In today’s political landscape, Rob Urie delves into the complexities of the upcoming US midterms, emphasizing not just the geopolitical debates but also the pressing domestic issues at stake. He points out the enduring transformations within Western capitalism, particularly the systematic reduction of labor bargaining power that has led to the emergence of a powerful oligarch class. According to Urie, both major political parties are more interested in maintaining their grip on power than in enacting any meaningful changes that might reverse damaging policies affecting society.
By Rob Urie. Originally published at The Journal of Belligerent Pontification
The essay follows this quick note:
Dear Readers, I’ve received mixed feedback about my shift from geopolitics to focusing on US politics and AI. The primary concerns driving this change are 1) the decline in reliable information regarding geopolitics in the US, 2) the increasing censorship of geopolitics articles on platforms like Substack, and 3) the pressing need to address the political issues in the US, which ultimately impact the global situation.
Interestingly, the perspective of the Western Left on the Russia-Ukraine conflict often seems aligned with narratives from US intelligence agencies. My belief is that this alignment is coincidental rather than deliberate. However, the entrenched historical amnesia underlying this perspective remains unchallenged despite my ongoing efforts to engage with it. An analogy might be framing the Vietnam War simply as a battle between North and South Vietnam—such a viewpoint would lack sincerity and relevance.
I continue to monitor geopolitical developments closely and will return to international affairs analysis in due time. However, the current priority is to get the US back on track. Thank you for your understanding.
________________________________________________________________________
Current polling indicates that the Democrats may secure control of both the House and possibly the Senate in the forthcoming midterms. This scenario spotlightes broader, long-term trends in American politics, notably as the US engages in two wars and faces a genocide while simultaneously eroding the foundational institutions that contribute to livable conditions. It appears that much of what Americans consider ‘politics’ is not being addressed in this electoral context.
For several decades now, Donald Trump has positioned himself as a political outsider, vowing to dismantle the existing system if elected. Traditional office holders in Washington, who merely serve as conduits for political donations to uphold oligarchic dominion over the populace, represent a government style that has become increasingly stratified. Trump, despite his unorthodox methods, brought with him a slew of discredited ideologies that would typically be dismissed as nonsensical.
A simplistic lens through which to view this electoral contest is through party lines. One party promotes a certain set of policies, while the other advocates for a different agenda. However, this dichotomy has resulted in a tiny group of oligarchs making detrimental decisions for the majority. The recent growth of cryptocurrency ventures and AI illustrates the troubling reality of a system designed to benefit the few at the expense of the many.
If polls prove accurate, the immediate task will involve securing election results. Up to the Bush v. Gore case, concerns around election integrity would have received bipartisan support. At that time, the mythos surrounding American democracy was pervasive. The US was designed as a Constitutional Republic, which explains its current oligarchic state—wherein power often serves self-interest rather than public good.
The visible connection between party representatives and their respective oligarchs underscores the reality of power dynamics in the US. Many of these oligarchs have acquired wealth through inheritance or questionable business practices. Moreover, CIA-backed venture capital (such as that from In-Q-Tel) has been instrumental in fostering enterprises like Oracle and Palantir, leading to an explosion of AI startups.
In 1925, President Calvin Coolidge declared that “the chief business of the American people is business,” referring to the industries that shaped the US heartland. While romanticizing the harsh labor conditions of US manufacturing is unwise, post-war prosperity fostered a sense of national unity. However, it took decades to acknowledge that US foreign policy pivoted toward prioritizing war profits and resource acquisition abroad.
For the past fifty years, ‘business’ has shifted from a public pursuit to a struggle for individual survival. The pressing question now is whether the blame lies with politicians or with economic shifts. Politicians craft economic policies, but the unique circumstance of the US uniquely benefiting from an intact industrial base after WWII was always going to be temporary. The ‘American Century’ was a historical anomaly; the notion that this advantage was unending has contributed significantly to today’s political frustrations.
By the 1970s, it was clear the tide was turning—the edge of American industrial advantage began to fade. Imports from Japan began to rise in value, and American industrialists transitioned from retaining labor to seeking cheap, compliant workers abroad. The idea that harsh labor relations would underpin American prosperity led to the passage of NAFTA in 1994 and solidified finance as a key controlling factor over labor relations.
The harsh treatment of labor reflects capitalist theories on capital accumulation. While traditional capitalist economics suggests that social investments benefit both capital and labor, American economic developments since the 1970s tell a different story. Early on, capital recognized the end of the post-war infrastructure boom and reverted to a zero-sum game where labor was seen as something to be exploited.
The wisdom of this strategy is subjective. Quick-money speculators turned the US economy into a high-stakes gamble, where fortunes hinge on market fluctuations. The manipulation of US markets since the 1987 crash is well-documented, and the rise of cryptocurrencies gives unchecked power to individuals and corporations.
This transfer of state power to oligarchs indicates that finding political solutions in the US will be difficult. Potential candidates for the 2028 election may differ in their rhetoric, but their policies remain essentially the same. The wars continue, the genocides persist, and state repression of anti-genocide protests has already begun this year. Within the current power structure, a “give ‘em enough rope” approach replaces direct confrontation.
Graph: While many may recognize this graph, significant statistical knowledge is required for interpretation. Statistical averages (in orange) risk overstating extreme concentrations (kurtosis) of wealth in comparison to what most experience. This trend explains why the orange bars consistently surpass the blue bars. The rising concentration of wealth in the US since the early 1980s is a clear indicator of the oligarchic nature of the country. Source: inequality.org.
The existing barriers to revitalizing a functional economy stem from the fact that countries like China and other economic competitors have established the “factories of the world.” To remain competitive, the US requires a new entry point. The new manufacturing facilities that could have been situated in the US have been built abroad. The failure of recent attempts at reindustrialization reflects decades of disinvestment; as China demonstrated, the key to building a manufacturing base lies in creating efficient export pathways.
The American perception of a “unipolar moment” in 1991 coincided with the ongoing dismantling of the US economy, highlighting a delusion that defies logic. Many at the time questioned why the US would outsource military production to geopolitical rivals, even as hostility and poorly thought-out militaristic strategies escalated. Surely, no one could be naïve enough to think that rivals would supply arms to a nation actively threatening them.
On this last observation, I will admit my mistakes. Market ideologies devoid of real explanatory power regarding past economic successes were proposed as irrefutable fact. In a college project tracing Western imperialist reach into Africa, I observed that neoliberal ‘free-market’ trade routes closely mirrored earlier imperial pathways. This indicates that US ‘free-market’ economics serves to reinforce imperialist ideology.
Trump’s reckless resistance to regulating AI stems from this mindset. Remember the neoliberal idea that corporate-friendly regulations would unleash capitalism’s latent potential? Today, this ideology translates to granting the state’s destructive power to any individual inclined to wreak havoc with a computer. Why would potential mass shooters place themselves at risk when they can deploy AI agents to sabotage local infrastructure?
The US had the same opportunities as China and its other rivals to invest but opted instead to funnel resources to oligarchs. While China developed an export-focused economy, US leaders quibbled over tax cuts for billionaires and government size reductions. This shockingly reflects the same ‘abundance’ theory being pushed by so-called centrists today, underscoring its origins in Right-wing dogma from the 1980s.
Reagan, once a figure of the hard right, is now considered the pragmatic center of political discourse. This creates a conundrum for those of us who opposed his policies back in the 1980s: why would we support them now without a change of heart? As both legacy parties experience a decline in voter loyalty, evidence suggests that many voters have not shifted their positions. The question arises: why don’t centrist voters simply align with the party embodying their beliefs? The response is that they often do; it simply does not fit a conventional understanding of political centrism.
Graph: Notably, nearly every individual depicted in this graph—whose wealth has surged in recent years—receives Federal largesse, often referred to as welfare. Ironically, most claim to be self-made and advocate for the elimination of welfare for the impoverished. Their lack of self-awareness would pose a threat to the oligarchy if it didn’t embody its very essence. Source: inequality.org.
One peculiar aspect of American politics is that we are frequently told what we care about instead of being asked directly. For instance, when discussing Iran’s nuclear capabilities, one could argue that Israel should never have been permitted to possess them in the first place. The current Iranian government operates rationally, whereas Israel is often characterized by its religious extremism. In the context of “Israel controls the US,” Trump’s recent intervention to prevent Netanyahu from using military action for electoral gain underscores this dynamic.
When discussing what Americans expect from politicians, the language often centers around costs rather than net benefits. Advertisements warning that Medicare for All (an inadequate solution) would cost taxpayers $400 billion overlook analyses suggesting it could save $1 trillion annually. Similarly, equitable public schooling would require Federal investment, but the payoff would be a more educated populace equipped to succeed in a globalized world. It is, again, the welfare recipients of the oligarchy who resist public investment initiatives.
On a broader scale, Americans appear to expect little from their elected officials. This mindset leaves citizens grumbling about half-hearted and inadequate campaign promises instead of demanding the necessary policies they have already funded. The proposal here is for a set of non-negotiable policies aimed at breaking this cycle of reactive politics:
- Education: Implement state-funded pre-K through post-doctorate education for all. Reallocate funds from Charter schools to public schools, and enhance the quality of education through equal funding.
- Healthcare: Create a public healthcare system providing free services for all residents. Eliminate the health insurance industry and create new job opportunities for displaced workers.
- Childcare: Establish a national childcare authority managing a network of free, accessible childcare facilities to support working parents. Hire local staff at living wages with benefits, prioritizing child safety and well-being.
- National defense: Close over 800 US military bases globally and return the land to the host countries. Dismantle the standing army and cut the Pentagon budget by 85% to 95%. In cases of military emergencies, implement a draft prioritizing those from wealthier backgrounds first, not as punishment but to deter the affluent from inciting wars for profit.
The usual counterargument revolves around fears concerning the Federal budget deficit. How can we afford such “luxuries” with ongoing wars, bank bailouts, and tax cuts for the rich?
What often goes unacknowledged in these deficit discussions is that the Global Financial Crisis (GFC) resulted from private debt, not public (Federal) debt. Presently, non-financial private debt (not double-counting) stands at $45 trillion, compared to $40 trillion in public debt. It’s significant to note that the Federal government issues its debt in USD, which it can create as needed—an ability that private companies do not possess without facing counterfeiting charges.
Sovereign defaults under such circumstances are rare. The most notable case, Russia in 1998, was tied to a pegged currency. The true issue lay with the peg itself, not the debt; the US operates with a floating rate currency and has moved away from the Gold Standard since Nixon’s era.
Interestingly, my friends on the Democratic side appear more motivated in the current election cycle than those on the Republican side. This observation aligns with reports indicating higher early voting rates among Democrats. While Trump has set legal markers for contesting election outcomes, he previously had opportunities to govern without impediment and created chaos instead. As of now, the issue surrounding Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) presence at polling stations has not surfaced, to my knowledge. I voted without any issues. The more formidable challenge going forward may be navigating Trump’s legal obstacles.
For now, the urgency surrounding an AI-induced financial crisis has subsided, especially with the announcement that AI firm Anthropic will launch its Initial Public Offering (IPO) in late November. This development may offer temporary reprieve until the next AI-related crisis arises. If we can move past Trump, there may be a brief respite from the existential dread his presidency has generated. However, it’s worth noting that he continues to supply 40,000 2,000-pound bombs to Israel, munitions notorious for their destructive effect on Gaza. This conflict won’t cease until it truly concludes.
