Question:Here is information on the Ralph Nader Essay regarding his book Breaking Through Power: Its Easier Than We Think tha
Here is information on the Ralph Nader Essay regarding his book Breaking Through Power: It’s Easier Than We Think that includes selected analysis on one of the three main branches of federal government. This is worth 50 pts. and is due by Monday, November 19, 11:59 P.M. (extended) The essay should be uploaded in Canvas. Note that much of the course material previously covered may be useful as context for this assignment, especially regarding the media, and the presidential election may also provide interesting fodder for discussion in this essay. This assignment consists of students drafting an essay based on Ralph Nader’s book, and readings relating to one of the following covered in the Parenti text: the Legislative, Executive, or Judicial Branches of US Government. These are discussed in Parenti′s chapters 15, 16, or 18 (based on the Congress, the Presidency, and/or the Supreme Court respectively, so choose ONE of these chapters from Parenti to address its relation to Nader′s thesis in Breaking Through Power). This essay may also provide an opportunity to expand on previous Posts and tie in major course themes and contemporary news examples relating to the intersection of money, power, and politics. That said, the way we are addressing such matters for this particular essay assignment is through the prism of Nader’s book first and foremost, so please do read it in its entirety. This is an assignment that doesn′t just focus on how the system works and for whom, but how we the people can be more meaningful participants in representative government. In short, Nader offers what he thinks are solutions to the conflicts between money, power, and politics. So, to recap: Please carefully read the Nader book Breaking Through Power and then also choose ONE of the thematic chapters on the three branches of US government in Parenti listed above for a detailed essay based on subsequent Prompts provided for each (topically, that means in addition to Nader, choose one of these- Congress, the Presidency, or the Supreme Court). The essay should be roughly 1,000 to 1,500 words, properly cited in Chicago Style with endnotes or footnotes, and be in 12 pt. Times New Roman font with one inch margins. Students should not only review the Nader, Parenti texts, but could also incorporate other sources and readings from the term as deemed relevant. Regarding Nader’s book: Consider the following in your essay: Breaking Through Power: It’s Easier Than We Think is a brief history of the rise and impact of the plutocratic class on the democratic institutions of government in the United States. Nader reflects on decades of his own efforts, while noting those of many others, to create a more democratic and responsive political system for We the People, not the corporate oligarchic class. Briefly discuss how Nader says we got to our current state of affairs and what we can do about it by following the questions below… In your essay, address the four main sections of Nader’s work regarding how we have a plutocracy of maximums and a democracy of minimums (which sounds strikingly similar to Parenti’s title, Democracy for the Few). How does Nader suggest how the system is rigged for the plutocracy? How does he suggest we organize resistance and/or change? Why does Nader believe democracy can work? Be specific. Now, after reading Nader’s book and these aforementioned queries, consider how ONE of the following chapters from Parenti connects to Nader′s overall arguments and weave it into your essay content while addressing the previous points above. Remember, only choose ONE of the Parenti chapters below to merge into your thoughts about Breaking Through Power. Hint: The chapter on Congress is a logical one to select given Nader′s arguments, however, they also apply to the Executive and Judicial branches, so it is up to you to decide which of the Parenti chapters you wish to address and include in the Nader essay. Also, see the Foreword Nader wrote for United States of Distraction for an overview of his critique of the political economy of American democracy. Again, consider the above points regarding Nader′s work, and then choose ONE of the following as the Prompt for your essay. 1. On the Congress (Parenti chapter 15)- Congress: The Pocketing of Power (this one may be the easiest to incorporate into the essay, but the choice is up to you). How representative of the population is the Congress of the US? What role does lobbying play in crafting public policy? How does money potentially corrupt the democratic process in Congress? Parenti and Nader both muse how can we create a Congress that is more responsive to voters and less responsive to moneyed interests and legislative manipulators. Discuss. What are your overall thoughts about the intersection of money, power, and politics regarding Congress?
REVIEWS of UNSTOPPABLE (2014)
“Mr. Nader has set out on a formidable mission here—nothing less than bringing corporations and government back under effective control of their constituents, and doing so with trans-political and ideological alliances. In effect, he proposes to transform entrenched contemporary politics.”
—The Washington Times
“In Unstoppable, Ralph Nader argues that there are in fact surprising areas of convergence between the left and the right … These are profound observations … Mr. Nader rails so effectively.”
—The Wall Street Journal
ALSO BY RALPH NADER
Return to Sender: Unanswered Letters to the President, 2001–2015
Unstoppable
Told You So: The Big Book of Weekly Columns
Getting Steamed to Overcome Corporatism
The Seventeen Solutions: Bold Ideas for Our American Future
“Only the Super-Rich Can Save Us!”
The Seventeen Traditions: Lessons from an American Childhood
The Good Fight: Declare Your Independence and Close the Democracy Gap
In Pursuit of Justice: Collected Writings 2000–2003
The Ralph Nader Reader
Crashing the Party: Taking on the Corporate Government in an Age of Surrender
Canada Firsts
Unsafe at Any Speed: The Designed-In Dangers of the American Automobile
BREAKING THROUGH POWER
It’s Easier than You Think
Ralph Nader
Open Media Series | City Lights Books
Copyright © 2016 by Ralph Nader
Open Media Series Editor: Greg Ruggiero
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Nader, Ralph, author. Title: Breaking through power : it’s easier than we think / Ralph Nader. Description: San Francisco : City Lights Publishers, 2016. | Series: City lights open media Identifiers: LCCN 2016008227 | ISBN 9780872867055 (paperback) Subjects: LCSH: Democracy—United States. | Communities—United States. |
Power (Social sciences)—United States. | Wealth—United States. | Social justice—United States. | BISAC: POLITICAL SCIENCE / Economic Conditions.
| POLITICAL SCIENCE / Political Ideologies / Democracy. | POLITICAL SCIENCE / Civics & Citizenship. | POLITICAL SCIENCE / Public Policy / Economic Policy.
Classification: LCC JC423 .N245 2016 | DDC 322.40973—dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2016008227
City Lights Books are published at the City Lights Bookstore 261 Columbus Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94133 www.citylights.com
To all citizens who wish to better the world and are seriously willing to dedicate some of their time, talent and resources
to advance important causes.
I wish to acknowledge the sagacious assistance of Dr. Claire Nader and especially the dedicated attention to overall substantive details of my responsive editor, Greg Ruggiero, who proposed the book’s approach.
I am also grateful to John Richard and his associates, Hunter Jones and Frank Garvey, for factchecking and proofreading.
—Ralph Nader
CONTENTS
ONE
Plutocracy of Maximums, Democracy of Minimums
TWO
To Organize Is to Initiate Resistance and Change
THREE
How the System Is Rigged
FOUR
Why Democracy Works
Endnotes Index
About the Author
ONE
PLUTOCRACY OF MAXIMUMS, DEMOCRACY OF MINIMUMS
When I was a student at Princeton University I learned from my anthropology studies that the concentration of power in the hands of the few is common to all cultures, societies, nations, tribes, cities, towns, and villages. Even where the thirst for self-governance and democracy is strong, as was the case in New England towns before the American Revolution against King George III, wealthy Tories were there too. In Central and Western Massachusetts, the farmers used the term “the River Gods” to describe the rich merchants using the Connecticut River as a profitable trading route. These days, most people protesting for economic justice use the term “the One Percent” to describe the ultra-small group of people who wield enormous influence over our society today.
There is something about the differences in skill, determination, lineage, avarice, and pure luck that stratifies most people from the rulers who dominate them. In the political realm, the few become dominant because they hoard wealth and are driven to exercise power over others. When a small group of people rules a society the political system is considered an oligarchy; when only money and wealth determine how a society is controlled, the political system is a plutocracy. From the standpoint of a democratic society, both oligarchy and plutocracy are inherently unjust and corrupt.
Of course there are variations in the degrees of authoritarianism and cruelty that each system exercises over the communities it relies upon for workers and wealth. Scholars have resorted to using phrases like “benign dictatorships” or “wise rulers” or “paternalistic hierarchies—” to describe lighter touches by those few who impose their rule over the many. Thomas Paine simply called them tyrannies. People, families, and communities can only take so much abuse before they rise up to resist. The job of the rulers is
always to find that line and provide the lowest level of pay, security, housing, consumer protection, healthcare, and political access for society so that they can extract and hoard the greatest amount of wealth, power, and immunity from justice for themselves. In many ways, the majority of Americans live in a democracy of minimums, while the privileged few enjoy a plutocracy of maximums.
This small volume is not just about the ravages of power or the assaults against disadvantaged and downtrodden communities. The subject here is the dominating influence of the One Percent in business, politics, health, education, and society as a whole. Over the past fifty years, Americans have suffered the relentless commercialization of everyday life—their privacy and their childhoods, their parks and prisons, their public budgets and foreign policy, their schools and religious institutions, their elections and governments, and the most basic societal institution of them all: the family.
Consider all the family functions that have been outsourced to business. Eating, cleaning, childcare, counseling, therapy, entertainment, sports, lawn work, simple repairs, have been increasingly commercialized, commodified, packaged, and marketed back to us as products of luxury and convenience. Even mother’s breast milk has been displaced by infant formula.
In a plutocracy, commercialism dominates far beyond the realm of economics and business; everything is for sale, and money is power. But in an authentic democracy, there must be commercial-free zones where the power of human rights, citizenship, community, equality, and justice are free from the corrupting influence of money. Our elections and our governments should be such commercial-free zones; our environment, air, and water should never fall under the control of corporations or private owners. Children should not be programmed by a huckstering economy where their vulnerable consciousness becomes the target of relentless corporate marketing and advertising.
American history demonstrates that whenever commerce dominates all aspects of national life, a host of ills and atrocities have not just festered and spread, but become normal—enslavement, land grabs, war, ethnic cleansing, serfdom, child labor, abusive working conditions, corrupt political systems, environmental contamination, and immunity from the law for the privileged few. History also shows that whenever there have been
periods when enough of the country organizes and resists, we see movements of people and communities breaking through power. Progress is made. Rights are won. Education and literacy increase. Oppression is diminished. It was in this manner that people of conscience abolished the living nightmare imposed by the laws and whips of white enslavers. The nation moved closer to promises of “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness” expressed in the Declaration of Independence. We won more control over our work, our food, our land, our air, and our water. Women secured the right to vote. Civil rights were elevated and enforced. Public schools, improved environments, workplace collective bargaining, and consumer protections did not spontaneously evolve; they were won by people demanding them and breaking through power.
These moments of great progress are expressed in terms of new legislation, regulations, and judicial decisions that directly benefit the life, liberties, and pursuit of happiness of most Americans. From the abolition of slavery to the introduction of seat belts, great social gains have been achieved when people mobilize, organize, and resist the power of the few. The problem is that these liberating periods of humanitarian and civilizational progress are of shorter duration than the relentless commercial counterforces that discourage and disrupt social movements and their networks of support. Some commentators have used the bizarre term “justice fatigue” to describe the pullback that often occurs when communities of resistance are faced with increased surveillance, infiltration, harassment, and arrest. A more accurate term is repression.
My sister, Laura Nader, Professor of Anthropology at the University of California, Berkeley, encourages her students to study and compare how other cultures develop and improve their collective “common good.” An illuminating comparison on a giant scale, for example, could be made between how the United States and our European allies and enemies developed after World War II. Maybe the difference in directions came from the complacency of the American victors, flush with “full employment” after a severe economic depression, in contrast to the motivation of Europe’s surviving middle class, to return to a better life. In any event, a destitute France, Belgium, Holland, Germany, Italy, and Austria and the damaged Britain and Scandinavian nations took their traditions of strong labor unions, multi-party systems, and large co-ops to a level of productive
social democracy that continues to shame the corporate-dominated, two- party tyranny that passes itself off for democracy in the United States.
Granted, these war-weary countries had their own plutocracies, their own One Percent, but those ruling elites were successfully kept in check by the rest of society, not the other way around as is the case today in the United States. This combination of factors, coupled with a hungry, impoverished population thirsting for a decent livelihood, raised the critical expectation level that drove the momentum for far-reaching social progress. In this manner, people in most Western European nations granted themselves important accommodations such as affordable universal healthcare, tuition-free higher education, bountiful private pensions, powerful job-protection laws, four weeks or more paid vacations, accommodating public transit, paid family sick leave, paid maternity leave, and free child care. People in the United States today, with the exception of some of those protected by labor unions, have permitted the wealthy class to deny them these benefits, allowing their taxes for example, to be spent on what is, by far, the world’s biggest military budget and an ultra-invasive national surveillance system that allows the government to violate their privacy. People in Europe insist that their taxes be spent to enrich the health, education and well-being of the entire population, not just those with extreme wealth, so there is less grumbling. Some European communities even calibrate fines and fees based on income. People in Finland, for example, charge fines according to income level so that the financial sting is experienced more equally. As a result, a wealthy Finnish businessman recently found himself with a speeding ticket in the amount of about $58,000 (54,024 euros) “for traveling a modest, if illegal, 64 miles per hour in a 50 m.p.h. zone.”1
Our country, which brags constantly about being number one in just about everything, managed to tie itself into knots after World War II. In 1947, a Republican Congress passed the notorious Taft-Hartley Act that handcuffed workers from forming new labor unions or expanding the ones that already existed. In 1948 the two-party duopoly smeared and suppressed the pro-labor efforts by the Progressive Party and its presidential candidate, former Vice President (under Franklin Delano Roosevelt) Henry Wallace. This was followed by more onerous restrictions on state ballot access and exclusions of third parties, enacted by both the Republicans and Democrats,
that further stunted competitive choices of candidates and agendas. Today both parties increasingly represent the interests of big money, not the interests of the people, for it is big money that bankrolls their multi-million dollar election campaigns.
Almost as quickly as they emerged, radio and television stations in the United States conglomerated into big businesses beholden to the money and influence of their advertisers. While the Europeans devoted their post-war budgets to expanding public works, improving public facilities, social services, parks, and the arts, the United States squeezed civilian resources and channeled them into military budgets that drove the Cold War. It was not for nothing that President Eisenhower’s farewell speech in 1961 is remembered most for warning about the many damaging effects, on both the economy and our freedom, of a burgeoning “military-industrial complex.” His original draft contained the phrase “military-industrial- congressional complex” which was edited down to avoid alienating the members of Congress who could have actually done something to confront this deepening omnivorous crisis.
Concentrated power in the hands of the few really should matter to you. It matters to you if you are denied full-time gainful employment or paid poverty wages and there are no unions to defend your interests. It matters to you if you’re denied affordable health care. It matters to you if you’re gouged by the drug industry and your medication is outrageously expensive. It matters to you if it takes a long time to get to and from work due to lack of good public transit or packed highways. It matters to you if you and your children live in impoverished areas and have to breath dirtier air and drink polluted water and live in housing that is neglected by your landlord. It matters to you if your children are receiving a substandard education in understaffed schools where they are being taught to obey rather than to question, think and imagine, especially in regards to the nature of power.
If you’re a little better off, it matters to you when your home is unfairly threatened with foreclosure. It matters to you when the nation is economically destabilized due to Wall Street’s crimes, and your retirement account evaporates overnight. It matters to you if you can’t pay off your large student loans, or if you can’t get out from under crushing credit-card debt or enormous medical bills due to being under-insured. It matters to you
if you are constantly worried about the security of your job, or the costly care of your children and elderly parents.
Increasing numbers of people in this country are living in a precarious and diminished democracy of minimums because we have collectively enabled the wealthy few to create for themselves a plutocracy of maximums. According to Oxfam, “runaway inequality has created a world where 62 people own as much as the poorest half of the world’s population.”2 Oxfam advocates cracking down on tax dodging, and promotes increasing investment in public services and increasing the income of the lowest-paid workers in our society as important first steps in addressing the shameful disparity in wealth.
How many tens of millions of Americans live oppressed by an inadequate minimum wage, minimum housing security, minimum healthcare, minimum access to quality education, minimum access to participation in the political process or use of our courts, minimal access to quality air, food and water, and minimum protection from abuse by corporations? How much more should we take before we start refusing to live this way, with our rights, security, and well-being taken away by the One Percent and often marketed back to us as luxuries we cannot afford?
Back in the Great Depression, the brilliant British economist John Maynard Keynes wrote that modern societies were reaching levels of production that would allow for solving what he called “the economic problem” of impoverishment. Since 1900, American productivity per capita has increased twenty-fold, adjusted for inflation. Why then is one in six people in the United States seriously impoverished, and why are nearly half of those employed the working poor? The general answer is because “the power of the plutocracy” impoverishes them. Most material gains and resources are diverted away from benefitting society as a whole and are hoarded to advantage the economic growth of the few, or diverted into counter-productive activities such as war, overloaded prisons, surveillance, wasteful promotions, and commercialization of all aspects of our lives.
In the 1950s, at Harvard Law School, the faculty purported to teach us “the law.” We did not spend much time on the “lawlessness” of the rich and powerful (there wasn’t even a single course or seminar on corporate crime), nor on how the powerful always intricately wrote and passed laws (containing legal loopholes, tax escapes, or corporate subsidies) that
became predatory instruments against the general public. More broadly, we, the future leaders of the legal profession, lacked strenuous instruction about how those with raw power overwhelm the law, not just once in a while, but often enough to warrant calling this domination “powerlaw”—the twisted law of those in command of the powerful industries, their lobbying associations, and the corporate attorneys who prey upon the people, families, and communities that compose this nation. The effect has been— and continues to be—that, as Catherine Rampell recently wrote in the New York Times, “wealth has become more concentrated, in the hands (and bank accounts and houses) of the richest Americans.”3 Put more simply, the rich get richer while the rest of the country suffers.
By now, you might be wondering why in the world most seasoned law professors ignore such obvious realities. They must know that powerlaw is not restricted to lawlessness by police, the criminal courts, and the prisons. Many of my teachers had spent time working as government attorneys at regulatory agencies or the Justice Department, in addition to working with corporate law firms shaping and immunizing powerlaws for their lucrative corporate clients and business executives. What’s going on here? Well, law schools are not driven by kindness or the common good; they are driven by the market and its pursuit of profit. Their curricula, with exceptions, focus on training most law students for lucrative corporate law practice. True, there are wonderful law school-based clinics charitably serving impoverished communities, but after graduation, debt-burdened law graduates mostly head for commercial practices. There they apply powerlaw and power-procedures against whatever rivals or adversaries their wealthy clients hire them to over-run. Citizens and communities underestimate the creative power of the corporate law firms who shun publicity as they irresponsibly protect the extreme misbehavior of the ultra- rich who hire them. The power of these ultra-rich, their attorneys, their media, and the influence their money buys constitute the core of plutocracy in the United States today.
Perpetual plutocracy-serving economic growth and the hoarding of wealth and power are not easy tasks in societies that claim to be democracies. Once in operation, political systems that become plutocracies come to view the power of citizens, communities, and the public interest mission of democracy itself as potential threats. Even when you’re not
consciously standing up to them, you are—collectively and individually— their adversaries. People running companies aim for their kind of endless economic growth by getting you to sign on the dotted line, click on “I Agree,” succumb to their marketing ploys, and buy into their vapid commercial culture. They also invest heavily in obstructing you from using your full power as citizens armed with rights, privileges, and resources available to keep them, and others with authority, in check. For big corporations like Walmart, McDonald’s, and Target, the big banks, credit card companies, and insurance companies, this penchant for control has worked to their advantage, assuming no one makes waves from outside their ring of domination. Thus power has concentrated in both Western Europe and the United States, but it has also been responsive to the organized interests of the people in dramatically different ways.
But what happens when people use their civil rights to demand more from the system? What happens, for example, when people peacefully picket in front of their places of work, on their lunch hour, for a higher minimum wage? What happens when other workers from other places show up too in order to express solidarity and defend those on the picket line from retaliation? What happens if these demonstrations become more frequent, and begin occurring in front of giant retail chains and involve an ever-increasing number of people? What happens if this begins to catch the attention of the local and national media, and the cause of the people picketing resonates with the conscience of the larger community? This is what happens: newspapers and other media start reporting the economic evidence and arguments of some think tanks and advocacy groups for a $12 or $15 minimum wage per hour, over three years, pulling up the minimum wage in companies where the CEO makes $11,000 per hour plus ample benefits.
Spread this activity out over two years and suddenly the minimum wage for thirty million workers, making less today than workers made way back in 1968, adjusted for inflation, becomes front-burner news and a front-line issue in local, state, and federal elections. This is what has been happening in the United States over the past few years. As a result, cities and states have started passing higher minimum wage laws, including referenda in four “red states” during the November 2014 elections. Those who stood up, who spoke out, who organized are amazed. And they should be. With fewer
people than the population of New Britain, Connecticut (73,000), scattered around the country, demonstrating for a few hours, giving interviews to reporters or writing letters to newspapers and elected representatives, these people demonstrate that the wealthy people who run corporations do not win all the time. Breaking through power is easier than you think.
Pressured also by a few full-time citizen advocacy centers, the big companies are starting to announce higher wages and some better benefits. Too little, you rightfully say, and very late; still, it’s a work in progress. But look at what a tiny number of hours and persons achieved with a little crucial help from largely one union—the Service Employees International Union. These workers and their champions possess a moral authority that resonated with many millions of disadvantaged families and their empathetic friends and relatives. Majorities in polls supported their cause.
These working people are beginning to prevail over management and their executive bosses because they were undeterred when people told them: “You can’t win. You can’t fight Walmart. The politicians are in the Big Boys’ pockets.” They broke through because they got others involved and because they put into practice what the great abolitionist Frederick Douglass meant when he declared: “Power concedes nothing without a demand.”
In addition to stimulating the economy, creating more jobs, and establishing less need for public welfare assistance, the movement for a better living wage presents a useful lesson. It teaches how little it often takes to change the balance of power between the dominating and the dominated, especially when there is overwhelming public opinion supporting those fighting for their long over-due rights. These lessons can, and should, be applied to winning the myriad of public interest, ecological, and civil rights struggles that the ultra-rich and their commercial interests obstruct: some of these include increasing wages for working people, decreasing militarism and crushing levels of military spending, providing decent and affordable housing and healthcare, reducing corporate carbon emissions in order to prevent catastrophic climate change, strengthening diversity, and enabling democracy at all levels.
“We live in a beautiful country,” writes historian Howard Zinn. “But people who have no respect for human life, freedom, or justice have taken it over. It is now up to all of us to take it back.”4 To better assess what it
specifically takes to do just that, it is important to understand how the people profiting from plutocratic forces strategically and regularly dominate old and new circumstances with powerful controlling processes.
TWO
TO ORGANIZE IS TO INITIATE RESISTANCE AND CHANGE
In the 1920s, near the end of his spectacular career as our country’s most prominent fighter for working people, labor leader, presidential candidate, orator, and all-around progressive Eugene Debs was asked by a reporter: “Mr. Debs, what do you regret the most in your lifelong struggle for justice?”
Debs looked at him and replied: “What do I regret the most? I regret that the American people can have almost anything they want under our Constitution, but they seem not to want much of anything at all.”
An indefatigable exhorter, Debs may be excused for feeling exhausted after so many decades of trying to raise the expectations of working families. Woodrow Wilson made sure he was jailed for simply speaking out against the nation’s entry into World War I. Debs knew what war does to societies. The very avoidable “Great War” broke the momentum of our nation’s rising progressive reform movement, ushered in the era of red- baiting, and directly set the stage for World War II. Most crucially, the aggressive expansion of the American Empire and military state distracted and lowered the expectation levels for American democracy and civic society. Debs knew full well how power structures thwarted the general population’s expectations for the good life and paved the way for entrenched austerity and misery, despite a growing gross domestic product.
Hope and positive expectations provide some of the most basic motivation for attempting to improve the human condition. Once people are inspired, and hope and expectations for change are aroused, the power of democracy voices a “rumble from the people.” Plutocrats were aghast when President Richard Nixon, responding to the rumble of the 1960s, signed into law the basic environmental, consumer and worker safety regulatory frameworks that are still in force to this day, along with the legislation
establishing the Occupational Safety & Health Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Consumer Product Safety Commission. To be sure, the rumble from the people also drove some pretty good legislators to Congress and jolted incumbents—mostly Democrats— into heeding some of the popular will.
Even though Nixon was a red-baiting Republican, he was also paranoid about “liberals.” He responded to public pressure, and even went beyond the Congress that rejected his proposals for a minimum-income policy, a drug bill that emphasized rehabilitation over incarceration, a better health insurance plan than President Clinton later introduced, and Congressional voting rights for the residents of the District of Columbia.
Actively engaged in Washington at that time, I watched Nixon’s political antennae quiver and turn again and again, ending with his ultimate betrayal of right-wingers in 1973 when he instituted wage and price controls to fight inflation. Nixon went against the grain of the plutocracy of his time because he feared social unrest and felt that the national change in political climate warranted, for him at least, “extreme expediency.” He sometimes responded to the rumble.
The U.S. plutocracy and general population reacted very differently toward Nixon’s performance. While many in America collectively seemed not to see how a little rumble could result in material and political advancement of their well-being and as a result did not fight for further progress, the stung corporatist class saw all too clearly what was possible. They knew democracy could regulate their profiteering, so they greatly remobilized their forces to subordinate and minimize institutions, organizations, networks, and individuals dedicated to expanding democracy.
In August 1971, Lewis …
,
Democracy for the Few NINTH EDITION
Michael Parenti, Ph.D. www.michaelparenti.org
Australia • Brazil • Japan • Korea • Mexico • Singapore • Spain • United Kingdom • United States
Democracy for the Few, Ninth Edition Michael Parenti, Ph.D.
Executive Editor: Carolyn Merrill
Editorial Assistant: Angela Hodge
Marketing Manager: Amy Whitaker
Marketing Communications Manager: Heather Baxley
Art Director: Linda Helcher
Print Buyer: Rebecca Cross
Text Permissions Account Manager: Katie Huha
Photo Permissions Account Manager: Jennifer Meyer Dare
Production Service: PrePressPMG
Cover Designer: Grannan Graphic Design, Ltd.
Cover Image: ©Grannan Graphic Design, Ltd.
Compositor: PrePressPMG
© 2011, 2008, 2002 Wadsworth, Cengage Learning
No part of this work covered by the copyright herein may be reproduced, transmitted, stored or used in any form or by any means graphic, electronic, or mechanical, including but not limited to photocopying, recording, scanning, digitizing, taping, Web distribution, information networks, or information storage and retrieval systems, except as permitted under Section 107 or 108 o
Collepals.com Plagiarism Free Papers
Are you looking for custom essay writing service or even dissertation writing services? Just request for our write my paper service, and we'll match you with the best essay writer in your subject! With an exceptional team of professional academic experts in a wide range of subjects, we can guarantee you an unrivaled quality of custom-written papers.
Get ZERO PLAGIARISM, HUMAN WRITTEN ESSAYS
Why Hire Collepals.com writers to do your paper?
Quality- We are experienced and have access to ample research materials.
We write plagiarism Free Content
Confidential- We never share or sell your personal information to third parties.
Support-Chat with us today! We are always waiting to answer all your questions.
