Take Me to Your Leader

Imagine that an alien from Mars comes to planet Earth and issues the conventional request: “take me to your leader.” How does one formulate a proper response? Three competing theories suggest different answers. These include organized interests have the greatest influence, social and/or economic elites dominate the political process, and the mass of citizens ultimately rules. While each perspective offers compelling points and merits, history itself is perhaps best construed as a battle of sorts between competing players. Yet, as the gradual unfolding of history shows, it is ultimately the will of the people that prevails. Therefore, as a matter of principled and democratic response to the question, it is arguably the mass of citizens that should be properly credited as leader of planet Earth.

To begin, those who contend that organized interests have the greatest influence base their argument on a few key, and almost convincing, points and evidences. Fundamentally, such thinkers view the world of politics as being embedded within the broader scope and reality of market society. As no surprise, they point out that more than two-thirds of the organized interest groups in D.C. are “institutions and/or membership associations that are directly related to the joint political concerns that arise from economic roles and interests” (Scholzman et al. 322). The litany of corporate influencers (many of which are seemingly household names like ExxonMobil, General Electric, and so forth) tend to dominate political discourse and policy direction in Washington. The interests of these behemoth corporate entities are anything but aligned with the concerns of ordinary citizens. In fact, what one finds within the inner circles of power in Washington is an agenda concerned about oil prices, profits, regulatory standards conducive to profit maximization, and the like. In a nutshell, a seemingly reasonable case can, therefore, be made, to the effect, that those who hold organizational power are the real leaders in America and the world as they dictate policy at the highest level of political order.

As perhaps a point missed by those who believe that organized groups hold the most political power and influence, a small group of privileged elites tend to be the executives and board members who control corporate entities. Therefore, even though a case can be made that groups like ExxonMobil, General Electric, and others exert significant influence in the political sphere, there would appear to be a few select individuals who represent the proverbial “power behind the throne.” Generally, a case can be made, in this respect, that these leaders do not operate in the spotlight of the command and control political environment in Washington. To the contrary, they conduct themselves according to an entirely different order – namely market society’s system of inducements whereby symbolic political leaders is effectively imprisoned by the market system – something that is ultimately controlled by an elite and privileged few (Lindblom 331). Summarily, identification of the real leaders, thereby, becomes a simple matter of following the money trail to the doorsteps of economic elites.

Additional evidences can be adduced in support of the claim that economic elites are the true leaders of the world. Specifically, the whole partisan nature of Washington reveals that “economic notables” dictate policy direction (Bartels 285). For those who may doubt this claim, a recent study of Congressional voting patterns appears to tell the true story. Specifically, findings of a study by Bartels show that Republican senators representing California during “the 101st and 102nd Congresses were a great deal closer in their voting patterns to their Republican colleagues from Texas and Mississippi than their Democratic colleague from California” (Bartels 257). Bartels’ point is that members of the U.S. Congress tend to vote according to the party line ideological agenda, not the public interests of the local citizenry and electorate. In this way, imbalance and disparity in political influence is a function of economic inequality and elitism. This is due to the fact that the owners and managers of large income-producing properties (i.e., the owners of corporations, banks, financial institutions, and agri-businesses) are the actual power brokers and leaders of society (Gilens 251; Domhoff). Thus, economic power affords privilege and opportunities to a select few that others simply do not possess or enjoy.

While evidence, both for and against, has been presented for the first two positions concerning who holds real leadership power, one cannot forget that America, in principle, is a democratic society. As such, the mass of citizens, at least in theory, ultimately rules. Along these lines, Dahl articulates the democratic creed in the following terms, saying, “I assume that a key characteristic of a democracy is the continued responsiveness of the government to the preferences of its citizens, considered as political equals” (Bartels 253; Dahl 316). Critics of Dahl’s idealistic claims point out that political inequality is the order of the day in America. In fact, it is difficult to refute the empirical observation that “wealthier and better-educated citizens are more likely than the poor and less-educated to have clearly formulated and well-informed preferences, are significantly more likely to vote…and to contribute money and energy to political campaigns” (Bartels 252). Thereby, for some realist thinkers, it almost becomes laughable to contend that the mass of citizens should be properly credited as collective leaders of the planet Earth.

As a matter of personal opinion and commentary, it was perhaps true in the past that an elite few controlled American politics. This is especially true back in the days of the captains of industry and the Gilded Age of America. In those days, men like John D. Rockefeller of Standard Oil, Andrew Carnegie of Carnegie Steel, and J. Pierpont Morgan (the powerful banker) largely controlled and dominated American society. Yet, the idea of a political economy in the so-called “New Gilded Age” is just a metaphor. It is hyperbole designed to elicit and conjure images and feelings of social and economic inequality and injustice. Like all eras in American history, the Gilded Age was just that – a brief period in the annals of U.S. history. In the bigger picture, that is, in the ongoing historical battle for power and freedom, the American people are more empowered than at any time in history. In fact, history itself can be viewed optimistically as the slow but steady unfolding of freedom and democracy.

In advancing the point, Americans have witnessed the prevailing of the will of people in the American Revolution, the Civil War, World War I, and World War II. More recently, grass roots movements have advanced democracy in significant and unprecedented manner. Consider, for example, the monumental achievements of leaders of the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 1960s. Members of society amassed themselves under the aegis of democracy and equal rights. Thereby, they effectively turned back the tide of racial discrimination and prejudice in America. As a result of the passing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and other equal rights policies, the nation has never gone back to the days of racism and Jim Crow laws. All in all, this all came about because the true leaders of America, and ultimately the world, are the “We, the people.”

As a matter of further consideration, the mass of citizens should be properly credited as leader of the planet Earth in light contemporary trends. In recent years, organized masses have stood up for an array of social, economic, and environmental/ecological issues. The corporate social responsibility (CSR) movement, for instance, is a grass roots phenomenon that demands higher order corporate conscience. Yet, the captains of industry are not going to adhere to CSR principles on their own. “We, the people” must make them do it. Consider, even further, the Occupy Wall Street Movement. As demonstrated, the people have realized that democracy does not work by just going to the polls and voting for the next corrupt elitist politician. The people empower themselves through mass demonstration and organization according to ideals and principles. In sum, despite the narrow and selfish ambitions of those who align themselves with special interest groups and elitists, democracy continues to unfold and even thrive in the world. In the most accurate and appropriate terms, “We, the people” are the true leaders of the planet called Earth.

In conclusion, if a visitor from Mars presented the conventional request of “take me to your leader,” three competing theories suggest different responses. These include: organized interests have the greatest influence, social and/or economic elites dominate the political process, and the mass of citizens ultimately rules. Admittedly, the first two theories can be supported and/or refuted according to different criteria and facts. The world of politics is certainly embedded within the broader scope and reality of market society. As such, there is nothing surprising about the fact that the majority of organized interests in Washington are institutions or membership associations that are directly related to economic power. More accurately, however, the identification of the real leaders is a simple matter of following the money trail to the doorsteps of economic elites. In fact, it has been shown that the economic notables are the actual power brokers and leaders behind the overt staging of the political scenery. Yet, even then, the American people are more empowered today than at any time in history. In fact, history itself can be viewed optimistically as the slow but steady unfolding of democracy whereby the will of the people eventually prevails, and will triumph, in the order of social, economic, and environmental/ecological justice. Thus, provided with the prompt from a visitor from Mars, “take me to your leader,” the proper response should be by the people, “Welcome to our democratic society.”

Works Cited

Bartels, Larry. Chapter 9: “Economic Inequality and Political Representation,” and Chapter 10: “Unequal Democracy,” Unequal Democracy: The Political Economy of the New Gilded Age. 2008. 252-303.

Dahl, Robert. Chapter 19: “On the Species Homo Politicus,” Who Governs? Democracy and Power in an American City, second edition. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2005. 223-228.

Domhoff, G. William. Chapters 2-4, Who Rules America? Power and Politics in the Year 2000, third edition. New York: McGraw-Hill Companies/Mayfield Publishing Co. 1997, pp. 16-108.

Gilens, Martin. Chapter 3: “The Preference/Policy Link,” and Chapter 8, “Money and American Politics,” Affluence and Influence: Economic Inequality and Political Power in America. New York: Russell Sage Foundation & Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. 2012. 70-96; 234-252.

Lindblom, Charles E. "The Market as Prison" The Journal of Politics, vol. 44, no. 2, 1982, pp. 324-336.

Scholzman, Kay, Sidney Verba, and Henry Brady, Chapter 9, “Political Activism and Electoral;" Chapter 11, “Who Sings in the Heavenly Chorus” and Chapter 14, “Political Voice through Organized Interest Activity,” The Unheavenly Chorus: Unequal Political Voice and the Broken Promise of American Democracy, 2012, pp. 312-346; 393-443; 232-264. Print.