research sample christopher regan

Oligarchy and Globalization as Catalysts

for Social Division in the United States

--Abbreviated from Class Paper Christopher Regan

Georgetown University

Comparative Political Systems

Professor Mujal-León

TA: Ahmad Farid Tookhy

April 9th

, 2015

American culture has historically been defined by an emphasis on democratic ideology,

embodying the ideals of equal representation and serving as a role model for prosperity through

capitalism and legitimate government. While the majority of our nation’s past has been built

upon romanticized views of representative government, our current political system has faltered

in providing equal representation to all of its citizens. It has become incredibly apparent in the

late 20th

and early 21st centuries that the wealthiest members of society wield a

disproportionately large amount of political influence due to their ability to financially support

both their own campaigns, as well as the campaigns of those politicians with whom they align

their views. Oftentimes, the views of these super wealthy individuals are determined by their

own economic interests and then exacerbated through the consequences of economic and social

globalism. Therefore, in this paper I will attempt to argue that the American political system is

not a pure democracy, but rather a democracy with strong elements of oligarchy in which

society’s elites have been able to successfully implement policies that benefit them in the world

marketplace. As a result, I will also argue that globalization, by both economic and social means,

has helped fuel class conflict in the United States.

Economic policy and the idea of redistribution of wealth have become incredibly

prominent topics in United States’ politics, but despite many politicians’ best efforts to restore

the strength of the middle class in America, the extreme wealth possessed by America’s richest

citizens continues to provide both the means and the incentives for the disproportionate political

involvement of the wealthy. Oligarchy, as defined in the Aristotelian tradition and championed

by Jeffrey Winters and Benjamin I. of Northwestern University, is “a specific kind of minority

power that is fundamentally material in nature.”1 Therefore, under this definition, oligarchy does

not eliminate the possibility of democracy, but only limits it by allowing certain minorities more

power than other citizens. In the case of the United States, the elements of oligarchy are

particularly strong, and can be seen in several presidencies of the 21st Century. One of the more

well known sources of controversy during President George W. Bush’s presidency was his

position on oil and energy, in which he and his administration were accused of manipulating U.S.

foreign and domestic policy for personal gain.2 On its face, George W. Bush presented his stance

toward oil as one of reduced consumption and increased industrial responsibility, but, according

to David Frum, a former speechwriter for W. Bush, oil was always an issue of national security

for the president, not environmental protectionism.3 Globalism, defined by Robert Keohane and

Joseph Nye as an assortment of networks of interdependence between countries that vary in

strength and stretch multi-continental distances,4 has long been criticized for complicating

international politics, and these networks have strengthened dramatically since the end of the

divisive world war era. American dependence on hostile states brought about by oil trade is just

one of many instances of politically complicated economic globalism, but it provides one of the

clearest examples of the phenomenon. George W. Bush was concerned that the United States

could be held hostage by oil-rich Middle Eastern states, were the United States not to reduce its

dependence on foreign oil. In the long run, Bush recognized that this could be accomplished by

finding alternative forms of fuel, but in the short run he was a large supporter of increasing

domestic oil production and reserves.5 As a result, this consequence of economic globalism

provided a prime opportunity for domestic oil producers to increase their own market share.

Bush’s cabinet consisted of people like Donald Evans, former CEO of domestic oil and gas giant

1 Winters, Jeffrey A., and Benjamin I. Page. "Oligarchy in the United States?"Perspectives on Politics 7.04 (2009): 731. Web. 2 Kay, Katty. "Analysis: Oil and the Bush Cabinet." BBC News. BBC, 29 Jan. 2001. Web. 06 Apr. 2015. 3 Frum, David. The Right Man: The Surprise Presidency of George W. Bush. New York: Random House, 2003: 64-66. Print. 4 Keohane, Robert O. Nye Jr. Joseph S. “Globalization: What’s New? What’s Not? 2000.” Foreign Policy, 2000: 731. Web. 5 U.S. Federal Government. President Bush's 2007 State of the Union Address. WashingtonPost.com. Washington Post, 23 Jan.

2007. Web. 06 Apr. 2015.

Tom Brown, Inc., Andrew Card, lobbyist for General Motors and opponent of emissions

restrictions, and Steven Grilles, former lobbyist for the American Petroleum Institute, just to

name a few major players.6 Under this administration, bills such as the Energy Policy Act of

2005, which reduced restrictions on offshore drilling7 and gave over $14.5 billion in tax breaks

to oil, gas, coal, and nuclear energy corporations,8 passed into law.

Although the Bush administration had its elite rulers directly present within his

administration, wealthy Americans most often exert influence by providing monetary support to

political campaigns or lobbyist groups. The Koch brothers are two contributors in particular who

have been publicly accused of funneling immense amounts of personal funds into American

politics. David and Charles Koch are joint owners of Koch Industries, a conglomerate that

includes domestic oil refineries, Dixie brand products, and Georgia-Pacific Lumber, which are

just a few of its widely diversified, highly lucrative assets. The Koch brothers hold extremely

conservative fiscal views, and use the money they earn through their $100 billion dollar

company to support libertarian politics by supplying millions of dollars to right wing political

movements via various organizations, some of which they themselves established.9 After the

brothers failed to place David Koch in the White House as vice president under Ed Clark and the

Libertarian Party in 1980, their strategy aimed at shifting popular ideology toward libertarian

thought by providing the infrastructure by which to create a seemingly grass-roots political

movement toward libertarianism.10

In order to accomplish this goal, the Koch brothers

established various political think tanks, including Citizens for a Sound Economy11

and the

prominent Cato Institute,12

and have allegedly played a role in the establishment, organization,

and mobilization of the Tea Party through contributions by the Americans for Prosperity

Foundation, a political advocacy group created by David Koch in 2004.13

While their

involvement with the Tea Party has not been entirely confirmed, the brothers do openly admit to

maintaining strong ideological control over any institution that they create and donate money to,

manipulating the actions of those institutions by providing or withdrawing funds.14

Thus when

President Bill Clinton proposed a BTU energy tax in 1993 that would have threatened industrial

profit margins, Citizens for a Sound Economy launched a counter campaign that defeated the

upcoming policy.15

More recently, when Obama openly supported climate change science in

2008, the Koch brothers funded an article in the Times through the Cato Institute denying climate

change as a way for the federal government to exert greater control over the economy.16

While

the Koch Brothers openly denounce President Obama’s policies on topics ranging from stimulus

programs to healthcare,17

environmental policy seems to be one of their greatest priorities.

Despite the general consensus of between 95% and 98% of the scientific community on

the reality of human-based climate change,18,19,20

the Koch brothers and Exxon Mobile have

6 Messler, Bill. "CorpWatch : A Cabinet That Looks Like (Corporate) America." CorpWatch : A Cabinet That Looks Like

(Corporate) America. CorpWarch, n.d. Web. 06 Apr. 2015. 7 "Energy for America's Future." Energy for America's Future. N.p., n.d. Web. 06 Apr. 2015. 8 Mayer, Lindsay R. "Big Oil, Big Influence." PBS. PBS, 1 Aug. 2008. Web. 06 Apr. 2015. 9 Mayer, Jane. "Covert Operations." The New Yorker (2010): 10. Print. 10

Mayer, Jane. "Covert Operations." The New Yorker (2010): 3. Print. 11







Mayer, Jane. "Covert Operations." The New Yorker (2010): 3. Print. 18 Anderegg W.R.L., “Expert Credibility in Climate Change,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Vol. 107 No. 27, 12107-12109 (21 June 2010); DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1003187107.

actually lost their place as the largest contributors to anti-climate change research due to

increased donations by outside parties, such as the Donors Trust.21

While the large majority of

contributors to the Donors Trust are unknown, the increased activism by other individuals and

companies implies that the Koch brothers have succeeded, to at least some extent, in mobilizing

parties other than themselves in the war on climate change science. The implications of this are

obvious, as the oil industry, as well as any other industry that manufactures products in the

United States, would benefit economically from fewer environmental regulations. Reduced

environmental regulation on U.S. businesses would benefit American industry in both the

domestic and world marketplaces, making them more competitive with companies in export

driven nations such as China and Vietnam. U.S. based manufacturing companies are already

competing fiercely in the global marketplace against companies in China, as China is

intentionally inflating its currency and fighting to keep international environmental regulations

low in order to boost exports. Thus, despite the overwhelming evidence on the reality of human-

caused climate change, economic globalism and competition, in combination with anti-taxation

movements, is once again driving America’s wealthiest citizens to politics so that they may

defend their own economic interests. Benjamin I. and Jeffrey Winters’ first rule of oligarchy,

being the acquisition and protection of wealth through political action,22

seems to be very

applicable to the United States when viewing the actions of the Bush administration and the

Koch brothers.

While the increased ability of the wealthiest members of society to defend their own

domestic and foreign economic interests through government has not led to definitive

conclusions about the efficacy or legitimacy of the current U.S. democratic system, a widening

cap in income levels, in combination with decreased national sentiment due to cultural

globalism, has lead to an incredibly divisive political and cultural atmosphere in the United

States. Given these circumstances, it will be interesting to see how the Republican Party attempts

to maintain relevancy moving forward, endeavoring to garner greater popularity in American

politics while battling accusations of catering primarily to America’s wealthy minority.

Ultimately, maintaining power in the federal government requires, at the very least, a near

majority popular vote, and at the moment the Democrats have the perfect storm of economic

disparity and general discontent with Republican foreign policy to paint the Republicans as

disconnected with the majority of the American people. If the Democrats manage to retain power

in the oval office and regain power in Congress in the 2016 elections, it will be very interesting

to see how their politics evolve throughout the term and beyond. While their current welfare

policies make it easy to maintain support from the lowest earning tax brackets, their intense

spending has done nothing to combat the enormous government deficit. Successfully maintaining

their role as the champions of the common American will become increasingly difficult as the

weight of a growing national debt becomes increasingly harder to bear. Although it is still too

early to see which direction American politics and parties will shift, it is safe to say that

America’s wealthiest citizens will play a large role in how the nation is defined in the future.

19 Doran P.T. & Zimmerman M.K., "Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change," Eos Transactions American Geophysical Union

Vol. 90 Issue 3 (2009), 22; DOI: 10.1029/2009EO030002. 20 Oreskes N., “Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change,” Science Vol. 306 no. 5702, p. 1686 (3 December 2004); DOI: 10.1126/science.1103618. 21 Goldenberg, Suzanne. "Secret Funding Helped Build Vast Network of Climate Denial Think Tanks." Guardian (2013): 3. 14 Feb. 2013. Web. 06 Apr. 2015. 22 Winters, Jeffrey A., and Benjamin I. Page. "Oligarchy in the United States?"Perspectives on Politics 7.04 (2009): 732. Web.

Bibliography – All Sources from Original Paper

Anderegg W. R. L., “Expert Credibility in Climate Change,” Proceedings of the National

Academy of Sciences Vol. 107 No. 27, 12107-12109 (21 June 2010); DOI:

10.1073/pnas.1003187107.

Anderson, Benedict R. O'G. Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of

Nationalism. London: Verso, 991: 7. Print.

Doran P.T., & Zimmerman M.K., "Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change,"

Eos Transactions American Geophysical Union Vol. 90 Issue 3 (2009), 22; DOI:

10.1029/2009EO030002.

"Energy for America's Future." Energy for America's Future. N.p., n.d. Web. 06 Apr. 2015.

Falk, Richard. "The Decline of Citizenship in an Era of Globalization." Citizenship Studies 4.1

(2000): 5. Web. 06 Apr. 2015.

Frum, David. The Right Man: The Surprise Presidency of George W. Bush. New York: Random

House, 2003: 64-66. Print.

Goldenberg, Suzanne. "Secret Funding Helped Build Vast Network of Climate Denial Think

Tanks." Guardian (2013): 3. 14 Feb. 2013. Web. 06 Apr. 2015.

Johnston, David Cay. 2003 .Perfectly Legal: The Covert Campaign to Rig Our Tax System to

Benefit the Super Rich – and Cheat Everybody Else. New York: Portfolio Publishing.

Kay, Katty. "Analysis: Oil and the Bush Cabinet." BBC News. BBC, 29 Jan. 2001. Web. 06 Apr.

2015.

Keohane, Robert O. Nye Jr. Joseph S. “Globalization: What’s New? What’s Not? 2000.” Foreign

Policy, 2000: 731. Web.

Mayer, Jane. "Covert Operations." The New Yorker (2010): 10. Print.

Mayer, Lindsay R. "Big Oil, Big Influence." PBS. PBS, 1 Aug. 2008. Web. 06 Apr. 2015.

Messler, Bill. "CorpWatch : A Cabinet That Looks Like (Corporate) America." CorpWatch : A

Cabinet That Looks Like (Corporate) America. CorpWarch, n.d. Web. 06 Apr. 2015.

Oreskes N., “Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change,” Science

Vol. 306 no. 5702, p. 1686 (3 December 2004); DOI: 10.1126/science.1103618.

Rosenbaum, David E. "A Closer Look at Cheney and Halliburton." The New York Times. The

New York Times, 27 Sept. 2004. Web. 07 Apr. 2015.

U.S. Federal Government. President Bush's 2007 State of the Union Address.

WashingtonPost.com. Washington Post, 23 Jan. 2007. Web. 06 Apr. 2015.

Winters, Jeffrey A., and Benjamin I. Page. "Oligarchy in the United States?"Perspectives on

Politics 7.04 (2009): 731. Web.

research sample christopher regan

Documents