GOVERNMENT BY THE PRIVILEGED

In 2014, something historically unprecedented almost happened in the state of Maine. Representative Mike Michaud — who had been a factory worker when he was first elected to public office — announced that he was retiring from the House of Representatives to run for governor. Soon after, a state senator named Troy Jackson launched a campaign to fill Michaud's House seat. Jackson seemed like a natural choice: like Michaud, he was a Democrat, he had served in the state legislature, and he was endorsed by many of the state's major progressive organizations. Jackson was even a blue-collar worker: when the state legislature wasn't in session, he worked full-time as a logger upstate.

And that's what would have made the election historic. If Jackson had won, he would have become the first blue-collar worker in American history to succeed another former blue-collar worker in the same congressional seat. From 1789 to the present day, seats in the House of Representatives have changed hands more than fourteen thousand times. Former lawyers have taken over for other former lawyers. Former business owners have succeeded other former business owners. But two former blue-collar workers have never served in the same U.S. House seat back-to-back.

Despite Troy Jackson's best efforts, however, that record still stood after the 2014 election. In early May of that year, a Wall Street-backed interest group began making aggressive independent expenditures against Jackson, and in June he lost the Democratic primary. When voters in Maine's second district went to the polls in November, their choices for the U.S. House were a university administrator and a businessman. They didn't have the option to send someone from the working class to Congress.

And, chances are, neither did you.

Working-class Americans — people employed in manual labor, service industry, or clerical jobs — almost never go on to hold political office in the United States. If millionaires formed their own political party, that party would make up about 3 percent of the general public, but it would have unified majority control of all three branches of the federal government. The Millionaires Party would be the majority party in the House of Representatives and would have a filibuster-proof supermajority in the Senate. It would have a majority on the Supreme Court. It would have a record-setting majority in the president's cabinet. And it would have a commander in chief in the White House — not just a millionaire but a full-fledged billionaire.

If, on the other hand, working-class Americans formed their own party, that party would have made up more than half of the country since at least the start of the twentieth century. But legislators from that party (those who last worked in blue-collar jobs before getting involved in politics) would never have held more than 2 percent of the seats in Congress.

This economic gulf between politicians and the people they represent — what I call government by the privileged or white-collar government — has serious consequences for our democratic process. Like ordinary Americans, politicians from different classes tend to have different views, especially on economic issues. Former workers in office tend to be more pro-worker in how they think and act, former business owners tend to be more pro-business, and so on. These differences — coupled with the fact that working-class people almost never go on to hold public office — ultimately have dramatic consequences for public policy. Social safety net programs are stingier, business regulations are flimsier, tax policies are more regressive, and protections for workers are weaker than they would be if more lawmakers came from lower-income and working-class backgrounds. Government by the rich is often government for the rich, and government for the rich is often bad for everyone else.

Why, then, do we have a white-collar government in the first place? Journalists and scholars have always had hunches about what keeps working-class Americans out of office — money, ambition, free time, qualifications, and so on — but to date there's been almost no actual research on why the United States is governed by the privileged or what reformers might do about it.

This book tries to change that.

BY THE RICH, FOR THE RICH

On January 19, 2012, there was an unusual demonstration in the Moroccan Parliament. Protestors had lined up outside with signs, as groups often did on the first day of the legislative session. But this time, the demonstration had also recruited allies inside the building. When the prime minister took the podium and began his inaugural address, a dozen sitting members of Parliament — including some from his own party — jumped to their feet and hoisted banners denouncing one of his government's first decisions.

Their complaint? Just before the session started, the prime minister had gutted the number of women in public office.

In Morocco, one of the first responsibilities of a newly elected prime minister is to appoint roughly thirty people to fill cabinet-level positions in the national government. Morocco has long been a leader in women's representation in the Arab world, and the previous government's cabinet had included seven women, a record for the country. When Prime Minister Abdelilah Benkirane took office in 2012, however, he announced that his cabinet would include just one female minister, Bassima Hakkaoui, who would head the Department of Women, Family, and Social Development. The news sent shock waves through the Moroccan political community. On the first day of the new legislative session, protestors both outside and inside Parliament hoisted signs reading, "Women 1, Men 30. Is that really fair?"

At bottom, concerns about the demographic backgrounds of politicians are rooted in a principle that is probably familiar to anyone who has participated in some form of group decision making, namely, that having a seat at the table matters. When people get together to make important choices — whether it's a government cabinet or a corporate board or a faculty hiring committee — who gets included can often powerfully affect the outcome. When a person or a social group is left out, their views and needs are often left out, too. Legislators in the Moroccan Parliament staged a protest because being included in important decision-making bodies is worth raising hell over sometimes, especially when it comes to politics.

Inclusion in political offices is so important that scholars have developed an entire subfield devoted to studying the numerical or descriptive representation of social groups in governing institutions. Some of this research has focused on the causes of descriptive representation, that is, on the factors...