Mitch McConnell and the iron law of oligarchy

Last week, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell proudly announced that sending billions of dollars to Ukraine was the “number one priority” for Republicans during a press conference in which he celebrated passing a massive $1.7 trillion spending package. The longtime GOP figurehead was one of the central players responsible for engineering the disastrous 2022 midterms after redirecting crucial campaign funds away from promising candidates like Blake Masters in Arizona because he was not content to parrot tired establishment talking points.

The Republican base has understood for a long time that McConnell is a disgrace, but despite Mitch's betrayal of GOP voters at every opportunity, he sits comfortably ensconced in his position of power. The Kentucky senator acts against the wishes and interests of conservatives on a regular basis without any fear of losing his seat or his leadership position. If popular sovereignty allows the people to hold leaders accountable, why is someone so reviled by his own base so confident in the safety of his power?

In his book "Political Parties," Robert Michels explored the behavior of representative governments and why their voters seem to have such a difficult time holding them accountable. The political theorist begins by making some observations that might seem obvious but for some reason are quickly forgotten whenever the pundit class starts debating the motivations of political actors.

According to Michels, no organization is ever ruled by the entire body of that organization. Be it a church, a bowling league, a business, or a political party, an organized minority of members always takes control of the institution. Even when organizations are earnestly constructed on the principle of democratic input and accountability to the body of members, a central group always emerges of leaders who actually guide the actions of the organization.

The natural fact of leadership is not itself an indictment of democracy. The emergence of a leadership class is a universal feature of every human endeavor, and the Founding Fathers were not blind to this fact. They organized the republic around representative and not direct democracy, understanding that in a nation the size of the United States, it was impossible to run the government without set of leaders who, at least for a time, dedicate their attention to operating the state in the interests of the people.

If over time, however, as the franchise expands and the democratic influence over the republic increases, the interests of the leadership class become less, not more, aligned with the interests of the average voter, then the feasibility of popular sovereignty may be called into question. If the democratic process inevitably leads to the installation of a leadership class completely insulated from consequences of that process, is democracy even possible?

Read the rest on The Blaze