What Is an Oligarchy (and Are We One)?

not the only one around the web. But you'll see places ranging from Russia, China, and Saudi Arabia to Brazil and even Hong Kong described as oligarchies. Seventeen Salon article even warned of the growing power of a global uber oligarchy comprised of wealthy, superpowerful figures ranging from financiers to rock stars. And the concept isn't just owned by the

left either. President Donald Trump may not have used the same terminology, but the billionaire businessman rose to power in part by railing against the elites that he accused of disenfranchising ordinary Americans. If you're not a political science major, you may be wondering what exactly is an oligarchy anyway, and do we really have one in the United States. We spoke with Braun form Sano, the William T. Bryan Shair of American History and Professor Emeritus of History at

the University of Kentucky. He's written a couple of books on the subject American oligarchy, The Permanent Political Class, and Plutocracy in America. How increasing inequality destroys the middle class and exploits the poor. Formisano explained, an oligarchy is a combination of wealth and power and often tends to close

off access to its ranks, pulling up the ladder. Oligarchy, from the ancient Greek word meaning few, is a concept that goes back to the Greek philosopher Aristotle, who used it to describe a society governed by select few, wealthy or aristocratic people, as opposed to rule by a single monarch or a democracy in which the great mass of people of humble means holds control. Aristotle actually didn't favor

either oligarchy or democracy. He preferred a sort of half decaff cup of Joe, in which a middle group of moderately wealthy citizens controlled the reins. In the early nineteen hundreds. Philosopher Rubert Michelle's came up the Iron Law of oligarchy. It holds that any organization or society, even one that espouses democratic ideals of popular rule, inevitably will devolve into oligarchic rule, in which a few people take most of the power, in part because rank and file members tend

to want someone to tell them what to do. In America, Sanders isn't the first politician to be concerned about oligarchy. Fear that an entrenched elite would seize power dates back to the error when the nation was founded. John Adams, who became the second U S President, in particular, saw it as a potential menace. We spoke with Luke Mayville, author of the book John Adams and the Fear of

American Oligarchy. He said, our popular history paints us as a revolutionary society that overthrew monarchy, but revolution era America was also full of animosity towards anything resembling formal nobility or aristocratic privilege. This animosity made its way into the U. S Constitution in the form of the nobility clause of Article one, which prohibits the federal government from granting titles

of nobility. What made Adams unique was a systematic manner in which he theorized about oligarchy and documented the threat that oligarchy had posed throughout history. Mayville continued relatively early in his adult life. Adams was struck by the disproportionate influence enjoyed by men of wealth and illustrious lineage, but the record shows that he became much more fearful of oligarchy during his long sojourn as diplomat in Europe in

the late seventeen seventies and early seventeen eighties. In the Old World, he became a careful observer of the power that went hand in hand with family, lineage, physical beauty, and especially wealth. When he compared these observations of the Old world to conditions in the New World, he saw more similarities than differences. But Adams didn't exactly see the world the same way as does Sanders, for example, or Senator Elizabeth Warren, another presidential candidate who was concerned about

the concentration of wealth and power. Because Adams worried about rule by ordinary citizens as well, almost as much as he worried about oligarchy. He thought that giving everyone the right to vote would inevitably lead to all currently held private property being divvied up and redistributed. He believed in a balance between the power of the wealthy few and the organized power of the lower classes, something perhaps it can to Aristotle's concept of a mixed ruling class. Oligarchies

can develop in societies for several reasons. In a country with a monarchy or dictatorship, if a leader becomes too weak or incompetent rule, the strata of powerful people under the leader may start to siphon away his authority and ultimately may replace him with a puppet or else one

of their own members. It's also possible for an elite, say, for example, super wealthy business moguls, to take control of a society because they're good at getting things done, whether or not those things are in the best interests of everybody else. And there's also oligarchy by default, in which a democracy essentially withers because ordinary people allow an elite to take over because it's easier than staying informed and

grappling with complexities of governing. The question of whether the US is turning into an oligarchy, or perhaps already is one, has become a subjective heated debate back In an analysis out of Princeton and Northwestern University, studied one thousand, seven hundred and seventy nine different policy issues and concluded that economic elites and groups representing business interests had a lot of influence upon US government policy, while ordinary citizens and

interest groups representing them held a little sway. They didn't actually use the term oligarchy, though news media headlines summarizing their work did, but several other scholars published rebuttals arguing that either the masses and the elites didn't really disagree that much about policy choices, or that when they did, the masses usually prevailed. Public opinion though, suggests that most people think of the U S As oligarchic, even if

they don't call it that. In seen poll, sevent of Americans said that people like them have too little influence in Washington, and two percent believed that wealthy people had too much power over the government here in the U S. Foremisano said, it's not a matter of restrictions, but more closing of opportunity and diminishing chances for the middle and

lower classes. Even some billionaires worried that the nation's rising income inequalities unsustainable and may endangerr capitalism's future, even if they're not quite ready to give up all their influence. Today's episode was written by Patrick J. Tiger and produced by Tyler Clang. Brain Stuff is a production of iHeart

Radio's How Stuff Works. For more in this and lots of other powerful topics, visit our home planet, how stuff Works dot com, and for more podcasts for my heart radio, visit the iHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to your favorite shows.