By Lewis Loflin
In Southwest Virginia, a troubling paradox persists: individuals who claim to champion the common person often serve their own agendas. Self-described progressives frequently prioritize personal or ideological goals over the needs of the downtrodden. Amid a flood of government funds allocated to those with political connections, well-meaning advocates join forces with the very entities they should scrutinize, tapping into millions in public dollars.
“…the environmentalists have been fighting the economic developers and vice versa for years and look what we have: high unemployment, high underemployment, high poverty rates and a host of environmental problems.”
So stated Anthony Flaccavento, former head of Appalachian Sustainable Development and a lifelong activist. His words highlight a system where ideological battles yield little progress for the region.
How does a progressive environmentalist like Flaccavento align with a conservative Republican like Virginia Delegate Terry Kilgore to reap taxpayer funds? Flaccavento himself explained:
“If you’re sort of a conservative Republican, what you relate to is the self-help dimension, helping the family farmer, the entrepreneurial component. If you’re kind of a liberal progressive, it’s the environmental values; it’s the social justice thing. And it all kind of comes together in that way.”
Appalachian Sustainable Development, heavily reliant on public funds, has failed to achieve sustainability without continuous infusions of taxpayer money. This partnership, while legal, produced minimal benefits for ordinary citizens and was marred by inefficiency from the outset. Such alliances often serve to neutralize criticism of questionable political practices.
Kilgore’s role in securing funds for Flaccavento’s organization raises questions about judgment, given the millions spent over a decade with scant results. This issue extends beyond one nonprofit. Southwest Virginia’s economy is starkly divided, segregating people by income, culture, and social class. The elite—economically and socially disconnected from working-class citizens—foster a system marked by exploitation and hostility between groups.
The region operates two economies: one for the “haves,” thriving on privilege, and another for the “have-nots,” plagued by underemployment, low wages, and political marginalization. Local media, such as the Bristol Herald Courier, exacerbate tensions by endorsing policies like unchecked immigration under the guise of “diversity,” which local businesses exploit to suppress wages and displace struggling workers. Unions, rather than defending locals, sometimes align with these practices.
In Tri-Cities, Bristol, and beyond, ideological conflicts among the elite trap the working class in a crossfire, rendering solutions to social and economic woes nearly impossible. This system, which I term “Corporate Progressivism,” merges corporate interests with progressive rhetoric. Anthony Gregory, in Corporatism and Socialism in America, articulates this dynamic:
Indeed, corporatism, implemented by the state—whether through direct handouts, corporate bailouts, eminent domain, licensing laws, antitrust regulations, or environmental edicts—inflicts great harm on the modern American economy. Although leftists often misunderstand the fundamental problem plaguing the economy, they at least recognize its symptoms.
Conservatives and many libertarians, on the other hand, frequently dismiss many ills such as poverty as fabricated by the left-liberal imagination, when in fact it does a disservice to the cause of liberty and free markets to defend the current system and ignore very real and serious problems, which are often caused by government intervention in the economy. We should recognize that state corporatism is a form of socialism, and…consolidate(s) wealth in the hands of the few.
…What is more often neglected is that the history of the American domestic welfare and regulatory state also corresponds closely to the rise of corporatism. It is no coincidence.
…In more recent years, corporate interests have often cheered on big government programs…(it) is also vitally important to make clear that America doesn’t have a free-market economy, and indeed many of the ills associated with free markets are actually the result of state capitalism—or socialist corporatism. That the expansion of government regulations, often done in the name of combating corporate excesses, is frequently supported most enthusiastically by corporate interests…
Virginia’s Public-Private Partnership (PPP) program exemplifies this, channeling billions into often no-bid contracts negotiated in secretive “closed sessions.” This lack of transparency ensures funds flow to connected parties, leaving the public powerless to intervene or even understand the process.
Acknowledgment: I’d like to thank Grok, an AI by xAI, for helping me draft and refine this article. The final edits and perspective are my own.
