Editor’s Note: All opinions, columns and letters reflect the views of the individual writer and not necessarily those of the IDS or its staffers.
Last week, I submitted a guest column to the IDS in support of my new club, Abundance at IU. Then, on Sunday, an opinion column was published attempting to rebuke some of the pillars of our new organization. The article’s primary criticism was that our vision of an effective government ignores the outsized influence of the rich and powerful.
The retaliatory column first examines the concept of “vetocracy” but ends up undermining its own argument. Vetocracy refers to government action being guided by dispersed veto power rather than democratic consensus. This has become a common story in the United States, such as when homeowners stall new development, increasing the price of housing. The column claims this process is “akin to checks and balances.” But unlike checks and balances, undemocratic veto power is not a fundamental feature of the U.S. Constitution.
The column examines two cases of community opposition to new data centers in Indiana, pointing out that the community with more social power achieves a better result. This is exactly why vetocracy is so bad for democracy. This same scenario plays out when communities oppose public projects. Right now, those who already have social and political capital will always overpower those who lack it. This means government projects meant to benefit the common good are stalled or canceled at the behest of the rich and powerful, subverting the democratic process.
The column goes on to claim that the Abundance movement ignores the prospect of government capture by corporations and the 1%. However, Steve Teles, whose work is referenced in the column as representative of Abundance, literally wrote the book on regulatory capture. It is true that a more effective government will only benefit us if it works in our interest, and when we talk about effectiveness, we mean the ability to work for voters, not dollars.
While I do appreciate the constructive tone of the column, I don’t agree with the criticisms made, nor do I think the column offers a convincing national-level alternative to solving the problems I discuss. I would encourage those of you who still disagree with the ideas of our club to come and discuss them with us at our next meetings. We’re a discussion-based organization, and discussions aren’t useful without disagreement.
Luke Saxton-Stivers (he/him) is a senior studying political science, sociology and economics. He recently founded Abundance at IU and is the Chief Justice of the Student Government Supreme Court.
