The Political-Industrial Complex
The Political-Industrial Complex
The American political system has become a highly-polarized and highly-centralized industry that is increasingly unresponsive to the American people.
The following is an excerpt from my second book Promoting Progress: A Radical New Agenda to Create Abundance for All. You can order e-books at a discounted price at my website, or you can purchase for full price on Amazon.
Other books in my “From Poverty to Progress” book series:
See my other articles on Electoral Reform:
The Political-Industrial Complex (this article)
To reform our policy, we must first reform our electoral system
Political-Industrial Complex
In their book, The Politics Industry, Katherine Gehl and Michael Porter compare the American political system to a dysfunctional economic monopoly. Michael Porter is one of the world’s most influential business strategists. He is known for applying his competitive-forces framework to analyzing various sectors of the economy (Gehl & Porter).
Porter has long argued that business sectors can best be understood by analyzing the terms of competition of the following five forces: rivals, buyers, suppliers, threats of new entrants and threats of substitutes. While widely applied in the business and economics world, his theory has not been applied to the political world.
Katherine Gehl had the epiphany that the Porter’s competitive-forces framework can also be applied to the American political system. She argues that the American political system is a duopoly where the Democratic party and the Republican party and their supporting bodies have distorted the terms of competition for their own benefit. Together, they function like a private monopoly. While healthy competition is win-win, duopolies are win-lose, with both parties winning and the American people losing. While American politics is dysfunctional from a voter perspective, the Political-Industrial complex is thriving.
Gehl and Porter’s framework gives us a means for analyzing the terms of political competition in the United States. The terms of this political competition have created what Gehl calls a Political-Industrial complex that is thriving. The Political-Industrial complex consists of rivals (the two major parties), customers (voters, primary voters, donors), channels (media, social media and advertising), suppliers (potential candidates, campaign consultants, data shops and think tanks), substitutes, and new entrants.
Unlike a typical sector of the American economy, substitutes (Independents) and new entrants (new parties) are stifled. This enables the two rivals (the Democrats and Republicans) to set the rules of competition for their own benefit. All the customers, channels and suppliers are forced to choose one of the rivals to support. If someone fails to do so, it means that revenue will not flow to them. While at one time there were many non-partisan political institutions, virtually every political institution in America is now affiliated with one the two major parties.
Rather than solving problems, our political system exploits political problems to rally the base against the other side. Attacking the other party’s base and distributing money to your own base are the principal means of mobilization. They simply do not want to solve problems, as this will undermine their ability to use those problems to rally the base.
While, from the perspective of the American public, our political process is broken, from the perspective of the Political-Industrial complex, it is functioning extremely well. Gehl estimates that this industry generates $100 billion in revenues each election cycle. More to the point, the winner of this competition has access to trillions of dollars in government revenue. This revenue can be used for spending programs and regulations that generate huge flows of revenues to supporters.
Ideological Partisanship Is Contagious
This form of political competition has not only caused a polarization of the two parties, but it has also caused a polarization of American society. The media, social media, interest groups, governmental agencies and non-profits are almost completely divided between the two competing ideologies. Using the latest news cycle to destroy the other side is increasingly the most important goal of previously non-partisan institutions. The original purpose of the organization, to solve a specific problem for society, has fallen by the wayside in favor of rallying the ideological base.
Whereas American media institutions once emphasized a relatively neutral and non-partisan coverage, most television and major newspapers are now highly ideological. FOX, CNN, MSNBC, the New York Times, the Washington Post and other media outlets now explicitly favor a partisan viewership. Attacking the opposing side has become a business model, used to increase ratings.
Social media companies, such as Facebook and Twitter, are increasingly moderating content in a way that censors conservatives and amplifies liberals. Interest groups who were non-partisan corporate or professional interests in the past are now much more clearly taking partisan sides. The number and influence of non-partisan think tanks has declined in favor of overtly partisan ones. Campaign consultants, fund-raisers, voter databases are now overwhelmingly partisan as well (Gehl & Porter).
It is becoming increasingly difficult to find any American institutions that do not take a side in the partisan conflict between conservative Republicans and liberal Democrats.
Polarization Is Undermining Faith In Progress
I believe that this ideological polarization is a key factor in undermining faith in progress. The material fact of human progress is very different from our perceptions, which are based on non-rational human psychology. Humans did not evolve to be happy in a world of progress and abundance. We evolved to survive and reproduce as Hunter Gatherers on the African Savanna.
To survive in harsh environments humans have evolved cognitive biases that include a very high threat instinct and a negativity bias. Any bad news, short-term loss or fear of loss can overwhelm our perception of a steady stream of improvement.
The media, social media, political activists, interest groups and political candidates have learned to harness these non-rational instincts for their own benefit. In order to win elections, they constantly bombard us with a distorted view of reality. These institutions all have a strong self-interest in dwelling on the negative and sensational, as it furthers their organizational goals.
These institutions have learned that the best way to get attention is to spike our threat instinct and negativity bias. In particular, they focus on the threat posed by the other major party and their followers. Then they follow up with a relentless drumbeat “proving” that the threat is becoming more common and more dangerous. They know that fear, anger, resentment and hate generate viewers, votes and money.
Confronted with a steady flow of sensationalistic, negative news, it is very hard for many people to believe that progress exists at all. Until we directly confront the terms of competition that drive our political institutions to promote ideological conflict over problem-solving, we will have a hard time moving towards a better society.
For this reason, I believe that a fundamental reform of the terms of competition of the American political system is essential. My hope is that my proposed reforms will have the following effects:
Restore faith that our current lives are not so bad, that our political opponents are not dangerous threats, and that our ancestors gave us a toolkit for working together to solve problems.
Enable a Progress-based reform agenda to be implemented, which will increase future progress by promoting long-term economic growth and upward mobility for the working class and poor.
Before I explain my reform proposal, we need to get a better understanding of how and why our terms of competition have been so distorted.
Declining Electoral Competition
Healthy competition is essential for a thriving political system. The most obvious indicator of declining competition between political elites in the United States is the proportion of Congressional seats that face competitive elections. Fairvote.org, an organization dedicated to reforming our political process, has built a statistical model to predict House election outcomes based on previous voting behavior (FairVote).
In 2022, FairVote classifies only 86 of the 435 House districts as “competitive”. In the remaining seats, one party almost always wins by more than 10% of the vote, even during national landslides for the opposite party. They also find only 39 seats where each party has a relatively equal chance of winning. This means that we live in a political system where over 80% of House general elections are non-competitive, and the winning party is a foregone conclusion.
Approximately 40% of all House seats are virtually guaranteed to be won by Democrats, while another 40% of all House seats are virtually guaranteed to be won by Republicans. This means that the competitive elections that are a foundation of democratic governance occur in only 20% of the seats.
FairVote also found the overall number of uncompetitive districts has increased substantially over time. As recently as 1996, only 200 House seats were uncompetitive, or less than half of all House seats. Since 2014, however, the number of uncompetitive districts has hovered between 350 and 360 seats, or about 80% of all House seats. Similarly, in 1996, voters in 115 districts voted for different parties in the House versus the Presidency, while only 16 districts did so in 2020.
This gives incumbents in those districts a substantial amount of political power within the party. If we assume that neither party can win much over 55% of the total number of seats (or 240 seats), this means that incumbents in non-competitive districts will always control at least two-thirds of all the party seats in the House. And when that party is in the minority, it is closer to 85% of the party seats. This gives those uncompetitive seats effective control over the entire party in Congress.
The Democratic party in Congress is effectively controlled by the 40% of the districts that always vote for Democratic candidates. They have little reason to care about the other 60% of the United States. The Republican party in Congress is effectively controlled by the 40% of the districts that always vote for Republican candidates. Congresspersons from those key districts have little reason to care about the other 60% of the United States.
Because the Senate lumps together rural, suburban, and city districts, Senate elections tend to be somewhat more competitive. But Senate elections only take place every 6 years, versus every 2 years in the House.
Of course, that still leaves 20% of the House seats that are somewhat competitive, but the influence of these members is limited by party discipline. Seniority is very important in determining political influence within Congress. It is particularly important in determining committee assignments, where much of the real legislative bargaining is done.
Seniority gives a tremendous advantage to Congresspersons who are elected from non-competitive districts. Congresspersons from non-competitive districts or states can generally remain in Congress for long periods, while Congresspersons from competitive districts or states tend to get swept away by periodic “Red Waves” or “Blue Waves.” The result is that most Congresspersons elected from competitive districts or states have short political careers.
Congresspersons from competitive districts or states can play a key role in blocking legislation, but they have a deeply difficult time getting through positive legislation. Without support from liberal Democrats or conservative Republicans from non-competitive districts, virtually no legislation can get passed.
The above was an excerpt from my second book Promoting Progress: A Radical New Agenda to Create Abundance for All. You can order e-books at a discounted price at my website, or you can purchase for full price on Amazon.
Other books in my “From Poverty to Progress” book series:
See my other articles on Electoral Reform: