American politics: Will Rogers overheard out on the front porch

By TR Harry | Scottsdale

OPINION — If Will Rogers were here today, he might have something to say:

Well, I’ve been watching this country for a spell now, and I’ll tell you something that may not sit easy: we’ve still got all the trimmings of democracy, but the stew tastes more and more like it was cooked up by a handful of folks who own the kitchen. The rest of us get to sniff the broth and hope they ladle out a little our way.

Now, some high‑minded scholars call it “oligarchy,” others say “plutocracy,” and a few dress it up as “elite capture.” But out here on the front porch, we don’t need fancy labels. If the same small crowd keeps deciding what’s on the menu, and the rest of us keep getting whatever scraps fall off the table, well, that’s all the definition we need.

It didn’t happen overnight. Back in the ’70s, business groups figured out Washington was easier to influence than the weather, and they’ve been tuning the political climate ever since. By the time the billionaires showed up with their super PACs and private jets, the door was already wide open. So here we are: the people still vote, but the money talks louder, longer and in better venues.

I’m not saying the country’s gone to the dogs. I’m just saying the dogs seem to have better lobbyists. Kinda makes some of us wonder what with all the hullabaloo  we give to voting our political representatives in (or out), how did we get to this unsavory bill of fare?

Now, Will might have just shrugged and said something like “the fix was in.” End of story. But his homespun, rocking-chair take on our national political situation was teasingly insightful, and his final question rightfully begs the real issue, how did we get from there to here? You can just nod your head in agreement with Will, or If you want the long version — the one the scholars argue over — it goes something like this:

For more than half a century, American governance has drifted toward a system in which wealth, not citizenship, increasingly determines political influence. The forms of democracy remain — elections, parties, institutions — but the substance has thinned as concentrated economic power shapes policy outcomes more reliably than public opinion.

Whether one calls this oligarchy, plutocracy or elite capture, the practical reality is the same: a small, economically fortified minority exerts disproportionate control over national direction, while the broad public is left with symbolic participation and diminishing leverage. This is not a sudden rupture but the cumulative result of structural choices since the 1970s, choices that have steadily shifted the balance of political power upward and away from the many.

How the dynamic developed: 1970 → 2026, (or how the kitchen was redesigned):

1970s: The pivot, or stirring the pot, developing the menu

• Stagnation, inflation and global competition pressured U.S. industry.

• Business groups reorganized politically (e.g., the Powell Memo, 1971), building the modern lobbying and think‑tank ecosystem.

• Campaign finance began its long march toward deregulation.

1980s: Consolidation of corporate political power, the new kitchen opens

• Deregulation and tax restructuring increased wealth concentration.

• PACs and industry associations expanded dramatically.

• The financial sector grew in political clout, shaping regulatory priorities.

1990s: Globalization and its discontents, a good menu  for some, a bad meal for many.

• Trade liberalization (NAFTA, WTO) delivered broad economic gains but concentrated losses.

• Policymakers underestimated the political consequences of regional industrial decline.

• Wealth inequality accelerated; elite influence deepened through both parties.

2000s: The digital and financial era, a kitchen equipment problem

• The dot‑com boom and financialization created new elite classes.

• The 2008 crisis revealed the degree to which policy outcomes favored large financial institutions.

• Public trust in institutions declined sharply.

2010s: Citizens United and the rise of billionaire politics; the menu wasn’t just set, the kitchen had been remodeled to suit the chefs

• Unlimited independent expenditures transformed campaign finance.

• Super PACs, dark money networks and donor‑driven policy shops flourished.

• Empirical studies (e.g., Gilens & Page) showed average citizens had near‑zero independent influence on federal policy.

2020s: Entrenchment and polarization, the financial vs democratic promotion of the chefs

• Wealth concentration reached levels not seen since the 1920s.

• Billionaires became central political actors — funding media, advocacy networks, and digital platforms.

• Populist rhetoric surged, but policy outcomes continued to track elite preferences.

• By 2026, the U.S. retained democratic institutions but exhibited unmistakable oligarchic and plutocratic characteristics in practice. 

A non-obvious insight: the most important takeaway is not simply that elites have influence — that has always been true. The key shift is the scale and integration of elite influence such as unlimited political spending (post-Citizens United); concentration of wealth in the top 0.1%, elite control of media ecosystems, lobbying power that dwarfs mass membership groups; and policy inertia that tracks elite preferences even across administrations. The chefs didn’t just take over the kitchen, they bought the building, rewrote the recipes and hired the critics!

The uncomfortable truth is that America’s political architecture now runs on two operating systems: the democratic one  we recite in civics class and the oligarchic one that actually processes the inputs. The first gives us rituals — elections, slogans, patriotic reassurance. The second gives us outcomes — policy shaped by wealth, access purchased by money and a governing class increasingly insulated from the consequences of its own decisions.

We can pretend this is an accident of history, or we can admit what the evidence shows: a half‑century of structural drift has delivered us to a place where the many participate, but the few decide. And unless we confront that fact honestly, we will continue mistaking the shadow of democracy for the thing itself.

And another uncomfortable truth: our society doesn’t seem to build homes with “front porches” much anymore. Maybe that’s part of the trouble. A society without these venues ends up with fewer places to locally congregate, to argue, to listen and fewer chances to remember that democracy is supposed to be a shared meal not a catered event. Yeah, it’s near impossible to protect, let alone enjoy, a democracy when nobody’s sitting out front taking its temperature with their neighbors. Pity about that, don’t you think? Sorry, Will.

TR Harry is the pen name of a Scottsdale-based author who writes primarily about politics and religion on his blog. Please submit comments at yourvalley.net/letters or email them to AzOpinions@iniusa.org. We are committed to publishing a wide variety of reader opinions, as long as they meet our Civility Guidelines.