The Iron Law of Institutions: What You Need to Know About Voting in the 2020 Primary

Bernie Sanders, making Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer cry

by Thomas Neuburger

"The head of Third Way, the corporate wing of the Democratic Party, said, 'Bernie Sanders is an existential threat to the Democratic Party.' I agree with him. I am. I want to convert the Democratic Party, to break its dependency on big money and corporate interests, and make it a party of working-class people, of young people, of all people who believe in justice."
—Bernie Sanders, October 28, 2019

In an absolutely brilliant and much quoted piece, "Democrats and the Iron Law of Institutions," Jonathan Schwarz wrote this in 2007:

Democrats operate according to the Iron Law of Institutions. The Iron Law of Institutions is: the people who control institutions care first and foremost about their power within the institution rather than the power of the institution itself. Thus, they would rather the institution "fail" while they remain in power within the institution than for the institution to "succeed" if that requires them to lose power within the institution.

This is true for all human institutions, from elementary schools up to the United States of America. If history shows anything, it's that this cannot be changed.

This fully explains a phenomenon that's became more than obvious during the 2016 election — that Democrats, or those in control of the Party, would rather lose with Clinton, who will keep them in power, than win with Sanders, who will work to remove them if they don't support his agenda.

Put more simply: Current Democratic leaders would rather lose to Trump and stay in power than lose to Sanders and be replaced.

George McGovern and the 1972 Election

Schwarz provides several examples, including this telling (and pertinent) one from the 1970s:

Probably the best writing about this at the political party level was done by the late Walter Karp. Karp points out in Buried Alive that before the 1972 elections there was a huge influx of new people and energy into the Democratic party from the anti-war and civil rights movements. This was enough to get McGovern nominated. But here's what happened then, as Karp describes it:

As soon as McGovern was nominated, party leaders began systematically slurring and belittling him, while the trade union chieftains refused to endorse him on the pretense that this mild Mr. Pliant was a being wild and dangerous. A congressional investigation of Watergate was put off for several months to deprive McGovern's candidacy of its benefits. As an indiscreet Chicago ward heeler predicted in the fall of 1972, McGovern is "gonna lose because we're gonna make sure he's gonna lose"...So deftly did party leaders "cut the top of the ticket" that while Richard Nixon won in a "landslide," the Democrats gained two Senate seats.

Could McGovern have won if he'd been fully supported by the status quo powers with the Democratic party? Impossible to say. But they didn't want to take any chances: they preferred to make sure he lost the election, because his winning it would have meant newcomers would dilute their power within the party. That's the Iron Law of Institutions in action.

With a vibrant anti-Vietnam war movement alive in the nation, a movement that propelled McGovern — a World War II hero, let's not forget — to the nomination, Democratic Party leaders and their supporting ecosystem chose to undercut their own nominee, preferring to lose to Richard Nixon than lose to all the new faces the Party was attracting.

In that, they succeeded, just as they succeeded in 2016.

Would Party leaders have preferred to win against Nixon and Trump? Of course, but not if it cost them control of the Party itself.

What Can Be Done About This?

This problem — what to do about a party whose goals are not your own, but whose enemy is worse than they are — produces a first-rate blackmail situation, a variation on the old threat, "Vote for us or the kid gets it" — the "kid" in this case being the whole rest of the nation, and "it" being Republican rule.

Shorter Dem leaders: "Vote for our evil or the nation gets a worse one."

Schwarz suggests a way out, one I've been advocating as well. Put simply, go to the source of the problem and remove the leaders. Schwarz (bolded emphasis mine):

So what does this mean for John Caruso's (and everyone's) frustration with the Democrats today? A lot of things, such as:

1. The voting booth is by no means "the only place that Democrats care about what you do." In fact, from their perspective, by the time you get to the general election much of the game is over. Withholding your November vote from candidates they like but you don't will, at most, make them a little sad. Often they'd prefer it, if that's the price of keeping you out of their hair the rest of the time. That's why they don't try to appeal to the ~50% of Americans who don't vote.

2. If you want to motivate powerful Democrats, attempt to threaten their power within the party, not the well-being of the party overall. Of course, this is easier said than done, particularly because much of the power within the party is (as Karp would put it) an unelected Democratic oligarchy. For instance, Pelosi's status as Speaker can be challenged straightforwardly. Getting at the source of the party oligarchy's power, which is money and institutions outside of electoral politics, is much more difficult.

3. Any serious attempt to transform the Democratic party would include a conscious attempt to change its culture, into one that celebrates different people: organizers rather than elected officials and donors. Culture only seems like a weak reed. It's in fact the most powerful motivation people have. If people are celebrated for acting for the good of the whole rather than just themselves, they'll act for the good of the whole. Likewise, a better culture would humble the "leaders," to discourage those with individualistic motivations from seeking the positions. A Democratic party that worked would require Charles Schumer and Steny Hoyer and anyone who donated over $5000 a year to clean the Capitol toilets.

4. If you don't believe the Democratic party is redeemable, don't get your hopes up that another party would end up being much better. Any other party would also be subject to the Iron Law of Institutions. It thus would be quickly just as dreadful as the Democrats...unless people put in the same amount of work as would be required to clean out the Democrats' Augean stables.

5. Generally speaking, don't expect too much from political parties, and certainly don't expect them to change much in less than a generation. And in any case, keep in mind much of the power in society lies elsewhere.

A comment about his fourth and fifth points: First, he's right about third party challenges. All parties are subject to the Iron Law, and reforming a different, and much smaller, party offers the same challenges as reforming the (massively corrupt at the leadership level) Democratic Party does. In addition, given the structural challenges faced by any third party in our rigged-for-two-parties system, the effort would be wasted and wasted completely.

Second, we don't have a generation in which to do this. The next generation is lost if we don't succeed now. The current generation of Americans is the absolute last one with a chance to significantly mitigate the twin disasters sitting at our door — the rebellion from both the left and the right against billionaire control of the nation; and the coming, complete and global chaos that a radically changed climate will cause.

Massive yearly fires in California is just the appetizer. The main course is much more dramatic, deadly and universal. Consider Florida for just one local instance; now consider what happens in the entire U.S. when all Florida real estate goes to zero in value — in a week — thanks to a Hurricane Haiyan–like event. Just as fires in California are not outliers, stories like that won't be outliers either.

The Solution Is Obvious

Of course the answer to this problem is obvious — remove from power Democratic leaders who don't "change their ways" at the earliest opportunity and the fastest possible rate. The price for not doing that — or at least attempting it — is the quality of life, if they have one at all, of our children and grandchildren.

Would Democratic leaders like Schumer and Pelosi sacrifice your grandchildren for their power? They would say no, of course, but their actions say something different.

Which leads us to the 2020 election, in particular the Democratic primary, and in further particular, to the three leading candidates:

• Bernie Sanders, who has declared he's an existential threat to the culture of the Democratic Party and is hated for it
• Elizabeth Warren, who has signaled she will work for strong progressive change within the existing Party structure
• Joe Biden, who embodies in his personal past and present the existing Party structure and culture

The choice is ours.