Both Members Of This ClubEdit
Both Members Of This Club is a recurring label in political commentary that points to a perceived common membership among policymakers, donors, media figures, and policy insiders. The phrase is used to suggest that, despite partisan theater, a substantial portion of the political class operates within a shared network that influences what passes for “debate” and what counts as acceptable policy. In contemporary discourse, the term is especially popular among observers who worry that money, prestige, and access grant a de facto veto over reform, producing a drift away from broad citizen input and toward a stable policy equilibrium favored by the insiders. Proponents argue that recognizing this pattern helps explain why serious reforms can stall, why certain ideas gain traction across party lines, and why ordinary voters sometimes feel like they are talking past their representatives. Critics insist the phrase paints with too broad a brush, discounting real disagreements and the diversity of actors outside elite circles.
From a practical perspective, the concept centers on the idea that a network of power binds together various actors in ways that shape policy outcomes. The mechanisms most often discussed include the donor class and campaign finance channels that fund political campaigns, the lobbying ecosystem that translates preferences into legislative language, and think tanks and policy journals that translate ideas into legislative platforms. The revolving door between government service and private sector work is cited as another reinforcing channel, with former officials returning to private interests that benefit from established policy trajectories. Media organizations and opinion leaders are viewed as amplifiers that help keep the club’s consensus presentable to the public. These dynamics are not alleged to imply a single conspiracy; rather, they are described as a pattern of recognizable relationships that tends to reproduce certain outcomes over time. See also crony capitalism and revolving door.
Core ideas and terminology
Club-like convergence: The claim is not that every actor belongs to the same clique, but that enough influential actors share backgrounds, incentives, or memberships to create a recognizable, repeatable bias in policy discussions. See policy consensus and two-party system for related concepts.
Donors and access: Financial resources confer access to lawmakers and gatekeepers. The amount of money in campaign finance debates is then linked, in this view, to the durability of particular policy directions and to the ability to frame issues in a way congenial to those who fund them. See donor class.
Information and influence networks: Think tanks, lobbying firms, and academic and media networks help produce the data, narratives, and briefs that shape legislative agendas. The idea is that ideas circulating within these networks often cross party lines, contributing to a perceived continuity in policy.
Public messaging and framing: Media coverage and editorial lines, along with the messaging produced by the policy establishment, influence what the public perceives as legitimate options. See media bias for discussions of how framing operates in practice.
Controversies and debates
Right-leaning perspective on legitimacy: From a conservative or classical-liberal viewpoint, the recognition of a connected policy class is not a charge of personal conspiracy but a diagnostic of how power operates in a complex modern state. Proponents argue that acknowledging these patterns helps explain why competition in policy ideas feels stale, and why ambitious reforms—such as those aimed at expanding citizen influence or curbing regulatory capture—face steep headwinds. They stress the importance of restoring accountability, strengthening market mechanisms, and ensuring a robust legal framework that checks power regardless of party labels. See crony capitalism.
Critiques from opponents: Critics contend that the phrase oversimplifies politics, ignores genuine differences between parties, and fuels cynicism that depresses civic participation. They may point to the diversity of voices inside institutions, or to policy disagreements that persist even in the presence of close networks. They also argue that the concept can be weaponized to discredit legitimate debate about tradeoffs in taxation, regulation, and welfare policy. Some critics link the idea to broader charges about “elite capture” of institutions; others reject the notion that the current system is beyond reform. See economic policy and media bias for related discussions.
Woke criticisms and responses: Critics on the left sometimes frame the concept as evidence of systemic inequality and the impermeability of political power to ordinary citizens. In a balanced view, these criticisms are examined for their accuracy and their policy implications. Proponents of the term respond by distinguishing between acknowledging real patterns of influence and endorsing blanket pessimism about democracy. They argue that reforms—such as improved transparency, competitive funding structures, and stronger governance standards—can address the core concerns without celebrating fatalism.
Practical implications for governance: The debate over “both members of this club” touches on questions of legitimacy, accountability, and performance. If power is as centralized as the phrase suggests, advocates argue, reforms should focus on expanding citizen input, widening the pool of policy nutrition, and ensuring that incentives align with public rather than insider interests. See public choice theory for a framework that analyzes how incentives influence collective outcomes.
Impact on policy and reform discourse
Economic and regulatory policy: The concept is frequently invoked in discussions about the regulatory state, tax policy, and competition. Proponents contend that a tightly knit policy community can produce stable rules that reduce volatility while occasionally privileging established interests over experimentation or disruption. Critics say this reduces room for breakthrough ideas and disempowers entrants who could shake up the status quo.
Social and domestic policy: In education, health care, and welfare policy, the club metaphor is used to explain why consensus around certain programs endures even when public opinion shows volatility. The defense is that pragmatic compromises, rather than ideological rigidity, drive policy in these areas; the counterargument emphasizes that entrenched preferences among a narrow set of insiders can crowd out responsive policymaking.
Foreign policy and national security: Some supporters of the concept argue that cross-cutting consensus on international engagement can create predictable, stable policy, while detractors worry that such a climate reduces diplomatic agility and neglects alternative viewpoints that could better reflect domestic interests or new geopolitical realities. See foreign policy and national security.
See also