Minnesota’s New Feudalism

I’ve written lately of the transformation of the North Star state under the one-party rule of the Democrats under the banner of The Banana Republic of Minnesota.

Author Joel Kotkin has taken to describing the transformation of his home state of California under one-party Democrat rule as the New Feudalism.  Since Minnesota’s liberal progressives see the Golden State as a model for all of America, Kotkin’s analysis may give us a glimpse into our own future.
 

In a commentary appearing in The Daily Beast earlier this month [read the whole thing], Kotkin writes,

Like medieval serfs, increasing numbers of Californians are downwardly mobile, and doing worse than their parents

In many aspects, the California of the post-war years invented the modern model for the middle class.  But as Kotkin writes, California’s society is beginning to resemble something closer to middle-ages Europe.

At the top of the new social pyramid in California are the oligarchs:  think Silicon Valley billionaires.  Kotkin writes,

In contrast to the traditionally conservative or libertarian ethos of the entrepreneurial class, the oligarchy is increasingly allied with the nominally populist Democratic Party and its regulatory agenda.

Adding,

Through their embrace of and financial support for the state’s regulatory regime, the oligarchs have made job creation in non tech-businesses—manufacturing, energy, agriculture—increasingly difficult through “green energy” initiatives that are also sure to boost already high utility costs.

What few realize about the geography of California is that most of the state’s rich live along a thin strip of land within a few miles of the Pacific Ocean [think La Jolla, Malibu, or Nob Hill].  The state’s coastal climate produces some of the world’s mildest weather:  winter lows never fall below freezing and summer highs rarely climb above the 80’s. 

California’s coastal elites can afford to indulge in fashionable policies for renewable power and clean energy that result in sky-high electricity prices.  Since coastal residents have little need for heating or cooling, the burden of these policies falls on the hoi polloi of the Inland Empire or the farmers of the Central Valley.

Importing those costly energy policies to our Midcontinent location will prove far more damaging.  With our summer and winter weather extremes, the typical Minnesota household uses far more energy than even the mansions of, say, Santa Barbara.

Minnesota’s Oligarchs

We have our own version of the oligarchy here in Minnesota.  Instead of self-made, high-tech barons, we have the heirs to old money fortunes like the Rockefeller, Dayton, and McKnight money piles. 

As I noted the other day, Alida Rockefeller Messinger (ex-wife of Democrat Governor Mark Dayton) donated more than $9 million to Democrat politics from 2000 to 2008, some $7 million more than the next largest single donor.  All told, Ms. Messinger donated more than $10,000,000 over the last decade to Democrats and leftist causes.  Along with her former in-laws, the McKnight fortune, and others who share her political views, Ms. Messinger has purchased the state’s politics and regulatory policy.

The Clerisy

In continuing his survey of the new class structure in California, Kotkin labels the next most powerful group as The Clerisy.  He writes,

[I]n today’s hyper-secular America, the job of shaping the masses has fallen to the government apparat, the professoriat, and the media, which together constitute our new Clerisy.  The Clerisy generally defines societal priorities, defends “right-thinking” oligarchs, and chastises those, like traditional energy companies, that deviate from their theology.

Minnesota, of course, has its own version of the new clerisy.  For the apparat, substitute political charities like Alliance for a Better Minnesota and TakeAction.  For the professoriat, look no further than the Humphrey School at the University of Minnesota.  The local media is best represented by Minnesota Public Radio and the Minneapolis Star Tribune, who never allow a progressive orthodoxy to be challenged.

The New Serfs and Yeomanry

Representing the have-nots, Kotkin goes on to define California’s new serfs and yeomanry.  Of the New Serfs, he writes,

If current trends continue, the fastest growing class will be the permanently property-less. This group includes welfare recipients and other government dependents but also the far more numerous working poor…Now, with increasingly little prospect of advancement, California’s serfs depend on the Clerisy to produce benefits making their permanent impoverishment less gruesome.

So it is in Minnesota. If you find yourself at the bottom of the income ladder, state government makes it very tough to climb up.  Start to make a little bit more money, and you quickly lose eligibility for generous entitlements, including subsidies for energy bills, health insurance, and housing. 

At certain income levels, the effective tax on a modest raise may be more than 100 percent, as the extra income is wiped out by the loss of subsidies tied to income levels.  Put another way, if you are in the middle class, you may find it worth your while to reduce your earnings to qualify for income-linked subsidies.  As shocking as it may sound, those are the perverse incentives we offer to the working poor and middle-classes.

As for the New Yeomanry, Kotkin writes,

In neo-feudalist California, the biggest losers tend to be the old private sector middle class.  This includes largely small business owners, professionals, and skilled workers in traditional industries most targeted by regulatory shifts and higher taxes.

Minnesota Governor Dayton imagines that his higher income taxes succeed in punishing “the rich.”  Instead of hitting trust funders like him, Dayton’s new taxes hit those aspiring to become rich, particularly middle-aged professionals trying to save money for a comfortable—but not lavish—retirement.  Business-to-business taxes—like the ones on warehousing and repair of ag equipment—hit private sectors efforts even harder.

Where will all this lead?  In his analysis, Kotkin concludes that California’s politics may move even further to the left, as the productive private sector continues to flee the state. 

Let’s hope we don’t let that happen in Minnesota.  Unfortunately, the state’s Democrats seem determined—backed by the donations of old-money families—to stitch together a permanent majority of professionals dependent on government backing [in the government, academic, media, and non-profit sectors] along with the New Serfs, poor and working poor dependent on government support.