G. William Domhoff’s Who Rules America? was an enlightening read that unveiled the intricacies of the corporate rich in America. I consistently believe that the upper class have disproportionate influence in our country, yet Domhoff’s book was illuminating because it provided a concise and understandable framework for precisely how the corporate rich triumph. He reminded the reader of this general framework throughout the book which was conducive to a deeper comprehension to how the multiple components of his argument fit together. This kept his presentation from seeming like a random assortment of facts. While Domhoff’s continual reminders of his general class-domination framework proved useful and thought-provoking, some pages were devoted to subjects that dulled his overall argument. For example, five lengthy pages were devoted to the inner-workings and rituals of the eldritch Bohemian Grove. The Bohemian Grove is an example of the corporate rich’s supercilious connected activities, however the minute details about the statues they praise or songs they sing were uninteresting. Albeit, this is minor and Who Rules America? is fascinating because it does not rely on a specific time- period in American history or geographic region. It is all encompassing, which is slightly overwhelming and alarming. Ultimately, Domhoff shines in his historical recount of the concentration of wealth in America, as well as providing concrete, nuanced support for his argument, however his class-domination theory lacks some acute racial consciousness.
Domhoff immediately tells us that a sizeable concentration of wealth did not suddenly begin before or after the American civil war or during some other later time. Rather, he provides details illustrating how the well-to-do concentrated their wealth, and later gained and used influence for favorable outcomes throughout the 19th century. Groups like the “Boston Associates” were early wealth concentrators in America. (Domhoff 19). This history of concentrated wealth is central to his argument because it gives credence to the idea that our country has existed and continues to exist with the wealthy’s interests remaining a top priority. I found this point critical because I know many Americans who believe the current concentration of wealth is because of decaying values or years of ineffective government policy. The reality is since the early days of the republic; our economic system has allowed a group of people to control industries and thus center wealth. I feel that citizens faced with these disconcerting facts may lose confidence or faith in the American belief system. The idea that there is no moral dilemma with a few people controlling most of that nation’s wealth because “that could be you”—might seem less reassuring if more Americans knew this history. Only if most citizens understood that the wealth of America has always been concentrated—they might demand radical change and refuse incremental reform legislation. Perhaps Americans whom are aware of the history of concentrated wealth choose to minimize the reality to conform to the notions of the American belief system.
Further, Domhoff argues that the corporate rich have been able to benefit, govern, and win by transforming their economic power into an influential policy apparatus alongside excessive political access (Domhoff xiii). Most Americans know that a corporate community exists, as well as an upper class. However, Domhoff brilliantly connects the overlap between the corporate community and upper class to make up the corporate rich. This fact is important because as Domhoff says, it imparts social cohesion which promotes policy cohesion (Domhoff 13). Domhoff provides ample evidence of this social cohesion, and I generally agree with his idea. I even found supporting evidence for cohesion between the upper class and corporate community. For instance, a prominent private social club in Columbus, Ohio, The Athletic Club of Columbus, had millionaire Dave Thomas (founder of Wendy’s) as a member up until his death in 2002. The club also sports various well-connected and wealthy past members. Moreover, Domhoff’s elucidation on the function of the board of directors in the corporate world should have stressed the identities of typical board members. He presents his case in a way that seems as if we live in a post-racial utopia where the corporate rich assimilate the few minorities; and other than that the corporate rich have begrudgingly adapted to the multicultural calls of the 21st century. This is further from the truth. While, minorities are progressively attaining board member slots— less than 10% of them serve on more than one (Dill). A class-domination theory should reflect on the potential for diverse, new people that may be apt toward creating a regulated, ethical capitalistic system. This is unlikely, though I believe the possibility should be entertained in Domhoff’s argument.
Further, I agree with Domhoff’s analysis of the corporate rich’s policy-planning network except in the role he assigns to foundations. Domhoff contends that foundations are extensions of the corporate community and serve their goals. He argues that the corporate rich usually support various foundations on liberal social issues because their programs do not challenge the overall class structure (Domhoff 88). Domhoff’s generalization minimizes the individual actors within these foundation-supported organizations, and the diverse array of their moral pursuits. For example, the Ford Foundation funds various programs devoted to economic inclusivity and higher education attainment. These programs aim to grant lower-class Americans the opportunity to obtain a higher-education. This in turn creates a group of lower-class Americans whom are well-informed, deliberate, and aware of the general happenings in our society. I would argue an increasing number of lower-class Americans receiving a higher education posits them in a unique position to challenge the class structure. Their humble beginnings might make them less likely to assimilate to the corporate rich’s culture. Domhoff needs to provide stronger evidence on foundations supporting specific corporate goals. His argument must also give individual citizens more credit and autonomy. Foundations funnel money to community-based organizations, which affect many people at the local level. Domhoff’s argument should contemplate this idea, and the possibility it has for the building of social and economic justice movements at the grassroots level.
Lastly, Domhoff mentions how historically certain Americans have used their shared identity of “being white” to form solidarity. Domhoff contends that the salience of race has prevented a higher citizenry emphasis on class (Domhoff 9). I agree with Domhoff’s assessment; however, I was hoping he would better integrate the perverseness of white supremacy in America. In his chapters on the corporate rich’s policy-planning network and parties and elections—he could have included how lower-class minorities (Latinos and African Americans) are affected far worse than lower-class whites by certain corporate rich policies. Take the Business Roundtable’s 1990 effort to weaken regulations of the Clean Air Act—it is known that pollution affects minorities disproportionally (Katz). Domhoff could have included this fact and others. An accurate American class-domination theory must take in account the frequent ways in which race intersects with class. After all, our country is one of different people with multiple class, racial, and ethnic identities. In America, race and class are ever-related and interdependent.
Nonetheless, Domhoff presents a compelling case that a ruling class exists in America. He provides the history and mechanisms in which they exert their resources to ensure their interests remain of great importance. I partially disagree with the role Domhoff assigns foundations in his theory due to the minimization of passionate, energetic actors. His argument also could have been refined with a higher emphasis placed on the ways in which race intersects with class divisions. Also, a clearer distinction between Democrats’ and Republicans’ relationship with the corporate rich would improve the clarity of his theory. Who Rules America? was a rousing, but disturbing read that has prompted me to have more interest in the history of class in America.