Congress is a shell. The midterms are a formality. The Democratic National Committee is a lawfare firm with a marketing budget. That, at least, is the argument put forward by Matthew G. Andersson in a new commentary for American Thinker, and it is worth taking seriously not because it is polite but because it is one of the sharper expressions of a growing tendency on the American right: the conviction that electoral politics has become a spectator sport while the real business of national power is conducted somewhere else.
Andersson, described in the piece as a former aerospace CEO and law and policy author who has testified before the Senate, makes his case in unusually blunt terms. The midterm elections, he writes, will not affect the direction of U.S. foreign policy. The domestic economy has, in his phrase, “technically begun to outgrow politics.” Politicians, he adds, simply do not know it yet.
The claim: power has already left the building
The central assertion of the piece is that rapid technological advances, combined with global business networks formed during President Trump’s terms, have made both the DNC and the midterms increasingly irrelevant. Andersson points to the Middle East and Ukraine as arenas already delinked from traditional congressional influence. The private sector, he argues, has organized postwar economic development on its own, and Congress was neither invited nor needed.
He frames this as something quiet and revolutionary happening while major media and the left run what he calls their usual circus of polls, promises, and predictions. Real power, in his telling, has left them behind. The chief executive’s authority, combined with what he describes as a new triad of U.S. industrial, financial, and technological organization, has transformed both foreign and domestic policy. Government, he writes, has been “technically privatized into an effective shell” — though he concedes it always was one, since the economy is the basis of national power, and government works for it, is financed by it, and answers to it.
What the DNC is actually offering, in his telling
The piece is unsparing toward the Democratic Party. Andersson argues that congressional Democratic campaigning has been reduced to welfare and justice marketing. What, he asks, is the DNC holding out to the public if it wins in November? His answer: reversal and retribution — healthcare spending, Obamacare subsidies, and above all endless orchestrated investigations. The DNC’s vision for national leadership, he writes, is to turn Congress into a giant lawfare firm.
He goes further, comparing Congress to the United Nations: an institution that hosts and parades career bureaucrats through speeches, committees, and reports but otherwise holds no real power, if power is understood to mean competence and force. Both, he argues, are 20th-century remnants of an illusion of collective governance. Groups, he insists, do not govern or lead. Groups follow. They have no responsibility or accountability, and their members eventually just go away.
The reverse merger
The metaphor Andersson reaches for is financial. A national “reverse merger” has occurred, he contends, in which private enterprise has reacquired the public shell created by privatization — including its political establishment. America’s finance and technology sectors, he writes, have finally matured to the point of making political parties obsolete as sources of policy, power, and global influence.
From there, the piece becomes a kind of inventory. The U.S. will pursue the economic agenda started by President Trump, his team, and his backers because, as a combined unit, they are beyond retail politics. The forces behind Middle East transformation, growing Latin American political conservatism, Russian and Chinese realpolitik interdependence with the U.S., Arctic resource development, technology, and military growth including space — all of this, he argues, represents a trajectory that cannot be affected by a mere House speaker or committee chairman.
Hence his advice not to fret about Hakeem Jeffries. The House Democratic leader, he writes, is irrelevant. No one has apparently told him yet.
Andersson notes that President Trump has said he is not running in the midterms. Neither, he adds, are U.S. technology firms, financial institutions, private foundations, aerospace and defense manufacturers, space operators, the military-industrial complex, AI data centers, digital currency exchanges, or foreign allies. The real sources of U.S. power, he writes, have always been in the private sector and networked interests. Now they form an increasingly integrated public-private complex that makes the midterms important only in terms of the private cost to tolerate them — merely the cost of doing business.
A concession and a shrug
What makes the piece more interesting than a standard partisan broadside is the admission tucked inside it. Andersson writes that he does not want to see one Democrat win one seat in either chamber. But then he shrugs: it ultimately doesn’t matter. The real United States, in his formulation, has outgrown them in all dimensions of power, influence, and usefulness — through technical control.
He closes with a quotation about the gap between man’s technology and his culture: “the superman built the airplane, but the apeman has taken his seat in it.” With startling breakthroughs in advanced technologies under President Trump, he writes, the DNC will occupy only the seats American business built in the new house. And it may be a one-way flight.
Why the argument matters
Whether or not one accepts the thesis, the commentary captures a real tension in contemporary American conservatism. On one side sits the movement’s longstanding faith in elections, congressional majorities, and legislative wins. On the other sits a rising impatience with all of it — a belief that the machinery of representative government has been supplanted by corporate networks, capital flows, and technical systems that no ballot can touch.
Andersson’s version of that argument is notably confident. He does not present privatization of government as a tragedy or a scandal. He presents it as a fait accompli, and a welcome one. The midterms, in this reading, are not a battle for the soul of the country but an administrative annoyance — a cost of doing business that the actual owners of American power will tolerate and then move past.
It is a bracing claim, and it cuts against the instincts of activists in both parties who have built their lives around the premise that November matters. Andersson’s answer to them is essentially: you are welcome to keep playing. The flight has already taken off.
Source: www.americanthinker.com — https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2026/10/the-real-american-power-is-technology/