
Democracy in Chains: The Deep History of the Radical Right's Stealth Plan for America
by Nancy MacLean
30 popular highlights from this book
Key Insights & Memorable Quotes
Below are the most popular and impactful highlights and quotes from Democracy in Chains: The Deep History of the Radical Right's Stealth Plan for America:
âPublic interest has been subordinated to private interest, and when there is no clear distinction between them, it opens the door to endless opportunities for corruption.â48â
âThe anti-government rhetoric that continues to saturate our political life is rooted in [support for] slavery rather than liberty. The paralyzing suspicion of government so much on display today, that is to say, came originally not from average people but from elite extremists such as [John C.] Calhoun who saw federal power as a menace to their system of racial slavery.â
âThose who seek to undermine the existing structure,â he advised, must do two things. First, they must alter beneficiariesâ view of Social Securityâs viability, because that would âmake abandonment of the system look more attractive.â35 If you have ever seen a television ad showing older people with worried faces wondering if Social Security will be around when they need it, or heard a politician you think is opposed to the retirement program suddenly fretting about whether it will be there for you and others, listen more carefully the next time for a possible subliminal message.â
âFor all its fine phrases, what this cause really seeks is a return to oligarchy, to a world in which both economic and effective political power are to be concentrated in the hands of a few. It would like to reinstate the kind of political economy that prevailed in America at the opening of the twentieth century, when the mass disfranchisement of voters and the legal treatment of labor unions as illegitimate enabled large corporations and wealthy individualsâ
âInstead, he was mapping a social contract based on âunremitting coercive bargainingâ in which individuals treated one another as instruments toward their own ends, not fellow beings of intrinsic value.â
âThis is among the most profound shifts in our legal history,â warns a Reagan-appointed federal judge. His words bear slow reading: âOminously, business has a good chance of opting out of the legal system altogether and misbehaving without reproach.â A subsequent headline noted that it amounts to a âPrivatization of the Justice System.â73â
âRowley said what others never dared to admit: âFar too many libertarians have been seduced by Koch money into providing intellectual ammunition for an autocratic businessman.â It had reached the point, he came to believe by 2012, that there was no hope that any of those who participated in the âfree market think tanksâ would âspeak out.â He was blunt about the reason why: âToo many of them benefit financially from the pocket money doled out by Charles and David Koch.â
âKoch never lied to himself about what he was doing. While some others in the movement called themselves conservatives, he knew exactly how radical his cause was. Informed early on by one of his grantees that the playbook on revolutionary organization had been written by Vladimir Lenin, Koch dutifully cultivated a trusted âcadreâ of high-level operatives, just as Lenin had done, to build a movement that refused compromise as it devised savvy maneuvers to alter the political math in its favor. But no war is won with all generals and no infantry. The cause also needed a popular base to succeed, one beyond the libertarians of the right, who were kindred in conviction but few in number. Camouflaging its more radical intentions, the cadre over time reached out and pulled in the vast and active conservative grassroots base by identifying points of common cause.21 Indeed, after 2008, the cadre more and more adopted the mantle of conservatism, knowing full well that the last thing they wanted was to conserve, but seeing advantages in doing so.â
âThose who subscribe to the libertarian philosophy believe that the only legitimate role of government is to ensure the rule of law, guarantee social order, and provide for the national defense. That is why they have long been fervent opponents of Medicare, Medicaid for the poor, and, most recently, Obamacare. The House budget chairman, Paul Ryan, has explained that such public provision for popular needs not only violates the liberty of the taxpayers whose earnings are transferred to others, but also violates the recipientsâ spiritual need to earn their own sustenance.â
âMany liberals then and since have tended to miss this strategic use of privatization to enchain democracy, at worst seeing the proposals as coming simply from dogma that preferred the private sector to the public.â
âThe military officers who led the coup concluded that, once in power, not only did they have to reverse the gains that had been made under elected governments, but they also wanted to find a way to ensure that Chileans never again embraced socialism, no matter how strong the popular cries for reform.3 The solution they came up with was to rewrite the nationâs constitution to forever insulate the interests of the propertied class they represented from the reach of a classic democratic majority.â
âOn September 11, 1973, General Augusto Pinochet led a successful coup that overthrew the elected socialist government of President Salvador Allende in Chile. Ruling in the name of economic liberty, the Pinochet junta became one of the most notorious authoritarian regimes in recent history. With mass killings, widespread torture, and systematic intimidation, Pinochetâs forces crushed the trade union movement, vanquished the rural farmers seeking land reform, stifled student activism, and imposed radical and unpopular changes in schooling, health care, social security, and more. As Orlando Letelier, the soon-to-be-assassinated Chilean ambassador to the United States, explained in The Nation, the economic program and the repression were inseparable: social and political âregression for the majorities and âeconomic freedomâ for small privileged groupsâ went together.1 The military coup obliterated the citizen-led organizing that had made Chile a beacon to the rest of Latin America of what might be achieved by democratic, electoral means.2â
âBy 1860, two of every three of the relatively few Americans whose wealth surpassed $100,000 lived below the Mason-Dixon Line. New York at that time had fewer millionaires per capita than Mississippi. South Carolina was the richest state in the Union. The source of southern wealth was staple cropsâparticularly cottonâproduced by enslaved men, women, and children for world markets. So matchless were the profits that more money was invested in slaves than in industry and railroads.â
âKoch believed that what the famed economist Joseph Schumpeter called "creative destruction" was so critical to the health of the capitalist system that empathy was an obstacle to acceptance of the world that must be brought into being.â
âDuring the boom, Chileâs economic gains had been privatized; now, in the crunch, the countryâs losses were socialized.â
âclever legal rules could keep the stateâs voter participation among the lowest in the nation relative to population, and its taxes among the lowest in the nation relative to wealth. Above all, the rules served to hold in check the collective power of those who might want their democracy to do more.â
âWhat we are seeing today is a new iteration of that very old impulse in America: the quest of some of the propertied (always, it bears noting, a particular ideological extreme âand some would say greedyâ subsection of the propertied) to restrict the promise of democracy for the many, acting in the knowledge that the majority would choose other politics if it couldâ
âThom Tillis, a North Carolina state senator elevated to the U.S. Senate in 2014 with backing from the Koch apparatus, has said that restaurants should be able âto opt out ofâ laws requiring employees to wash their hands after using the toilet, âas long as they post a sign that says, âWe donât require our employees to wash their hands after leaving the restroom.â The market will take care of that.â
âby 1990, more than two of every five sitting federal judges had participated in his programâa stunning 40 percent of the U.S. federal judiciary had been treated to a Koch-backed curriculum.â
âBut then something unexpected happened. Donald Trump, a real estate mogul and television celebrity who did not need the Koch donor networkâs money to run, who seemed to have little grasp of the goals of this movement, entered the race. More than that, to get ahead, Trump was able to successfully mock the candidates they had already cowed as âpuppets.â And he offered a different economic vision. He loved capitalism, to be sure, but he was not a libertarian by any stretch. Like Bill Clinton before him, he claimed to feel his audienceâs pain. He promised to stanch it with curbs on the very agenda the partyâs front-runners were promoting: no more free-trade deals that shuttered American factories, no cuts to Social Security or Medicare, and no more penny-pinching while the nationâs infrastructure crumbled. He went so far as to pledge to build a costly wall to stop immigrants from coming to take the jobs U.S. companies offered them because they could hire desperate, rightless workers for less. He said and did a lot more, too, much that was ugly and incendiary. And in November, he shocked the world by winning the Electoral College vote.â
âPrivately, Gordon Tullock and Jim Buchanan discussed the social control function of denying a liberal arts education to young people from lower-income families who had not saved to pay for it. âWe may be producing a positively dangerous class situation,â Tullock said, by educating so many working-class youth who would probably not make it into management but might make trouble, having had their sights raised.â
âNote the emerging pattern, which we will see again: while criticizing government action that threatened his own liberty as a property owner, Calhoun saw nothing untoward in calling on the federal government to use its police powers to help his class stifle debate about its practices. That sleight of handâdenying the legitimacy of government power to act for the common good while using government power to suppress othersâappears repeatedly in the pages that followâ
âIf only one could break down the trust that now existed between governed and governing, even those who supported liberal objectives would lose confidence in government solutions.â
âthe price signals of supply and demand provided the only means yet discovered of coordinating the desires and actions of millions of freely acting individuals, without government compulsion, in what Hayek called a âspontaneous order.â
âOne feature eliminated local control of education; it compelled the governor to close and cut off funds to any school that planned to desegregate under federal court order.â
âThe paperâs owners, as one contemporary noted, took as a given that society separated itself into âthose who ride and those who are the donkeys to be ridden.â25â
âHe and his fellow framers built numerous protections of minority rights and property rights into the document, among them the Electoral College and the Senate, with their systems of representation that favored less populous states.â
âAs the main architect of the Constitution and a slave master of great wealth himself, Madison thought long and hard about how to protect minority rights in a government based on sovereignty of the people, a people then understood to be white men of property.â
âBoth thinkers sought ways to restrict what voters could achieve together in a democracy to what the wealthiest among them would agree to.4â
âIndeed, this massive and well-funded force is turning the party it has occupied toward ends that most Republican voters do not want, such as the privatization of Social Security, Medicare, and education.35â


