The ideology of equal representation and collaboration between the government and its people, with a strong platform for regulation and proper leadership, was once the driving force behind our independence as a country. With the rise of large corporations that have sabotaged the nation’s political agenda, it is hard to believe that these early values still exist in the top levels of our government today. These concepts of a constitutional democracy, defined as “a system of government based on popular sovereignty in which the structures, powers, and limits of government are set forth in a constitution” (Dictionary.com's 21st Century Lexicon), have taken a backseat to the overwhelming influence of these corporations. This state of corporatocracy, or rather, “a society or system that is governed or controlled by corporations” (Oxford Living Dictionaries), is the driving force of political, economic, and environmental decisions. Even with the freedom to participate in elections, voice opinions on detrimental matters, or object to unjust regulations, refutations from the minority are seldom considered over the deep pockets of the corporate elites. If the United States wishes to define itself as a constitutional democracy, as it was originally envisioned to be, then this enormous rift created between its classes of citizens simply cannot exist.
While these corporations play an integral role in our society by providing their intended services, they should not be so deeply rooted into our policies and interests (Behan, par. 17). The goal of a functional democracy should be to allow its citizens an equal opportunity for economic growth and a political voice regardless of their status. The reality is that the top 1 percent of the country’s population (the richest percentile) have drastically increased their after-tax household incomes over the remaining 99 percent (the middle to lower class percentiles) for decades. In the Congressional Budget Office’s Trends in the Distribution of Household Income Between 1979 and 2007 report, results show within these years “income grew by: 275 percent for the top 1 percent of households; 65 percent for the next 19 percent; just under 40 percent for the next 60 percent; and 18 percent for the bottom 20 percent” (Congressional Budget Office). These drastic imbalances of tax regulations make it increasingly difficult for the middle and lower class to get ahead, even with higher education and esteemed jobs.
Offering reasonable tax cuts for the lower and middle class could easily improve the overall standards of living for them, but in doing so would contradict the corporatists’ mission to keep the income gap as wide as possible. In 2011, a Democratic proposal of a potential job creating bill during the Obama administration shed light on the 1 percent’s priorities. The bill, if passed, would create hundreds of thousands of jobs to teachers and first responders at the expense of a 0.5 percent tax increase on annual incomes above $1 million. It was rejected unanimously by the opposition (Bolton, par. 3). Flabbergasted by the verdict, former Vice President Biden spoke at a rally on Capitol Hill to address the issue, who implied that Republican elitists have “fallen out of touch with the concerns of average Americans” (Bolton, par. 4). Regardless of the setbacks concerning the bill, the fact that Biden acknowledged this disconnect between government and its citizens publicly seems like its own victory.
A more recent example of the corporate elite undermining the best interests of the nation can be found in President Trump’s decision to withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accord in July of 2017 ("Statement by President Trump on the Paris Climate Accord", par. 7). The main goal of the agreement is to have participating countries contribute to reducing global warming levels and cut back on greenhouse gas emissions by reducing fossil fuel consumption (UNFCCC). He has publicly dismissed the idea of global warming via Twitter, calling it “fictional” and nothing but a “Chinese hoax” (Trump). Robinson Meyer, who reports on the status of climate change for The Atlantic, counteracts Trump’s claim with research that shows “2014, 2015, and 2016 all set new global temperature records, and eight of the 10 hottest years in the 120-year meteorological record have occurred in the last decade” (Meyer, par. 7). Upon removing the United States from the Agreement, Trump claimed the decision was “less about the climate and more about other countries gaining a financial advantage over the United States” ("Statement by President Trump on the Paris Climate Accord", par. 14). It’s no coincidence that limiting the consumption of fossil fuels could not only impact his own business assets, such as The Trump Organization, but other major companies that rely heavily on these resources. Removing the United States from such a collaborative global effort in exchange for personal gain does nothing but solidify the notion that corporate influence takes precedence over quality of life in the eyes of our leader.
It would be shortsighted to blame these fallacies on just one man alone. It is commonplace for powerful corporate leaders to inherit positions of government simply due to their resonating influence and contributions to their respected parties. It would, however, be radical thinking to envision a government without any corporate influence on the economy. The challenge lies in creating realistic opportunities for lesser privileged citizens to become more involved with political matters on the same level as corporate leaders. Biden proved on Capitol Hill that powerful political figures are still capable of defending the needs of the lower class regardless of the benefits to the rich. By appointing candidates who are more deeply concerned with the progression of the nation’s citizens, rather than the profit of powerful corporations, a state of true constitutional democracy is still an achievable goal.
Works Cited
Behan, Richard W. “Bernie Sanders vs. the Corporatocracy.” Counter Punch, 30 Mar. 2016, www.counterpunch.org/2016/01/04/bernie-sanders-vs-the-corporatocracy/. Accessed 19 Apr. 2018.
Bolton, Alexander. “Biden: Republicans Protect the Rich at Expense of Teachers, Responders.” The Hill, 19 Oct. 2011, www.thehill.com/homenews/news/188599-biden-gop-protects-the-rich-at-expense-of-teachers-first-responders. Accessed 20 Apr. 2018.
Congressional Budget Office. “Trends in the Distribution of Household Income Between 1979 and 2007.” Congressional Budget Office - Nonpartisan Analysis for the U.S. Congress, 16 Mar. 2018, www.cbo.gov/publication/42729. Accessed 19 Apr. 2018.
Dictionary.com's 21st Century Lexicon. “Constitutional Democracy.” Dictionary.com, Dictionary.com, www.dictionary.com/browse/constitutional-democracy. Accessed 18 Apr. 2018.
Meyer, Robinson. “Did Global Warming Really 'Pause' During the 2000s?” The Atlantic, Atlantic Media Company, 12 May 2017, www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/05/did-global-warming-really-pause-during-the-2000s/525645/. Accessed 20 Apr. 2018.
Oxford Living Dictionaries. “Corporatocracy | Definition of Corporatocracy in US English by Oxford Dictionaries.” Oxford Dictionaries | English, Oxford Dictionaries, www.en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/us/corporatocracy. Accessed 18 Apr. 2018.
“Statement by President Trump on the Paris Climate Accord.” The White House, The United States Government, 1 June 2017, www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/statement-president-trump-paris-climate-accord/. Accessed 20 Apr. 2018.
Trump, Donald J. “Windmills Are the Greatest Threat in the US to Both Bald and Golden Eagles. Media Claims Fictional 'Global Warming' Is Worse.” Twitter, Twitter, 9 Sept. 2014, www.twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/509436043368873984?lang=en. Accessed 20 Apr. 2018.
Trump, Donald J. “The Concept of Global Warming Was Created by and for the Chinese in Order to Make U.S. Manufacturing Non-Competitive.” Twitter, Twitter, 6 Nov. 2012, www.twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/265895292191248385. Accessed 20 Apr. 2018.
UNFCCC. “The Paris Agreement.” United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, www.unfccc.int/process/the-paris-agreement/what-is-the-paris-agreement. Accessed 20 Apr. 2018.