The political landscapes of Russia under President Vladimir Putin and the United States during President Donald Trump’s administration exhibit intriguing parallels, particularly concerning the influence of wealthy elites—often referred to as oligarchs—and the leaders’ nationalistic agendas encapsulated in slogans like “Make Russia Great Again” and “Make America Great Again.” This article examines the roles of oligarchs in both administrations and analyzes how these slogans reflect their respective strategies for national revitalization.
The Emergence and Influence of Oligarchs
Russia: The Consolidation of Oligarchic Power
The term “oligarch” became widely used in post-Soviet Russia during the 1990s, describing a small group of businessmen who amassed significant wealth through the rapid privatization of state assets. When Putin ascended to power in 1999, he sought to curtail the political influence of these oligarchs, reasserting state control (Dawisha, 2014). Scholarly analyses suggest that Putin transformed an independent oligarchy into a system where business magnates operated at the behest of the state, ensuring their loyalty to his administration (Sakwa, 2020).
By subordinating oligarchs to state interests, Putin eliminated political threats while securing a loyal economic elite. This shift allowed him to consolidate power and align economic resources with national interests, reinforcing Russia’s sovereignty and influence on the world stage (Belton, 2020). The state’s control over strategic industries, such as oil and gas, strengthened Russia’s geopolitical leverage, particularly in Europe.
The United States: The Rise of Business Magnates in Politics
While the U.S. does not have “oligarchs” in the traditional Russian sense, the influence of wealthy individuals and corporate leaders in politics has been a subject of debate (Winters, 2011). Under Trump’s administration, several billionaires and business magnates held significant governmental positions, leading some commentators to argue that this blurred the lines between public service and private interests (Domhoff, 2017).
Trump’s cabinet included figures like former ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson as Secretary of State and Goldman Sachs executives in key economic roles. These appointments led critics to argue that Trump’s administration reflected a form of oligarchy, in which a small, wealthy elite exerted disproportionate influence over policy decisions (Page & Gilens, 2018). Unlike Putin, who centralized power by restricting oligarchs’ autonomy, Trump facilitated an environment where private wealth directly shaped government policy (Mayer, 2016).
Nationalistic Slogans: Visions of Greatness
Putin’s Vision to “Make Russia Great Again”
Putin’s policies have been driven by a desire to restore Russia’s status as a global power. This vision includes consolidating political power, reasserting control over strategic industries, and projecting military strength (Hill & Gaddy, 2015). The state’s dominance over oligarchs ensures that economic power aligns with national interests, reinforcing Russia’s sovereignty and influence on the world stage.
Putin’s rhetoric draws on historical narratives of Russian strength, particularly invoking Soviet-era prestige. His policies, including the annexation of Crimea and intervention in Syria, have been framed as efforts to reestablish Russia as a dominant force in international politics (Gessen, 2017). Economic measures, such as state-led investments and controlling major industries, further bolster his vision of national resurgence (Aslund, 2019).
Trump’s “Make America Great Again”
Trump’s Make America Great Again (MAGA) slogan encapsulated a promise to revitalize the American economy, renegotiate trade deals, and prioritize domestic industries (Krugman, 2020). His administration’s policies aimed at reducing regulations and taxes to stimulate economic growth. However, critics argue that these policies disproportionately benefited the wealthy, potentially exacerbating economic inequalities (Piketty, 2020).
Trump’s economic policies, including corporate tax cuts and deregulation, were designed to incentivize business expansion. However, they also resulted in increased wealth concentration among the upper class while failing to significantly boost middle-class wages (Reich, 2019). Similar to Putin, Trump portrayed himself as a defender of national interests against foreign threats, whether in trade (China) or immigration policy (Mexico) (Chomsky, 2018). However, his approach relied more on corporate empowerment than state intervention, distinguishing his economic nationalism from Putin’s state-driven model.
Comparative Analysis
Both leaders leveraged nationalistic rhetoric to galvanize support, yet their approaches to governance and the role of oligarchs differ. Putin centralized power, subordinating oligarchs to the state’s agenda, thereby limiting their political autonomy (Sakwa, 2020). In contrast, Trump’s administration saw the inclusion of wealthy individuals in key governmental roles, which some argue allowed private interests to influence public policy (Domhoff, 2017).
Putin’s strategy involved using the state to control and direct oligarchs, ensuring their loyalty to the Kremlin (Belton, 2020). In contrast, Trump’s administration reflected a partnership between political power and private wealth, where business elites actively shaped government decisions to benefit their interests (Page & Gilens, 2018).
While Putin’s model reinforced state dominance, Trump’s governance style blurred the lines between public service and private profit, raising concerns about conflicts of interest and the integrity of democratic institutions (Mayer, 2016). In both cases, the fusion of political and economic power has had lasting implications for governance, democracy, and national identity.
The Oligarchic Influence and the Emergent Self
Beyond the political and economic implications of oligarchic structures under Putin and Trump, their leadership styles and governance models also have a profound impact on the psychology of individuals within these systems. The concept of the emergent self—the evolving and adaptive nature of individual identity—comes into play when examining how citizens navigate environments shaped by concentrated power. Under authoritarian or oligarchic influence, personal agency can be constrained by systemic forces, requiring individuals to negotiate their place within structures that privilege certain groups. Whether through state control in Russia or corporate dominance in the U.S., people often find themselves adapting to hierarchies that shape their opportunities, perspectives, and sense of autonomy.
In Russia, where state power dictates economic and political possibilities, the emergent self must align with the prevailing nationalist and authoritarian ethos to access success and security. In contrast, in the U.S., where business interests shape policy, individuals often frame their personal growth within the logic of market competition and entrepreneurial success. Despite these differences, both contexts challenge the notion of an autonomous self, as personal and national identities are continually shaped by larger structures of power and control.
Conclusion
The interplay between political power, economic influence, and individual agency under both Putin and Trump underscores how oligarchic systems shape not only governance but also the development of the emergent self. While Putin has leveraged state control to dictate the actions of Russia’s economic elite, Trump’s approach has intertwined corporate wealth with policy-making, allowing private interests to drive national direction. In both cases, individuals must navigate power structures that limit autonomy while shaping their sense of identity in relation to broader nationalist narratives. The long-term implications of these systems will not only define political and economic landscapes but also influence the evolving sense of self for those living within them.
References
Aslund, A. (2019). Russia’s crony capitalism: The path from market economy to kleptocracy. Yale University Press.
Belton, C. (2020). Putin’s people: How the KGB took back Russia and then took on the West. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Chomsky, N. (2018). Requiem for the American dream: The 10 principles of concentration of wealth & power. Seven Stories Press.
Dawisha, K. (2014). Putin’s kleptocracy: Who owns Russia? Simon & Schuster.
Domhoff, G. W. (2017). Who rules America? The corporate rich, white nationalism, and the politics of the 21st century. McGraw-Hill.
Gessen, M. (2017). The future is history: How totalitarianism reclaimed Russia. Riverhead Books.
Hill, F., & Gaddy, C. G. (2015). Mr. Putin: Operative in the Kremlin. Brookings Institution Press.
Krugman, P. (2020). Arguing with zombies: Economics, politics, and the fight for a better future. W.W. Norton & Company.
Mayer, J. (2016). Dark money: The hidden history of the billionaires behind the rise of the radical right. Doubleday.
Page, B. I., & Gilens, M. (2018). Democracy in America?: What has gone wrong and what we can do about it. University of Chicago Press.
Piketty, T. (2020). Capital and ideology. Harvard University Press.
Reich, R. (2019). The system: Who rigged it, how we fix it. Knopf.
Sakwa, R. (2020). Putin: Russia’s choice. Routledge. Winters, J. A. (2011). Oligarchy. Cambridge University Press.