If You Had the Power | 2026 How We Got Here

If You Had the Power to Influence our Democracy

If you had the power and influence to affect the functioning of American democracy, what would you do? What would you think was important to keep our American system running smoothly?

Back in 1975, a group of influential men (1) in politics, business, media, and academia took up this question in a serious way. This collection of heavyweights was called The Trilateral Commission, founded in 1973 by American banker and philanthropist David Rockefeller. Their overall mandate was to address the growing economic and political interdependence among the United States, Canada, Western Europe, and Japan, and promote coordinated policies across these regions.

In 1975, they commissioned a report, titled The Trilateral Commission Report,(2) a good portion of which was an analysis of the 1960s American protest movements as an expression of democracy, and the challenges these movements presented for democracy.(3) Also included in the report were suggested innovations to make democracy more viable in the future.

I don’t know about you, but when I heard about this, I got all excited! Here they were, our “overlords,” those Important People behind the scenes who really decide how we’ll live. Here was a chance to find out what they really think! How they think! And, boy, was I surprised!

But, then again… not really…

As I kept distilling down the American portion of this report (the other major sections were devoted to conditions vis-à-vis democracy in Western Europe and Japan), two factors jumped out as being foundational for the upheaval America experienced in the 1960s and 70s:

A diminishment of the presidency by Lyndon Johnson [the Vietnam War] and Richard Nixon [Watergate]. As a result of the quagmires both men were embroiled in, both men became paranoid and felt they were under siege in the White House, making it difficult for them to effectively lead or compromise, with one of them even committing illegal acts.
The second factor was a phenomenon the report defined as being uniquely American: Apparently, we Americans hold within ourselves a broad consensus regarding our basic value system, and under normal circumstances, our commitment to these democratic, liberal and egalitarian (4) values (5) is neither passionate nor intense.… however, during times of rapid social change, we reaffirm these values and our passions rise, leading us to demand our government align itself with these deeply held values.

In short, we Americans take to the streets to make our voices heard in protest when our core values are being violated by our government.

It’s hard to believe these two phenomena weren’t connected. That “as above, so below” wasn’t at play. We had one president trapped in a very unpopular war, another caught in a dastardly web of his own making, both reacting badly, neither reflecting the values that Americans see as defining our great nation, negatively impacting and reflecting back the social changes that were sweeping the nation. As Professor Huntington put it, Americans were witnessing an ugly “… interaction between political ideas and institutional reality in the United States.” (p. 112)

In those turbulent times, so many issues were vying for attention:

Social issues, such as the use of drugs, civil liberties, and the role of women
Racial issues, involving integration, busing, government aid to an increasing number of minority groups, and urban riots
Military issues, involving primarily, of course, the war in Vietnam but also the draft, military spending, military aid programs, and the role of the military-industrial complex more generally,

but, interestingly enough, one of the first things the report mentions is “… the corruption, materialism, and inefficiency of democracy,” along with “monopoly capitalism.” (p. 6)

When I first read this, I thought, “Great! We’re getting to the heart of things!” However, a second reading caught me cold. According to the Introduction of this report:

“At the present time, a significant challenge comes from the intellectuals and related groups (emphasis mine) who assert their disgust with

the corruption, materialism, and inefficiency of democracy and with the subservience of democratic government to "monopoly capitalism."

(p. 6)

Holy cow!! It was the intellectuals who were the problem!! They were creating an “adversary culture” affecting students, scholars and the media, “…constitut[ing] a challenge to democratic government which [was], potentially at least, as serious as those posed in the past by the aristocratic cliques, fascist movements, and communist parties.” (p. 6)

My goodness, right off the bat, academics were being compared to fascists and communists, merely for pointing out the obvious. The mind boggled at what else might be in store for us in this report…

Which sent me back to an earlier statement, almost casually included in the Introduction to this report:

“A social structure in which wealth and learning were concentrated in the hands of a very few would not be conducive to democracy…” (p. 5)

For you and me, most likely this statement contains a good amount of common sense. Here is the definition of “democracy” which appears on the Department of Government webpage of Georgetown University:

“Democracy is a framework of governance built on the principle that power resides with the people.” (7)

With this definition, we can expand on the declarative sentence in this report regarding wealth and democracy, now linking wealth and its negative effects on democracy with one more element: Power.

And the obvious question arises: How can there be true democracy, meaning equal access to power, when wealth and learning are concentrated in the hands of a very few? This is where the thinking of many regular folks would start, I’d imagine, but take a look at where the thinking of the Commission report authors went instead:

Wealth and learning concentrated in a few hands is not conducive to democracy.
Historically, in the West, industrialization and democratization proceeded on roughly parallel courses.
Generally, the growth of cities and the “bourgeoise” class
- diversified power,
- led to personal and property rights, and
- helped make government more representative of the principal groups in society.
The power of traditional aristocratic groups hostile to democracy tended to decline.
Subsequently, this democratic trend was challenged, sometimes successfully, by fascist groups (supported by the remaining traditional authoritarian structure) appealing to the economic insecurities and nationalistic impulses of the lower-middle-class. (pp. 5-6)

It is from this discussion that these authors launch their attack on the 1960s intellectuals:

“Thus, at one time or another, threats to the viability of democratic government have come from the aristocracy, the military, the middle

classes, and the working class. Presumably, as social evolution occurs, additional threats may well arise from other points in the social

structure.

At the present time, a significant challenge comes from the intellectuals and related groups who assert their disgust with the corruption,

materialism, and inefficiency of democracy and with the subservience of democratic government to "monopoly capitalism." (p. 6)

They apparently never connect:

the emergence in the 1960s of formerly passive minority groups suddenly demanding their rights (p. 61)
and the intellectual framework detailed in John Rawls’ major philosophical treatise (8) which “… defined justice largely in terms of equality

with the injustice of…

corruption, monopoly capitalism, and wealth and learning concentrated in the hands of a very few.

No. It was the academics (who are paid to think about such things)—those darn communists—who were pointing out this obvious contradiction who were the problem.

It apparently couldn’t be that the injustice of corruption and concentrated wealth in the hands of a very few were the problem. Or at least a problem.

I found that absolutely stunning. But there you have it.

In the Introduction, another topic is raised that never appears Professor Huntington’s American analysis:

The observation that, in all three Trilateral regions, there is a shift in values taking place:

“… away from the materialistic work-oriented, public-spirited values toward those which stress private satisfaction, leisure, and the need for

‘belonging and intellectual and esthetic self-fulfillment.’” (p. 7)

As to why this is shift in values is even worth mentioning in the Introduction …

The authors continue … If people continue to want to have, in short, meaningful lives, this will:

“… pose an additional new problem for democratic government in terms of its ability to mobilize its citizens for the achievement of social and

political goals and to impose discipline and sacrifice upon its citizens in order to achieve those goals.” (p. 7)

I’ll let that just sit with you for a moment…

When I thought about that statement, it made me wonder:

What kind of social and political goals were they considering attaining that people desiring meaningful lives wouldn’t want to support them?

How did they propose to impose discipline and sacrifice upon the people?

And with that, we now have the basic guidelines laid out in this Introduction:

Challenging the government is not acceptable.
Societal injustice is not an issue worthy of addressing in a meaningful way.
The citizens leading meaningful lives is a problem for the government.

Now that that’s established, let’s delve into Professor Huntington’s analysis of the American people’s expression of democracy in the 1960s, and then any suggestions he might have for how to make democracy more viable going forward.

AMERICAN EXPRESSIONS OF DEMOCRACY

He begins his report with the observation, “The 1960s witnessed a dramatic renewal of the democratic spirit in America.” He then details how this renewed expression of democracy played out, with Americans:

“… challenging … the authority of established political, social, and economic institutions,
increas[ing] popular participation in and control over those institutions,
… react[ing] against the concentration of power in the executive branch of the federal government and in favor of the reassertion of the power of Congress and of state and local government,
[expressing a] renewed commitment to the idea of equality on the part of intellectuals and other elites,
[establishing] ‘public interest’ lobbying groups,
[showing increas[ing]] concern for the rights of and provision of opportunities for minorities and women to participate in the polity and economy, and a
pervasive criticism of those who possessed or were even thought to possess excessive power or wealth.”(9) (pp. 59-60)

After a brief discussion of how these very real concerns of the American people were expressed—whether through voting patterns, protests, “cause” organizations, the mobilization of previously marginalized groups, the expansion of unionism, or the reassertion of equality as a life goal—Professor Huntington then concerns himself with this question:

Is the democratic surge of the 1960s

permanent,
transitory,
confined to the United States, or
(most likely) generally persuasive throughout the advanced industrial world?

He answers this question in the Conclusion to his analysis:

“To the extent this analysis is valid, the causes of the democratic surge in the United States would be specific to the United States and limited

in duration but potentially recurring at some point in the future.” (p. 113)

Okay, so now we know that these Masters of the Universe knew back in 1975 that the America people were quite likely to again feel the need to adjust their voting patterns, would rise up again in protest, create “cause” organizations, re-energize their unions, and again express their dissatisfaction with their quality of life. In short, express their dissatisfaction with the government and challenge it once again to reflect the core American democratic, liberal, and egalitarian values.

Which, interestingly enough, is where we are today.

But I digress…

Back in 1975, after pondering whether the 1960s democratic surge was transitory or permanent, but before he reached a conclusion on the question, he immediately pivoted to a James Madison quote:(10)

“In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government

to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.” (p. 63)

Professor Huntington addresses the issue of control by focusing on the balance to be maintained between the government and the governed. As he puts it,

“The maintenance of that balance is, indeed, what constitutional democracy is all about.” (p. 63)

In the barest possible practical terms, here is what he means by balance: It is the balance between what the people demand of their government and what their government is able to provide.

And in the 1960s, more people started asserting their [democratic] rights, which resulted in their—apparently this is a natural result of democracy—making more demands for benefits from the government. Which the government attempted to provide by spending more money than it had.

To give you an idea why Professor Huntington was so concerned about whether or not the people’s demand that their government’s values align with their own was a temporary affliction or a permanent condition, below is a chart comparing the federal government’s revenues vs. expenditures for major budget items, in 1972 compared to 1960.

You can see that in 1960, the federal government had a bit of a surplus ($1.8 billion), but in 1972, after rather large, and one could argue, unusual, increases in spending for education, Social Security and related insurance benefits, public welfare, health and hospitals—just the sorts of demands the people had been clamoring for—along with the resulting interest on the public debt, the federal government had a deficit in 1972 of $15.6 billion.

As an aside: The numbers included in this chart are those provided by Professor Huntington. Why he chose to include Defense spending while making his point about “Welfare” spending is beyond my understanding, but I included these figures in the chart I prepared to remain true to his numbers.

That being said, now it becomes easy to understand why Professor Huntington was concerned about whether or not this “democratic surge” was temporary or not. It had real financial repercussions…

GOVERNMENT REVENUES & EXPENDITURES

FOR MAJOR FUNCTIONS

Billions 1960 vs. 1972

$450

400 X

O X

350 O X

O X

300 O X

O X

250 O X

O X

200 O X 1960 EXPENDITURES vs. 1972 EXPENDITURES

. O X

150 O X O X

O X O X

100 O X O X

O X O X X x

50 O X O X O X X x

O X O X O X X X

0 O X O X O X O X O X u X : X : X : X

1960 1972 Defense Education SS/Ins. Interest on Debt Public Welfare Health/Hospitals Natural Resources

Revenue vs.

Expenditures $47.5B $19.4B $10.8B $9.3B $4.5B $5.2B $8.4B

vs. vs. vs. vs. vs. vs. vs.

1960 1972 $79.3B $70B $46.9B $23.1B $23.6B $17B $14.2B

$153.1 $381.8

Revenues

$151.3 $397.4

Expenditures

But then… an interesting thing happened.

By 1975, it was a whole new world.

Again, to put things bluntly, if making demands of the government beyond its capacity to meet those demands is a natural result of democracy, then “… inflation is the economic disease of democracy.” (ibid, p. 164).

And by 1975, this disease appears to have taken root. The humanistic concerns which had so consumed the American public just years before were now pushed to the side because of an “… overwhelming preoccupation with first inflation and then recession and unemployment.” (p. 84)

By a careful reading of this analysis, we can see this is not by accident. A couple of inter-related factors come into play in a cycle that we had experienced before. As Professor Huntington reports, “… the democratic surge of the 1960s shares many characteristics with the comparable egalitarian and reform movements of the Jacksonian and Progressive eras.” (pp. 112-113)

Here’s how this cycle plays out, taking as our example what happened vis-à-vis the 1960s, when the disconnect between our American values and our institutional reality became too much to bear, we protested… and then came the apparently inevitable fallout:

People Loss of

Develop Confidence *

Extreme GOVERN-

Positions MENT Decrease in

1950s/ spends Political

1960s money it Participation

More doesn't -----------------------> INFLATION ** and

People have to Ideological

Participate try to Polarization

Politically meet

expectations

People Loss of

Develop Confidence *

Extreme

Positions

* Because people held such extreme positions, they inevitably lost confidence in the government when it failed to meet their expectations—even when they received benefits from the government in response to their demands.

** Inflation occurred in large part because the government attempted to meet the increased expectations of the new politically active population with resources it did not have.

The resulting decrease in political participation and ideological participation was because this whole process left the people feeling like what they did really didn’t matter—their lives felt no better off.

These were Professor Huntington’s conclusions after outlining this pattern:

Short term: “… if people remain skeptical about what government can do, the current pattern of this shift toward Welfare could well remain relatively stable for the immediate future.” (p. 74)

Long term: ““To the extent this analysis is valid, the causes of the democratic surge in the United States would be specific to the United States and limited in duration but potentially recurring at some point in the future.” (p. 113)

Professor Huntington summarized this rather cynical cycle quite succinctly:

“This suggests that the democratic surge of the 1960s could well generate its own countervailing forces, that an upsurge of political

participation produces conditions which favor a downswing in political participation.” (p. 85)

There is, of course, more in this report’s analysis of the causes and repercussions of the 1960s protest movements, but these, I believe, are the salient points.

SUGGESTIONS FOR MAKING DEMOCRACY MORE VIABLE IN THE FUTURE

Now… on to their suggestions for making democracy more viable in the future.

For the sake of clarity, I’m presenting this “suggestion” portion by topic in outline form, noting that, unless otherwise stated, these suggestions come from the Appendix to this report. (11) In the Government section, you will note that I have quoted directly from the report. I have done so because this portion is particularly relevant during our times, and it is important that we are perfectly clear on these authors’ intent.

A. The Control of INFLATION and the Promotion of ECONOMIC GROWTH should be a top priority, carefully considering:

1. Resource Exhaustion and

2. Environmental Pollution (p. 174)

B. UNEMPLOYMENT

Professor Huntington states that people’s positions on economic issues such as unemployment aren’t necessarily tied to their ideological beliefs;

therefore, significant differences appear only if there are alternative programs for dealing with such issues.

He then points out that such alternative programs “have been slow in materializing…” (p. 85), resulting in two subtle but oh-so-importantly distinct

reactions from the public:

Without alternative programs for dealing with unemployment:

People may have generalized feelings of a lack of confidence in the political system, but they WON'T (emphasis mine) feel “dissatisfaction rooted

in the failure of government to follow a particular set of policies.” (p. 85)

But then he goes further, speculating that this, as he puts it,

“… ‘generalized alienation’ could, in turn, reinforce tendencies towards political passivity engendered by the already observable decline in the

sense of political efficacy.” (p. 85)

This sure sounds to me like a lightly veiled suggestion to government officials not to attempt any serious efforts to address unemployment.

C. POLITICAL PARTIES.

Political Parties are the means by which we organize the electorate, simplify choices, select leaders, aggregate interests, and shape policy choices

and priorities. (p. 166)

In order to operate properly, political parties must:

1. "… reflect the interests and needs of major social forces and interest groups and,

2. on the other hand, [they] must also in some measure be independent of particular interests and capable of aggregating them and working out

broader compromises among them.” (pp. 178-179)

That led them, of course, directly to the “painfully visible [and] difficult area” (p. 179) of …

D. CAMPAIGN FINANCE

1. They first state that there’s little useful purpose in having laws prohibiting political contributions by corporations.

2. As recent prosecutions provided proof they were regularly evaded.

3. [Therefore] The best way to make sure corporate interests don’t get too much control over political parties is by having:

a. Full disclosure of all political contributions

b. Ensuring there is public money available to balance funds from private sector (p. 180)

Beyond stating the obvious: That I’m sure there are plenty of criminals out there who would love to have laws expunged that they regularly evade...

Let’s consider their suggestions… My goodness, that ship has certainly sailed! Not only were these suggestions not followed, we went in the exact

opposite direction.

The Supreme Court’s 2010 decision Citizens United v. FEC ruled that corporations and unions have a First Amendment right to spend unlimited

amounts of independent money on political advocacy, which led to massive increases in “dark money,” or funds spent by organizations that do not

disclose their donors.

This significantly accelerated the role of wealthy donors, corporations and special interest groups in influencing American elections. In short, any

meaningful notion of “democracy” in our elections was wiped out. Or, at the very least, everyday Americans were gonna have to fight a whole

bunch harder to have a say at the table. Or maybe learn how to fight in a whole new way…

This ruling, by definition, also had to have made the achievement of C.2. above a lot harder.

E. MEDIA

In the 1960s the media emerged as a serious challenger to government authority, and it was concluded in this report that it was necessary to now

regulate this industry and define its relationship to the rest of society. These were their suggestions:

1. The press should have the assurance to print what it wants without prior restraint, except in the most unusual of circumstances.

2. The government should have the right and ability to withhold information at the source.

3. Public officials should have equal protection under the law against libel.

4. The libel law should be reinstated promptly by the courts as a necessary and appropriate check against the abuse of power by the press.

5. Journalists should police themselves in this regard, creating standards of professionalism and mechanisms for enforcing those standards, such

as press councils. If necessary, this should be done by government regulation. (p. 182)

F. Cost and Function of HIGHER EDUCATION

The discussion of higher education in this report led to this question:

“Should a college education be provided generally because of its contribution to the overall cultural level of the populace and its possible

relation to the constructive discharge of the responsibilities of citizenship?

1. “If [the answer is yes] …a program is then necessary to lower the job expectations of those who receive a college education.

2. “If [the answer is no], then higher educational institutions should be induced to redesign their programs so as to be geared to the patterns of

economic development and future job opportunities. (p. 183-184)

It just about breaks my heart to tell you that this is what they would take into consideration when relating educational planning to economic and

political goals, but here we go…

Expanding higher education can:

1. Lead to too many people with a university education with no jobs available for them.

2. Have too much public money being spent for that education leading to no jobs.

3. Lead to the burden of the lower classes paying for the free education of the middle and upper classes.

4. Lead to frustration and psychological hardships of the university graduates who can’t get jobs to which they feel entitled.

5. Lead to frustration and material hardships for non-graduates who can’t get jobs that were previously open to them. (p. 183)

Yes, indeed. This is what these Masters of the Universe thought and wrote. The dystopian future they envisioned for us.

Quite frankly, is it any wonder we are where we are today, with these bright lights to guide us?

G. THE WORKPLACE

1. When it came to our working lives, they gave up entirely on focusing on the Working Structure of enterprises, which had been the approach up

until 1975. These were their reasons for abandoning that approach:

a. Industrial democracy based on political democracy ran up against industrial culture and the constraints of business organization.

b. Labor being a decision-making partner with management regarding working conditions, productivity, and output raised impossible

problems.

(1) Leftist trade unions fought this approach

(2) Employers defeated its purposes

2. The Job, the Working Conditions, the Work Organization

These authors maintained that this was an emerging field which should be encouraged and subsidized. In addition, all possible incentives

should be provided to industry to gradually implement new modes of organization. They believed this was the only way to:

a. Alleviate the tensions of post-industrial society

b. Avoid irresponsible blackmailing tactics (I have no idea what this means and they don’t explain)

c. Avoid new inflationary pressures

d. Restore the status and dignity of manual work, which they maintained was a necessary step. (p. 186)

There may actually have been some positive movement in this area in the years since this report was written, at least for some jobs, some

companies. And I do believe there has been a revitalization in the status and dignity of at least some manual work.

All in all, however, I fear these may be cosmetic changes, not significant or foundational changes to the working lives of everyday American

people.

H. GOVERNMENT

1. “Governmental programs must give the highest priority to establishing a minimum floor of guaranteed subsistence for all citizens.” (p. 174)

Wow. Did not see that one coming!

2. “If the institutional balance is to be redressed between the government and opposition:

a. The decline in presidential power has to be reversed.

b. The ability of Congress to govern has to be increased.” (p. 102)

3. “… strong institutional leadership is clearly preferable to personalized charismatic leadership.” (p. 102)

a. “The imperial presidency is rapidly disappearing into history, and there is clearly no need to bring it back.” (p. 176)

b. “If Congress can exercise the power effectively, there may be good grounds for restricting the president.”(p. 176)

c. “It may equally well increase the power of bureaucratic agencies or private interest groups [to counter balance the power of the

president.]” (p. 176)

4. One other very important point is made regarding the presidency:

a. Political leaders need to score successes if they’re going to stay in power.

b. The appearance of success in foreign policy—through trips abroad, summit meetings, rhetorical aggression, treaties or declarations—is a

lot easier to arrange than in domestic policy.

c. Therefore: “The weaker a political leader is at home, the more likely he is to be traveling abroad.” (p. 104)

d. Or, we might say in our times, engaging in foreign “adventures.”

5. “… if Congress is to play an effective governing role as distinct from a critical and opposition role, it has to be able to

a. formulate overall goals,

b. determine priorities, and

c. initiate programs.” (p. 176)

Professor Huntington also makes this astute observation:“ A decline in the governability of democracy at home means a decline in the influence of

democracy abroad.” (p. 106)

It goes without saying, but it must be said, that we have completely gone off the rails with regard to this issue of an effectively functioning federal

government.

I. DEMOCRACY

The authors begin their discussion of democracy with the admonition:

“Needed … is a greater degree of moderation in democracy.” (p. 113)

Here is how they propose to go about achieving that goal.

1. To constitute authority, in many situations the claims of seniority, special experience or expertise should override claims of democracy, for

example, in

a. The military

b. Education

2. In order to function properly, noninvolvement and some degree of apathy is required from some groups, therefore

a. Self-restraint by all groups needs to replace less marginality by some groups. (p. 114)

3. A Trilateral society institute [that is, one made up of members from the United States, Western European nations and Japan] should be created,

whose purpose would be to

a. stimulate collaborative studies of common problems involved in the operations of democracy in the Trilateral societies,

b. promote cooperation among institutions and groups with common concerns in this area among the Trilateral regions, and

c. encourage the Trilateral societies to learn from each other's experience how to make democracy function more effectively in their societies.”

(p. 187)

4. “Such mutual learning experiences are familiar phenomena in the economic and military fields; they must also be encouraged in the political

field.” (p. 187)

There you have it. The plans of these Masters of the Universe for the future of democracy. Let’s summarize them and see how they stand up against the guiding principles set up in the Introduction to this report.

A. We should control INFLATION and promote ECONOMIC GROWTH

1. We should carefully consider Resource Exhaustion

2. We should carefully consider Environmental Pollution

B. We don’t have to concern ourselves too much with full EMPLOYMENT

C. Responsibility for the People/Government Balance lies with POLITICAL PARTIES.

D. Only lip service need be given to CAMPAIGN FINANCE.

E. The MEDIA needs to be reigned in.

F. Spending money on HIGHER EDUCATION for the masses is counter-productive.

G. If we focus on people’s actual Job, we can placate workers and not deal with the difficult issues of working conditions, productivity, and output in

the WORKPLACE.

H. Regarding our GOVERNMENT:

1. Governmental programs must give the highest priority to establishing a minimum floor of guaranteed subsistence for all citizens.

2. We must not have a personalized charismatic, imperial presidency.

a. We know we have a weak president if he’s focused on foreign adventures.

3. The ability of Congress to govern is demonstrated by their ability to

a. formulate overall goals,

b. determine priorities, and

c. initiate programs.

4. It may be necessary to increase the power of bureaucratic agencies or private interest groups to counter balance the power of the president.

5 We must ensure that we can govern at home, because

a. A decline in the governability of democracy at home means a decline in the influence of democracy abroad.

I. Regarding DEMOCRACY:

1. In order to safeguard democracy, we must have less democracy.

a. Self-restraint by all groups needs to replace less marginality by some groups.

b. Seniority, special experience or experience should override claims of democracy in certain areas, for example, in

(1) The military

(2) Education

2. A Trilateral society institute should be created, whose purpose would be to study and promote democracy in the Trilateral societies.

NOW...

HOW DO THESE RECOMMENDATIONS ALIGN WITH THE INTRODUCTION'S GUIDELINES?

1) Challenging the government is not acceptable.

2) Societal injustice is not an issue worthy of addressing in a meaningful way.

3) The citizens leading meaningful lives is a problem for the government.

Well… the first guideline leads us to a place these authors clearly didn’t anticipate, although perhaps it’s not terribly surprising, considering how the absence of any real hope for a better life—which is exactly where these guidelines lead—was bound to leave a significant number of people falling for the pitch of a snake oil salesman.

1) We should definitely challenge the government if:

a. We have a personalized charismatic, imperial presidency

b. We have a weak president focused on foreign adventures

c. We have a Congress unable to govern,

i. unable to formulate overall goals,

ii. determine priorities, and

iii. initiate programs

d. Our ability to govern at home is therefore in question, because

i. A decline in the governability of democracy at home means a decline in the influence of democracy abroad

2) Societal injustice is not an issue worthy of addressing in a meaningful way.

There is one outlier statement in this report that speaks to the issue of social injustice, but it is such an outlier that the possibility of it being

implemented almost defied belief in the context of the full report. Given that absolutely nothing tangible happened in this regard in the 51 years

since the report was written, clearly no one took it seriously:

“Governmental programs must give the highest priority to establishing a minimum floor of guaranteed subsistence for all citizens.”

3) The citizens leading meaningful lives is a problem for the government.

Clearly, the authors of this report sought to avoid that problem, for there is nothing in this report which would indicate that their citizens having

meaningful lives was on their list of priorities.

WHO WERE THESE COMMISSION MEMBERS,

THESE MASTERS OF THE UNIVERSE?

Perhaps now is the time to ask, who were these Masters of the Universe, these Commissioners who held the American people with their democratic, liberal, and egalitarian values in so little regard?

With few exceptions, the North American members came from leadership positions across a wide spectrum of the top stratum of our society:

2 Ambassadors 1 Federal Reserve Banker 3 Public Interest Organizations

5 Senators 9 Corporate Executives 8 Law Firms

4 Members, House of 1 Cabinet Secretary - 1 Parliament Member

Representatives Transportation 1 Real Estate Firm

3 Governors 5 Media Outlets 1 Special Interest Organization

11 Academics 1 Columnist 1 Consultant

5 Union Executives 9 Bankers

Some of their names you will recognize:

James E. Carter, Jr., otherwise known as Jimmy Carter, who would go on to become President Carter, and who would bring Zbigniew Brzezinsk, founding Director of the Trilateral Commission, into his White House Administration as National Security Advisor.

Warren Christopher, who served as Deputy Attorney General under President Lyndon B. Johnson, then Deputy Secretary of State under President Jimmy Carter. During Bill Clinton’s term, he was Secretary of State from 1993 to 1997.

Walter F. Mondale, who was Jimmy Carter’s Vice President, and then the Democratic nominee in the 1984 presidential election.

Of course, these are not the only politicians who assigned their names to this published report and its worldview—there are plenty of Republican Commissioners. But I must say I, at least, was surprised to see these Democrats signing on: I would have thought their Democratic philosophical stances would have been at odds with the viewpoints expressed in this report.

Interestingly enough, there was a dissenting voice in this report. In the Appendix, Ralf Dahrendorf, Director of the London School of Economics, wrote:

“I do think that in order for democracies to cope with the new types of problems with which they are faced, they have to avoid a number of

mistakes. They must avoid the belief that the very progress which they made possible for a large number of citizens must now be undone

because it feels uncomfortable for some.

They have to avoid the belief that

a little more unemployment,

a little less education,

a little more deliberate discipline, and

a little less freedom of expression

would make the world a better place, in which it is possible to govern effectively.” (p. 194)

This statement, of course, runs directly counter to the viewpoints expressed in the Trilateral Commission Report. It is appears, however, that they carried very little weight, for even today, Wikipedia states that this report observed that “… in the the United States the problems of governance ‘stem from an excess of democracy,’”

and notes that

“Noam Chomsky has often cited the report as an example of the type of hostility towards popular democracy and tactics for suppressing it

that the 'liberal' wing of the state capitalist ruling elite’ tend to favor, as opposed to the reactionary wing.”

I think attaching this report, Jimmy Carter to the contrary, to liberals, is a cheap shot, since plenty of conservatives were involved in this project. And… many proposals in this report are deeply conservative: strong fiscal policy, less government spending, relaxed campaign finance laws.

What I think is altogether more likely—and something we need to wrap our minds around, like yesterday… is that there is something that can unite both conservatives and liberals. And that is power.

And that it is true:

The rich really don’t think like you and I do.

Until we understand that—really understand that—we will constantly, one way or another, be at each other’s throats, scrambling to rip the table scraps out of each other’s throats.

Think about it.

How have things progressed for the super rich in the 51 years since this report was written?

And how have We the People fared since that report came out?

_______________

(1) I say “men” because of the 71 North American Members of The Trilateral Commission, 68 were men and 3 were women (4.2%). One of these women was the Editor, Chatelaine Magazine, another was Former President, League of Women Voters of the United States, and the third was Distinguished Public Service Professor of Economics, University of Pittsburgh

(2) https://ia801308.us.archive.org/23/items/TheCrisisOfDemocracy-TrilateralCommission-1975/crisis_of_democracy_text.pdf

(3) Authored by Samuel P. Huntington, Professor of Government, Harvard University

(4) The prioritizing of equality

(5) “Democratic, liberal, and egalitarian” is Professor Huntington’s description of the American core values

(6) Co-authored by Professor Huntington, Michel Crozier, founder and director of the Centre de Sociologie des Organisations in Paris and Senior Research Director of the Centre Nationale de la Recherche Scientifique. the author of the Western European section, and Joji Watanuki, Professor of Sociology at Sophia University (Tokyo), the author of the Japanese section.

(7) https://government.georgetown.edu/news/democracy-governance/what-is-democracy/

(8) Professor Huntington’s description of this work

(9) “In addition to these democratic trends, and often interspersed with them there were also, of course, some markedly antidemocratic trends in the 1960s: elitist discrimination against middle-class groups (rationalized In the name of egalitarianism); the suppression of free speech (particularly on university campuses); and the resort by extremist minorities to physical coercion and violence. These activities formed, in a sense, the dark outriders of the democratic surge, swept up in the same sense of movement, but serving different goals with very different means.” (p. 60)

(10) The Federalist, no. 51

(11) Again, this section is authored by Professors Huntington, Crozier and Watanuki.

(12) Ambassador to the United Kingdom Elliott L. Richardson, Governor William Scranton of Pennsylvania, Senator Robert Taft Jr., Representative John B. Anderson