Recently I wrote in this space about the threat to democracy posed by the politics industry duopoly and how the two parties (which are private, self-interested organizations) have captured government at both state and federal levels. That article was based upon observing the political scene and insights from a book by Katherine Gehl and Michael Porter.
Porter might be familiar to those who have studied organizational strategy. His Five Forces model is standard stuff in most organizational strategy courses as an industry analysis tool. The model suggests success of firms in a given industry and the whole industry is determined by the interplay of five forces; the power of customers and suppliers relative to the power of organizations in the industry, the threat of entry of new competitors, the threat of substitutes for the industry’s goods or services, and intra-industry rivalry.
Porter’s model is usually used by for-profit business to find more profitable niches within their industries. He and Gehl apply it to an analysis of the politics industry where the parties’ goal is to strengthen and perpetuate their hold on the levers of government.
Who are the duopoly’s customers and suppliers? Unlike other private sector industries, in the politics industry suppliers and customers are largely the same organizations and individuals. Working together over the last few decades the two parties have cemented partnerships with their most important suppliers/customers to their mutual benefit. One assumes the politics industry’s major customers are voters. Not so fast!
Well-heeled, special interests and their fellow travelers are the parties’ most important suppliers and customers. They keep the money spigot open and benefit from favorable legislation and lax regulatory oversight by regulators who have to be approved by Congress. When the public’s interests and the private interests of the two parties and their allies conflict, passing legislation that is in the public interest is not on the parties’ agenda.
The two parties have optimized the legislative and election processes to their benefit by exploiting features of the Constitution that I see as flaws. As for legislative processes, the Constitution leaves entirely to the discretion of the Senate and House how they choose leaders, divvy up committee assignments and, importantly, designing their operating rules. That left open the door for Congress, full of members of only the two parties, to engineer its structures and processes to protect and perpetuate the duopoly and curry favor with its major suppliers/customers, those who control the money taps.
Both houses have created rules such that there is one, lone gatekeeper who has complete control over what bills ever reach the floor for an up or down vote. Only bills acceptable to the Senate Majority Leader and the Speaker of the House reach the floor of either house. Keep in mind the Senator who becomes Majority Leader will have been elected by a plurality of voters in one state. The Representative who becomes Speaker will have been elected by a plurality of voters in only one Congressional district.
By the way, the Constitution makes no mention of a Senate Majority Leader; it’s an extra-constitutional office created by the two parties. In fact, the Constitution says nothing at all about political parties. The only congressional leaders constitutionally ordained are President of the Senate who is the Vice President and the Speaker of House, sans party affiliation.
Election processes designed by the two parties effectively shut out outside challengers by erecting virtually impenetrable barriers to entry. Except for Presidential elections, the Constitution is silent as to how state and local elections are designed. The two parties have used that omission to craft election procedures, especially partisan primaries, that make it all but impossible for alternative candidates to challenge their candidates.
At the state level the parties have gerrymandered Congressional districts in ways that virtually guarantee victories for candidates from a state legislature’s dominant party. In addition, gerrymandering raises the possibility that a state’s dominant party in its legislature may not be favored by a state-wide majority of voters. Other strong barriers to entry in both state and national elections are: separate party primaries, plurality voting, and allowing only duopoly candidates to participate in Presidential debates.
Intra-industry rivalry is focused on each party’s efforts to pick off just enough centrist voters, who considerably outnumber members of both parties, to sway elections their way. Regardless of which party’s candidates are elected the duopoly rolls on.
As the two parties ebb and flow into an out of the majority in Congress or holding the Presidency society’s big problems go unresolved. The parties go about their primary business of slathering benefits on themselves and their partners because they have nearly completely insulated themselves from accountability to voters.
Here's a prime example of the parties’ power being used to benefit private interests rather than the interests of the majority of citizens. A recent poll reported 71 percent of Americans favor making ownership of assault style rifles illegal. A government that can’t enact a measure favored by nearly three-fourths of its citizens is spectacularly undemocratic.
It’s up to ordinary citizens to dethrone the duopoly. Get rid of party primaries and adopt ranked choice voting in general elections. We citizens have the power to do that. Our democracy is at stake!
Patrick Taylor lives in Ridgeland.
