“Democracy versus oligarchy”—the moment of choice
By Granite State Report
A recent post by Robert Reich, reflecting a now-familiar theme in his work, declared:
“It’s no longer left versus right or even Democrat versus Republican. It’s now democracy versus oligarchy. Freedom versus dictatorship. Right versus wrong. Millions hit the streets this weekend in solidarity with each other and to affirm the foundations of the common good.”
That line encapsulates a stark diagnosis of the American (and global) condition: we’re less in a traditional ideological contest (left vs. right) and more in a systemic contest over who governs, how power is distributed, whose interests are served. Reich has been making this argument for years:
“Today the great divide is not between left and right. It’s between democracy and oligarchy.”
In his book The System: Who Rigged It, How We Fix It, he frames oligarchy as rule “of and by a few exceedingly rich people or families who control the major institutions of society and therefore have power over other people’s lives.”
If we take that framing seriously, there’s a huge implication: the familiar partisan map (Democrat vs. Republican) might be an outdated frame for our core problem. What’s at stake isn’t just partisan control, but whether the many govern, or the few govern. This suggests the possibility — perhaps the necessity — of something different: a real independent-party alternative that can heal the wounds of division and re-orient politics away from the binary trap.
Why the binary (Democrat/Republican) is failing to heal
- Polarization and tribalization The two major parties have become not just competing ideologies, but tribes, with their own identity-markers, social networks, media ecosystems. That intensifies conflict, fosters suspicion, and often reduces policy debates to culture war skirmishes rather than structural choices.
- Both parties embedded in the system If Reich is right that the systemic divide is oligarchy vs. democracy, then both major parties may be compromised to some degree. Big money, special interests, institutional inertia—all make it difficult for either party to fully break from the status quo. Reich writes that “Americans who are angry and suspicious of one another will fight over the crumbs rather than join together against those who have run off with most of the pie.”
- Wounds of distrust When politics becomes zero-sum and hyper-partisan, large segments of the population feel excluded, ignored or maligned. The result: democracy’s legitimacy is weakened. People stop believing that government is “for us” as opposed to “for someone else.”
- Loss of a unifying vision The quote asks us to look up from our partisan trenches and see that the foundational contest may be deeper: Are we living in a society where power is widely shared, or where it’s narrowly held? That question goes beyond traditional left/right divides (taxes vs. spending; welfare vs. markets) into the architecture of governance itself.
The case for an independent-party alternative
If the two-party frame is no longer adequate to the problem, then an independent option might offer a pathway to repair. Here’s how and why:
- A new alignment: An independent party could present itself not as “left” or “right” but as pro-democracy, pro-participation, pro-governance by the many. It could appeal across traditional divides: younger voters, unaffiliated independents, frustrated partisans, people who feel politically homeless.
- Breaking the zero-sum trap: By offering an alternative outside the polarized binary, an independent movement could reduce the incentive for “vote for my team or you lose” logic, and invite issue-based cooperation, cross-ideological dialogue, and coalition-building on structural reforms.
- Structural reform agenda: A party focused on democracy vs. oligarchy could emphasise reforms such as campaign-finance overhaul, anti-monopoly regulation, worker-owned firms, voter-access and civic participation. Reich identifies these as ideas that cannot be neatly classified as merely “left” or “right.”
- Healing civic wounds: An independent party would have the opportunity to prioritise healing political wounds—restoring trust, emphasising shared citizenship, reducing demonisation of the “other side,” and emphasising that democracy is a project of “us,” not “them.”
What such a party must avoid (and what it must do)
- It must not become another small-niche interest group. To succeed, it must scale, build broad coalitions, and articulate a plausible agenda for governance, not just protest.
- It must not abandon ideological clarity under the guise of “centrism.” The question isn’t “moderate left vs moderate right” — the question is “who governs and how?” The new party must have a clear theory of change and structural agenda.
- It must design institutional reforms into its identity from day one: How will it prevent becoming captured? How will it engage activism and grassroots participation? How will it handle money in politics if that is one of the defining issues?
- It must frame politics in public-good terms, not simply redistributional terms. As Reich says: the agenda that unites is “neither right nor left. It is the bedrock for everything else America must do.”
- It must engage voters with authenticity—people are deeply cynical about politics. A party promising “something different” must deliver visible differences: transparency, participatory mechanisms, perhaps citizen assemblies, policy co-creation, etc.
Why this matters for New Hampshire
Here in New-Hampshire we have the advantage of being a smaller state politically (with its first-in-the-nation primary heritage, engaged citizenry). This environment could serve as a laboratory for an independent movement:
- High civic participation means mobilising independents is plausible.
- Local issues (economic viability of rural communities, small business vitality, broadband access, healthcare access) can be framed in “governance vs captured interests” terms rather than partisan culture war terms.
- A successful example here could scale or inspire elsewhere.
- New Hampshire’s political culture (with a large independent voter bloc) means the electorate may be more receptive to a party defined outside the two-party mold.
A modest conclusion — and an invitation
The quote from Robert Reich reminds us: the fight is deeper than red vs blue—it’s about who holds power, and how it is wielded. In that battle the familiar two-party framework may no longer serve society’s healing and renewal needs. An independent-party alternative offers a potential way out of the binary trap, but only if it is grounded in structural reform, broad civic inclusion, and a shared vision of governance by the many rather than the few.
The wounds of political division run deep: distrust of institutions, suspicion of “other side” voters, cynicism about whether democratic government works. But these wounds also present an opening. A new political formation can help replace battleground anxiety with civic purpose, fear with hope, narrow identity politics with broad community-building.
In the Granite State and beyond, the emerging question is not simply “which party wins?” but “what kind of democracy do we want?” If the choice is really democracy vs oligarchy, then the answer demands more than picking one of the old teams—it demands a fresh path.
