Do elites rule America? Are American elites united? How close are American elites to division, thus undermining elite rule? “Elites rule through particular strategies and fail through typical issues. Elite solidarity is essential to elite rule; division among the elite is a typical cause of elite failure.” (Stephen Turner)
An attack on pluralism is an attack on elite rule, says Turner.
Pluralism, in a political or social context, refers to a system or society where multiple groups, interests, or ideologies coexist, compete, and share influence. It emphasizes diversity of perspectives and the distribution of power among various factions, rather than its concentration in a single group. Elite rule, often associated with elitism or oligarchy, describes a system where a small, privileged group holds disproportionate power or influence over society, whether through wealth, status, expertise, or institutional control.
At first glance, the statement seems counterintuitive because pluralism and elite rule are often seen as opposing frameworks. Pluralism suggests a diffusion of power, while elite rule implies its concentration. However, the statement could be interpreted in a few ways, depending on the perspective
:Pluralism as a Facade for Elite Rule: One interpretation is that pluralism, in practice, can serve as a mechanism to sustain elite rule. In a pluralist system, elites may dominate key institutions (e.g., media, finance, politics) while allowing a veneer of diverse voices to create the illusion of shared power. An attack on pluralism—say, by consolidating power into a single ideology or authority—could disrupt this arrangement by exposing or challenging the elites’ ability to maintain control through managed diversity. In this sense, undermining pluralism might threaten the stability of elite rule by removing the framework that legitimizes their influence.
Pluralism as a Tool of Elite Competition: Another angle is that pluralism enables competition among elites, allowing different elite factions (e.g., corporate leaders, political parties, cultural influencers) to vie for influence within a structured system. An attack on pluralism, such as the rise of authoritarianism or a singular ideology, could suppress this competition, forcing elites to either consolidate into a narrower ruling group or lose influence altogether. Thus, pluralism could be seen as a necessary condition for elite rule in a fragmented, competitive form.
Elites—broadly defined as individuals or groups with disproportionate influence over political, economic, cultural, or social systems—undeniably shape America’s direction, though “rule” implies a level of centralized control that may oversimplify reality. America’s system is pluralistic, with checks and balances, but elites exert outsized influence through:
Political Elites: Elected officials, bureaucrats, and advisors (e.g., Congress, senior civil servants, think tank leaders) shape policy. For example, lobbying by corporate interests and political donations (e.g., Super PACs) amplify elite influence. In 2020, the top 100 donors (mostly wealthy individuals or corporations) contributed over $2 billion to political campaigns, per OpenSecrets.org.
Economic Elites: Corporate leaders, Wall Street executives, and billionaires (e.g., Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk) influence markets and policy through wealth and networks. The top 1% own over 32% of U.S. wealth (Federal Reserve, 2023), giving them leverage over economic priorities.
Cultural Elites: Media, academic, and entertainment figures shape narratives. For instance, major news outlets and tech platforms (e.g., Google, legacy media) gatekeep information, influencing public opinion.
However, “rule” doesn’t mean absolute control. The U.S. has democratic mechanisms—elections, free speech, judicial review—that limit elite dominance. Public movements (e.g., Tea Party, Occupy Wall Street, or recent populist surges) can challenge elite agendas. Yet, elites often adapt, co-opting or neutralizing dissent (e.g., corporate adoption of “woke” branding).
Are American Elites United?
American elites are not a monolith; they’re a loose coalition of competing factions with shared and divergent interests. Turner’s point about elite solidarity being essential to rule holds here: unity amplifies influence, but division is ever-present. Elites align on certain goals but fracture on others:Shared Interests: Most elites support maintaining the status quo of globalized capitalism, U.S. geopolitical dominance, and institutional stability. For example, both Democratic and Republican elites back corporate tax breaks or military spending (e.g., $886 billion defense budget in 2023). Tech, finance, and political elites often collaborate on policies like deregulation or trade agreements.
Divisions: Elites split along ideological, regional, and sectoral lines:Ideological Splits: Progressive elites (e.g., academic and media figures) push social justice and climate agendas, while conservative elites (e.g., energy sector leaders, religious influencers) prioritize deregulation and traditional values. These tensions fuel culture wars, like debates over education policy or ESG investing.
Sectoral Competition: Tech elites (e.g., Silicon Valley) clash with legacy industries (e.g., oil, manufacturing) over regulation and innovation. For instance, tech firms advocate net neutrality, while telecom giants resist it.
Political Polarization: Elite-backed political factions—progressive Democrats vs. MAGA Republicans—disagree on governance. The 2020 election saw elite donors split sharply: Wall Street leaned Biden, while some industrialists backed Trump.
Despite these divisions, elites often close ranks when their collective power is threatened. For example, during the 2008 financial crisis, political and economic elites unified to pass TARP bailouts ($700 billion), prioritizing systemic stability over ideological differences.How Close Are American Elites to Division Undermining Elite Rule?Turner’s argument that “division among the elite is a typical cause of elite failure” is key. Elite rule falters when internal fractures prevent coordinated action or alienate the public, eroding legitimacy. American elites are moderately divided but not yet at a breaking point. Here’s an assessment:Current Divisions:Populism vs. Establishment: The rise of populist figures (e.g., Trump, Sanders) reflects elite-public disconnect. Elites are criticized as out-of-touch, fueling distrust. A 2023 Pew Research poll showed only 20% of Americans trust the federal government, a historic low.
Cultural Polarization: Elite-driven culture wars (e.g., over DEI, free speech) deepen public and intra-elite divides. Some elites (e.g., tech moguls like Musk) break ranks, criticizing “woke” orthodoxy, while others double down.
Economic Tensions: Wealth inequality strains elite cohesion. For example, tech billionaires face scrutiny from both progressive elites (taxation debates) and conservative ones (antitrust concerns).
Stabilizing Factors:Institutional Resilience: Elites leverage institutions (e.g., courts, Federal Reserve) to maintain influence, even amid division. For instance, the Supreme Court’s 2022 rulings on abortion and gun rights aligned with conservative elite priorities, despite liberal elite opposition.
Economic Interdependence: Globalized markets bind elites. Tech, finance, and political leaders share stakes in economic stability, discouraging radical ruptures.
Media Control: While fractured, elites still dominate narrative-setting through media and tech platforms, limiting the impact of dissent.
Risk of Undermining Rule: Elite division is a risk but not imminent collapse. Historical examples of elite failure (e.g., French Revolution, Roman Republic’s fall) required deeper fractures and mass mobilization. America’s elites face public discontent, but no unified revolutionary force exists. If divisions grow—say, if populist movements gain elite defectors or economic crises erode public tolerance—elite rule could weaken. For now, elites manage tensions through compromise or suppression (e.g., censoring online dissent, as seen in debates over platform moderation).
Strategies and Failures (Per Turner)Turner notes elites rule through strategies like coalition-building, narrative control, and institutional capture, but fail when divisions expose weaknesses. American elites excel at:Coalition-Building: Cross-sector alliances (e.g., tech-political partnerships) sustain influence.
Narrative Control: Media and academia shape public perception, though trust is eroding.
Institutional Capture: Elites dominate key institutions (e.g., Ivy League, Wall Street), ensuring influence.
Failures emerge when:Divisions Amplify: Ideological splits (e.g., progressive vs. populist elites) weaken coordinated action.
Public Distrust Grows: Overreach (e.g., perceived censorship) fuels backlash.
External Shocks: Crises (e.g., economic collapse, geopolitical failure) could exploit divisions.
Conclusion
Elites significantly influence America but don’t “rule” in an absolute sense due to democratic constraints. They’re united on core interests (economic stability, global dominance) but divided ideologically and sectorally. These divisions create vulnerabilities, as Turner suggests, but aren’t yet severe enough to undermine elite influence broadly. Growing public distrust and populist pressures could widen cracks, especially if economic or social crises intensify. For now, elite adaptability and institutional control maintain their grip, but the system is not invulnerable.
Yes, elites rule America—political, corporate, financial, academic, media, and cultural elites dominate the key institutions. They shape policy, public discourse, and major decisions, often insulated from democratic pressures. But elite rule isn’t monolithic or unchallenged.
American elites are not fully united. There are factions—liberal vs. conservative, globalist vs. nationalist, tech vs. legacy industries, Ivy-connected vs. populist outsiders. They often agree on preserving the system that benefits them but disagree on how to run it or what threats matter most.
Elite cohesion is under strain. Trumpism, campus revolts, billionaire infighting, culture war battles, and media fragmentation all show cracks. The 2008 crash and COVID responses exposed and deepened divides. The risk isn’t total elite collapse, but increasing elite incoherence—mixed messaging, contradictory policies, and growing loss of legitimacy.
Turner’s point holds: pluralism—competing elite spheres (media, academia, business, etc.)—helps stabilize elite rule by offering controlled dissent and options. Attacks on pluralism (from within or below) threaten the entire elite ecosystem. If enough factions see no path to protect their status through cooperation, you get gridlock, infighting, and potentially rupture.
Bottom line: elite rule still holds, but fragmentation is growing. The system runs on elite consensus, and that consensus is fraying. If polarization continues unchecked, it could push American elite rule into a real legitimacy crisis.
