The KPFT station manager’s report to the station board about its fall schedule described “Liberty and Justice for All” as “a show about the promise of American democracy,” so that seems a good place to start. What is “the promise of American democracy”?
The nation’s founding documents—the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution—lay that promise out quite clearly:
BECAUSE every human being is “created equal,” with “unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,”
THEREFORE, “We the people” … to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
That’s the promise. In short, “Liberty and Justice for All.”.
Of course, though people disagree about how much and for whom, the reality has so far fallen short of the promise. On this point, most people agree. Where they more often disagree is on how much progress has been made and for whom.
Generally speaking, the country has been on an upward, improving, trajectory for most of its history, for most of its people. But they didn’t get better without a struggle; and there is no guarantee that things will always get better.
In fact, they have been known to get worse and can easily get worse again. The need to keep getting better is as strong now, despite the nation’s gains, as it ever was. Indeed, we seem to be in the middle of a “things are getting worse” period, when a great many people are worried about how things are going.
Characteristically, we don’t agree on what’s wrong. Everybody has their favorite candidate. But there does seem to be a consensus that SOMETHING is wrong and needs to be fixed.
By my count, we have faced similar crises as a nation at least three times before, but emerged each time stronger and better, at least for a while. I am thinking, of course, of the American Revolution, the Civil War, and the New Deal.
And we can emerge from the current crisis better and stronger. But only if we face the storm, figure out what’s wrong, and work together to do something about it. We can’t just complain about our problems. We have to do something about them. I see that as the focus of our show.
What are our problems? How is the promise of American democracy falling short today? And for whom?
I see two areas of special concern. The first is the growing gap between the richest Americans and the rest, Have Mores and the Have Lesses. The second is the growing cruelty, polarization, and dysfunction of our politics.
Here is one measure of the growing gap between the Have Mores and the Have Lesses.
In 1980, the average income of the top 1 percent of American households, after all taxes are deducted and all transfer payments have been added, was 7 times larger than the overall average household income for the whole country.
In 2020, however, it was 14 times larger.
In other words, the average household income of the top 1 percent grew twice as fast over that period than the average household income for the whole population.
And the story is the same for each quintile. The average household income of the top 1 percent was 19 times larger than the bottom 20 percent of households in 1980, and 35 times larger in 2020. For the second quintile, the multiples are 12 for 1980 and 25 for 2020. For the middle, they are 8 for 1980 and 19 for 2020. For the fourth, 6 and 14; and for the highest, 3 and 6.
In other words, every quintile is worse off relative to the top 1 percent by at least a factor of 2.
Another way to put the point is to say, that if the rewards of the economy’s rising productivity over that 40 years had been distributed in the same proportion as they were in 1980, then the average household income in every quintile would be twice as high.
Of course, the opposite would be true for the top 1 percent. To raise the income of everyone else, their income would have to decline by slightly more than half. But before we cry to much about their loss, let’s observe that even with that decline, the top 1 percent would still make twice as much in 2020 as they did in 1980, and still multiples more than the average of every other quintile.
Why are the top 1 percent doing so much better now than they once did? We will have to talk about that. But it is my position that they are not doing so much better because they are twice as smart or work twice as hard now as they did in 1980.
No. I think they are doing so much better because they have used their positional advantage at the top of the financial system to capture more of the gains the system as a whole is producing.
I call them the Money Power. And if we are going to restore the American promise to every American, we need to rein it in, just as Americans figured out how to rein in the Royal Power, the Slave Power, and the Corporate Power, which in earlier generations denied the American promise to others.
Which brings back to our political problem. We won’t be able to rein in—I intentionally do not say “abolish”—the Money Power until we have restored functionality and effectiveness to our political system.
As long as our politics remain dysfunctional, the Money Power has nothing to worry about. I imagine the Money Power even likes the way the game is going. The monied classes are certainly benefitting from it! We have to fix our politics, if we are going to fix our economy.
How do we fix our politics?
First, I see a representation gap. Neither of the established parties speaks clearly for or on behalf of the working classes. Both of them are dominated by the monied interests, and they have been since at least the mid-1960 s, if not before.
I agree completely with my colleague, Les Leopold, that the billionaires currently have two parties and the people need one of their own. We will be talking about that.
I also agree that there is a “governability gap.” By which I mean, the system as currently constituted is not delivering good government. Indeed, many say it delivers more bad government than good!
We will also be looking at that. But I want to declare my own interest in this discussion from the outset. I do not share the conviction of many that fixing the government requires amending the Constitution.
On this point, I agree with those who say, to paraphrase John Adams, that the US Constitution has given us an imperfect form of government, but every alternative on offer is worse.
Fortunately, we can fix what is wrong with the government without amending the Constitution.
Take the Electoral College. It has become increasingly unrepresentative. But the problem is the Electoral College itself. The problem is its unrepresentative nature. Repeal the 1929 Permanent Apportionment Act, expand the number of representatives in the House, and you fix two problems at once: the unrepresentative nature of the House AND the unrepresentative nature of the Electoral College.
There are similar reforms to the Senate and the Supreme Court that would make both bodies more responsive to “we the people,” which I hope we will discuss.
Granted, the Senate is a tough one! It has been called the most undemocratic legislative body in the democratic world. But just because the problem is hard doesn’t mean there isn’t a solution. I think I see one, and we will invite others here at some point to talk about.
That’s enough for today. I am looking forward to the conversation and welcome comments, criticisms, and suggestions.