power is the enemy of our democracy
copyright Robert Jensen 2002
School of Journalism
University of Texas
Austin, TX 78712
work: (512) 471-1990
fax: (512) 471-7979
Newsday, March 20, 2002, p. A-34.
and posted on Common
Dreams web site.
by Robert Jensen
GEORGE W. BUSH says he likes to put things in simple terms. Let's adopt his
strategy and ask: Do Americans want to struggle to create a rich democracy,
or are we going to roll over and accept a democracy for the rich?
Never has the question been placed in front of us more starkly. Let's run
down some of the "highlights" of the Bush administration's first year:
--Tax cuts that overwhelmingly benefit the most wealthy.
--Environmental regulation gutted in favor of "voluntary" efforts by corporations.
--An obsession with an unnecessary and unworkable national missile defense,
which will defend little except the profits of the weapons industry.
--An energy policy plotted with the companies that will profit, through a
consultation process the administration wants to keep secret.
Could there be a pattern here? Could it be that politicians, who are supposed
to represent we the people, sometimes pursue agendas that benefit only the
few people and corporations with the resources to put (and keep) them inpower?
Could the obvious be true -- that a country with an economy dominated bylarge
corporations will find itself stuck with a politics dominated by thosesame
corporations -- and that ordinary people don't fare very well in sucha system?
Perhaps we should ask the question from the other angle: So long as corporations
rule the economy, how could it be any other way?
When the Enron debacle broke, politicians eager to distance themselves from
the mess argued it was a business scandal, not a political one. One lesson
of Enron is that there is no distinction: A business scandal involving alarge
corporation is by definition a political scandal in a nation wherecorporations
dominate the political sphere.
By law and tradition, corporations exist for one reason only: to maximize
profit. Neither history nor logic gives any reason to think that profit-maximizing
leads to meaningful democracy. Corporations are undemocratic internally and
usually hostile to democracy externally.
As anyone who has ever worked in one knows, there is no such thing as democracy
within a corporation. Authority is vested in the hands of a small numberof
directors who empower managers to wield control. Those managers on occasion
might solicit the views of folks below; it is usually called "seeking input."
But input does not translate into the power to effect change, implement policy
or control our own lives.
U.S. corporations do their best to subvert meaningful democracy at home through
bribes to politicians, commonly called campaign contributions. They haveshown
repeatedly in other countries that they prefer dictatorships and oligarchies
to real democracies; authoritarian governments are much easier to cut a deal
Although politicians and pundits are often very good at avoiding the obvious,
it's hard not to notice that this concentration of economic power in thehands
of a few has long had a corrosive effect on democracy. In the Bushadministration,
that corrosion has accelerated. It's not that Bill Clintonwas -- or the Democrats,
in general, are -- fundamentally different, onlythat the Bush boys and many
of today's top Republicans are so brazen aboutit.
Looking back at the 20th century, we can see two powerful trends: the growth
of democracy and the growth of corporate power. People of conscience andprinciple
fought to enrich democracy in the United States by expanding thefranchise
to women and non-white people, carving out space for free expressionand organizing
popular movements to pressure politicians. At the same time,corporations
went about the business of enriching themselves by expandingtheir powers
through the strategic use of laws and politics. Let's celebratethe expansion
of people's formal rights, but not be naïve about howconcentrations
of wealth and power have made those formal rights increasinglyirrelevant
as corporate money saturates the system.
Borrowing one more time the Bush simple-and-to-the-point style: Are corporations
and democracy compatible?
A Business Week survey during the last election showed how clearly people
are coming to understand that the answer is no. Nearly three-quarters ofthe
Americans surveyed said business has gained too much power over too manyaspects
of their lives. The trick now is to use those rights -- speaking,organizing,
voting -- and take back democracy from the corporations.
Campaign-finance reform, while a reasonable first step in and of itself,won't
solve the problem. Like water that finds cracks in a dam, corporatemoney
will find a way to pervert our politics until we deal with the fundamentally
anti-democratic nature of the corporations.
At its core, democracy is about spreading power as widely as possible, while
corporate capitalism is about concentrating power. That means the struggle
to make American democracy ever more democratic in practice will have tobe
a struggle against corporate power.
Robert Jensen is a professor of journalism at the University of Texas atAustin,
a member of the Nowar Collective, and author of the book WritingDissent:
Taking Radical Ideas from the Margins to the Mainstream. His pamphlet,“Citizens
of the Empire,” is available at http://www.nowarcollective.com/citizensoftheempire.pdf.
Other writings are available online at http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/~rjensen/freelance/freelance.htm.
He can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org.
TO FREE-LANCE ARTICLES
BACK TO ROBERT W. JENSEN'S