America’s invisible ruling class
How bureaucratic technocrats quietly seized power and what we can do to reclaim it
In a world where democracy’s parlance still dominates any and all political discourse, there remains a stark reality. The language that surrounds and even buttresses such a revered institution may not matter one iota.
True power in America today resides not with voters, elected officials, or even the wealthy. It is in the hands of a shadowy elite. The conspiratorially minded among us sometimes refer to this as the “Deep State.”
Samuel T. Francis more appropriately identified this power structure, however, as the “managerial elite.” This class of credentialed technocrats exerts control over our institutions in ways both subtle and profound.
The intent is to reshape America in a way that serves their interests. Meanwhile, the managerial elite claims to act for the common good.
Sam Francis was a man of the right, but he was not your typical conservative commentator. A brilliant scholar and columnist for The Washington Times, Chronicles magazine, and other publications, Francis received the Distinguished Writing Award from the American Society of Newspaper Editors in 1989 and 1990. Despite his accolades, Francis was eventually pushed to the margins of conservative discourse.
Most of his prior benefactors ended up abandoning Francis altogether, largely because his acerbic insights regularly cut too close to uncomfortable truths about the center of power in modern America.
Prior to his muzzling, Francis built upon the concepts in The Managerial Revolution, James Burnham’s groundbreaking work from 1941, and soon pinpointed a fundamental shift in the 20th century’s balance of power. In a 2022 Chronicles retrospective, Clyde Wilson wrote:
“Following Burnham, Francis referred to the incumbent ruling class as the ‘managerial elite,’ a group called to power in the 20th century with the technical skills to manage the vast organizations of production, consumption, finance, media, education, electoral politics, and government that characterize the modern world.”
This was no mere academic observation. For Francis, this transformation represented nothing less than a revolution in American life—one that occurred without a shot being fired and through the steady accumulation of power by those controlling the levers within the bureaucracy.
What Francis put forth was an analysis that transcended the often-tired categories of “liberal” versus “conservative” now dominating the squabbles and screeds regularly witnessed throughout the corporate media. The managerial revolution crosses party lines as it encompasses both Democratic regulators and those corporate executives identifying as Republican. These elites move “with ease between the public and private spheres” because, fundamentally, they’re united by a common worldview and shared interests.
According to Francis, as the managerial class coalesces, “law is replaced by administrative decree, federalism is replaced by executive autocracy, and a limited government replaced by an unlimited state.”
The managerial state then “acts in the name of abstract goals, such as freedom, equality, brotherhood or positive rights, and uses its claim of moral superiority, power of taxation and wealth redistribution to keep itself in power.”
Consider.
Everyday Americans—regardless of party, race, creed, or color—are rendered powerless, no matter what party is ascendant Washington. As the generations fade, faces have changed, but the system remains.
Perhaps the most prescient contribution Francis made, and introduced in 1992, was his concept of “anarcho-tyranny.” He describes a condition where “laws that are supposed to protect ordinary citizens against ordinary criminals” routinely go unenforced, even though the state is “perfectly capable” of enforcing such laws. As the problems in our cities rage on, the focus of our elites has moved to the law-abiding citizens instead.
Sound familiar?
Today, shoplifting, drug use, and violent crime are effectively decriminalized for those at the bottom of society. Meanwhile, middle Americans find themselves increasingly regulated, monitored, and controlled in every aspect of their daily lives.
This is no accident or failure of governance. It is the natural expression of managerial rule, for the elite has little interest in enforcing traditional norms or protecting ordinary citizens.
What, therefore, is the mission of these busybodied managers? It is to transform society into their vision where the managers reign supreme?
Their strategy: To punish the resistance while tolerating and even encouraging the chaos that justifies their mission.
The managerial revolution hasn’t just transformed government. As economist Hunter Hastings argues in an article at HunterHastings.com, it has fundamentally altered how American business operates, moving away from entrepreneurial leadership toward bureaucratic control systems.
Hastings points out that we’ve forgotten a crucial distinction that economist Ludwig von Mises made: “The capitalist system is not a managerial system; it is an entrepreneurial system.”
Long detached from “the golden age of entrepreneurial capitalism,” which is how Hastings describes the environment in the latter half of the 19th century, the managerial class is now dominant. The reason, he says, is that “the great corporations were led by entrepreneurs, not managers.”
Those entrepreneurial leaders “harnessed new technologies on behalf of customers to elevate the quality of life.”
Men like John D. Rockefeller aimed at producing “the best illuminator in the world at the lowest price” because “we are refining oil for the poor man, and he must have it cheap and good.”
Contrast that with today’s corporate environment, where layers of managers, each protecting their bureaucratic turf, have replaced entrepreneurial vision with risk-averse process. What of decisions that once took only days to make? They now require months of committee meetings.
Innovation happens despite the system, not because of it.
The insights of both Francis and Hastings show us that the managerial revolution represents a fundamental break with America’s entrepreneurial and republican—small “r”—traditions. It is inconsequential if its practitioners prowl about the three-letter agencies or sit in corporate boardrooms, for the mindset of the managerial class remains one that treats people as assets to be managed, not individuals with inherent dignity and creative potential.
When, as Francis cautioned, the center-right and center-left both fail to engage with these civilizational issues, political debates at home become limited to narrow economic issues. It is a preoccupation with treating people as “resources” and treating them as if they were inanimate objects.
Hastings similarly decries how modern corporations have lost sight of the customer as a human being with needs and desires. When businesses focus exclusively on abstract metrics and managerial processes, they forget that their purpose is to serve real people.
How, then, do we escape the managerial stranglehold?
Francis argued that “only by devolving power back toward law-abiding citizens can sanity be restored.” This means to rebuild local institutions, economies, and communities that can and will resist managerial control.
In business, Hastings calls for a return to customer capitalism. This requires that the customer—simply the one who buys products and services—be at the center of all decisions. He advocates “removing organizational barriers” to customer information flow and embracing “self-management in organizations.”
Uniting these perspectives is a recognition that real change requires dismantling the bureaucratic systems that currently empower the managerial elite.
This isn’t about government versus business. This is about accessible institutions versus impersonal bureaucracy … in all its forms.
We thus stand at a crossroads.
The managerial revolution delivered us material abundance alongside spiritual poverty, and technical efficiency twinned with human misery. What now exists is an expert class that knows everything about systems yet nothing about souls.
In the late-20th and early-21st centuries, the conservative movement failed to address this reality, preferring to debate things like tax rates while the foundations of our civilization crumbled. Francis notes that this failure stems from an inability to understand where power resides.
Understanding, however, is the first step toward action. By recognizing the nature of managerial control, both in government and business, the next step is to chart a path for the society of the future that, once again, values human dignity.
Local control of institutions must be a core element of such a society. Empathy is bound to be a key virtue. The wisdom of the upcoming age will find its roots in lived experiences rather than a credential.
The body of work by Sam Francis reminds us that real conservatism isn’t about defending an economic system but preserving a way of life.
Hunter Hastings shows us that even in business, a path forward requires looking backward to the entrepreneurial spirit that built America before the managers took over.
The solution isn’t ideology. Rather, it is reality. Technical expertise has its limits.
The managers once promised efficiency but delivered soullessness. It’s time we demand something better.