The Finpols Are Closing Ranks -- But Who Are The Finpols?

Stephen Miller confirms Mark Zuckerberg meeting with Trump at Mar-a-Lago:

“Mark Zuckerberg has been very clear about his desire to be a supporter of and a participant in this change that we’re seeing…”

pic.twitter.com/tzvCDS2std

— The Post Millennial (@TPostMillennial) November 28, 2024

Finpols, a term invented by Ferdinand Lundberg in his 1968 The Rich and the Super-Rich, looks more and more relevant as we look at Trump's return to the White House with Elon Musk literally at his side and figures like Mark Zuckerberg making pilgrimages to Mar-a-Lago. Finpol is a combination of financier and politician. As Lundberg put it,

Although not recognized by the general public as politicians, . . . much of the daily activity of the biggest property holders--the finpols-- is identical with the work of government leaders. They are, first, diplomats--so much so that they can be quickly shuttled into the highest formal diplomatic posts. They are, too, manipulators of public sentiment through advertising, public relations subordinates and corporately controlled mass media in general.

. . . Presidents McKinley, Theodore Roosevelt, Taft, Wilson, Harding, Coolidge, Hoover and Eisenhower were deep in the confidence of the finpols and, despite harsh words at times purely for public consumption, got along very well with them. Theodore Roosevelt demagogically referred to them as "malefactors of great wealth." But the finpols, always, despite harsh public language, managed to get their way, sooner or later. Corporate concentration for example, continues apace despite the hullabaloo of antitrust.

There was a brief period of disagreement between the politicians and the finpols during the Great Depression, which ended by World War II, when finpols like Averell Harriman and Nelson Rockefeller were brought into the policy levels of government. Relations by the 1960s, when Lundberg wrote, continued to be close:

In the 1960's the finpols remain restored to grace in national affairs. Most of them at the moment seem to agree that the government should be allowed to engage in somewhat wider social maneuvers than finpolity would ordinarily approve. Presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson, seeking to rebuild Franklin D. Roosevelt's synthesis of electoral support, have been allowed to engage in much social-program maneuver. And the finpols have been conceded many of their demands--removal of price controls, lower taxes, etc. President Johnson, like President Eisenhower, has professed great admiration and respect for the finpols who are, after all, under the equal application of the laws entitled to as much consideration as, say, the ordinary workman. The finpols, then, are an integral part of "The Great Society," in which there is obviously a great deal of lucre to be made filling profitable government contracts for cement, steel, aluminum, copper, textbooks, rockets, space machines, tanks, recoilless rifles, schools, hospitals, sanitoria and bird baths.

Bringing things up to date, the US government is a major buyer of computer hardware and software, telecommunications equipment, and other high-tech resources and services. which finpols like Musk, Zuckerberg, Ellison, Bezos, and others provide. It's probably correct to say that finpolity was in consensus bipartisan alignment with every administration after Lyndon Johnson until 2016, when the media, controlled by finpols, generally turned against MAGA, with the partial exception of Fox, controlled by the finpol Rupert Murdoch -- but Murdoch's Wall Street Journal was Never Trump.

Something seems to have changed late in the Biden administration. This probably was driven, at least in part, by the collapse of the New Deal Democrat coalition, which as Lundberg points out had the collaboration of finpolity. The very liberal -- and at one point finpol congruent UK Guardian -- somewhat belatedly takes notice:

From Wall Street to Silicon Valley, a growing number of billionaires, tech titans and venture capitalists are backing Donald Trump’s campaign for president, among them Stephen Schwarzman, chairman of Blackstone, the world’s largest private-equity fund, Steve Wynn, the casino tycoon, Bill Ackman, the hedge fund manager, and Marc Andreessen, a leading venture capitalist.

. . . Jeffrey Sonnenfeld, senior associate dean at the Yale School of Management, said it’s important to recognize a disconnect in the business world – while dozens of billionaires are backing Trump, not one CEO of a Fortune 100 company has given money to Trump’s campaign, according to public records.

But Lundberg makes an important distinction:

Corporation officers are of interest in this inquiry mainly because they are the frontline deputies of the rich and the super-rich when they are not themselves of the rich. They are the watchdogs and overseers (usually hired) of great wealth.

. . . [W]hen Ford Motor Company lost a reported $250 million on its hapless Edsel model in the 1950's, Henry Ford II did not walk the plank. He, along with other stockholders, simply took it in the pocketbook. He could not be fired because be was a chief owner. This simple fact revealed the source of true power in an executive.

. . . The hired top corporation man, then, as distinguished from the hereditary ownerexecutive, is much like the cormorant or fishing bird, still used in China. A strap is fastened around the birds neck, permitting him to breathe but not allowing him to swallow his catch. He dutifully brings the fish back to the boat. Now and again (paydays) the strap is loosened and he is allowed to swallow a fish. The bird is a percentage participant in the process, which was established by and for others.

So corporate executives, unless they are also owners, aren't finpols, so Dean Sonnenfeld misses an important point. But who else isn't a finpol? It appears that the so-called "Democrat megadonors" aren't either. I mentioned John Morgan the other day. Take this example, too:

Democrat megadonor Reid Hoffman is reportedly weighing fleeing the United States as President-elect Donald Trump is set to embark on his second term.

Citing several anonymous sources, the New York Times reported that the LinkedIn founder and past Epstein Island visitor could potentially relocate to another continent following Vice President Kamala Harris’s sound defeat.

Estimates place Hoffman's net worth at over $2 billion. According to Wikipedia,

Hoffman has been an influential figure in political circles, being a member of the Bilderberg Group since at least 2011 and the Council on Foreign Relations since 2015. He has actively participated in political funding and advocacy, contributing to various campaigns and organizations, and has been a vocal proponent of democratic institutions and voting rights.

Even by Lundberg's definition, this could make hin a finpol -- but then, why is he weighing fleeing the country? That would make him a loser, not a finpol. But note that he was a visitor to Epstein's island. Musk has weighed in on this, saying billionaires such as Reid Hoffman and Bill Gates threw their support behind Kamala Harris for fear of Epstein’s "client list" becoming public, which Trump has threatened to do.

So some very wealthy people aren't finpols. Lundberg himself spent a lot of time in The Rich and the Super-Rich trying to determine who among the merely rich was an authentic finpol, and clearly this is still an open question. At the moment, though, we can probably say that the crop of industrialists who've aligned themselves with Trump are at least the most influential finpols. But this only scratches the surface of what happened in the finpolity to drive its support for Trump, when it had been far more ambivalent in 2016.