Can Independent Billionaires Retool the U.S. Establishment?
Elon Musk. Nicole Shanahan. Donald Trump. Howard Lutnick. Peter Thiel. Marc Andreessen. These billionaires have adopted a strategy of challenging the U.S. "establishment." Though establishment journalists often scoff, there’s substance to this approach that goes beyond simple posturing.
The idea of wealthy individuals dismantling the establishment might seem contradictory. But in practice, these figures are uniquely positioned to disrupt the entrenched status quo. Unlike the professional managerial class—a bureaucratic network that controls many American institutions—the wealthy (and the super wealthy) operate outside typical structures. Their focus on entrepreneurial innovation and disruption often eclipses any allegiance to established norms, and this positions them as anti-establishment figures.
Understanding the "professional managerial class" is essential here. This class, while powerful, isn’t synonymous with wealth. Residing in sectors like government, education, corporate management, and nonprofits, the professional managerial class wields influence through policy enforcement and institutional continuity rather than ownership. They act as custodians, operating within a framework that often leans progressive and enforces ideologies that sustain the current order. Many wealthy Americans who support these systems do so out of practicality rather than ideological alignment, setting them apart as potential disruptors.
Large corporations and institutions have long had a stronghold in American society, more so today than ever before. In an era dominated by technology and large-scale finance, these entities exert unprecedented influence over public policy, social norms, and even individual behaviors. Meanwhile, working-class Americans, small business leaders, and entrepreneurs often find they share surprising common ground, aligning more closely with each other than with the professional managerial class. Though their incomes vary, their drive for autonomy and success is strikingly similar. A person with $100 million - or $10 billion - may seem worlds apart from a steelworker, yet both understand the value of independence. This divide is not merely one of wealth but of mindset: both groups, in their respective ways, prioritize tangible results over abstract ideology.
This alignment against the managerial class is especially evident as Americans increasingly question who controls the cultural and social narrative. The managerial class holds significant sway over education, HR policies, and nonprofits, promoting an orthodoxy that feels distant from the lived experiences of many citizens. Ironically, much of this agenda relies on backing from wealthy individuals who may not fully endorse it. For the wealthy, supporting institutions or political parties often comes down to pragmatic concerns, such as ensuring regulatory stability or maintaining favorable business conditions, rather than a commitment to the managerial class’s values. This ideological gap provides an opportunity for wealthy outsiders to mount a genuine challenge to bureaucratic confines.
America’s wealthiest often thrive on change and risk, standing in stark contrast to the process-driven ethos that defines the managerial class. Their willingness to innovate and confront potential failure makes them inherently suited to counterbalance the establishment’s hyper-ideological tendencies. Accustomed to questioning norms, they can shake up the status quo in ways that the bureaucratically bound professional class seldom attempts. Musk’s ventures in space exploration and electric vehicles, or Trump’s unorthodox political path, highlight this disruptive capacity, challenging institutional norms and setting new paradigms.
Paradoxically, those seen as backers of the establishment may be best suited to disrupt it. Their financial support for institutional structures and, often, the Democratic Party is frequently transactional, aimed at preserving ties with government and political power rather than showing ideological loyalty. This pragmatism gives them independence, enabling them to influence the cultural establishment even as they sustain parts of it.
The idea that it takes an outsider to penetrate the inside, a misfit to shake up the system, or an immigrant to redefine the American dream speaks directly to this point. Wealthy entrepreneurs and capital-rich citizens who are neither entrenched in nor benefiting from the establishment are well-suited to disrupt it. Their success often stems from breaking through barriers and forging new paths—values that resonate with many Americans who view their own role in society similarly. This alignment in values, centered around self-reliance, innovation, and tangible outcomes, reinforces the connection between wealthy disruptors and the public.
The American context for these dynamics creates a unique reality. Wealthy disruptors don’t need ideological commitment to gain influence; they rely instead on practical, transactional relationships that allow them to engage with the establishment from a position of independence. This creates a distinct kind of influence—one that can support and disrupt the establishment, leaving room for innovation within traditional structures. This paradox of influence reflects both America’s capacity for change and its complex relationship with tradition.
By embodying values of self-determination and pragmatic flexibility, America’s wealthiest disruptors could serve as counterweights to the entrenched influence of the managerial class, crafting a power balance that keeps the American establishment from becoming entirely insular or dogmatic. In the U.S., the wealthiest can simultaneously support and challenge the establishment, embodying an enduring energy that reshapes influence and reinforces the possibility of change.
It's not crazy at all to think that wealthy individuals can disrupt - or will disrupt - the established status quo. In fact, I happen to think it's a very American scenario. The next time established elites push back against the idea that the independently wealthy can change the system, remind them how the original system was created.