Will America’s Foreign Policy Change if it Becomes an Oligarchy?
The notion that the United States could evolve into an oligarchy—where power is concentrated in the hands of a few wealthy elites—raises profound questions not only about its internal dynamics but also about its role on the global stage. Outgoing President Joe Biden recently warned that the growing wealth disparity in the U.S. could be leading the country toward a more oligarchic system. If such a shift were to occur, the consequences for U.S. foreign policy could be dramatic, though the exact nature of those changes would depend on the specific structures of power that emerge.
Implications for Israel and the MENA Region
An oligarchic transformation in the U.S. would have profound implications for Israel and the broader MENA region. U.S. policy toward Israel, traditionally rooted in a combination of strategic, cultural, and democratic values, could become more transactional, driven by the economic or corporate interests of the elite. Support for Israel might hinge on its role in advancing defense contracts, technology collaborations, or energy deals rather than shared democratic ideals. In this regard, perhaps there would not be a great deal of change?
For the wider MENA region, U.S. engagement could shift to prioritizing alliances with resource-rich states and economically lucrative partnerships, potentially strengthening ties with authoritarian regimes at the expense of democratic movements. Humanitarian aid and efforts to address regional instability might decline, replaced by policies that focus on securing energy supplies and corporate access to key markets. This could exacerbate existing tensions and inequalities in the region, further destabilizing an already fragile geopolitical landscape. Again one could argue if there would be any dramatic change to current U.S. foreign policy in this region?
A Shift Toward Elite Interests
One of the most immediate effects of an oligarchic transformation would be a dramatic realignment of U.S. foreign policy to serve the interests of the wealthy few who hold political and economic power. Trump’s recent inauguration highlights his favourite multi-billionaires over democratically elected politicians. Historically, oligarchies have prioritized their own economic interests, often at the expense of broader social or humanitarian concerns. This could manifest in aggressive trade policies, resource extraction initiatives, and military interventions designed to secure elite financial holdings.
For instance, in a world where tech giants and energy conglomerates dominate, the U.S. might push for international regulatory frameworks that favor American technological dominance while sidelining global labor standards, human rights, or environmental concerns. This economic-centered foreign policy could deepen global inequality, especially between the U.S. and developing nations, potentially leading to new forms of economic dependency. It could be argued that from day 1 of Trump’s new administration this direction has already been set in motion with the multitude of executive orders signed relating to these key global policy areas.
The Role of Technology
A U.S. oligarchy could exploit technological advancements to solidify elite control, with far-reaching implications for both domestic governance and foreign policy. The rise of surveillance capitalism and the control of critical digital infrastructure by a few powerful corporations could enable unprecedented state-corporate coordination. On the international stage, U.S. tech giants might push for policies that enforce intellectual property rights and monopolistic practices, shaping global digital governance to their advantage. The promotion of Stargate and the Tik Tok issue are examples of this. [https://news.sky.com/story/donald-trump-tries-to-negotiate-tiktok-sale-on-live-tv-as-he-defends-capitol-riot-pardons-13294050]
Simultaneously, authoritarian regimes worldwide could adopt these technologies to enhance their own control, potentially aligning with U.S. oligarchic interests. This “digital diplomacy” would prioritize profit over privacy, potentially undermining democratic values globally.
Undermining Democratic Accountability
A core feature of a functioning democracy is the accountability of its leaders to the public. In an oligarchy, decision-making power would rest with a select group of elites, reducing the extent to which foreign policy reflects the will of the people. The current system of checks and balances could erode in favor of swift, unilateral actions benefiting those at the top.
For example, military interventions, trade agreements, and international alliances might increasingly cater to elite interests rather than public welfare. Such a shift risks alienating everyday Americans, who may feel disenfranchised and excluded from critical decisions about war, diplomacy, and global economic relations.
Populist Movements and Resistance
History offers numerous examples of populist movements countering elite power. In the U.S., the Progressive Era of the early 20th century emerged in response to the concentration of wealth and power among industrial magnates. Should oligarchic tendencies gain traction, similar grassroots efforts could arise to challenge the dominance of the elite.
These movements might focus on curbing the military-industrial complex, increasing corporate accountability, or pushing for democratic reforms in foreign policymaking. For instance, international resistance to corporate-backed trade deals could mirror domestic calls for policies prioritizing the broader public.
Comparative Analysis: Lessons from Other Oligarchies
Examining existing oligarchic states like Russia and China can provide insight into how the U.S. might change. These nations have often pursued foreign policies that prioritize state-backed corporate interests, with limited transparency and accountability. Russia’s resource-driven geopolitics and China’s Belt and Road Initiative exemplify how oligarchies use foreign policy as a tool for economic expansion and elite enrichment.
Should the U.S. follow a similar path, its global alliances might shift. Traditional partners like NATO could take a backseat to new coalitions based on financial and corporate interests. This might even lead to closer ties with other oligarchic regimes where shared economic priorities overshadow concerns about democracy or human rights. Already, tension is brewing with Trump wanting to take on Greenland.
Eroding Soft Power and Multilateralism
An oligarchic U.S. risks losing its soft power—the ability to influence others through culture, values, and ideology. Historically, the U.S. has championed democracy and freedom, but an oligarchic system might prioritize transactional diplomacy over these ideals. This could alienate traditional allies and diminish the U.S.’s moral authority on the global stage.
Additionally, multilateral institutions like the UN, WTO, or IMF might face declining U.S. support akin to the recent withdrawal from the WHO. Instead, the U.S. could pursue bilateral agreements that align with elite interests, further undermining global cooperation on issues like climate change, public health, and poverty alleviation.
The Military-Industrial Complex
The U.S. military has long been central to its foreign policy, and an oligarchic shift could further entrench the influence of defense contractors and arms manufacturers. Military interventions might increasingly serve economic interests—securing resources, protecting corporate supply chains, or asserting dominance in strategic regions.
However, resistance from within the military itself is not unthinkable. Rank-and-file members, who are disproportionately drawn from lower-income communities, might question the priorities of an oligarchic leadership, creating internal tensions that could disrupt the status quo, arguably akin to the Capitol Hill riots for which Trump recently pardoned the participants.
Public Perception and Domestic Repercussions
Domestically, the concentration of power among elites could exacerbate economic inequality, reinforcing a cycle where oligarchic interests dominate both foreign and domestic policy. Public disenchantment might lead to protests, strikes, or political campaigns aimed at restoring democratic oversight.
Furthermore, the international perception of the U.S. could shift. Democracies worldwide might distance themselves from an oligarchic America, weakening its ability to build coalitions or lead on global challenges.
Conclusion
The idea of the U.S. slipping toward oligarchy is not just a theoretical concern; it is a reflection of growing wealth disparities and the erosion of democratic institutions. Should such a transformation occur, its foreign policy could prioritize elite economic interests at the expense of democratic values, multilateral cooperation, and global stability.
While the U.S. has robust democratic institutions, their ability to resist oligarchic tendencies will depend on the political will of the public, advocacy groups, and policymakers to uphold a system that represents all Americans. Whether through grassroots movements, reforms, or renewed commitment to democratic principles, the U.S. has the opportunity to prevent this shift. Ultimately, the question remains: Will the nation safeguard its democracy, or will its foreign policy—and its future—be dictated by the few at the expense of the many? Finally, arguably will there be much change from U.S. current foreign policy if America becomes an Oligarchy? I actually very much doubt it!