While the United States purports to be a democratic republic, it is already an oligarchy. This was made clear by the billionaires at the inauguration of the billionaire Trump. It was made even clearer by Trump handing power over to Elon Musk and his DOGE.
In this context, an oligarchy is a political structure in which power is held largely by a small number of people. While all hierarchical systems have power disparities, the hallmark of an oligarchy is that power is highly concentrated in a few. Russia, which is ruled by Putin and his fellows, is a clear example of an oligarchy.
While oligarchs can be elected democratically, a democracy distributes power and the choices of the many are not nullified by the will of the few. In a republic, power is concentrated in the representatives, but they serve the people they represent rather than a few who hold the power. Preventing an oligarchy from emerging from the corpse of a democracy or republic requires preventing the concentration of power. Alternatively, allowing the butterfly of oligarchy to emerge from the caterpillar of democracy requires shifting power from the many to the few. This has already happened, but there is still some chance of rolling back the oligarchy. Fortunately for the oligarchs, cementing their rules is straightforward.
One important step is to ensure that limits are removed from the use of money in politics. The United States has hyper-concentrated wealth, which means that the hyper-wealthy are vastly outnumbered by everyone else. If the use of money in politics is ever limited, then the hyper-wealthy must compete for political influence using the same tools as the non-wealthy, which means they will not always get their way. To the degree that the wealthy are free to use money to influence politics, they gain an advantage over the many and can use this advantage to concentrate political power to match their concentration of money. Thanks to the Supreme Court, the use of money in politics is all but limitless.
A second important step is to weaken or eliminate groups that can compete with the oligarchs. While the many cannot match the wealthy few in individual spending and influence in a money-based political system, the many can pool their resources and match the few with their collective effort. One obvious example of this collective group is the labor union. If these groups are viable, the oligarchs cannot enjoy the full concentration of power. As such, cementing the American oligarchy requires crippling or destroying these unions. This is already being done with right to work laws and other legislation. While it might be thought that business tends to oppose unions because of financial reasons, unions also pose a clear political threat to oligarchs. There are, of course, other groups besides the unions that can exert political influence. For example, religious groups have political clout. Because of this, building the oligarchy requires eliminating, weakening or assimilating these groups. Ideally, of course, religious groups would support the oligarchy. One way that has proven effective is manipulating Christian groups to focus on homosexuality, transgender people, and abortion rather than on social justice; this encourages them to hand power to those who claim they will outlaw abortion and oppress homosexuals and transgender people. Racism and sexism are also very useful here as tools for keeping groups from forming alliances against the oligarchs. For example, the people hurting the white working-class the most are not brown or black workers, but the rich white people who make the economic decisions. If white workers realized this, it would be bad for the white oligarchs. Once the significant groups are neutralized or assimilated, then the oligarchy will be well established. Of course, there are still the pesky voters—they can still, in theory, resist the oligarchy, which leads to the third step.
While the United States still has elections, allowing honest and fair elections would be an impediment to the oligarchs. After all, the many might vote against what the powerful few want. As such, the influence of certain voters must be reduced. Fortunately, there are already tools to make this happen. One is gerrymandering, which allows numerical minorities to foil the will of the majority—an important condition for oligarchy. Another tool is voter suppression, something forged throughout United States history (especially the Jim Crow laws). If the right people can be prevented from voting, then the results of elections can be influenced. Combining the two tools and adding a few more into the mix (such as election fraud and having candidates supervise their own elections) can really help solidify the oligarchy.
Lastly, there is the strategy of concentration itself—power must flow from the many to the few. One ongoing method is crafting laws and policies that ensure that money flows upward and concentrates rather than flowing downward. Another method is to hoard opportunities, something that the college admission scandal exposed (now largely forgotten). And, as DOGE is showing, professional civil servants who might impede the will of the oligarchs must be fired or traumatized into quitting so that they can be replaced with those loyal to the oligarchs. This is all part of keeping power concentrated—if the people stand a chance of regaining power, then that could be end of the oligarchy. As such, they must be kept in their place if the oligarchy is to be an enduring reality.
I don’t know, Professor. This is why I WANT to know. I do not understand well, the distinction (s) around, among or between terms like autocrat; authoritarian;
authoritarian populist; dictator; oligarch; tyrant* and so on in the litany of governance(?). My dear brother is a poet. After studying and obtaining a degree in psychology, nearly another in philosophy. I was not interested in philosophy, until recently (the last twenty or so years). Maybe my interest re-kindled his. In any case, we have much more in common now, impishwise, than we did thirty years ago. Better to grow, than rot, I think. Anyway, distinctions between and/or among categories mentioned above are thin, depending upon application. (Inasmuch as I did not list KINGS in the litany, that is pretty much moot, or, mute. It was a “divine right”, right?…last time I read). Such distinctions, being thin as I characterize them, are open to discussion; argument; fist-fights or worse.
If you have not deduced, I loved and miss Harry Frankfurt. And, Dan Dennett. Those men lived, on their own terms. I respect that, immensely. It is what I try to do, against the odds. Beware of word salad. It is deceptive, by intention. Everybody lies—Bill Clinton. There it is. Thank you.
* how much of that word salad is meaningful now; how much is drivel—or, contextual reality (ding!)
Musk really bothers me. Everything about him reeks of wealth=privilege=rights=arrogance, etcetera. Right now, though, Trump is more troubling. He has some of what Musk has. But, he wants more of that, doesn’t he? Of the “seven deadlies”, greed is, arguably, the worst…it can affect thousands. Trump already has arrogance and narcissistic cards in his deck. But, of course, greed; arrogance; and, narcissism feed upon one another. Sure. This is where we live—if we are not hermits. I question the liberties this administration is taking against education and a number of institutions. This reeks of science-fiction novels featuring loss of rights and identity.
And;
I wonder about government shrinkage and unemployment of workers therefrom…there has to be overall impact, or, am I missing something? There must be think-tank brainpower working on this, right? I have not heard anything yet. I feel like no one in authority wants to say anything. Realistically, they don’t. They have jobs they would like to keep, yes? You’re Fired! brings back memories—for some of us. End of rant.