Political Order and Political Decay summary

Since the time of Aristotle, philosophers have argued that the middle class is essential to healthy states and democracies. But what is the middle class? It can be rather complex to define.

In political science, middle class refers to a measurement of social and educational standing. To illustrate this, think of a poor person with low social standing and a limited educational background who gets a new, better-paying job.

In 1970, the top one percent of wealthy families in the United States took home nine percent of the country’s Gross Domestic Product. By 2007, this amount skyrocketed to 23.5 percent. What does this mean for the middle class?

The reality is that there’s been a hidden trend of decline in middle-class incomes since the 70s. The entry of women into the workforce around this time saw an increase in average household incomes – but this masked the fact that paychecks were actually getting smaller.

Have you come across the notion of repatrimonialization yet? This term describes the domination of democratic institutions by rich and powerful individuals who pursue their interests at the expense of the rest of the population. Repatrimonialization is one of the most detrimental influences on American democracy and government. So how is it manifested in practice?

One way repatrimonialization emerges is through lobbying, a legal form of exchanging political power for money. Though political bribery is technically illegal today, gift exchange is condoned. The idea is that individuals that receive gifts will feel morally obliged to return the favor. This indirect form of bribery is the basis of the entire American lobbying industry – and it’s no small industry either.

In order to get a better idea of how political institutions can grow corrupt, let’s look at the rise and fall of one American government organization: the US Forest Service.

The US Forest Service (USFS) was founded in 1905. At the time, it was a textbook example of American state building during the Progressive Era between the 1890s and 1920s. University-educated foresters and agronomists made up the USFS staff. They were chosen based on merit and technical expertise, unlike most other public offices at the time, which were typically awarded based on patronage – that is, through personal connections and favors. The meritocratic and autonomous USFS embodied some of the best ideals of American democracy.

So, what does the story of the US Forest Service tell us about government institutions? Well, the strength of these very institutions has everything to do with how they respond to change.

Immunity to change is an intrinsic characteristic of institutions; in fact, it is often a strength. Political scientist Samuel Huntington described the “stable, valued, recurring patterns of behavior” within institutions that allow them to facilitate collective human action.