, its primary strength lies in its ability to prevent opposition by aligning public perception with elite interests. Part of its power lies in persuading citizens to vote against their own self-interest.

4. The Fourth Face: Structural Power (The U.S. Supreme Court)

The U.S. Supreme Court represents a distinct and potent “fourth face” of power. As the institution that defines the legal and institutional framework within which all other power operates, it wields enormous structural authority.

The Court is electorally unaccountable, yet partisan inclinations and the interests of economic elites often influence its decisions. Justices such as Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas exemplify how judicial power can align with elite interests while being disconnected from contemporary public concerns. The Court’s rulings, such as Citizens United, dramatically reshape the landscape of power by entrenching structural advantages for economic elites while reducing the influence of average citizens and mass-based groups.

Effectively and efficiently using these faces of power—decision-making, agenda-setting, ideological, and structural—requires substantial financial resources. Consequently, economic elites dominate these spheres, often at the expense of ordinary citizens and grassroots organizations. The interplay between these faces ensures a system in which power is concentrated in the hands of a few, perpetuating inequities and limiting democratic accountability.

Assuming the above reflects current reality reasonably; it seems evident that the typical modes of community and political organizing are inadequate to address the challenges of our time. Frederick Douglass (1818–1895), a freed slave, abolitionist, and renowned orator, famously said: “Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will. Find out just what any people will quietly submit to, and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them, and these will continue till they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both.”

While I am not advocating violent resistance, I do believe our resistance must rise to a level of strength and resolve sufficient to counteract the immense power wielded by economic elites. It seems that the current strategies of the opposition are woefully inadequate—akin to bringing a plastic knife to a gunfight where the opposition is armed with automatic weapons. We need a vibrant economy where innovation and profit are encouraged, but what we have now is obscene—legal theft on a grand scale that ignores the wellbeing of the whole because of the insatiable greed of the few—economic terrorists! Without a fundamental rethinking of how we organize and resist, meaningful change will remain out of reach. I invite your observations and suggestions. (A long post, sorry.)

PS: Link to the 2014 article by political scientists Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page concerning “Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens:” https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/testing-theories-of-american-politics-elites-interest-groups-and-average-citizens/62327F513959D0A304D4893B382B992B

[END]
---
[1] Url: https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2025/1/7/2295580/-Power-Concedes-Nothing-Without-a-Demand?pm_campaign=front_page&pm_source=more_community&pm_medium=web

Published and (C) by Daily Kos
Content appears here under this condition or license: Site content may be used for any purpose without permission unless otherwise specified.

via Magical.Fish Gopher News Feeds:
gopher://magical.fish/1/feeds/news/dailykos/

You are viewing proxied material from magical.fish. The copyright of proxied material belongs to its original authors. Any comments or complaints in relation to proxied material should be directed to the original authors of the content concerned. Please see the disclaimer for more details.