A number of progressive organizations focus their work on what they deem to be the biggest threats to human wellbeing and even the future: climate change and inequality. It is easy to “blame” the major culprit for both of these—the forces of oligarchy and plutocracy who dominate politics and public life.
As important (and dire) as climate change and inequality are, many of us spend our efforts (and money) fighting the lesser demons of racism, sexism, homo and transphobia, hunger, homelessness, and assaults against democracy—knowing that these are inextricably intertwined with the “big” problems.
Yes, our enemy is much better funded, literally owns all the national media platforms, and maintains armies of attorneys primed to draft legislation and ascend to judgeships where they have the power to squelch the voices of the rest of us. Our best weapon had always been the moral high ground because we stand for helping our neighbors and building a better world that works for everyone. Yet, the enemy—who is primarily motivated by greed, selfishness, and lust for power—has somehow seemed to have captured some part of the moral high ground.
In my own research, I find that diagramming relationships between persons and institutions helps to understand them—as well as to identify potential pathways for change. Groups advocating for social change (including our own local Inclusive Moorhead) encourage the use of a strategy called power mapping, where you identify both formal and informal loci of influence and decision-making.
Plutocracy/Oligarchy has a long record of being a major power player throughout the history of the United States. Indeed, the Constitutional convention was at least in part motivated by Shay’s Rebellion, an uprising of farmers facing foreclosure. Throughout the nineteenth century, regular citizens gradually became more literate, while at the same time livelihoods were being transformed from small family farms and shops to wage labor for organized capital. Family life was disrupted as men moved out of the home and women were left with the burden of managing the household alone. The men now also had less time and energy to engage in civic participation—the town halls where decisions were made about community life.
The country was ruptured during the Civil War (1861-1865). Like regular citizens, wealthy elites were also divided on the issue of slavery, as well as the rights of freedmen. Slave-owning plantation owners framed the issue of slavery around “property rights,” along with the implication of a loss of “civilization” if the institution of slavery ended. We hear similar arguments from the plutocracy today—if you don’t let us continue to exploit, extract and expropriate, it will be the end of Western civilization.
The post-civil war period also witnessed increasing consolidation of industrial manufacturing, along with state-spanning monopolist trusts that were able to evade regulation by any individual state. Like today, obscene fortunes were created while the quality of life was decreasing for most everyone else. Political cartoons depicted fat cats controlling the acts of Congress. But for the dated clothing and hairstyles, not much is very different today.
The oligarchy is perhaps the most stable and cohesive of the forces against progressivism. Even after the American Revolution—which declared the end of the “divine right of kings”—social custom continued to recognize, justify, and accommodate privileges based on wealth. The oligarchy has always had one primary objective: the preservation of its own wealth and privileges. In America, this has translated into a demand for “small government,” low taxes and de-regulation, which is frequently couched in terms of “freedom.” It is also inherently undemocratic. The unwashed masses (BIPOC, women and propertyless white men) must not be allowed to have too much input into the rules and norms that govern society, or they might demand a larger voice in decision-making and a fairer share of collective production.
“The disposition to admire, and almost to worship, the rich and powerful, and to despise, or, at least, to neglect, persons of poor and mean condition, though necessary both to establish and to maintain the distinction of ranks and the order of society, is, at the same time, the great and most universal cause of the corruption of our moral sentiments.”
Adam Smith, 1759
By the middle to latter 1880s, the oligarchy knew that it needed to do something to counter its unsavory public image of greed and selfishness. Fortunately, there were some preaching men who had ambitions beyond faith leadership. Christian churches in early America tended to be “independent” of centralized institutions (e.g., the Catholic or Episcopal Church). Preachers were able to build memberships by stoking fears around social and political changes. One of the earliest of these was Robert Dabney (1820-1898), a former chaplain in the Confederate army. Dabney began preaching the gospel of the “Redeemer Nation,” or the idea that slavery was divinely ordained, and that God would protect the white man’s property. Included in Dabney’s theology was the argument that God had also ordained the social subordination of women (based on the “first transgression” of Eve). “Redeemer Nation” theology persisted even after the Civil War and slavery was abolished.
A follower of Dabney was R.J. Rushdooney (1916 – 2001), who reformed the Redeemer Nation into the dominionist movement. Rushdooney preached the need for America to become an exclusively Christian nation, along with the subordination of women, non-payment of taxes, and the replacement of secular education with Christian-based education. James W. Fifield (1899-1977) was an enterprising preacher whose main skill was fundraising from wealthy individuals and corporations. Fifield was able to gain a sympathetic ear from the oligarchs because he preached against the New Deal, labor unions, and the “social gospel” of helping those less fortunate.
And so was forged an alliance between part of the oligarchy and Christian fundamentalism. Fundamentalist preachers were able to access big money to help grow their congregations (and thus their own wealth), and the oligarchs could convince themselves that they had atoned for their own greed by donating to a church. Moreover (and perhaps most importantly), the preachers could now convince their flocks to vote against legislation that protected workers, the poor, communities, women and children because this is what “God” wanted (or even demanded).
In 1971, future Supreme Court Justice Lewis Powell wrote his infamous memo that urged the oligarchs and the corporatocracy to commit one tenth (analogous to the Biblical tithe) of their advertising budgets to influence legislation and shape and shift public opinion. Although the American Enterprise Institute had been around since 1938 (established in response to the New Deal), the Powell Memo let loose a plethora of new think tanks and academic-style institutions: The Heritage Foundation (1973), the American Legislative Exchange Council (1973), the libertarian CATO Institute (1977), the Claremont Institute (1979), the Federalist Society (1982).
As we look at our diagram, the strongest link is between the plutocracy/oligarchy/corporatocracy and the think tanks they support. The plutocrats (for short) have been preaching the gospel of social Darwinism, winner-take-all, meritocracy, everyone-for-himself, supremacy of the market, and “trickle-down” economics for decades. In spite of these ideas being debunked (e.g., “trickle-down”) by mainstream economists and others, they have enjoyed tenacity and robustness. This is largely thanks to both the oligarch-funded network of think tanks as well as the practical fact that this class owns most of the national media.
Although the plutocrats are not directly linked to Christian Nationalism, they are indirectly linked through the Christian Dominionists. While Dominionists are not exactly the same as Christian Nationalists, there is significant overlap. There are surely some (but not all) of the plutocrats who share Dominionist (and/or Christian Nationalist) ideas, but their primary allegiance is maintaining their wealth, privilege, and domination of the political process. What both plutocrats and Dominionists share is an antipathy to democracy. The plutocrats don’t want workers and communities to assert rights (to a livable wage, clean air and water, affordable housing, or an equal voice in government) or otherwise interfere with their accumulation of wealth and power. What the Dominionists want is to install a theocracy, abrogating any other rights to religious freedom or equal rights under the law.
The direct connection between plutocrats and the Christian Nationalists (or Dominionists) is less clear. There are certainly preachers (celebrity megapastors) who have been able to become millionaires by using modern marketing techniques and grifting off their own flocks. Which suggests that maybe they don’t “need” the non-Christian oligarchs anymore. However, what both of these groups still desire is political power. Today, one of the primary “connectors” in this area is a relatively obscure (until recently) Cornell Law School graduate named Lenoard Leo.
Leo has been a die-hard member of the Federalist Society since law school. After finishing law school, Leo clerked for two federal judges. One of them was Clarence Thomas, who was at that time a judge on the D.C. Court of Appeals. Leo has served the Federalist Society for the past twenty-five years, except for a brief hiatus defending Clarence Thomas during his Supreme Court confirmation hearings. The Federalist Society estimates that it has about 60,000 members, which includes law students and academics as well as practicing lawyers. But even assuming all 60,000 members were admitted to law practice, this would mean they comprise only 4.6% of practicing attorneys. Yet today six Federalists sit on the U.S Supreme Court. And Leo is the prime mover behind this.
Like Fifield, Leo has been known for skill in fundraising since high school. He is especially good at connecting big money to sources of power. Leo used his skills and connections with big money to grow and build Federalist Society influence over both state and federal judiciaries. Something that concerned Leo was how conservative judges would gradually become more liberal during their time on the bench, and one way to prevent this was (surprise!) with money. The Federalist Society has connections to many of the “usual suspects” of dark money: the John M. Olin Foundation, the Scaife Foundation, the Prince and Devos Foundations, Rebekah Mercer (who is known for connections to Steve Bannon and Cambridge Analytica), as well as religious groups like Focus on the Family, Campus Crusade for Christ and the National Christian Foundation.
Leo remains chummy with his Federalist Supreme Court Justices (especially Clarence and Ginni Thomas), often dropping into their offices as casually as a neighbor coming by for some tea. Fortunately, the Senate Judiciary is now looking into financial connections and whether or not American justice has been for sale.
We see a more tenuous connection between the plutocrats and right-wing populism. Historically, these have been antagonistic groups (think back to Shay’s Rebellion, and more recently the Tea Party). Ironically, the Occupy Wall Street and Tea Party movements arose around the same time. Although the Tea Party movement may have been precipitated by the election of Barack Obama, there was anger on both the left and the right about the bailout of the “too big to fail” banks in the Great Recession, while the pain of Main Street was ignored. Which prompted some pundits to conclude that both movements were “two sides of a very angry coin.” Obama himself is reported to have warned a group of bank CEOs that his administration was “the only thing between you and the pitchforks.”
It was not desirable that the proles should have strong political feelings. All that was required of them was a primitive patriotism which could be appealed to whenever it was necessary to make them accept longer working hours or shorter rations. And even when they became discontented, as they sometimes did, their discontent led nowhere, because, being without general ideas, they could only focus it on petty, specific grievances.”
George Orwell, 1984
While the Occupy movement drifted due to lack of organization and resources, the Tea Party (which started out grass roots) morphed into something much more organized and better funded. Investigative journalists subsequently discovered that the billionaire Koch brothers were behind much of the Tea Party’s new funding. “Divide-and-conquer” is a standard weapon in the plutocrat playbook: BIPOC versus whites, men versus women, immigrants versus natives, LGBTQ versus cis-hetero, the unwashed and unemployed “hippies” of Occupy versus the ignorant “rednecks” of the Tea Party. Anything to keep everyone from figuring out that all of “us” have been working harder for less for decades. And NOT because of anything the targeted “other” is or is not doing.
But divide-and-conquer works. Following the civil rights era—where people of color, women, the disabled and others who had previously been excluded from full participation in (mainly career and economic) life, the plutocrats made good use of white men fear. The biggest fear of course, being loss of unearned privilege—a fear that plutocrats could relate to. We can see on our diagram that there is a tenuous connection between the plutocrat-funded think-tanks and the anti-democratic “dominator” ideologies of patriarchy, white supremacy, and nationalism/neo-fascism. This is less a connection involving direct influence but rather strategic use of a shared messaging ecosystem. This system provides talking points to stoke fear and hate, which furthers the divide-and-conquer strategy.
A lesser (and almost silly) phenomenon that has emerged is a new cultural emphasis on “manliness.” Most of human society has been patriarchal for millennia, but as this seems to be changing slowly and women are gaining power (four women now on the Supreme Court, a woman VP, a majority of women in paid work—although many by necessity), men fear losing privilege while at the same time don’t want to express fear (it isn’t “manly”). So, the fear (like most unacknowledged fears) morphs into hatred of women. The manifestation of this was Rush Limbaugh’s use of the term “feminazi,” which was designed to disparage women asserting their own power. More recently, we have Tucker Carlson’s ridiculous documentary The End of Men.
All of these things—plutocracy and its associated anti-government think-tanks, right-wing populism, Christian nationalism, white supremacy, patriarchy, and neo-nazis—have been here for some time, even if flying quietly under the radar. Along came Donald Trump, and he became the unifying force that connected everything. He gave the plutocrats their tax cut; he gave the Dominionists their judges; and he gave the right-wing populists with white supremacist and neofascist tendencies permission to hate. The foundation of a unifying anti-democracy infrastructure was already there. All Trump did was connect it—AND give it a very loud and prominent public platform.
“When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross.”
James Waterman Wise (circa 1933)
But by unifying the axis of evil, Trump also brought them out into the light. I lived in the south in the 1960s and was aware of racist churches who preached white supremacy. Then in the 1980s—the “greed is good” era—churches were preaching so-called “prosperity gospel.” The only reason you aren’t rich is because either you aren’t working hard enough (a plutocrat message), or you don’t have enough faith (the prosperity gospel message). Better to blame the victim than to challenge the system that was making some people very rich. It was easy to dismiss such things as “fundie” anomalies, notwithstanding messages that were totally antithetical to the teachings of Jesus to love your neighbor, care for the poor, welcome the foreigner, and numerous admonitions against the selfish pursuit of wealth and worldly power.
So…where might there be a potential for breach in this unholy alliance?
We see that the weakest connection is between the Plutocrats and RW Populism. We also see that there is NO connection between the think tanks that provide justification of oligarchy and the populists. As many of us have been advised when dealing with members of the MAGA crowd, using logic, evidence and facts generally gets you nowhere. Which is not surprising. Populism has historically had an anti-intellectual bias, as intellectuals are often conscripted by economic and political elites to justify the status quo.
While we should acknowledge that there is a hard core of sociopathic-wired dominator types (whose number is unknown), there are other folks who have been indoctrinated into these toxic ideologies who could perhaps be encouraged to view things differently. Economic messages may get through to right wing populists if they are framed in understandable (i.e., not academic-economist) and relatable terms. Robert Reich’s Inequality Media has been putting out a plethora of information about economic issues that relate to everyday life. A group of Patriotic Millionaires is challenging the plutocratic myths of market supremacy, low taxes, trickle-down and all of the other neoliberal claptrap. If we are truly looking for common ground, there is a good chance that—like populists on the left and working people everywhere—right wing populists are also tired of working harder for less and seeing their communities degraded and dying.
Today, there are Christian groups challenging Christian nationalism. Christian nationalism is NOT patriotism; it is undemocratic; and it is actually quite un-Christian. Yet, many are drawn into Christian nationalism by messages from their own preachers as well as the hard core types that dominate the (well-funded) propaganda machine. Although we will never have the resources, organization, and networked infrastructure that “they” have, Christians have the ability to speak out against Christian nationalism with the language of scripture.
A fellow Interfaith Alliance member reports that a small evangelical church in Bismark has been taken over by associates of Turning Point USA. He remains in contact with former members who say that the church was “not always like this.” Which suggests that some folks will be responsive to alternative messaging, but there will be work to do in overcoming the alienation from their own faith.
Most interesting of all will be to see what happens if (when)? Trump is convicted or otherwise loses control over (at least some of) his base. I will leave it to psychosocial professionals to explain how such a vile human being can have such a stranglehold on such a large percentage of the population. Yes, there are some for whom Trump is only a means to their own ends. Any alliance of totally self-interested, competitor-dominator types usually ends in betrayal. We are seeing some of this dynamic play out in Congress. If we can imagine removal of the central “connecting” force that is Trump, it may be easier to contain and counteract the others. While there is hope that this evil juggernaut can be thwarted (if not ever completely defeated), we can expect the process to be mean and messy.
The evils of oligarchy, religious and racial supremacy, hate, and ignorance have always been with us. And they will still be with us when Trump is gone (one way or another). If we understand the system dynamics that connect and strengthen these forces, we will be better equipped to challenge and confront them. Our democracy depends on it. The truth depends on it. And any hope for a decent life for the majority of us depends on it.