Why the center cannot hold: the center is kleptocratic (solution, ideology, cost)

[Avondalist]

Renegade intellectual Eric Weinstein recently spoke on Ted Cruz's radio show. He gave a succinct, and I believe accurate, reason for the partisan polarization afflicting America.

Many, many people want to return to centrist politics in this country. The problem is that the centers of both parties are deeply corrupt and kleptocratic. Political centrists are not simply ideological moderates. There is an additional dimension, which is they are more corrupt than ideologues. What do I mean by corrupt? They buy support.

I have long had a theory that politics is effected in two main ways, by ideology and by patronage. Ideology is the cheaper but narrower mobilizer, while patronage is the more expensive but broader mobilizer. Examples of an ideological movement are the Green Party and Libertarian Party. Both have few resources at their disposal, and rely on uncompromising rhetoric to gain popularity. Examples of a patronage movement are the Massachusetts and Chicago political machines. Both have lots of resources at their disposal, which permits ideological flexibility among their ranks and makes them electorally unassailable.

Career politicians *always* prefer patronage systems because they are more durable and less rancorous. The only limitation is a lack of resources, so they must rely on rhetoric and ideology to motivate some part of their coalition. However ideology is a double-edged sword; it attracts and repulses equally. Building ideological coalitions is extremely difficult for this reason which is why patronage systems are preferred.

"Centrist" politicians aren't persuadable moderates. They just play one on TV. Really they are graft brokers, horse trading money for influence and looking for the "win-win" (always a lose-lose for those who foot the bill).

Back to Weinstein. He correctly diagnoses the productivity slowdown that began in the 1970s as the end of the postwar consensus. That much is widely known; what is less appreciated is why. With declining productivity growth, there was less money sloshing around to dole out to patronage networks. As a result both parties had to rely more and more on ideology to win elections.

The polarization problem is an economic growth problem. Without more growth, polarization will continue and worsen.

The center has dug a hole for itself over the past several decades. Confronted with declining productivity growth, they bungled wealth distribution. The most vocal members of their patronage coalitions (Wall Street/corporate America on the right, and public employee unions on the left) demanded no haircuts. Their arguments carried the day, so all of the haircuts were borne by junior members of the two coalitions. This was main street and cultural traditionalists on the right, and the private employee labor unions and minority groups on the left.

This intra-coalition favoritism became so unfair that the junior members started to defect. This betrayal by the coalition of their respective junior members cheapened moderate rhetoric such that it lost effectiveness ("job retraining", "tax cuts pay for themselves") and ceased to be believed. This raised the cost of maintaining a majority coalition at the same time that revenue was declining.

Weinstein doesn't say as much, but I believe the prognosis is negative for both political parties. The entrenched kleptocrats that constitute both party establishments are circling the wagons as the patronage funds decline and more and more coalition members are jettisoned for lack of funds. At the same time, our structural economic problems require a political solution when the political system is paralyzed due to the kleptocracy of the two parties. The economy needs a political fix to generate more revenue, but the political system needs more revenue to effect a fix to the economic system. Catch-22.