I’m with Yglesias on this one. The concept of oligarchy depends on an organized group set upon first retaining power for the group, and then dividing it up. But I don’t see that. While we have some coalitions within the wealthiest, mostly they are in competition.

I support a preference for having the wealthiest, do more to fund our government, but it should be done efficiently and with the purpose of delivering value, not as an act of retribution.

Additionally, we should understand how words are important, and what they lead to. The concept of oligarchy as a reality pushes toward a “coalition against power”. This is a mistake, and a great way to lose a winnable fight. We should want a “powerful coalition”. Demonizing the wealthy as a group, in the way we’ve demonized politicians as a group, is ultimately self-defeating. You lose your agency to appeal to them as allies, you lose your ability to evaluate them individually.

Considering that the politicians and wealthy are almost by definition those with power, this is a poorly structured fight. If it was necessary it would be an ugly one. Ugly or not, I’d be worth it if necessary. But if it’s an illusion? An exaggeration? A bit of rhetoric? Then it’s a poor choice to commit to.

There’s still a fight that’s necessary, and some of the actions are the same. But there’s a different way to go about it. Words are more than words, they are the start of a plan, and this set starts us upon a poorly formed plan.