"Over decades, voters and politicians in left-wing parties have become more educated, affluent, and urban. In a 2022 paper, Piketty and co-authors observe the rise of what he calls the “Brahmin left” (the elite and educated left) in 21 Western democracies (Gethin et al., 2022)."
This is why today's Left spend such energy debating burning topics such as the rights of sexual minorities so oppressed that they have not even been discovered yet.
At the same time, the PMC take it as granted that as the smarter, better educated, more virtuous, tasteful and enlightened people, they are naturally entitled to the lion's share of The Goodies.
I'm impressed by the diversity of the world economic forum consisting of Mr. Burns, Scrooge McDuck, and the monopoly man. All three members are different colors. Two different species are represented. Two of the three are disabled (the monopoly man walks with a cane and Mr. Burns has every known disease). Unfortunately there are no gay members of this group but perhaps Mr. Burns could bring Smithers next time.
I think this whole piece is great and thought-provoking, though I think the refutation of this claim is somewhat weak: "It is not uncommon to hear claims that society is ruled by a cohesive elite—the “capitalists,” the “military-industrial complex,” and so on."
That elites may have infighting and shifting loyalties doesn't change the fundamental structure of capitalism, the power of capitalists, or the degree to which their interests broadly align. That they make populist concessions to voters to avoid revolution seems to point to the opposite fact, namely that capitalists have enough power to maintain the broad societal balance of power and wealth in their favor, even if it means giving some small concessions to the poor.
Thanks for the feedback, Sean! You said, "That elites may have infighting and shifting loyalties doesn't change the fundamental structure of capitalism, the power of capitalists, or the degree to which their interests broadly align."
On the contrary, I think this different vision of power in society and its dynamics is important. In particular, it is relevant to assessing the merits and usefulness of democratic institutions. If we are ruled by a unified elite that controls these institutions from behind the scenes, then the democratic process is merely smoke and mirrors—giving the masses the illusion of inclusiveness while actually masking their subjugation to the existing social order. This perspective justifies throwing out the liberal democratic baby with the bathwater of an unequal society.
I believe this is a dangerous view. Liberal democratic institutions protect the population against elites; they were won through the threat of revolutions in the 19th and 20th centuries (e.g. work from Acemoglu). Countries that rejected them as mere bourgeois ideology papering over the cracks of feudal capitalism ended up with unchecked new elites. That never ended well.
Dahl’s realist perspective on competing elites is not only better grounded in reality but also calls for a careful appraisal of the strengths and limitations of our specific institutions. Rather than dismissing them entirely, we should focus on improving their ability to limit elite power and ensure that all social groups have their preferences considered in policymaking.
In your view, do liberal democratic institutions presuppose extreme inequality and a permanent elite that rules over all? Or is the goal of liberal democracy to eventually flatten such hierarchies as much as possible?
I think liberal democracies are the best solutions to organise society in the interest of all—within the set of all the feasible regimes. That being said, the way they function in practice differs from the ideal of democracy we are often told about. When compared to this ideal, reality can seem disappointing, and it is understandable that we may long for something better. However, the alternatives have proven to be quite disastrous.
To answer your questions: in practice, elite groups do have more power in liberal democracies. There are various reasons for this, and one can think of ways to improve democracies to reduce the concentration of power. However, liberal democracies typically have a much greater diffusion of power than other regimes. This diffusion empowers different groups—in particular, no single group can typically control everything on its own. Coalitions are flexible, and politicians have an incentive to identify the interests of groups that are not yet represented in order to champion their causes and get elected.
To some extent, everything is imperfect and far from the ideal of democracy, but there are built-in mechanisms that tend to correct imbalances when things go wrong. In regard to inequality, by giving more power to poorer groups than in autocratic regimes, democracies will tend to have less inequality. Dahl, one of my preferred thinkers on democracy, called our liberal democracies "polyarchies" to emphasise the diffusion of power across different actors, groups, and institutions.
I’m not 100% familiar with game theory, but I find it interesting that your basic assertion of unstable coalitions becomes more and more caveated as you add more details. In this way, it seems like the reality and complexity of the real world make simple modeling difficult or impossible because reality is fundamentally “unmodelable” at scale.
In any case your post was fantastic and a really interesting way to look at history and politics. Thank you!
I've never seen populism described as an alliance between a portion of the elite and the masses, and it makes so much sense. Extrapolating from this, what also makes sense is that, in times of economic turmoil, warring populist factions will then come to dominate the political landscape. Fragmentation ahoy.
I am not a serious researcher like you, but I actually wasn’t surprised. Maybe I am an idiot savant, lol
"Over decades, voters and politicians in left-wing parties have become more educated, affluent, and urban. In a 2022 paper, Piketty and co-authors observe the rise of what he calls the “Brahmin left” (the elite and educated left) in 21 Western democracies (Gethin et al., 2022)."
This is why today's Left spend such energy debating burning topics such as the rights of sexual minorities so oppressed that they have not even been discovered yet.
At the same time, the PMC take it as granted that as the smarter, better educated, more virtuous, tasteful and enlightened people, they are naturally entitled to the lion's share of The Goodies.
I'm impressed by the diversity of the world economic forum consisting of Mr. Burns, Scrooge McDuck, and the monopoly man. All three members are different colors. Two different species are represented. Two of the three are disabled (the monopoly man walks with a cane and Mr. Burns has every known disease). Unfortunately there are no gay members of this group but perhaps Mr. Burns could bring Smithers next time.
Illegal immigrants DO NOT VOTE. They are here to WORK and increase the profits of Republican plutocrats. The thesis is BACKWARDS.
Where’s your chart for high education, low income?
I think this whole piece is great and thought-provoking, though I think the refutation of this claim is somewhat weak: "It is not uncommon to hear claims that society is ruled by a cohesive elite—the “capitalists,” the “military-industrial complex,” and so on."
That elites may have infighting and shifting loyalties doesn't change the fundamental structure of capitalism, the power of capitalists, or the degree to which their interests broadly align. That they make populist concessions to voters to avoid revolution seems to point to the opposite fact, namely that capitalists have enough power to maintain the broad societal balance of power and wealth in their favor, even if it means giving some small concessions to the poor.
Thanks for the feedback, Sean! You said, "That elites may have infighting and shifting loyalties doesn't change the fundamental structure of capitalism, the power of capitalists, or the degree to which their interests broadly align."
On the contrary, I think this different vision of power in society and its dynamics is important. In particular, it is relevant to assessing the merits and usefulness of democratic institutions. If we are ruled by a unified elite that controls these institutions from behind the scenes, then the democratic process is merely smoke and mirrors—giving the masses the illusion of inclusiveness while actually masking their subjugation to the existing social order. This perspective justifies throwing out the liberal democratic baby with the bathwater of an unequal society.
I believe this is a dangerous view. Liberal democratic institutions protect the population against elites; they were won through the threat of revolutions in the 19th and 20th centuries (e.g. work from Acemoglu). Countries that rejected them as mere bourgeois ideology papering over the cracks of feudal capitalism ended up with unchecked new elites. That never ended well.
Dahl’s realist perspective on competing elites is not only better grounded in reality but also calls for a careful appraisal of the strengths and limitations of our specific institutions. Rather than dismissing them entirely, we should focus on improving their ability to limit elite power and ensure that all social groups have their preferences considered in policymaking.
I never argued for dismissing institutions entirely, though I think in the U.S. we have a great many anti-democratic institutions that really only serve the elite (electoral college, senate, two-party rule, first-past-the-post elections, unchecked money in politics). This isn't my area of expertise, so I'm curious if you know of research which refutes the findings here that elites and business interests have a substantial impact on policymaking while regular citizens have very little: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/testing-theories-of-american-politics-elites-interest-groups-and-average-citizens/62327F513959D0A304D4893B382B992B
In your view, do liberal democratic institutions presuppose extreme inequality and a permanent elite that rules over all? Or is the goal of liberal democracy to eventually flatten such hierarchies as much as possible?
Hi Sean,
I think liberal democracies are the best solutions to organise society in the interest of all—within the set of all the feasible regimes. That being said, the way they function in practice differs from the ideal of democracy we are often told about. When compared to this ideal, reality can seem disappointing, and it is understandable that we may long for something better. However, the alternatives have proven to be quite disastrous.
To answer your questions: in practice, elite groups do have more power in liberal democracies. There are various reasons for this, and one can think of ways to improve democracies to reduce the concentration of power. However, liberal democracies typically have a much greater diffusion of power than other regimes. This diffusion empowers different groups—in particular, no single group can typically control everything on its own. Coalitions are flexible, and politicians have an incentive to identify the interests of groups that are not yet represented in order to champion their causes and get elected.
To some extent, everything is imperfect and far from the ideal of democracy, but there are built-in mechanisms that tend to correct imbalances when things go wrong. In regard to inequality, by giving more power to poorer groups than in autocratic regimes, democracies will tend to have less inequality. Dahl, one of my preferred thinkers on democracy, called our liberal democracies "polyarchies" to emphasise the diffusion of power across different actors, groups, and institutions.
I’m not 100% familiar with game theory, but I find it interesting that your basic assertion of unstable coalitions becomes more and more caveated as you add more details. In this way, it seems like the reality and complexity of the real world make simple modeling difficult or impossible because reality is fundamentally “unmodelable” at scale.
In any case your post was fantastic and a really interesting way to look at history and politics. Thank you!
I've never seen populism described as an alliance between a portion of the elite and the masses, and it makes so much sense. Extrapolating from this, what also makes sense is that, in times of economic turmoil, warring populist factions will then come to dominate the political landscape. Fragmentation ahoy.
<Grabs popcorn; watches *this* space...>