Winner Take All Politics Analysis

Tanisha Johnson
Winner Take All Politics

Former white house press secretary Bill Moyer interviews a professor, Jacob Hacker of Harvard University and political scientist Paul Pierson of Yale University. The purpose of the interview was to discuss a book they wrote called Winner Take All Politics: How Washington Made The Rich Richer- and turned its back on the middle class. Hacker and Pierson believe after the broad land era between the 1930s and late 1960s, America’s economy took a turn for the worst. A vast amount of socioeconomic inequality began and the disturbing part is that they believe this was not done by accident. Hacker and Pierson go into detailed facts about how this life changing event in society was politically engineered and

organized by some of the wealthiest riches people in America. During this period of time grew an imbalance of power within the economy. The rich became richer while the middle class (and working class) fell lower in socioeconomic status.
Hacker and Pierson previously thought the economy was a part of this new globalized society; where companies and entrepreneurs were able to interact with different people, companies, and governments of different nations.

They thought with a good amount of higher education people would succeed thus creating a healthy economy. They have abandoned that theory because the 2008 recession was proof that theory had failed. Hacker and Pierson now understand that America’s huge economic downfall was not because of changing economic conditions but is a result of politics. When only one social class controls politics then the economic system will be in favor of that social class. Hacker and Pierson asked “how a nation as wealthy as America, can the economy just stop working for people?” Hacker and Pierson found the cause of this growing economic inequality was caused by what’s be referred to as “organized

political combat” orchestrated by the wealthiest Americans in the United States. The wealthy decided to use their wealth to make policies and laws that worked in their favor. They did this by abusing “Citizen’s United” which basically made it so corporations have no limit on how much money is donated to political campaigns. Donating a substantial amount of money to political campaigns makes a great influencing relationship. This is how the wealthy elite class gained power over politics. The power to influence politicians came with power over lobbyist, policy makers, and legislators as well. With the government being controlled by the elite class organizations began operating less proactive. The same organizations successfully helped raise tax exemptions for the wealthy which included themselves. To do this they empowered board of directors and shareholders to regulate and attack labor unions. They were able to change policies and prevented them from being changed back anytime soon.
On a regular basis the financial industry, mainly influenced by the elite class, pushed the notion that the economy should and will have a free market. One result in this a huge housing bubble caused by deregulation, which was the subprime of mortgages. The gap in socioeconomic status became enormous. Capitalist classes (the wealthy) increased power and influenced capitalist that made up the top 20% with the top 1% becoming more and more wealthy, leaving the middle and working class left out. More than half of the nation’s income went to the richest top 1%, Hacker and Pierson called it “hyper concentration of income”. Benefits like retirement and health insurance for the other 99% were cut while the population began drowning in debt. Even after becoming highly educated, the middle still didn’t have a chance in the reconstructed economy.
Supporters of Neo Classical theory, an economic theory followed by the wealthy, believe in moral individualism. They believed that with a higher education people should thrive within the economy. Hacker and Pierson challenged that by pointing out that this massive rise in social inequality is unique in the United States other countries haven’t faced the same problem. Other countries with higher education differences still have less socioeconomic inequality. Another challenge Hacker and Pierson stated was how the economy did not rise as a result of market forces. Government officials set policies in place with rules of the “free market in ways that favored top earners in the U.S. (e.g. the dismantling of tax rates over a few decades, while minimum wage stayed the same). There are a lot of people that believe and are in agreeance that economic inequality has grown tremendously. Hacker and Pierson feel that with funding and where the influences of political parties & government lye are key. The kind of capitalism that you have depends on the kind of government you have and this determines the balance of power within the economic system.
Bush tax cuts were in favor of the rich which included himself.

This caused the elite class to have lower marginal rates while middle class and the poor only fell into debt. The tax cuts illustrate Hacker and Pierson’s allegations that politics in fact was the main factor in the 2000s recession. Middle class became very pessimistic about politics. Hacker and Pierson made it clear that the ruling power over the economy goes to the ruling class which so happens to be the upper elite. This explains middle and working classes pessimism towards politics. The middle and working class retreat from the political aspects of the economy because they have little power to influence politics. They feel as though they don’t have a voice which gave the elite the majority influence. The top 20% vote on a large range of issues through passing bills, laws, and policies the top 1% don’t listen to poor or middle class when it comes to politics causing the middle class to be cynical towards politics. This way of thinking became a continued cycle for the 99% causing disengagement within politics in the winner take all economy that had been organized by the top

20%.
In conclusion, Hacker and Pierson have very similar views as Keynesian political economist. They are pro capitalism and feel that with a strong and active government the economy will thrive. They believe capitalism will give balance of power. They are against the free market economy and prefer a different approach to that kind of capitalism. They feel the government needs to regulate the market by controlling supply and demand. While Hacker and Pierson have very similar views as Keynesian’s they also have a similar view as the Marxist political economist (but are more similar to Keynesian views). They share a view about the economy needing capitalism and the need for equalized power. However, the Marxist doesn’t agree with Hacker and Pierson that capitalism will in fact equalize power. The Marxist think that because of centralized economic power within capitalism there will never be an equal balance of power, there will always be unjust. Marxist feel to have true equality within the economy than the economy has to be fully reconstructed all together. Hacker and Pierson have hopes that with continued globalization that the gap in socioeconomic status will change for the better.