A plutocracy is a political system where power is concentrated in the hands of a small number of wealthy people, usually those with inherited wealth and wealthy families (plutocracies are often also aristocracies). America is supposed to be a democracy, where power is in the hands of all the people. Is George W. Bush trying to shift us from the latter to the former?

In the Washington Monthly, John Kenneth Galbraith argues that he is:

Bush's top economic priority has always been to cut taxes on the wealthy; as he famously said, the "have-mores" are his political base. The marginal income-tax rate, the estate tax, the tax on dividends, and the proceeds of the profits tax all fell sharply in his first term. His second term could finish the job, shifting the tax base to consumption, perhaps even abolishing the income tax for a value-added tax (as Republican Speaker Dennis Hastert now suggests). Virtually the whole tax burden will then fall on the middle class, on working Americans, and on the poor.

All of this brings to mind the late 19th century, a time of budding empires, rapacious trusts, Social Darwinism, and populist upheaval; when economic battles raged over plutocracy and consumption taxes, chronic unemployment, rising poverty, and financing wars of conquest; and when the world economy was dominated by financial panics and the commodity cycle. George Bush and his allies have been modeling themselves on William McKinley, the champion of vested interests in the Gilded Age.

Fortunately for America, McKinley was succeeded by Teddy Roosevelt, a progressive Republican who fought the monopolies and favored the environment, and then by Woodrow Wilson, a Democrat who brought us the income tax and inspired the search for a global system of collective security. True, it took another generation to break finally with rule by the corporate rich. But eventually, there did come the Great Depression and Franklin Roosevelt, who gave us public works, Social Security, the National Labor Relations Act, and the SEC.

The cozy plutocracy of McKinley and his successors--Taft, Harding, Coolidge, Hoover--could not stand before the needs of the modern world. It can't be brought back now. Bush's effort to do so will bring misery for many, perhaps for many years. But the final outcome is not in doubt. Bush's second term, if it comes, will fail, and America will thereafter change course; democracy and common sense will assert themselves in the end.

There are populists in both the Democratic and Republican parties and populists are, by definition, not the sort who would support anything that moves the nation towards something like a plutocracy. William Jennings Bryan is a good example of a populist who was very conservative, especially on religious matters (he is more commonly known today for his anti-evolution activism rather than his populist activism, which is unfortunate).

Is George W. Bush a populist? I don't think so. He tries to appeal to his "base" of conservative evangelicals and fundamentalists, but his policies are not generally designed to benefit them except when it comes to their obsession with sexual morality. On economic matters, his policies are actually contrary to the interests of his base. Could plutocracy actually be one of Bush's goals? Probably not by name and not explicitly, but a general desire to see more power in the hands of the "haves" and those "better suited" to wield authority might be a goal.

Read More:

• 2004 Elections
• Election Polls
• George W. Bush
• John Kerry