Elite Theory and Attack on Iraq: The View from C. Wright Mills - By: Jessica West

Americans are told that they live in a democratic country, yet most of the time they are spectators to the decision-making processes of which they are supposedly a part.  Political scientists claim that democracies are the best way to organize societies, yet they do not concur on the definition of ‘democracy’.  In the midst of the fog engulfing what is and what should be in the political sphere, the only certainty is in describing what is not.  Despite the eloquence of such words, American democracy is not ‘power of the people, for the people, by the people’.  Although equality of citizens may exist in constitutions and flow from the lips of politicians, some people are more equal than others.  Political scientist Robert Dahl once asked, “in a political system where nearly every adult may vote but where knowledge, wealth, social positions, access to officials, and other resources are unequally distributed, who actually governs?”[1]  As the United States prepares to attack Iraq, this question is of great importance.  This decision will affect the lives of millions, yet how many people are making it?  It seems to be inevitable.  To accurately understand who governs in America, who is really deciding to attack Iraq, one must look beyond the façade of democratic rules and procedures; one must look to those few powerful individuals in society.  Using the words of C. Wright Mills, “…there have arisen those higher circles which make up the economic, the political, and the military elite.”[2]  These are the people who are making America’s big decisions.  This elite theory sheds all pretences of an ideal democracy: America is governed by those individuals controlling the state, military establishments, and the corporate economy.[3]  To understand how the decision to attack Iraq is being made, one must look to the positions of power in society and those individuals who fill them: these are the people, with their common characteristics and interests, driving America through history.

          An examination of elite theory in general displays a muddy picture.  Although the essential idea is that the political system is divided into two spheres, those who rule and those who are ruled, [4] there is little consensus among elite theorists on the ‘who’ and the ‘how’.  A popular elite theory, as espoused by Joseph Schumpeter, describes democracy as a process.  Accordingly, elected politicians acquire the power to make political decisions by competing for people’s votes. [5]  The ‘who’ in this case is restricted to political elite, and the ‘how’ is through competition.  The players and the process in Mills’ theory differ significantly; thus to grasp and appreciate the implications of it as it is applied to momentous decisions such as attacking Iraq, an examination of the basic structure and roots is first required. 

Mills’ approach is part of a stream of elite analysis that will be referred to as positional elite theory.  Writers in this stream, including Floyd Hunter who published Community Power Structure: A Study of Decision Makers, hold a sociological view of power.  The community is described as greater than the sum of its parts: it is enduring, with power entrenched in its lasting institutions rather than in individuals.[6]  The decision-makers, the power elite, are people who hold commanding positions in the community.  Although these commanding positions change according to the community being analyzed, it is the institution as a source of power that is significant.  Writing about the source of power in Canadian society, for example, John Porter describes the elite as those people in decision-making positions at the top of major institutions that perform essential tasks.[7]  In describing the decision-making dynamic in America at the national level, Mills’ definition of the power elite will be used.  He claims the power elite to be those people in “command of the major hierarchies and organizations of modern society.”[8] 

Thus, the ‘who’ in positional elite theory, the people who are governing major American political decisions, are those people at the top of state, military and economic institutions.  America is commanded by a tri-partite elite.

The answer to ‘how’ according to positional elite theory is perhaps more significant than the ‘who’.  Although the idea of a power elite does not strive to explain the process of decision-making but only those who are involved, [9] it sheds light on how decisions are not made.  In stark contrast to traditional democratic theories, and even Schumpeter’s process definition of democracy, decisions are not made according to the will of the people, nor is authority derived from the people.  Rather, decisions on national events are made by elite coming together in consensus on certain occasions of crisis, due to their common interests.[10]  Although America is governed by a tri-partite elite, each part receives its power from institutions, and each part consists of the same overlap of people with the same interests: the three parts form one common elite.  As Porter describes, power relations are best viewed as a “confraternity of power”, with various elites operating within the same value system.[11]  This type of elitism is noncompetitive.   Elites’ converging interests control the nation.  Although Mills does not directly discuss it, he implies that elites are united in their desire to maintain the capitalist system.[12]  Moreover, in his examination of power relations in Atlanta, Hunter states that the city is controlled by the overriding interest of elites to acquire and secure property.[13]  This rule by elites is not omnipotent though; during crises elites come together because decisions by any one of the three pillars ramify into the others, and thus top decisions tend to be coordinated.[14]  That elites only come together to rule in consensus when common interests are at stake explains the purpose of positional elite theory.  The goal is not to clarify the everyday, mundane decision-making process of politics.  Indeed, there is frequently tension among elites concerning routine political issues.  Rather, the powerful individuals of American society come together to rule on occasions of crisis, when their common interests are at stake: they are the makers of “great decisions”.[15]

Who the elites are and how they govern represents the bare bones of positional elite theory.  Before the implications of the theory can be understood in terms of the decision to attack Iraq, it is important to briefly mention its theoretical roots.  Although an empirical theory, this conception of elite rule contains a normative assessment: elite dominance of this sort is thought of negatively.  Indeed, Mills is especially critical of American society in his description of elite rule.  This criticism reflects the roots that positional elite theory has in both Weberian and Marxist thought.  The rule of elites through institutional power is possible because central executive power has been enhanced, and the institutions themselves have become massive.[16]  This view of increasingly large and powerful organizations reflects the process of bureaucratization that Weber negatively describes in his discussion of rationalization.[17]  The two differ in their final assessments however: whereas Weber sees strong political leadership as the solution to domination by bureaucracies, Mills sees the domination as complete.  The distaste that is inherent in positional elite theory is further evident in its connection to Marxism.  Elites are described not only in terms of their powerful positions within dominant institutions, but also in terms of a class fully equipped with class-consciousness.[18]  Moreover, Mills’ description of inequality is closely linked to capitalism, which he describes as offering “equal opportunities for men to become unequal”.[19]  As opposed to other versions of elite theory, Mills does not deem there to be a ‘natural elite’: power is derived from institutions, and it cumulates to those who already have it; people are not born elite, they are trained for it.[20]  The tone is one of extreme pessimism.  Although elite rule exists, it is to the detriment of the mass citizens, who have no one to hold accountable for major decisions.[21]  The average citizen is being neither led nor represented; he is being dominated by those more equal.

The plan of the United States to attack Iraq brings the questions, assumptions and implications of positional elite theory to life, for the process described exists as much in reality as it does on paper.  An attack on Iraq will have huge implications in the security, political, and economic realms of not only the U.S. but also most of the world; it is a ‘great decision’.  The impacts of this decision will be felt by millions of people, yet for millions of people the decision is a non-decision; attacking Iraq is inevitable because America has no other choice.  The people who come home from work every evening to watch the news unfold on CNN are not making a choice to invade another country.  When these people turn on their television sets, they see their Congressmen talking about the dangers that Iraq poses, and debating the pros and cons of an attack, but Congressmen are not deciding the issue.  In between newsreels anti-terrorism commercials are aired; obviously extending the War on Terrorism is the right decision.  But is it a decision?  Is someone actually deciding to attack Iraq, or has Saddam Hussein forced America’s hand?  A decision to invade Iraq is being taken, but not by the people, and not by their representatives.  State, military and economic elites have made this decision in country clubs and at dinner tables based on their convergence of interests in the Middle East.  ‘America’ may be the rallying cry, but ‘power’ and ‘prestige’ are the name of the game.

It is difficult to see the decision that the power elites are making regarding Iraq, because it is not being made publicly, and because of the belief that America is not a country ruled by elites.  As Mills explains, people believe that “although there may be upper classes, there is no ruling class; although there may be men of power, there is not a power elite…”[22] America is a democratic country where all men are equal.  If sometimes decisions are made that seem not to have been decided, it is because men are impotent to control Fate: history has no driver.  These are the misconceptions that allow ordinary citizens to be ruled by unelected men in the upper political, economic and military circles.  There is a power elite and they are deciding to attack Iraq.  The CEOs of oil companies, the top civil servants of the State Department, and the National Security Council have found a common interest in eliminating Saddam Hussein and increasing America’s presence in the Middle East.  Although the military is somewhat more skeptical of this ‘decision’ and dragging its feet, it has not dug in its heels.  Reigning officials at the Pentagon, the Joint Chiefs of Staff and top ranking generals have interests in the region that coincide with the kings of corporations and the state.  If there is not yet consensus on the mask that intervention in the Middle East will wear, there is at least agreement that it is necessary.  This action holds the promise of oil, military prestige, and political dominance: it is good for huge corporations, it is good for the military, and it is good for the state: a common decision has been made that will change the course of history.

In an effort to deny the strong hand of elite rule, one may ask how individuals from different institutional backgrounds representing different interests can rule together.  In short, there is no power elite because there is no united elite.  Despite outward appearances, elites are united through cooptation, circulation and class-consciousness.[23]  There is a psychological and social base for their unity.  The people who hold commanding posts in these most powerful of institutions have risen through the ranks of the organizations.  As such, the power elites have been conformed to institutional norms, conduct and convictions; they share similar outlooks, perceptions and interests.  Consider the management training programs in major corporations, the function of West Point to create dutiful, identical officers, and the lack of diversity within the executive branch.  Moreover, many members of the power elite have served in various institutions.  The circulation of elites from one organization to another eliminates difference between them.  The military elite tends also to be the political elite and even the financial elite.  As Mills explains, their interests have been brought together by “…the development of a permanent war establishment by a privately incorporated economy inside a political vacuum.”[24]  Colin Powell, once a member of the military elite, is now a member of the political elite; his switch was seamless.  Finally, the power elites have class-consciousness.  Unlike the ordinary masses of people, power elites have similar experiences, common interests, and travel in the same social circles; they are not the ordinary.  The power elites act alike, have the same values, and are socially aware of each other.  Given these circumstances it not difficult to see the unity among these various individuals and their drive for a common goal: to maintain the power of their respective institutions.  As the power of each organization is more and more intertwined with the power of others, the elite find it more and more necessary to act in unison and to rule from above.

The role of the power elite in determining America’s actions in Iraq may also be denied on the grounds that politicians, interest groups and the public in the United States are actively involved in politics.  The short response to this statement is that their efforts are largely ineffective.  Professional politicians and interest groups form part of the middle-level of power.[25]  While Congressmen and pressure groups may control day-to-day power, only the power elite guides nationally important issues.[26]  Although Congress is elected to make decisions such as the one at hand, it is beholden to the interests of more powerful institutions.  Politicians rely on corporate funds for election campaigns.  The executive branch wields the prerogative powers of the state.  America’s military is the most expensive, the most impressive, and the most prestigious in the world.  Congress may decide how the invasion of Iraq is to be paid for, politicians may deliver long speeches condemning Hussein’s regime, but these people do not make the nationally important decisions; these people have not decided to invade Iraq.

If an unelected power elite has decided to invade Iraq based on its own self-interest, one may ask why there is no public outcry.  If military intervention in the Middle East is not designed to serve the public interest, then why does the public rally to the cause?  Once again, the answer is simple: mass media.  Not only are the ordinary citizens powerless to affect important decisions, they are incompetent to even recognize their own interests.[27]  Mass media is pervasively influential in the mass public, and the means of information have been centralized in the hands of the powerful.  Newspapers, television stations and magazines portray the elite interest and present it as the American interest.  Everywhere the enemy is clearly defined: first Osama bin Laden, and now Saddam Hussein.  Everywhere the course of action is presented as the only alternative: topple Hussein’s regime.  Everywhere the world is presented in black and white, good and evil: America is the good, and it must conquer the evil.  The ordinary citizen has the opinions that he is given.  It is perhaps this monopolization of communications that most effectively distorts the image of the power elite, and hides its actions.  If Americans believe that their interests are being pursued, if they believe that choices are not being made because actions are forced, then they do not believe in a power elite.  If there is not a power elite, then there is not a cause for concern and democracy still rules America.

  This description of the source of power, influence and interests behind America’s decision to intervene militarily in Iraq has several implications.  First, it moves the spotlight away from the traditional actors analyzed by political theories.  Rather than examining the role of the people, that of their elected representatives, or the function of interest groups, positional elite theory looks at the power of individuals who are often hidden from the political spotlight: it introduces a new set of characters onto the scene.  Moreover, it moves attention away from the formal and often ceremonial rules of democracy to activities behind the scene.  This approach also trivializes other democratic theories by trivializing their units of analysis.  Schumpeter’s theory of ‘competitive elitism’, while it may explain how Congressmen are elected, is largely irrelevant to discussing historic political events because these people belong in the middle-level of power.  Similarly, Dahl’s pluralist approach to politics, which examines political decisions as a bargaining process between interest groups,[28] is almost meaningless in light of the limited power assigned to these groups by positional elite theory.  Classical definitions of democracy are thrown entirely out the window, because the mass public is viewed as incompetent to realize its interests, much less to express them. 

More ominous than the impact on democratic theories are the implications for actual democracy.  Following this line of reasoning, the views of ordinary citizens are not at all represented in national decisions.  An unelected power elite does not rely on the electorate for its authority, thus it is not bound to represent average citizens, or even to govern well.  Theorists such as Dahl, who might argue that general interests and values are inherent in the elite, cannot save this system.  If the power elite forms a separate class with distinct outlooks, values and interests unifying them, then they do not coincide with those of the mass public.  It may also be argued that the elite is able to make better decisions; that they are more able to lead.  This argument is not as strong, however, given that the power elite is not a natural elite.  The people of power are not morally superior or better equipped to make such decisions; their power is derived from their command over institutions not their natural abilities.  The Colin Powell of today may very well be the teacher of tomorrow, yet he is a part of the process of history.              

These implications call into question the possibility of responsible government.  If power rests in the hands of unelected individuals who are often behind the scenes of formal decision-making and who monopolize communication networks to form public opinion, then the notion of responsible government seems silly.  The unawareness of this situation by the majority of people kills the idea completely.  If citizens are not aware of the decisions that the power elite is making, then how can they hold those individuals responsible?  If the possibility of a power elite is denied, and actions by the state are believed to represent general interests, then how can citizens ever truly have a voice?  The greatest implication of positional elite theory is its implied conclusion: democracy in America is a charade of formal rules and procedures.  This poses a significant challenge to the world’s model democracy.

  Although positional elite theory uncovers power and processes usually unseen by the public and ignored by political theory, and it effectively challenges the status quo, it does have some weaknesses relative to other approaches.  The most obvious is that this theory ignores the world of everyday politics.  While great national decisions are important, mundane issues also touch people’s lives.  It may be difficult to compare tax rates and local gun control laws to the Korean War, but these issues are not irrelevant to most people.  By focusing only upon the events that shape the nation and change history, the theory admittedly provides little insight into the majority of political decisions.  Also, by assuming the pervasiveness of media in shaping public opinion, and easily dismissing the ability of ordinary citizens to filter information and to form personal opinions, this theory provides little insight into alternative sources of political values.  If people had an effective voice, would it be based solely on media messages, or would education and family values also shape it?  These weaknesses, however, merely demonstrate the limited scope of political phenomena addressed by positional elite theory, which is its very intention; they are only pointed out here to stress that a rich understanding of political life must be accompanied by additional approaches.

© Copyright 2003 Laurier Journal of Political Affairs. Last update: 3/6/03; 4:56:41 PM.