I’m skeptical of this on first read. It would take a lot more thinking and some research to decide what parts of it I think are correct. But it’s an interesting piece because (to me at least) it’s a completely novel lens on US politics.
Separate from its ideological composition, the peculiar power of American philanthropy likely weakens U.S. state capacity, creating intrinsic barriers to the left’s vision of social democracy. Sweden and Norway, for example, have some of the lowest rates of nonprofit employment in Europe, rivaled only by former communist countries. Yet they also have some of the highest rates of social capital. The secret seems to be Scandinavia’s rich history of mutual aid, which culminated in universal, publicly administered social programs that crowded out the need for third-party providers, combined with sector-wide collective bargaining agreements that reduced the need for “advocacy without representation.” It’s a legacy that’s recently begun to reverse under what most leftist sociologists would recognize as the dreaded influence of neoliberalism.
In this light, the conflation of “the neoliberal turn” with Reaganomics is about two decades too late. Instead, the regime change that displaced member-led parties and the countervailing power of robust labor unions first started in the mid-1960s, when large foundations swelled on post-war growth and tax avoidance to fill the void. Collective bargaining and machine politics were summarily replaced with a technocratic “policy state.” And what’s a policy state without policy experts? Thus the modern advocate was born.
Needless to say, the results have been mixed.