Everyone has been talking about it. By it, I don't mean the Eagles' phenomenal Super Bowl win this past Sunday, nor the fact that Beyoncé won a Grammy for both best album and country album of the year, although I'm sure there's been plenty of buzz about both.
No, I'm talking about the occupants of the row behind the first family during the inauguration on January 20. The row that is normally filled with Cabinet members was instead occupied by members of the billionaire boys' club, aka the tech bros. Musk, Zuckerberg, Bezos, and others who cater to the modern world's insatiable wants were literally and symbolically seated as close to the epicenter of power as a non-related person could be.
© AP Photo/Julia Demaree Nikhinson, Pool via The Times Leader
So why is everyone's knickers in such a twist about this event? It's not as if we didn't know that billionaires existed, or that they exert heavy influence on both business and politics. Rather, I think it was the in-your-face quality of the moment that took many people aback. In the past, the connection between big money and American politics has been a bit more subtle. Like the Wizard of Oz, the old heavy lifters often preferred to stay behind the curtain, pulling the levers of power out of sight.
The 2025 inauguration signaled a new era for the big players. Not only have they openly acknowledged and been acknowledged, some of them now have titles that allow them unfettered access to government agencies. The very people whom the federal government used to view as needing supervision have become the supervisors.
Welcome to the age of broligarchy.
What Did You Call It?
For those of you who are unfamiliar with the term, a broligarch is "a politically influential younger male tycoon, particularly one involved in technology. Seemingly derived from tech bro" (Collins Dictionary); and a broligarchy is "a small group of ultrawealthy men who exert inordinate control or influence within a political structure, particularly while espousing views regarded as anti-democratic, technofascist, and masculinist" (Wiktionary).
Before we dive into particulars, I think it's important to break the term into its parts (bro + oligarchy) and examine the history and implications of both. We'll start with the second part first.
The Oligarch Part
As a quick refresher, an oligarchy is defined as a form of governance or political system where power is concentrated in the hands of a small group of individuals or families. This elite group often possesses significant wealth, social status, or political influence, which allows them to exert control over the larger population. For the etymologists in the group, the term oligarchy is derived from the Greek words oligos, meaning "few," and arkhein, meaning "to rule."
In an oligarchic system, the ruling class may consist of business magnates, aristocrats, military leaders, or other influential figures who join forces to maintain their control over the state. Unlike a democracy, where power is distributed among citizens and leaders are elected by the majority, an oligarchy operates on the principle that its members are more capable of governing, often justifying their rule through claims of expertise or superior knowledge.
The structure of an oligarchy can manifest itself in various ways, including political parties that are controlled by a small number of individuals, or in the form of a corporate oligarchy where major corporations have significant sway over government policies and decisions. This concentration of power can lead to a disenfranchisement of ordinary people, as the interests of the ruling elite are prioritized over the needs and desires of the majority.
Historically, many countries and societies have experienced periods of oligarchic rule, where the interests of the few have dominated the political landscape. For instance, ancient Sparta is often cited as an example of an oligarchic system, where a small group of elite warriors governed the state. A few other examples would be:
Pre-Imperial Rome (Senate)
Early Medieval Japan (Heian period)
Renaissance Europe (Medici)
America's Gilded Age (robber barons, etc.)
Allow me to observe that during these periods, the average person had neither expansive rights nor did particularly well, either economically or politically.
© Alina Rossoshanska from Pexels via Canva.com
Contemporary oligarchies have emerged in countries where democratic institutions are weak, which lets the elites manipulate the government for their own benefit. One notable example is Russia, where a small group of wealthy businessmen gained substantial power following the collapse of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s. Men like Roman Abramovich and Mikhail Khodorkovsky amassed huge fortunes through the privatization of state assets.
They continue to secure their interests by aligning themselves with Putin's government, while he in turn directs them to act as Russia's emissaries in various situations. The tricky thing about being an oligarch in Russia, though, is to not fly higher than the head of state. For those who have done so, the end result can mean imprisonment or death.
Another example can be found in China, where the Communist Party maintains strict control over political life while allowing a select group of business elites to thrive within a state-capitalist framework. This novel blend has led to the emergence of powerful figures like Jack Ma, co-founder of Alibaba Group, who later ran afoul of the Party. The Chinese oligarchy is characterized by a symbiotic relationship where loyalty to the party is paramount, though, and deviation from party lines can lead to significant and negative consequences.
In the Middle East, oligarchic structures can be seen in countries like Saudi Arabia, where royalty holds significant power over both governance and the economy. The Al Saud family has maintained control over the nation’s vast oil wealth for generations, shaping both domestic policies and international relations. This particular form of oligarchy combines political authority with religious influence, as the family is also the guardian of holy sites in Mecca and Medina. As a result, the Al Sauds' rule is deeply entrenched and maintains control over all facets of life in the country.
The Bro Part
Besides being exclusive in number, the broligarchy is exclusive in gender as well. Some of the group's members have been outspoken in promoting what has traditionally been viewed as male virtues: strength, aggression, and dominance. As Brooke Harrington, professor of sociology at Dartmouth College put it, "“The ‘bro’ part of broligarch is not incidental to this—it’s built on this idea that not only are these guys superior, they are superior because they’re guys.”
Mark Zuckerberg's recent interview with Joe Rogan, in which he stated that the corporate world has become "culturally neutered" and that it should "celebrate the aggression a bit more" is a recent example. So too is Elon Musk's sharing of a post on X that stated: "Only high T alpha males and aneurotypical (hey autists!) are free to parse through new information with an objective 'is this true?' filter. This is why a Republic of high status males is best for decision making." Musk did not voice his own thoughts on the post, but sharing it on the platform he owns seems to speak loudly enough.
Put It Together
In the United States, the broligarchy is not a traditional oligarchy, nor is it exactly like the other ones that currently exist. Instead, it represents an evolution of the term with a modern technological and commercial twist.
The broligarchy is primarily made up of individuals who share a particular identity: they are male and dominate a field of business, particularly tech. Among others, this group includes Elon Musk (Tesla, Starlink), Mark Zuckerberg (Meta), Jeff Bezos (Amazon), Sundar Pichai (Google), Peter Thiel (Paypal), and Marc Andressen (Andreessen Horowitz). These ultra-wealthy men, who are interconnected through networks of privilege, education, and social media, share more than membership in the world's most elite financial club. Though they differ in some ways, they exhibit some common ideological traits, according to Sigal Samuel's article in Vox:
All of these men see themselves as the heroes or protagonists in their own sci-fi saga. And a key part of being a “technological superman” — or ubermensch, as the German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche would say — is that you’re above the law. Common-sense morality doesn’t apply to you because you’re a superior being on a superior mission (emphasis ours). Thiel, it should be noted, is reportedly a big Nietzsche fan, though his is an extremely selective reading of the philosopher’s work.
In this new oligarchic structure, the broligarchs often engage in practices that blur the lines between business and politics. They utilize their wealth to fund political campaigns, influence legislation, and shape public discourse through various means, including lobbying and media ownership. This intertwining of economic and political power creates a feedback loop that perpetuates their dominance, as policies favorable to their interests are enacted, further entrenching their position.
Elon Musk in particular has now positioned himself to wield enormous control over many government entities. Through the years, Musk has strategically cultivated relationships with various governmental bodies, leveraging his influence and the success of his companies, such as Tesla, SpaceX, and Neuralink, to gain significant sway in both policy-making and regulatory matters. His ventures often intersect with critical areas such as transportation, energy, and space exploration, which are inherently linked to government interests and public policy. Musk can't reach Mars without the U.S. Government financing Space X.
As the head of the newly created DOGE (Department of Government Efficiency), Musk has been given access to a vast array of resources and information, including comprehensive data analytics tools, which allow him to analyze government operations across various departments. With these tools, he can criticize performance metrics, employee productivity, and budget allocations. He has also been allowed access to the personal information of numerous individuals, including sensitive data such as email addresses, phone numbers, and potentially even private messages or other forms of communication.
Another significant aspect of the broligarchy is its impact on culture. The values and behaviors promoted by this group often prioritize competitiveness, individualism, and a disregard for collective responsibility. The most obvious area where they have abandoned the common good is the use of social media algorithms that, in essence, have created divisive echo chambers. Whether this practice is being used to generate more revenue, influence people's thinking, or both, there is no doubt that it has contributed heavily to our country being more and more divided on many issues.
Now What?
As you can probably assume by now, there is a fundamental incompatibility between broligarchy and economic mutuality that results from their opposing principles. Broligarchy thrives on exclusivity, hierarchy, and the concentration of power, which inherently creates disparities and inequalities. This concentration of power often leads to exploitation, where the interests of the few dictate the economic realities of the many. In contrast, economic mutuality seeks to promote equality, collaboration, and shared benefits among all individuals involved in the business or enterprise or, yes, government.
In addition, the broligarchic structure often fosters an environment where competition and self-interest prevail over cooperation and community well-being. This competitive environment can hinder the development of sustainable practices that are essential for long-term economic health. Economic mutuality, on the other hand, encourages collaboration and the pooling of resources, which can lead to more sustainable and resilient economic systems.
The stark differences between broligarchy (exclusivity and dominance) and economic mutuality (cooperation and shared benefit) are clear; as such, the continued coexistence of these two paradigms is unsustainable, as the values and practices of one fundamentally undermine the principles of the other. If we are to maintain the foundational principles of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for all, the broligarchs' influence must be diminished. Don't mistake me, these men should be able to enjoy the fruits of their labor; but like a flame in the fireplace, their power must be contained to keep the house from burning down.
How will such a turnaround be achieved? Given the power and vast sums of wealth at their disposal, it's a daunting task. I always like practical applications though, and so I'll name a few things that are within everyone's grasp:
Make your voice heard. When it comes to government, we must express our unhappiness with actions that appear to be undemocratic or violate our civil rights. Contact your representatives and tell them of your concerns.
Support anti-trust legislation. Just as happened during the last century, laws can be enacted now that will reign in concentrated power. It will take voting for and supporting people of integrity to do so.
Find alternate products. Vote with your dollars! We need to remind ourselves that we are the ones who collectively made the billionaires of the world, and we can potentially unmake them as well with our purchasing power.
Pray. People of faith believe that God is ultimately in control; continue to ask for leaders of integrity to be raised up.
Finally, I am reminded of a passage from C. S. Lewis' The Magician's Nephew when thinking about the broligarch mindset. Digory, the main character, is furious with his Uncle Andrew for putting his friend Polly's life in danger. His Uncle's response to his anger is as follows:
© Pauline Baynes/The Magician's Nephew
No, Digory. Men like me, who possess hidden wisdom, are freed from common rules just as we are cut off from common pleasures. Ours, my boy, is a high and lonely destiny."
As he said this he sighed and looked so grave and noble and mysterious that for a second Digory really thought he was saying something rather fine. But then he remembered the ugly look he had see on his Uncle's face the moment before Polly had vanished: and all at once he saw through Uncle Andrew's grand words. "All it means," he said to himself, "Is that he thinks he can do anything he likes to get anything he wants."
The ultimate reason to achieve broligarch status is the same as what Uncle Andrew thought he had achieved for himself: a level so high above that of regular people that he believes he can act with impunity and have whatever he desires. It is hard not to instantly contrast this attitude with that of other leaders; a few political examples would be Jimmy Carter, Abraham Lincoln, and George Washington (see here, here and here).
For economic mutuality--and society as a whole--to flourish, it's time to urgently address the overreach of this overtly anti-democratic structure before it gets to the point of no return. As a group, the citizenry has the power to look out for our common good and counter the power of the broligarchs.
Not sure? Let's schedule a call and talk.
⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ Our Amazon number 1 new release: Unleash more with Better Capitalism: Jesus, Adam Smith, Ayn Rand, & MLK Jr. on Moving from Plantation to Partnership Economics.
"This book merits close, sustained attention as a compelling move beyond both careless thinking and easy ideology."—Walter Brueggemann, Columbia Theological Seminary
"Better Capitalism is a sincere search for a better world."—Cato Institute
Comments