Politics As Power, Continued

The other thing I have to say about my analysis that partisan politics in most liberal democracies is basically about power, and one party represents the powerful while the other party represents the powerless, is that I think it's obvious which side ought to win that struggle. Is there any principled reason for favoring power imbalances among society? There is some reason to think that achieving full economic equality would be ultimately counterproductive in terms of aggregate human happiness, since it would severely reduce material prosperity. But at most that means we should try to find the closest we can come to full economic equality without triggering too much of a reduction in GDP. And aside from this, is there a good reason why some people should have more power in society than others?

I can't really think of one, unless we want to dredge up various ancient doctrines of divine favor. Accordingly, I think it's fair to say that the "liberal" side of this fight, the side of the powerless, actually does have a relatively cohesive philosophy, and that philosophy is egalitarianism. The other side, I contend, is basically just the powerful looking at these egalitarians, who are clearly right on the abstract merits of the question, and saying, "No! Don't take my power! I like my power! You can't have it!" Then all the different Lords of Society come together and form a party to mutually defend themselves against those pesky egalitarians. So I guess there is a coherent philosophy behind the right-wing side of the battle, but the problem is that I think it's just plain greed.