Who Rules America?

1. America is dominated by a tiny corporate rich elite.

The wealthiest Americans, who make up 0.5% of the population at most, will continue to be the most powerful group in the country.

Concentrated power. At a crucial juncture in American history, a minuscule fraction of the population—the top 0.5%—wields disproportionate influence over governmental decision-making. This elite group, primarily owners and managers of large banks, corporations, real estate companies, and agribusinesses, has systematically built a complex, yet visible, network to shape policy. Their success stems from the inherent rights and privileges of ownership, coupled with their capacity to create influential policy-planning and opinion-shaping organizations.

Shared objectives. Despite internal differences and corporate competition, this wealthy elite is united by five core goals that drive their political actions. These include:

• Eliminating labor unions to mitigate perceived threats.
• Expanding international trade and investment.
• Reducing taxes on high-income individuals and corporations.
• Limiting government regulation of businesses.
• Restraining the growth of social insurance programs like Social Security and healthcare.
  These shared objectives ensure a unified front against challenges from inclusionary alliances and the Democratic Party.

Countering opposition. The corporate rich remain cohesive to counter constant challenges from diverse activist groups, including communities of color, feminists, environmentalists, climate activists, inclusionary white liberals, and union leaders. While they have often prevailed, their continuous concern about future challenges underscores the dynamic nature of power. Their preference for gradual adaptation over constant strife means their stance on issues like diversity and voting rights can sometimes diverge from ultraconservative allies, creating internal tensions within the broader conservative movement.

2. The corporate community is a cohesive, interconnected network.

The corporate community has remained relatively stable in its contours and membership ever since a vast merger movement ended in the early twentieth century, and it is still crucial to understanding the American power structure in the 2020s.

Interlocking directorates. The corporate community, comprising thousands of large corporations, banks, and financial companies, is far from a collection of isolated entities. Its cohesion is built on shared ownership, established supply chains, common legal and accounting firms, and, most visibly, interlocking directorates where individuals sit on multiple corporate boards. These interlocks, while not always directly influencing daily operations, provide a framework for disseminating innovations and offering a broad overview of the business landscape.

Unified advocacy. Beyond individual corporate connections, overarching business associations further solidify the corporate community's unity. Organizations like the National Association of Manufacturers, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Conference Board, the Committee for Economic Development, the Business Council, and the Business Roundtable act as central coordinators. These groups share numerous members and directors, ensuring a common voice on general interests and playing a crucial role in the policy-planning process. The Business Roundtable, in particular, has been a central coordinator since the 1970s, demonstrating the enduring nature of this integrated network.

Historical roots. The corporate community's origins trace back to jointly owned textile companies in New England in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, evolving through massive merger movements between 1895 and 1904. This transformation saw industrial companies adopt corporate structures not just for efficiency, but to regulate competition and gain legal protection against reformers. Corporate lawyers played a pivotal role in this, securing rights and privileges for corporations that continue to protect the fortunes of the corporate rich today. This historical development underscores how the corporate community was intentionally constructed to consolidate and maintain power.

3. An exclusive upper class reinforces elite power and values.

The elaborate private life of the plutocracy serves in considerable measure to separate them out in their own consciousness as a superior, more refined element.

Social cohesion through institutions. The corporate community is deeply intertwined with a distinct social upper class, comprising less than 0.5% of the American population. This class maintains its cohesion through a network of exclusive social institutions that organize members' lives from infancy to old age. These include high-status private schools, country clubs, downtown men's and women's clubs, and resort areas. These settings foster personal relationships, build trust, and reinforce a shared lifestyle, which is crucial for achieving consensus on complex policy issues.

Cultivating superiority. Private schools, particularly boarding schools, are linchpins in this system, acting as "total institutions" that inculcate a unique subculture and a sense of separateness and superiority. Graduates often proceed to prestigious universities, further solidifying their networks and cultural capital. While these schools occasionally provide upward mobility for a select few from lower-income backgrounds, their primary function is to prepare future leaders of the upper class, instilling values and connections that reinforce their privileged status.

Assimilation and continuity. The upper class is a blend of old and new wealth, with rising corporate executives assimilated into its lifestyle through social and economic mechanisms. They are educated in elite institutions, join exclusive clubs, and their children attend private schools. Stock options and high salaries enable them to adopt upper-class lifestyles, ensuring their values align with the established elite. This assimilation process ensures continuity of class dominance, as new members adopt the conservative outlook and anti-government perspective prevalent within the corporate rich.

4. A policy-planning network shapes government agendas.

The issues facing the corporate rich are too complex, and the economy is too large, for new policies to arise naturally from common interests and social cohesion alone.

Structured policy development. To translate shared economic interests and social cohesion into actionable policies, the corporate rich established a sophisticated policy-planning network. This network, comprising foundations, think tanks, and policy-discussion groups, provides the organizational infrastructure for research, consultation, and deliberation on complex issues. It serves as a crucial mechanism for articulating general policy preferences and conveying them to the White House, Congress, and both major political parties.

Key functions of the network:

• Information and vetting: Corporate leaders engage with experts from think tanks and universities, familiarizing themselves with policy issues and informally vetting potential government appointees.
• Consensus building: The network provides forums for discussing and compromising between moderate and ultraconservative policy alternatives, often involving experts from various viewpoints.
• Legitimation and influence: These non-partisan, nonprofit organizations legitimate their members as serious experts capable of government service, while also influencing younger experts and professors through grants and invitations.
• Dissemination: Through publications and public appearances, they shape the climate of opinion in Washington and nationwide.

Funding and influence. Foundations, funded by the corporate rich, are the primary financial backbone of this network, providing essential grants to think tanks and policy-discussion groups. Organizations like the Council on Foreign Relations and the Business Council, often formed in response to crises, have historically shaped major policies, from post-World War II international economic frameworks to trade agreements like NAFTA. This network's influence is so profound that it has played a significant role in creating new government agencies and shaping their mandates throughout the 20th century.

5. Public opinion is managed, but crises can break through.

The preferences of the vast majority of Americans appear to have essentially no impact on which policies the government does or doesn’t adopt.

Limited direct impact. While public opinion surveys reveal that most Americans favor greater government support for health, education, and full employment, and prefer less militaristic foreign policies, these preferences rarely translate directly into policy. Studies show that government responsiveness on issues like taxes, economic regulation, and social welfare is primarily directed towards the most affluent citizens, with the opinions of the majority having little to no impact. This disconnect highlights the power elite's ability to pursue its agenda despite popular sentiment.

The opinion-shaping network. To manage public perception and prevent widespread opposition, the corporate rich invest hundreds of millions, possibly billions, annually in an opinion-shaping network. This network, which evolved from early public relations efforts by wealthy families like the Rockefellers, employs both benign and dark tactics. Benign strategies involve corporate public affairs departments and PR firms polishing corporate images, cultivating goodwill through charitable donations, and influencing local opinion leaders in schools, churches, and voluntary associations.

Manufacturing doubt and enforcing limits. The darker side of opinion shaping involves manufacturing crises, spreading doubt about scientific findings (e.g., tobacco, climate change), and actively discrediting critics. The climate-denial network, heavily funded by ultraconservative foundations and dark money, exemplifies this, aiming to obstruct action on climate change by creating uncertainty. These efforts aim not necessarily to change general public opinion, but to block activities that might harm corporate interests and to enforce limits on acceptable discourse, often through coercive measures against activist groups.

6. The electoral system is designed to contain popular influence.

The gradual steps toward establishing modern-day containment strategies were largely dismantled in 2020, in good part due to the pandemic, but the efforts by white nationalist Republicans to restore them will be the defining issue of the 2020s as far as inclusion and exclusion in the United States.

Historical containment. The American electoral system, with its single-member districts and the Electoral College, was not designed for direct popular rule but as a series of "containment strategies" to filter popular influence. These rules, established by the Founding Fathers and reinforced over centuries, naturally lead to a two-party system. This structure discourages third parties and forces voters into broad coalitions, often blurring policy differences and emphasizing candidate personality over substantive issues.

Voter suppression tactics. Historically, containment strategies included gerrymandering and voter suppression tactics like literacy tests and poll taxes, particularly in the South to disenfranchise African Americans and low-income whites. While these were largely dismantled by the Voting Rights Act of 1965, new forms of suppression have emerged, including:

• Frequent accusations of voter fraud.
• Demands for proof of citizenship and mandated picture IDs.
• Arbitrarily purged voter rolls.
  These tactics disproportionately affect communities of color and low-income voters, aiming to limit Democratic electoral success.

Campaign finance and "wild cards." The candidate-selection process, heavily reliant on campaign finance, gives the corporate rich significant influence. Large donations are crucial for name recognition and crafting winning images, especially in primaries. While money is a necessary condition, it's not always sufficient, as demonstrated by "wild card" candidates like Donald Trump who can leverage personal wealth and media presence. The Supreme Court's Citizens United decision further amplified corporate and union spending, allowing for unlimited, often undisclosed, donations through Super PACs and front groups, creating a vast "dark money" landscape.

7. The power elite deeply influences government appointments and decisions.

The corporate rich and the power elite build on their structural power, their status power, their expert power, their storehouse of policy recommendations, and their success in the electoral arena to dominate the federal government on the issues they care about.

Direct access and lobbying. The power elite exerts significant influence over the federal government through two primary channels: the special-interest process and the policy-making process. The special-interest process involves lobbyists from corporations, law firms, and trade associations securing tax breaks, subsidies, and favorable regulatory rulings for specific entities. These lobbyists, often former government officials, leverage their connections and offer financial support, including PAC donations and contributions to legislators' local charities, to shape legislation.

Policy implementation through appointments. The policy-making process culminates in the appointment of individuals from the power elite to high-level positions within the executive branch. These appointees, predominantly corporate directors and corporate lawyers, are strategically placed to implement policies developed within the policy-planning network. Historical studies consistently show that a majority of cabinet members and top diplomatic posts in both Republican and Democratic administrations have come from the corporate community or its associated policy networks, ensuring a sympathetic ear to corporate interests.

Limiting government independence. The power elite actively works to limit governmental independence, fearing that a robust government could challenge corporate domination, particularly in labor markets. They influence government's ability to:

• Hire unemployed workers, which tightens private labor markets.
• Expand social benefits, which could reduce reliance on low-wage jobs.
• Limit immigration, which affects the supply of low-wage labor.
• Control interest rates, which impacts economic activity and unemployment.
• Support union organizing, which directly challenges corporate power.
  These efforts ensure that government actions generally align with corporate objectives, even if it means constraining policies that could benefit the broader populace.

8. The Supreme Court acts as a backstop for corporate interests.

In many ways, the Supreme Court also served as a champion of individual rights and freedoms, especially from 1953 to 1968, which increased the regard for it within the general public. Since that time, however, it has become the stronghold for white nationalists who seek to limit voting rights and abortion rights, and maintain white dominance.

Judicial reinforcement of corporate power. The Supreme Court, with its power of judicial review, has historically served as a crucial backstop for business interests, and later for the corporate community. Justices are predominantly from upper and upper-middle-class backgrounds, educated at elite law schools, and often have prior careers as corporate attorneys. While some justices may surprise their appointing presidents with liberal votes on civil rights, the Court generally reflects the acceptable range of opinions within the corporate community on economic issues.

Pro-corporate rulings. Since the 1970s, and particularly in recent decades, the Supreme Court has increasingly handed down decisions that favor corporations. These include:

• Limiting shareholder suits against corporate management.
• Restricting anti-trust challenges to mergers.
• Blocking lawsuits alleging securities fraud and product liability.
• Overturning large punitive-damage awards by juries.
• Creating "blockades" that make it harder for individuals to sue corporations.
  The Chamber of Commerce's Litigation Center actively works to influence these outcomes, demonstrating the organized effort to secure judicial support for corporate interests.

Impact on social and voting rights. While the Warren Court expanded individual rights, subsequent appointments, particularly by Republican presidents, have shifted the Court in a conservative direction on social issues and voting rights. The 2010 Citizens United decision opened the floodgates for dark money in elections, and rulings in 2013 and 2019 weakened the Voting Rights Act, allowing states to implement new voter suppression methods. The current 6-3 ultraconservative majority has further enabled restrictions on voting rights and union organizing, effectively reducing workers' ability to access company property for union activities, reinforcing white nationalist and corporate dominance.

9. Historical factors explain America's unique power concentration.

The corporate community in America is stronger because it did not have to contend with feudal aristocrats, strong states, and the hierarchy of an established church, all of which had a pervasive influence on Western European countries over many centuries of conflict.

Absence of traditional rivals. Unlike European nations, the United States lacked a feudal aristocracy, a strong centralized state, or an established church that could rival the power of its emerging economic elite. This historical vacuum allowed wealthy merchants and slaveholders in the colonial era, and later industrialists, to consolidate power with less resistance. The relatively small and decentralized federal government until World War II further facilitated corporate dominance, as businesses played a major role in shaping new administrative agencies and regulatory bodies.

Constitutional compromises and their legacy. The nation's founders, representing merchant and slaveholding interests, crafted a government with divided and limited powers to accommodate both Northern business owners and Southern slave owners. The Compromise of 1877, ending Reconstruction, solidified this by removing federal troops from the South, allowing planters to subjugate former slaves, and ensuring federal subsidies for Southern rebuilding. This bargain effectively reunited Northern industrialists and Southern landowners against a common foe: free labor, laying the groundwork for a national power structure that persisted for nearly a century.

Divided labor, unified capital. The American working class has historically been weaker than its European counterparts due to deep divisions based on race, ethnicity, and religion. These divisions, exacerbated by employer-backed violence against unions and the two-party electoral system, prevented workers from forming a cohesive social class or a strong labor party. In contrast, European parliamentary systems often allowed labor parties a foothold, forcing compromises with unions. In the U.S., employers, with government support, largely dismantled unions, ensuring that gains from increased corporate profits primarily benefited owners, not workers.

10. Social change emerges from unexpected crises and movements.

The numerous unanticipated crises and opportunities in just the past 70–80 years underscore that social scientists and historians can at best outline the structure of power and analyze trends.

Dynamic power structures. Despite the entrenched nature of class domination, the American power structure is not static. It is constantly evolving due to interactions and conflicts among the economic, political, military, and religious networks, driven by new technologies, communication methods, and social movements. These changes create potential fissures in the power structure, opening possibilities for new coalitions and alliances among those outside the dominant elite.

Unforeseen catalysts for change. History is replete with examples of unexpected crises that have reshaped the power landscape. The Great Depression and the New Deal created an opening for a liberal-labor alliance, while the nonviolent Civil Rights Movement inspired subsequent anti-war, feminist, environmental, and LGBTQ+ movements. Conversely, the rise of the religious right and white nationalist ultraconservatives in the 1970s, fueled by opposition to integration and social change, dramatically shifted the political balance, demonstrating how quickly power dynamics can change in unforeseen ways.

Future uncertainties. The 2020s present a "razor's edge" of possibilities, with momentous issues like climate change, new pandemics, and ongoing struggles over voting rights and racial inclusion. The outcomes will depend on the actions of voting rights activists, the choices of voters, and the decisions made by coalitions within political parties, the corporate community, and government institutions. The interplay of these forces, particularly the ability of inclusionary alliances to overcome white nationalist efforts at voter suppression and the entrenched power of the corporate rich, will determine whether the nation moves towards greater democracy or continued dominance by the wealthy few.