Behind this election’s dominant issue of affordability lies the record concentration of wealth at the top of America. The richest 0.001% of Americans — a handful of extraordinarily wealthy men — now controls more of the nation’s wealth than at any time in modern history.

To be sure, wealth is not a zero-sum game in which the riches of those at the top necessarily come at the expense of everyone else. But power is a zero-sum game, because the more of it that is held by some people, the less of it is held by others.

Wealth cannot be separated from power. Great wealth becomes great power through campaign contributions, media ownership, the ability to buy off opposition, the capacity to wage pubic relations campaigns and the resources to deploy armies of lawyers who litigate on your behalf. Recent years provide abundant illustration of all this.

Wealth cannot be separated from power.

In these ways, great power also becomes great wealth. It buys changes in laws, regulations and court decisions that bestow even more wealth on those with the power to alter the system to their benefit — and to siphon off resources from everyone else.

This power shift has also become clearly evident in recent years. In the Trump era it has taken the form of blatant corruption. But the political bribes, billionaire media ownership, PR campaigns and well-financed litigation predated Donald Trump .

For many years (with the notable exception of the Biden administration), antitrust enforcement has been defanged to make it easier for big firms to monopolize. Among the most widely discussed findings about the U.S. economy is the rise of corporate concentration since the 1980s. The biggest firms, their top executives and their major shareholders have all done wonderfully well. Consumers and employees, however, have faced higher prices, lower paychecks and fewer choices.

At the same time, labor laws have been altered to make it more difficult to organize unions. In the 1950s, more than a third of private-sector workers were unionized. Now, fewer than 6% are.

Tax laws have been changed to reduce the rates and amounts paid by the superwealthy, to the point where many pay no taxes at all — even though they have more wealth than ever.

This massive power shift is even more starkly illustrated by the billionaires, financial mavens and tech bros who put Trump in power, who refuse to slow climate change and who are now deciding on the future of AI and therefore humanity.

The question I keep coming back to is whether this can be reversed.

There is historic precedent. After the first Gilded Age — which ran from the 1890s to the start of World War I, and which featured wide inequalities of income, wealth and political power — America reacted in what came to be known as the Progressive Era.

This paradox should soon be the center of our national debate.

Starting under Theodore Roosevelt, monopolies were busted up, corporations were regulated, a progressive income tax was enacted and corporate political donations (bribes) were barred. Then, starting in 1933, under Teddy Roosevelt’s fifth cousin, power continued to be shifted to what became the largest middle class in world history.

Then came the 1970s and 1980s, when the process began to go in reverse.

The challenge is arguably much greater today because wealth and power are more concentrated than in the first Gilded Age, creating a chicken-and-egg paradox: How can government enact and enforce the necessary reforms if it’s under the control of a power elite that won’t permit them?

Now, just four weeks from what could be a major political victory for the Democrats in taking back at least one chamber of Congress, this paradox should soon be the center of our national debate.

The post The Central Question of Power in America appeared first on Truthdig .