In every industrial democracy since the end of World War II, there has been a social contract between the few and the many. In return for receiving a disproportionate amount of the gains from economic growth in a capitalist economy, the rich paid a disproportionate percentage of the taxes needed for public goods and a safety net for the majority.[….]
Globalization has eliminated the first reason for the rich to continue supporting this bargain at the nation-state level, while the privatization of the military threatens the other rationale.[….] [T]he U.S. could become a kind of giant Aspen for the small population of the super-rich and their non-voting immigrant retainers. Many environmentalists might approve of the depopulation of North America, because sprawling suburbs would soon be reclaimed by the wilderness. And deficit hawks would be pleased as well. The middle-class masses dependent on Social Security and Medicare would have departed the country, leaving only the self-sufficient rich and foreign guest workers without any benefits, other than the charity of their employers.
One of the things I’ve been struck by recently is how increasingly brazen wealthy interests have become about running our government, whether it’s Meg Whitman blowing
8 figure of her own wealth on an election, the increasing prominence of the Chamber of Commerce, the breathless speculation about Michael Bloomberg and so on. Once upon a time, this might have been something that the media criticized, now they’re cheerleading it.
Update. I’m not claiming that the author of this article (Michael Lind) is cheerleading neofeudalism, I mean that Broder et al. are when they root for a Bloomberg presidency.