The Democracy We Pretend to Have

by Douglas Johnson

On July 4, 2026, on the US’ 250th birthday, former president Bill Clinton gave an address on the state of the US and its enduring democracy. He wrote:

“Two hundred and fifty years ago in Philadelphia, our Founders embarked on a radical experiment and declared a new nation rooted in the ideal of equality, with an elected government charged to advance life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Since then, our government of, by, and for the people has become the longest-lasting continuous democracy in the history of the world” (Clinton, 2026).

While it’s true that the “ideal of equality” is the heart of any true democracy, the idea that the US government is of, by, and for the people, or that US democracy is still alive and well, is – as I will argue – dubious, as it fails to ensure political equality. While formal democratic institutions still exist, and the US pays homage to the façade of electoral politics, power no longer resides with the people (Wolin, 2008).

Robert A. Dahl, in his book “On Political Equality,” argues that citizens in an ideal democracy enjoy effective participation, equality in voting, enlightened understanding, and final control of the agenda. Without these criteria of political equality, democracy withers. The problem is that while the right to vote in the US still exists, the political effectiveness of that vote is profoundly unequal (2006). On the other hand, the financial elite, who greatly influence most, if not all, democratic institutions, have substantially greater capacity to influence politicians, organize campaigns, obtain information, lobby government, and participate in political organizations.

The elite exert direct influence through lobbying and campaign finance. Nearly $37 billion was spent on federal lobbying between 2015–2024, $4.4 billion in 2024 alone (Scholtens, 2025). To finance their political campaigns during 2023-24, presidential candidates raised $2.0 billion, congressional candidates raised $3.8 billion, political parties raised $2.7 billion, and PACs raised $15.7 billion (FEC, 2025). Additionally, in 2024, 2,502 super-PACs raised $5.1 billion (OpenSecrets, 2025). Miriam Adelson, who helped persuade Trump to move the US embassy to Jerusalem in 2018, contributed $100 million to Preserve America, a super PAC supporting Trump in 2024 (Elia-Shalev, 2024).

Not surprising, OpenSecrets (2022) reports that historically, candidates who spent more won roughly 90% of U.S. House races (Center for Responsive Politics, 2022), illustrating the strong relationship between campaign spending and electoral success. Conversely, political analysts Gilens and Page (2014) did an extensive survey examining 1,779 policy issues from 1981 to 2002. For each issue, respondents stated whether they favored or opposed a specific policy change. The preferences of the “average citizen” were tracked against “elite” preferences regarding policies that impacted both. They found that economic elites and organized business interests had significant independent effects on policy outcomes, while the influence of average citizens fell to a statistical level of almost zero. Their findings raise doubts whether U.S. policymaking adequately reflects the preferences of ordinary citizens (Gilens and Page, 2014)

Furthermore, thought-control plays a key role in derailing democratic processes. The Telecommunications Act of 1996, for example, substantially relaxed federal restrictions on media ownership, thus allowing a handful of elites to consolidate the industry and turn news into a consumer product. To enhance profits, outlets such as Fox News and CNN increasingly developed distinct political audiences, contributing to an increasingly fragmented media environment in which Americans would receive radically different interpretations of political events. Each audience, embedded in their ideological news bubbles, became increasingly polarized and alienated from one another, to the point that each side’s understanding of the “facts” was mutually incompatible (Taibbi, 2019). As a consequence, their ability to organize politically, and to discuss, plan, or negotiate political priorities became nearly impossible.

On top of that, the voters’ choice is not “free” when you consider the manipulative power of campaign advertising. The enormous expenditures for campaign ads can influence not only what voters “know” about candidates, but what political issues they care about or what they fear, all of which shape their electoral choices (Brader, 2005; Conick, 2018). Ultimately, voters may end up supporting candidates whose platforms are antithetical to their needs.

What’s more, Zuboff (2019) describes a new form of “surveillance capitalism.” She details how behavioral data generated by online users’ searches and browsing can be collected through smart phones, analyzed, and used to predict what users will do. Companies such as Google or Microsoft, which collect the largest computational resources, gain keen insight into particular individuals and groups. This creates an “epistemic inequality” as the few possess increasingly detailed knowledge about the many (Zuboff, 2019). Algorithmic models can then be used to micro-target voters – as was the case in 2016, when a Channel 4 investigation found that the Trump campaign disproportionately targeted Black voters with “deterrence advertising” to discourage them from voting for Hillary Clinton (Channel 4 News Investigations Team, 2020).

These unique forms of political inequality are not isolated failures of the democratic system. They are manifestations of a broader ideology of neoliberal capitalism, which promotes hyper-competition, individualism, and material accumulation, and encourages all citizens to see themselves as autonomous individuals rather than members of a collective whole. A powerful expression of this ideology is consumerism, which sanctifies the commodification of the material world (Schmitt et al., 2022). While the elite wage wars to control resources, the people’s primary value is to fuel the engine of capitalism through perpetual consumption. While being fed non-stop ads that equate shopping with personal fulfillment, people become less spiritually and socially engaged (Kasser, 2016). As wealth and political power become increasingly concentrated, the resulting economic hardship, unemployment, poverty and depression leave people with little time or energy for democratic participation.

By definition, democracy requires relative equality to function well. To function at all, democracy requires some degree of reconciliation between the average citizen and the elite. How democratic can a system be when average citizens have little to no means to freely participate, to control the agenda, or to even gain an enlightened understanding of the issues? Voting is meaningless if citizens’ preferences are systemically shut out.

ABOUT DOUGLAS JOHNSON

I’ve taught English in Palestine, Iraq, and Oman. I currently reside in Indonesia, but my heart will always be in Louisville, Kentucky.

References

Brader, T. (2005). Striking a responsive chord: How political ads motivate and persuade voters by appealing to emotions. American Journal of Political Science, 49(2), 388–405. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0092-5853.2005.00130.x

Center for Responsive Politics. (2022, January 4). Did money win? OpenSecrets.

Channel 4 News Investigations Team. (2020, September 28). Revealed: Trump campaign strategy to deter millions of Black Americans from voting in 2016. Channel 4 News.

Clinton, W. J. (2026, July 4). Statement on America at 250 and the state of the country. The American Presidency Project. The American Presidency Project

Conick, H. (2018, October 1). What are the ethics of neuromarketing? American Marketing Association.

Dahl, R. A. (2006). On political equality. Yale University Press.

Elia-Shalev, A. (2024, October 17). Miriam Adelson gives $100 million to Trump campaign, making good on reported pledge. The Times of Israel. The Times of Israel article

Federal Election Commission. (2025, March 13). Statistical summary of 24-month campaign activity of the 2023–2024 election cycle. Federal Election Commission

Gilens, M., & Page, B. I. (2014). Testing theories of American politics: Elites, interest groups, and average citizens. Perspectives on Politics, 12(3), 564–581. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592714001595

Kasser, T. (2016). Materialistic values and goals. Annual Review of Psychology, 67, 489–514. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-122414-033344

OpenSecrets. (2025). Super PACs. Center for Responsive Politics. OpenSecrets — Super PACs, 2024

Rosman, K. (2018, September 25). What are the ethics of neuromarketing? American Marketing Association. American Marketing Association article

Schmitt, B., Brakus, J. J., & Biraglia, A. (2022). Consumption ideology. Journal of Consumer Research, 49(1), 74–95. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucab044.

Scholtens, I. (2025, February 11). Federal lobbying set new record in 2024. OpenSecrets. OpenSecrets article

Taibbi, Matt. Hate Inc.: Why Today’s Media Makes Us Despise One Another. New York: OR Books, 2019.

Wolin, S. S. (2008). Democracy incorporated: Managed democracy and the specter of inverted totalitarianism. Princeton University Press.

Zuboff, S. (2019). Surveillance capitalism or democracy? The death match of institutional orders and the politics of knowledge in our information civilization. Organization Theory, 1(1), 1–34. https://doi.org/10.1177/2631787719831795


NOTE: Louisville-FOR encourages submissions of independent content and opinion. This article represents the views of the author who retains copyright of the material published.

New Resource on Jails / Prisons / ICE Detention

Kyle Ellison’s informative presentations on incarceration in Kentucky from ICE detentions to Metro jail to state prisons are now available on his own new website: www.kentuckyjailsandprisons.com.

Democratic Responsiveness and the Rise of Trump

by Douglas Johnson

The catastrophe of the Trump-MAGA government has created an understandable impulse: vote Democratic in the midterm elections and begin repairing the damage. While this response may unseat the Republican Party, it ignores the fact that a vote for the Democrats is not simply a vote against Trump, it is also a vote for a political party whose policies and failures over several decades helped create the economic, social and political conditions that laid the groundwork for Trump’s rise.

Political scientist G. Bingham Powell describes democracy as a “chain of responsiveness” connecting citizens’ preferences to government policy. Powell writes,

Democratic responsiveness is a complex process, somewhat like a chain whose links are causally connected. It begins with the policy preferences held by citizens, and moves link by causal link through such stages as voting, election outcomes, the formation of policy-making coalitions, the process of policy making between elections, and public policies themselves. The process is ongoing and dynamic: The policies that are actually adopted and the consequences that flow from them affect the future preferences of citizens (Powell, 2004, p. 91).

A break in any link means a break in democratic responsiveness. Continuous breaks signal a breakdown in democracy. The problem is not simply who wins the next election. It is whether the chain itself is functioning, and whether the Democratic Party, which repeatedly breaks this chain in fundamental ways, has the answer.

There are numerous occasions over the last few decades where Democratic politicians have explicitly supported policies that were contrary to the interests and preferences of significant portions of their electorate. These breaks have warped the economic, political and ideological landscape, which in turn has undermined the mental and physical health and wellbeing of large segments of the US population.

One of the most egregious breaks in the chain was the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which hastened the transfer of US manufacturing overseas. Bill Clinton strongly supported NAFTA, signed it in 1993, and congressional Democrats supplied a substantial portion of the votes necessary for passage. The Democratic Party, which until then had been the party of the poor and working class, suddenly became much less responsive to the will of their constituency. NAFTA accelerated deindustrialization, which stagnated whole communities of working-class people, who began questioning their future as well as their children’s future. Most manufacturing jobs never returned, and people suffer to this day.

Shortly after passing NAFTA, the Democratic party worked with the Republicans to pass the 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA), also known as welfare reform. This reduced the number of welfare recipients by almost 60% and disproportionately harmed vulnerable people, including people with disabilities. Benefits were not simply reduced. Rather, additional work requirements and time limits were imposed on welfare recipients, requirements that people with disabilities could have particular trouble meeting (Berkowitz, 2020). Essentially, this act signaled that the Democrats’ New Deal concept of unconditional responsibility toward economically vulnerable citizens was over.

Following this, the Democratic Party helped transform the information environment by passing the 1996 Telecommunications Act, which facilitated the massive consolidation of independent local media into a handful of corporate owners. Within 10 years, the top four firms controlled more than 60% of the market in each of the telecommunication industries, and one company owned 1,200 radio stations (Atkin et al., 2006). Journalism increasingly changed from a local public service into a centralized for-profit commodity. Corporate news outlets curtailed their role as government watchdogs, and instead became content factories that, by sheer domination of the airwaves, produce political spectacles that discourage divergent views and shape how people think. As democracy depends on an informed electorate, this break is more like a rupture.

In the following decade, with bipartisan support from Republicans, the Democrats joined in passing the 2008 FISA Amendments Act, which expanded government surveillance of Americans. This not only normalized government spying that persists even today, but gave retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies that participated in warrantless surveillance.

Perhaps the weakest link in the Democrats’ causal chain is their repeated participation in bipartisan military interventions, amounting to almost perpetual war. The Democrats gave strong bipartisan support for the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), which vaguely set their sights on the “9/11 perpetrators and those who harbored them,” and later added the nebulous “associated forces of al-Qaeda.” The 2001 AUMF remains in force today and has been passed down and invoked by every president since its inception. Voter preferences have been ignored throughout.

Military support for Israel, a primary instigator of war in West Asia, is predominantly bipartisan. One military conflict that the Democrats opposed was Trump’s military campaign against the Houthis in Yemen, although the Democrats had supported the Saudi-led war in Yemen. Another war they now oppose is Trump’s war against Iran. It begs the question whether Democratic resistance to Trump’s Iran war is principled or political. Regardless, permanent war has become normalized due in no small part to the Democrats.

The damage inside the US from the last 30 years is almost incalculable. Within the torn and fragmented neighborhoods across the US, people find they have no voice. They have scant access to reliable news or civic organizations that can represent their interests. They have little means of changing their circumstances, and inadequate government assistance. Pluralism, upon which democracy depends, has been severely weakened. Understandably, many feel polarized, disillusioned, and harbor deep anti-establishment feelings. These are precisely the sentiments that Trump capitalized on in his run for the presidency.

To say that Trump is a problem that only Democrats can fix, is like saying cancer is a problem that only carcinogens can fix. Trump is, by far, the worst president in US history. But the idea that we can restore democracy by removing the bad people and installing better people is false. The election is only one link in a much longer chain. The problem is systemic. The system delivered Trump. Until democratic responsiveness is restored, expect another demagogue very soon.

ABOUT DOUGLAS JOHNSON

I’ve taught English in Palestine, Iraq, and Oman. I currently reside in Indonesia, but my heart will always be in Louisville, Kentucky.

References

Atkin, D. J., Lau, T.-Y., & Lin, C. A. (2006). Still on hold? A retrospective analysis of competitive implications of the Telecommunication Act of 1996, on its 10th year anniversary. Telecommunications Policy, 30(2), 80–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.telpol.2005.05.008

Berkowitz, E. D. (2020). Clinton, Gingrich, and welfare reform in 1996. In Making social welfare policy in America: Three case studies since 1950 (pp. 221–261). University of Chicago Press. https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226692371.003.0008

Powell, G. B. (2004). The quality of democracy: The chain of responsiveness. Journal of Democracy, 15(4), 91–105.
https://doi.org/10.1353/jod.2004.0070


NOTE: Louisville-FOR encourages submissions of independent content and opinion. This article represents the views of the author who retains copyright of the material published.

The War Against the American People

by Douglas Johnson

US oligarchs have been waging an economic war on the American people for the past 60 years. After the success of the various labor movements that spanned over a hundred years, American workers enjoyed robust labor unions that ensured higher working standards, a 40-hour work-week and a livable wage. The middle and working classes flourished as a result. When the Great Depression of the 1930s struck and people became jobless, Roosevelt created a national public works program called The New Deal, which put the country back on its feet. Until the 1980s, Americans enjoyed healthy lives and were generally optimistic about their futures.

Wanting a greater share of the pie, US oligarchs began waging war on the people. They passed “Citizens United” to rig the electoral system, and legalized forms of bribery to empower lobbying groups. They also dismantled important safeguards of the American people. They passed NAFTA, which sent jobs abroad and deindustrialized the country, cut welfare and social security, increased military spending for disastrous foreign wars, and allowed the wholesale surveillance of the US public. They enacted the Omnibus Crime bill which militarized the police and quadrupled the US prison population. They repealed the Glass Steagall Act that separated commercial and investment banking, and deregulated both the banking industry and the FCC, which enabled the financial crash in 2008.

In addition, both political parties blocked universal healthcare for all and supported for-profit insurance and pharmaceutical corporations. They undermined free education and rejected student debt forgiveness. They waged endless wars around the world, which gutted the working and middle classes and transferred the country’s wealth into the oligarchs’ pockets. These actions were taken against the will of the people.

Sheldon Wolin called this system “Inverted Totalitarianism,” which — instead of a dictatorship — means “rule by diverse powers [such as] corporate capital, the very rich, business associations, [and] large media organizations.” Essentially, it’s a conglomerate of oligarchs sharing the same vision of tyranny. Instead of enforcing unanimity, inverted totalitarianism conquered by dividing the people. Instead of abolishing opposition, it kept the pretense of democracy alive by allowing for token concessions. The “Iconography” of democracy remained but the institutions were hollowed out from inside.

Then Trump came. He promised to drain this swamp. Instead, he did the opposite. Trump ripped away the very pretense of democracy itself and is working to crush pluralism. He is turning “inverted” into “overt” totalitarianism. Trump didn’t plan this – he’s too stupid. He just can’t help himself.

Unlike his predecessors, who projected the façade of democracy by managing the narrative, Trump can’t hide the systemic rot. Through the decaying carcass of his presidency, we see corporate filth and corruption eating the remains of democratic institutions – Congress, the judicial and penal system, the media, the electoral system and the presidency itself. The Zionist lobby now owns Trump and Congress, and the US government is nothing more than a hand puppet for the oligarchs. The US dutifully inflicts financial chaos around the globe, militarily threatens multiple countries simultaneously, commits genocide in Gaza, and then crashes and burns itself on the shores of Iran. Today, the American people are not even an afterthought. The US government has abandoned them, and they must fend for themselves.

Meanwhile, as money flows into the oligarchs’ pockets, the US economy tanks. Decent jobs have disappeared at an alarming rate. Prices continue to rise while wages remain stagnant, and people grow increasingly desperate. The public remains atomized and isolated by the news, social media, and advertising, which profit from their suffering. Young people have little-to-no-hope because the government has sabotaged or gutted their future prospects. Sadly, there is no New Deal on the horizon.

It’s very clear what the American people want. In addition to ending wars abroad and the police state at home, they want universal healthcare, a livable minimum wage, more responsible fiscal policy, free education, and a job commensurate with their talent and interests.  Equally important, they want sustainable community development that brings people together for the sake of the common good. They yearn for group belonging, one that gives security, spiritual connection and a real sense of purpose.  Ultimately, they want a say in matters pertaining to the quality of their lives.  They want democracy.

What can we do to make this happen? As totalitarianism looms, it’s delusional to think our vote for president will ameliorate the ravages to our democracy, at least in the short term. Voting within this corrupt system clearly hasn’t worked because the oligarchs buy and own the candidates. US presidents (Clinton, Bush, Obama, Biden, Trump) represent the antithesis of what people care about. Reinstating democracy requires a grass-roots movement.

The first step is simple, yet it’s radical and revolutionary: Get to know your neighbors and help the less-fortunate among them.

If this were done on a neighborhood-by-neighborhood basis, it would undermine the very fabric of predatory capitalism. Imagine: dozens of neighborhood “co-ops” spread throughout a city. People who are hungry can eat. Those who are isolated and lonely find companionship through social activities. Those who are vulnerable and weak derive strength in numbers. Members become immune to propaganda, and less complacent toward the status quo. United, we become stronger exponentially; we can promote training programs, organize labor unions, and even field our own candidate to represent us. Co-ops can shield us from financial predators and foster the common good.

Other steps include boycotts and civil disobedience, which I won’t delve into now. The point is that only a grassroots movement will work, and sadly, as the world economy falters and the US dollar verges on collapse, it’s unlikely the government will do anything to save us. Grassroots organizing may be our best option for survival.

Further reading cited in article—Sheldon S. Wolin, Democracy Incorporated: Managed Democracy and the Specter of Inverted Totalitarianism (Princeton University Press 2008).


ABOUT DOUGLAS JOHNSON

I’ve taught English in Palestine, Iraq, and Oman. I currently reside in Indonesia, but my heart will always be in Louisville, Kentucky.

May 21st Third Thursday Lunch: Kyle Ellison & Carla Wallace

The ICEmen Cometh with with Kyle Ellison and Carla Wallace. Presentation at noon, buffet begins at 11:30am at Hotel Louisville120 West Broadway (Second & Broadway). RSVPs to Beverley Marmion: 502-451-5658, bamarmion@mail.com. For more information on this month’s program: https://louisvillefor.org/third-thursday-lunch/

Third Thursdays

Early primary voting begins.. Be informed!

The Alliance to Reclaim Our Schools (AROS Louisville) has joined the Our People Our Vote coalition to help people in Jefferson, Fayette, Boyd, Warren and Kenton counties—some of the largest KY counties— have a single “go-to” site for all information about eligibility/where/when/how to vote in the coming primaries.  As a founding member of AROS, the Louisville Chapter of FOR encourages you to utilize this resource and share it with others: https://ourpeopleourvote.org/.

April 16th Third Thursday Lunch: Shameka Parrish-Wright

Campaigning to be Louisville’s Mayor featuring Shameka Parrish-Wright. Presentation at noon, buffet begins at 11:30am at Hotel Louisville120 West Broadway (Second & Broadway). RSVPs to Beverley Marmion: 502-451-5658, bamarmion@mail.com. For more information on this month’s program: https://louisvillefor.org/third-thursday-lunch/

Third Thursdays

March 19th Third Thursday Lunch: Barbara Boyd

Freedom is a Constant Struggle featuring Barbara Boyd. Presentation at noon, buffet begins at 11:30am The Third Thursday Lunches continue at Hotel Louisville120 West Broadway (Second & Broadway). RSVP: to Beverley Marmion: 502-451-5658, bamarmion@mail.com. For more information on this month’s program: https://louisvillefor.org/third-thursday-lunch/

Third Thursdays

February 19th Third Thursday Lunch: Kay Tillow

Kentuckians for Single Payer Health Care featuring Kay Tillow. Presentation at noon, buffet begins at 11:30am The Third Thursday Lunches continue at Hotel Louisville120 West Broadway (Second & Broadway) RSVP: https://louisvillefor.org/third-thursday-lunch/

Third Thursdays