What do you think?
Rate this book
The Anti-Oligarchy Constitution: Reconstructing the Economic Foundations of American Democracy
Oligarchy is a threat to the American republic. When too much economic and political power is concentrated in too few hands, we risk losing the "republican form of government" the Constitution requires. But as Joseph Fishkin and William Forbath show in this retelling of constitutional history, a commitment to prevent oligarchy once stood at the center of a robust tradition in American political and constitutional thought.
Fishkin and Forbath demonstrate that reformers, legislators, and even judges working in this "democracy-of-opportunity" tradition understood that the Constitution imposes a duty on legislatures to thwart oligarchy and promote a broad distribution of wealth and political power. During Reconstruction, Radical Republicans argued in this tradition that racial equality required breaking up the oligarchy of the Slave Power and distributing wealth and opportunity to former slaves and their descendants. President Franklin Roosevelt and the New Dealers built their politics around this tradition, winning the fight against the "economic royalists" and "industrial despots."
Today this tradition in progressive American economic and political thought lies dormant. The Anti-Oligarchy Constitution begins the work of recovering it and exploring its profound implications for our deeply unequal society and badly damaged democracy.
Fishkin and Forbath demonstrate that reformers, legislators, and even judges working in this "democracy-of-opportunity" tradition understood that the Constitution imposes a duty on legislatures to thwart oligarchy and promote a broad distribution of wealth and political power. During Reconstruction, Radical Republicans argued in this tradition that racial equality required breaking up the oligarchy of the Slave Power and distributing wealth and opportunity to former slaves and their descendants. President Franklin Roosevelt and the New Dealers built their politics around this tradition, winning the fight against the "economic royalists" and "industrial despots."
Today this tradition in progressive American economic and political thought lies dormant. The Anti-Oligarchy Constitution begins the work of recovering it and exploring its profound implications for our deeply unequal society and badly damaged democracy.
Audible Audio
Published July 18, 2023
48 people are currently reading
610 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews
February 12, 2022
The usual fear mongering: protect some god, in this case ”the Republic”. Or shorter: a proposed solution of turning the United States into North Korea without much protest. The two authors just happen to be part of the parasitic class, living the good life off Uncle Sam's taxes, so there is also a conflict of interests.
December 24, 2022
A well written tour of US legal/political history that shows how the bounds of constitutional interpretation + the public’s relationship to constitutional arguments have changed over time. Argues that progressives should recenter in their arguments the affirmative obligations the constitution imposes (or at least suggests) for the government to advance prosperity that is grounded in non-domination / positive freedom—which entails reducing oligarchy because concentrations of wealth distort democracy.
I agree to some extent with many of the central claims of the book and think this level of analysis provides a helpful complement to the nascent supply side progressivism that aims to un-clog the various bottlenecks holding back us back from more abundance and prosperity.
I agree to some extent with many of the central claims of the book and think this level of analysis provides a helpful complement to the nascent supply side progressivism that aims to un-clog the various bottlenecks holding back us back from more abundance and prosperity.
April 6, 2025
Joseph Fishkin and William Forbath have written an extremely detailed tour of the concepts of political economy and the democracy of opportunity tradition, with a focus on the furthering of progressive ideals that embrace these two concepts as fundamental pillars of political strategy.
I sometimes write extremely detailed when I don't necessarily mean it, so I do emphasize that I really do mean this book is extremely detailed. A vast majority of the book (all but the final chapter) is dedicated to unraveling the history of American political economy, constitutional debate, and political philosophy. This was fascinating even though I sometimes got lost in the weeds. I can also see how someone who was expecting a straightforward constitutional law book would be taken aback at this much history. I'm a history nerd, so I don't mind that at all.
But that doesn't mean there isn't any con law in this book. There is so much discussion of constitutional debate, political science, and philosophy and law that I could feel myself being pulled toward law school just to try and understand everything being said. As each chapter covers a particular era of political economy (Revolution and the failure of the Articles of Confederation, Civil War and Reconstruction, and the Gilded Age were some of my favorites) the reader is taken through a very in depth analysis of particular court cases, political machinations, and cultural upheavals that demonstrated a regression or promotion of egalitarian political economy.
I was thoroughly enjoying the history side of this book while attempting to keep track of the law side, but the final chapter is of course the meat and potatoes of the book's central argument: that progressive political actors in America should embrace a anti-oligarchical "democracy of opportunity" stance that embraces the lost concept of political economy. I was less convinced by this final chapter mainly because of the challenges of such a concept but also because the two authors are attempting to solve a societal problem of wealth inequality and conservative constitutional dominance with a relatively politico-economic solution. I'm not clear on what specific backgrounds the authors have (they are clearly very well read in con law and history, so I am assuming they are constitutional scholars) but the solutions put forth in the final chapter highlight the drawbacks of taking on social science from a merely political science stance (though to their credit they do engage in quite a bit of economics, if from a limited standpoint).
Ignore any knee-jerk pro-capitalist reaction: there is obviously a huge issue with the way wealth and power are created and distributed in this country (and this is coming from a free-marketist myself). A lot of pro-capitalist people are failing to see the damage extreme inequality is doing to the fabric of the nation. Capitalists do not need democracy to make money and create wealth, but democratic institutions are needed for the best quality of life for the most amount of people in a nation state.
While I am skeptical generally of the American federal government's ability to do anything efficiently and effectively (in particular because Republicans and libertarians get in the way all the time, but also because of the very corrupting nature of how government in the US is commonly set up), I am also under no delusion that CEO's and corporations have my best personal interests in mind. If I am but a number to the government, I am also but a number to the corporation, and at least the government has a founding document that grants me rights to fundamentally exist in freedom. The corporation has no such obligation, and in fact my freedom to not use their good or service may be fundamentally at odds with its main goal of creating growth and shareholder value.
There MUST exist a balance between creating governing institutions powerful enough to ensure the health and well-being of the citizenry (that are also fundamentally checked in that power) while allowing the freedom of entrepreneurship and capital investment so as to outpace geopolitical rivals. My theory is that Europe or Asia have found such a balance, albeit with their own particular cultural issues.
The US has the resources but absolutely no political will to execute on any ambitious nation-building. That is part of the reason for the existence of this whole book, I'm just not convinced the solution is, as I succinctly summarize the authors' work: better constitutional understanding and framing. The issues the US faces are not just in politics and economics but in the very social fabric, the very way people in the US spend their free time stuck on social media, the very way our neighborhoods in suburbs keep us stranded from each other, the very way each and every little bit of our lives has been commodified and designed to be addictive. Will the answers of stronger progressive political economy, an aggressive approach to constitutional interpretation, and the repetitive use of the "democracy of opportunity" be enough to reverse all this damage?
If I were to have finished this book three days earlier, I pessimistically would have said no. Now, after some of the most massive tariff hikes in American history have tanked the stock market and nearly guaranteed a recession, I might actually say maybe. Americans only move to act in crisis, and the pain the middle class will feel from the incredibly stupid foreign policy and economic choices of the current administration may result in a total blowout in the next few election cycles (no guarantees of course). But if my theory of American middle class backlash to discomfort holds true, an opportunity for truly fundamental change may come soon enough. My instinct is that the answer lies more in the politics of "Abundance" (the new book by Ezra Klein) rather than in the politics of constitutional messaging, but I guess we'll have to see.
A recommend from me only for those who are law students, or are super interested in the history of constitutional political thought across American history.
I sometimes write extremely detailed when I don't necessarily mean it, so I do emphasize that I really do mean this book is extremely detailed. A vast majority of the book (all but the final chapter) is dedicated to unraveling the history of American political economy, constitutional debate, and political philosophy. This was fascinating even though I sometimes got lost in the weeds. I can also see how someone who was expecting a straightforward constitutional law book would be taken aback at this much history. I'm a history nerd, so I don't mind that at all.
But that doesn't mean there isn't any con law in this book. There is so much discussion of constitutional debate, political science, and philosophy and law that I could feel myself being pulled toward law school just to try and understand everything being said. As each chapter covers a particular era of political economy (Revolution and the failure of the Articles of Confederation, Civil War and Reconstruction, and the Gilded Age were some of my favorites) the reader is taken through a very in depth analysis of particular court cases, political machinations, and cultural upheavals that demonstrated a regression or promotion of egalitarian political economy.
I was thoroughly enjoying the history side of this book while attempting to keep track of the law side, but the final chapter is of course the meat and potatoes of the book's central argument: that progressive political actors in America should embrace a anti-oligarchical "democracy of opportunity" stance that embraces the lost concept of political economy. I was less convinced by this final chapter mainly because of the challenges of such a concept but also because the two authors are attempting to solve a societal problem of wealth inequality and conservative constitutional dominance with a relatively politico-economic solution. I'm not clear on what specific backgrounds the authors have (they are clearly very well read in con law and history, so I am assuming they are constitutional scholars) but the solutions put forth in the final chapter highlight the drawbacks of taking on social science from a merely political science stance (though to their credit they do engage in quite a bit of economics, if from a limited standpoint).
Ignore any knee-jerk pro-capitalist reaction: there is obviously a huge issue with the way wealth and power are created and distributed in this country (and this is coming from a free-marketist myself). A lot of pro-capitalist people are failing to see the damage extreme inequality is doing to the fabric of the nation. Capitalists do not need democracy to make money and create wealth, but democratic institutions are needed for the best quality of life for the most amount of people in a nation state.
While I am skeptical generally of the American federal government's ability to do anything efficiently and effectively (in particular because Republicans and libertarians get in the way all the time, but also because of the very corrupting nature of how government in the US is commonly set up), I am also under no delusion that CEO's and corporations have my best personal interests in mind. If I am but a number to the government, I am also but a number to the corporation, and at least the government has a founding document that grants me rights to fundamentally exist in freedom. The corporation has no such obligation, and in fact my freedom to not use their good or service may be fundamentally at odds with its main goal of creating growth and shareholder value.
There MUST exist a balance between creating governing institutions powerful enough to ensure the health and well-being of the citizenry (that are also fundamentally checked in that power) while allowing the freedom of entrepreneurship and capital investment so as to outpace geopolitical rivals. My theory is that Europe or Asia have found such a balance, albeit with their own particular cultural issues.
The US has the resources but absolutely no political will to execute on any ambitious nation-building. That is part of the reason for the existence of this whole book, I'm just not convinced the solution is, as I succinctly summarize the authors' work: better constitutional understanding and framing. The issues the US faces are not just in politics and economics but in the very social fabric, the very way people in the US spend their free time stuck on social media, the very way our neighborhoods in suburbs keep us stranded from each other, the very way each and every little bit of our lives has been commodified and designed to be addictive. Will the answers of stronger progressive political economy, an aggressive approach to constitutional interpretation, and the repetitive use of the "democracy of opportunity" be enough to reverse all this damage?
If I were to have finished this book three days earlier, I pessimistically would have said no. Now, after some of the most massive tariff hikes in American history have tanked the stock market and nearly guaranteed a recession, I might actually say maybe. Americans only move to act in crisis, and the pain the middle class will feel from the incredibly stupid foreign policy and economic choices of the current administration may result in a total blowout in the next few election cycles (no guarantees of course). But if my theory of American middle class backlash to discomfort holds true, an opportunity for truly fundamental change may come soon enough. My instinct is that the answer lies more in the politics of "Abundance" (the new book by Ezra Klein) rather than in the politics of constitutional messaging, but I guess we'll have to see.
A recommend from me only for those who are law students, or are super interested in the history of constitutional political thought across American history.
June 4, 2025
A thorough, well-written, historically grounded argument for recovering the tradition of constitutional political economy among progressives.
As Fishkin and Forbath point out, in much contemporary liberal discourse, the Constitution is presented as existing apart from politics, and much of the world of economic decision-making is set as a part from the political realm as well (I always point to the separation of economics and politics, or economics and democracy, as a core part of understanding what neoliberalism is). However, they point out that this is a very recent phenomenon, as well as one not shared by conservatives.
The Constitution, for Fishkin, Forbath, and many of the people they highlight in the book, should not be treated as simply a cage for possible policy, but as something from which demands can be generated: in other words, what political economy does the Constitution itself necessitate? What political economy, what economic arrangements, are necessary to realize its promises of liberty and equality?
They offer historic grounding for this by tracing the legacy of the "democracy of opportunity" tradition, which they identify as having three strands: (1) anti-oligarchic strand, focused on targeting the concentration of economic power (and how that can be converted into political power), (2) a broad middle-class strand, focused on the policies needed to sustain a broad and robust middle-class as a central bulwark of republican government, and (3) an inclusion-centered strand, which recognizes that this democracy of opportunity must extend to all people, across lines of race, sex, and other distinctions.
Although much of liberal constitutionalism in recent decades only looks at the last strand in terms of individual claims, the authors stress the connections between all three and how achieving any one of the three is interconnected and inseparable from the fight to achieve the other.
As we're more and more into a new Gilded Age, this book is especially timely, and it grounds today's fight in the long history of progressives, radicals, and reformers seeking to make a more equitable, just, and democratic country. Of particular note to me was how the book captures the shift between the New Deal and the Great Society when it comes to political economy (which, at the risk of being reductive, mirrored the contrasting discourses between combating inequality and reducing poverty -- often connected, but based on very different principles especially with regard to an overall system).
As Fishkin and Forbath point out, in much contemporary liberal discourse, the Constitution is presented as existing apart from politics, and much of the world of economic decision-making is set as a part from the political realm as well (I always point to the separation of economics and politics, or economics and democracy, as a core part of understanding what neoliberalism is). However, they point out that this is a very recent phenomenon, as well as one not shared by conservatives.
The Constitution, for Fishkin, Forbath, and many of the people they highlight in the book, should not be treated as simply a cage for possible policy, but as something from which demands can be generated: in other words, what political economy does the Constitution itself necessitate? What political economy, what economic arrangements, are necessary to realize its promises of liberty and equality?
They offer historic grounding for this by tracing the legacy of the "democracy of opportunity" tradition, which they identify as having three strands: (1) anti-oligarchic strand, focused on targeting the concentration of economic power (and how that can be converted into political power), (2) a broad middle-class strand, focused on the policies needed to sustain a broad and robust middle-class as a central bulwark of republican government, and (3) an inclusion-centered strand, which recognizes that this democracy of opportunity must extend to all people, across lines of race, sex, and other distinctions.
Although much of liberal constitutionalism in recent decades only looks at the last strand in terms of individual claims, the authors stress the connections between all three and how achieving any one of the three is interconnected and inseparable from the fight to achieve the other.
As we're more and more into a new Gilded Age, this book is especially timely, and it grounds today's fight in the long history of progressives, radicals, and reformers seeking to make a more equitable, just, and democratic country. Of particular note to me was how the book captures the shift between the New Deal and the Great Society when it comes to political economy (which, at the risk of being reductive, mirrored the contrasting discourses between combating inequality and reducing poverty -- often connected, but based on very different principles especially with regard to an overall system).
December 8, 2024
The Anti-Meritocracy constitution: Wrecking the Economic Foundations of American Democracy. There's still some value in the parts analysing the history but it's really hard to stand the really opinionated spin on everything. What makes it infuriating is that there is never any argument made for the base premise. I guess the authors assumed only people already onboard with their way of seeing the world will ever read this.
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews