Aaron MacIntyre discusses McConnell, the Iron Law of Oligarchy and Aaron MacIntyre

Last week, Senator Minority Leader Mitch McConnell proudly stated that the sending of billions to Ukraine was the goal “number one priority” Republicans at a press conference where he celebrated the passage of a $1.7 trillion spending plan. This long-standing GOP figurehead was responsible for the disasterous 2022 midterm elections. He had spent crucial campaign funds on promising candidates such as Blake Masters in Arizona, but he wasn’t content to repeat tired establishment talking points.

McConnell has been a disgrace to the Republican base for years. But, despite Mitch’s repeated betrayal of GOP voters, he continues to enjoy his power position. The Kentucky senator regularly acts against conservatives’ wishes without fear of losing his seat and his leadership position. Why is the senator from Kentucky so vilified by his own base and so certain in his power?

In his book “Political Parties,” Robert Michels examined the behavior and motivations of representative governments. The political theorist begins with observations that seem obvious, but which are quickly forgotten by the pundit classes when they start debating the motives of political actors.

Michels says that no organization can ever be ruled by its entire body. An organized minority of members takes control of any institution, be it a church, a league of bowlers, a business or political party. Even though organizations are built on the principles of democratic input and accountability to their members, there is always a central group of leaders who guide their actions.

The fact that leadership is a natural phenomenon does not make it a condemnation of democracy. The existence of a leadership class is an inherent feature of all human endeavors. This was evident to the Founding Fathers. They organized the republic around representative democracy, not direct democracy. They knew that in a country the size of the United States it was impossible for the government to be run without leaders who could devote their attention to serving the interests of the people.

The feasibility of popular sovereignty could be questioned if, over time, the franchise grows and the democratic influence on the republic increases. Is democracy even possible if the democratic process invariably leads to the establishment of a leadership group that is totally immune from its consequences?

Michels observed a pattern emerge as he studied the socialist worker parties of Europe, the most powerful democratic force of his time. Average laborers who were gifted at oration were elevated by their fellow working class party members to speak out and organize for the collective. These trade union organizers often came from humble backgrounds and shared genuine interests with those who raised them. As the organization grows more complex and the management becomes more challenging, these talented individuals were forced to become specialists and dedicate their time and effort to running the party.

Although this was their first departure from the worker’s interests, it would not be the last. The professional representatives soon realized that the limited power they had was not sufficient to achieve their goals. So, the goal became the acquisition of more power. While the interest in gaining more power was often opposed to the immediate interests of constituents, it was justified as the ultimate goal of acquiring power was to keep the promises made by leadership to party members. As they gained more power and expertise, they were more important to the party’s ends, even though their interests diverged from the interests of the constituents they served. Michels says:

The democratic masses are therefore forced to accept a restriction of their freedoms, when they are made to obey their leaders’ authority. This is detrimental to the principle of democracy. The leader’s principal source of power is found in his indispensability. The leader who is indispensable holds all the masters and lords of the world in his hands. History of working-class parties is full of examples in which the leader was in clear contradiction with the fundamental principles. But, rank and file are unable to decide how to resolve this conflict. This is because they feel they cannot live without their leader and can not dispense with his qualities due to the position in which they have elevated him. And because they don’t see any way to replace him. Many are the trade union leaders and parliamentary orators who oppose the rank-and-file both theoretically and practical, but who still think and act in the best interests of the rank & file.

It may seem odd that conservatives would relate to an early 1900s European workers’ party, but the description of how a leader class separates itself from the interests its voters should be strikingly familiar. Even worse is the situation for the Republican base. While most would like McConnell to be replaced, McConnell’s skills, power and connections have rendered him virtually invulnerable to democratic processes.

Instead of making himself indispensable for the GOP base, McConnell has made himself indispensable for his fellow Republican politicians, and more importantly, the donor class that finances them. Mitch McConnell has made himself a shield by prioritizing the needs the oligarchical classes that drive the GOP agenda over those of the voters who legitimize the Republicans through popular sovereignty.

This phenomenon isn’t unique to Mitch McConnell or the GOP. It is a universal fact of human nature. Michels describes this natural tendency of social organization in the following way: “The Iron Law of Oligarchy.” As with all human governments and democratic systems, an elite class will eventually lead them.

This was not a reason for social scientists to abandon efforts to reduce the autocratic tendencies in human organization. Instead, it is a warning about an important aspect of all societies. The ruling class will have to be honest about their power and motives. Every nation will be run and governed by elites. Every civilization will have an elite that leads; the crucial questions are: “Do their interests align with the good of those they watch over, and can they be held accountable if the answer is no?”