the court of donald trump
confirming the non-existence of the divine right of kings
(A reminder that annual subscriptions are 20% off until the end of January. If you scroll to the end, there’s a little button.)
When I took my little History of the French Revolution class my sophomore year of college, I never thought it would become so relevant to current events. Time well spent. Those lessons were not going to learn themselves.
I know much has been made of this week’s Inauguration guests—those of the billionaire and Titans of Industry™ variety—and how their role in, or perhaps proximity to, government, amounts to impending oligarchy. And it’s a fair point. In a country with high income inequality and a steadily manufactured suspicion of progressive taxation, it is not surprising that our form of government might be showing signs of slowly (?) shifting to a state ruled by a small group of powerful individuals. I get it.
Looking at the awe-diminishing crowd present on Monday, though, what came to mind was not the foundation of a sober, furtive oligarchy, but the frantic start of an already-flailing court, one more compatible with France’s last reigning Louis (RIP) than with Russia’s current form of government.
What is Mar-a-Lago, after all, if not a gauche attempt to recreate an already-gauche Versailles? A p(a)lace where resourceful sycophants can leave their dignity at the door and fawn over an aging, sagging, wannabe-despot in exchange for more power at the expense of the general will and public good of the people? At least the French court had panache. Sofia Coppola wouldn’t touch the Palm Beach abode with a ten-foot pole.
It begs the question, then, is it oligarchs we’re looking at, or an attempt to create a new class of American aristocracy? In the end, it might not matter, because the result is the same: through their extreme accumulation of economic resources, private figures unelected by the people nevertheless have come to hold significant sway over the public decisions of elected officials, and there’s seemingly little we can do about it.
*
This is not new. You know that, I know that. Even before Citizens United ripped the pages off our democracy manual, making a fantastical reach between campaign finance and freedom of speech, lobbyists were toiling away for the rich and powerful. And Howard Zinn, in his infinite wisdom, dedicated a long chapter to nineteenth century robber barons in his seminal A People’s History of the United States. Zinn writes:
When Cleveland was elected President again in 1892, Andrew Carnegie, in Europe, received a letter from the manager of his steel plants, Henry Clay Frick: “I am very sorry for President Harrison, but I cannot see that our interests are going to be affected one way or the other by the change in administration.” Cleveland, facing the agitation in the country caused by the panic and depression of 1893, used troops to break up “Coxey’s Army,” a demonstration of unemployed men who had come to Washington, and again to break up the national strike on the railroads the following year.
So, no. The influence of wealthy men over the three branches of American government is not new. But ever since Citizens United, we sure do seem to be going through a genuine masks-off moment, no? A presumption that the people will now have to accept what is by some circles already considered inevitable: the conspicuous presence (as in, Elon Musk renting a cottage at Mar-a-Lago) of American industry in American government.
We used to have some couth.
The problem, of course, with unelected figures holding significant government power (see, e.g.: Musk, Sundar Pichai, Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg), is that they are not accountable to the public. They do not serve the people, as politicians are supposed to (hence the pesky little vote), but themselves, and if we’re lucky, a tiny subset of shareholders.
This creates a natural conflict of interest, as private individuals with nearly unlimited resources are in a much better position to advocate for their interests than the median American, despite the fact that the median American’s interests are—how can I put this?—held by more Americans than the median billionaire’s interests. This slight arithmetical controversy risks the rather basic principle of equal representation in the electoral system.
Disagreement, of course, does not a non-democracy make. It would be rare indeed for every member of a democratic society to agree with each other. When, however, an unelected, private figure is able to dictate policy separate and apart from the will of the people, we see the legitimacy of government threatened. Our trust in the political process, by way of reduced transparency, weakens.
Forgive me, but here’s Rousseau:
It is not good for him who makes the laws to execute them, or for the body of the people to turn its attention away from a general standpoint and devote it to particular objects. Nothing is more dangerous than the influence of private interests in public affairs, and the abuse of the laws by the government is less evil than the corruption of the legislator, which is the inevitable sequel to a particular standpoint. (The Social Contract)
If you’ll allow me: there is no standpoint more particular than that of the billionaire class.
*
We don’t have a structured instance in which members of the press—also representing the people, at least in theory—can question these oligarchs, if that’s what we’re calling them. Why? Because they are unelected, and as such, in their personal capacity, they are not beholden to the public. Say someone like, oh, I don't know, what's in a name ... Elon Musk, say, made a Nazi salute—twice—during an Inauguration Day speech. Imagine that happened. Is there an Oligarch Press Conference during which his unfortunate spokesperson can answer a couple of pertinent questions, such as: hey, buddy, why was your boss doing a Nazi salute – twice? And listen, while I have you, if that’s not what it was, how come he hasn’t publicly denied that his intention was to do a Nazi salute – again, twice?
No. There is no Oligarch Press Conference. Because while the elected official's most important duty is to fulfill the general will of the public, and as such remain accountable to said public for the duration of their service, the duty of the oligarch is only to themselves. They are subject, yes, to laws and regulations—there being some flexibility here as well—but they cannot be unelected or impeached because, although they impact policy, they were never democratically chosen to begin with.
You might say, but what about appointees? What about the members of the bureaucracy? The thousands of people who work for the executive branch’s many agencies, for instance: they were not elected either, and yet they make decisions that impact the people every day. And you might even fancy yourself clever, having made such a point, but unfortunately it’s not much of a point, because while bureaucrats may hold unelected posts, they are ultimately accountable to someone who does. If a State Department employee—we can call them Anthony Blinken—behaves poorly, that is a reflection on them, yes, but most importantly it is a reflection on the president who made the appointment and, one must assume, the corresponding policy decisions; and if that president—we can call them Joe Biden—does not react accordingly while in office, then the people, through the democratic process, have the choice of considering alternative leadership at the ballot box. (Whether there are valid and viable alternatives is a different question.)
Musk, Zuckerberg, Bezos – they are not bureaucrats. They are not appointees. They are not accountable to an elected figure, and they are not accountable to the people. They have opted out of the social contract, acting as free agents to better their own situations, not society’s. And that’s all fine and well, people will naturally act of their own self-interest, but the point of a republic—of a democracy—is to first protect and then improve the lives of as many people as possible. Idealist of me, maybe, sure, but there’s a time and a place for idealism, and for me it is now.
I won’t call it impossible, but I will say I find it difficult to picture a Venn diagram showing the interests of the median American and that of the billionaire class as anything other than two very distant circles. It’s off-putting, to sell these men’s concerns as not just prominent, but universal. They are as particular as can be.
*
There is a reason why over the last few years, everyone has kept talking (perhaps annoyingly) about community. Covid reminded a lot of people of the power of the proverbial neighborhood, but most critically, an acute crisis made clear the principle that a policy made on behalf of the general will and for the benefit of the public good will rarely falter. Wearing masks and social distancing to avoid the spread of a dangerous virus, providing stimulus checks to allay the economic impact of a pandemic, investing in the rapid development of a vaccine—all of these proved to be positive decisions, because for a brief time, we prioritized the health and safety of the group over a few individuals’ preferences. It’s the first lesson we learn as children, isn’t it, and yet it felt new and important and good, doing it on such a large scale.
*
I have nothing productive to say at this time, sorry, no stirring rah-rah words. I’m not even saying anything a bunch of other people aren’t already saying. I just find it interesting, I guess. The shamelessness of it. The bold appropriation of the stage, like it’s another thing to be owned.
Further reading
I rarely do this, and should probably start doing it more often, but wanted to share some relevant reading material, for anyone interested. I love a bibliography.
GINI Index for the United States (SIPOVGINIUSA) | FRED | St. Louis Fed. From the St. Louis branch of the Federal Reserve, this is an interesting comparison between income inequality pre- and post-tax. “Using different definitions of income (pretax vs post-tax) will lead to different conclusions about the direction of inequality: pretax income inequality decreased while post-tax income inequality increased from 2021 to 2022.”
For the first time in history, U.S. billionaires paid a lower tax rate than the working class - The Washington Post. “But the tipping point came in 2017, with the passage of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. The legislation, championed by President Trump and then-House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.), was a windfall for the wealthy: It lowered the top income tax bracket and slashed the corporate tax rate.”
Recent Pew Research study on economic inequality around the world.
Reynolds v. Sims (1964). If you’re interested in the principle of “one man, one vote,” which did not originate with this case but is quite relevant to it within the history of U.S. voting rights, Reynolds v. Sims is a good place to get started.
Full pdf of A People’s History of the United States by Howard Zinn.
The Social Contract in all its glory. Some of it is goofy, sure, but as a treatise on democracy and related forms of government, Rousseau made a variety of points.
Unrelated in every major way, but I got derailed at one point and found myself in the Wiki for Louis XIV’s issue (legitimate and illegitimate). Fascinating. If I ever abandon my morals and become a billionaire, I will give sooooo much money to Wikipedia. They’ll never have to desperately ask for funds again.
Also unrelated: I can’t remember who it was who recommended this on Notes (I’d like to thank them!), but I’ve been perusing art in the public domain in Public Work by Cosmos and it’s so lovely. Like scrolling through Tumblr circa 2011.
Thanks for reading. As always, you can find me on twitter, instagram, and tiktok. The newsletter is fully supported by readers, so if you find yourself frequently enjoying these posts, please consider sharing the newsletter with a friend and/or becoming a paid subscriber.
(As a reminder, annual subscriptions are 20% off until the end of January.)
Great write up! I was a young history/poli sci prof when Citizens United came down on our electoral process like a guillotine. More people are beginning to understand why it's so bad. My mind went back to Europe earlier this week as well when I wrote about the Interregnum in England. They bounced back and forth between constitutional democracy and tyranny in a brief time as well, executing Charles I (his trial started on Jan. 20) then going right back to his son a decade later after they didn't like the Cromwell regime. People will always have reason to be unhappy and seek change. It's just sad that in our perpetual desperation we convince ourselves that concentrating power with a few wealthy people will somehow fix things.
I was a lit major who simply could not with philosophy and poli sci and history in college and I wish you had been either my teacher or classmate because you make all this so much more relevant and ... hmm... interesting. Thanks for doing this!