Rise of the Billionaire Influencer
Rise of the Billionaire Influencer
And the chase for clout to shape the future of America and the world
On July 4th of this year, Mark Zuckerberg posted a video of himself wakesurfing, holding the American flag, and drinking a beer. It was all part of a multi-year personal rebrand and transformation for the Facebook founder, focused on family, fitness, and flag-waving patriotism. The video received a million likes and many more views.
When juggernaut Elon Musk entered the halls of Congress for a joint address by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in late July, he exclaimed to journalists, “I’ll fight Zuckerberg, any place, any time, any rules.” This marked another turn in a long-running public saga hinting at a potential ‘cage match’ between the two tycoons (that billionaire UFC boss Dana White has encouraged).
Billionaires pursuing the spotlight are not in short supply. Hedge fund leader Bill Ackman has been at the forefront of everything, from the Gaza crisis to the political primaries to the rise and fall of wokeness. He was the most instrumental voice driving the resignation of then-Harvard President Claudine Gay.
Carlyle founder David Rubenstein hosts a business talk show on Bloomberg and can’t get enough of it. Amazon man Jeff Bezos is wearing muscle shirts and showing up at awards shows. All-In, helmed by billionaire tech bros, is one of the most popular podcasts. Every other day, Mark Cuban is engaged in another dust-up online with a gremlin reply guy. Islander Reid Hoffman runs from LinkedIn to X/Twitter to get into a battle galore with the latest ‘right-wing plot.’ YC combiner Paul Graham is locked into an existential public battle with pro-Israel VC partners online.
It is endless…What is going on? And why?
Chasing clout to shape power was often a game run from the shadows. It required significant wealth that could be leveraged to control institutions and fund political movements and leaders. Something began to change, however, in the television era, which was supercharged by the internet and then put on turbo-drive by social media.
In modern America, the billionaire influencer who can channel the corridors of power in the spotlight has become the center of attention. This is the new way of possessing and wielding clout. The publicly dormant billionaire is passée; a billionaire handing out checks behind the scenes is of declining value in a hyper-financialized world with over 750 billionaires in America. The billionaire influencer, however, has a different stature that intersects two pillars – fame and wealth – that can capture the third pillar, hard political power.
Perhaps due to messianic desires, a sense of responsibility, and a dose of self-centered interest, the chase for clout has new entrants daily. Yet, as billionaire influencers are finding out, this also leads to vulnerabilities and an army of detractors. This new race for influence is reaching its zenith at a time of a potential vibe shift in America that will define the shape of the world order for decades to come.
The wealth of individuals
Since the dawn of time, individuals have pursued wealth in whatever way possible, and some have achieved outsized success. Adjacent to the kings of old was the aristocracy. That class of nobility, with large landholdings, often had their own small armies to protect their lands. Their soldiers could be put at the service of the monarch of the time.
Adjacent to the nobility were other traders and business leaders, particularly across trading routes and in civilizational urban centers. The merchants of Mecca are a notable example. The Qur’an covered the many interwoven alliances of commercial and political interests that shaped the rise of Islam and the pursuit of power.
The 14th, 15th, and 16th centuries gave rise to a different type of magnate – the transnational banker. The banker could finance wars, expeditions, trade, and beyond. Many of the new magnates of the time, like the Médicis, accumulated wealth and sought an ultimate aim to hold power. This led to the control of Florence and, ultimately, the papacy.
Parallel to the rise of the House of Medici was the ascent of Jakob Fugger in the papal city-state of Augsburg. Ultimately, the Fugger family used their wealth as lenders to the Holy Roman Emperor to influence dealings behind the scenes (although this may have led to the rise of Protestantism itself due to the backlash of such arrangements). Another similar family of financiers at the time were the Welsers.
The rise of truly global empires was enabled in subsequent years by advances in technology (particularly in transportation) and, in some ways, by these banking families. Around the 17th and 18th centuries, the British Empire was in full swing alongside a broader European mercantilist project. The British Empire was built on the back of a private enterprise, the East India Company, and thus, the nature of the times gave rise to legalistic capitalism. This brought a new class of landed gentry, financiers, and industrialists. New instruments, such as stocks, were also being formulated, and the legal architectures formed by the Dutch and the British enabled broader wealth accumulation within and between domains of power.
Outsized capitalists benefitted from the nature of an emerging and interconnected world order. If they ventured into the New World, opportunities would be abundant. They could amass greater wealth if they did not contest constituent powers in the New or Old World. Influencing and shaping power was more prudent than pursuing it.
The Rothchild family became prominent in this era. They financed the wars of the early 1800s and then mega-projects later in the century, such as the Suez Canal. While other British Empire beneficiaries, such as John Palmer and Frederick Huth, also had temporary prominence, they had limited staying power or consolidated financial position compared to the Rothschilds. Across Europe, smaller but also prominent families, like the Wallenbergs, also grew in wealth.
The sprawling colonial apparatus, interconnected global trade routes, and the vast expanse of the Americas opened the door for wealth accumulation through trading, shipping, and high finance. Stephen Girard, the first magnate of America, helped fund the American war effort in the War of 1812. It was a quixotic era, with wealth being amassed from dubious ventures, such as opium smuggling.
One of America’s great families, the Astors, left an indelible mark on New York City due to their foray into real estate; the opium trade considerably drove their original fortune. When John Jacob Astor died in 1848, he was the wealthiest person in America. Intermingling with the corridors of power and what were then multi-millionaires was commonplace. Both Girard and Astor were closely enmeshed with leadership in Washington, D.C.
Modern magnates
The Gilded Age defined the modern magnate and the moat of wealth they sought to create. An open era of exploration and hyper-acceleration of industrialization gave rise to a bevy of American tycoons. Unlike Europe, America was intended to be the home of the capitalist, with power left to the will of the people. Accumulating wealth, rather than seizing power, was the goal.
Industrialists Cornelius Vanderbilt, John Rockefeller, and Andrew Carnegie emerged at this time. Other prominent families of the era included the Mellons, Du Ponts, and Forbes. Towards the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th, a new class of bankers, such as JP Morgan, emerged, safeguarding the growth of the United States. Morgan had many contemporaries, such as the Lehman brothers, Jacob Schiff, and beyond, although none matched his stature.
Electoral politics gave a line to American power that hereditary systems elsewhere could not allow. In America, chasing the big crown, the presidency, seemed out of reach for the biggest magnates. However, some did pursue the trappings of a modicum of power in lower office, like Leland Stanford, who became Governor of California and then a Senator.
Behind the scenes, the magnates of America always safeguarded their interests or limited the government’s encroachment on them. When they could, they ‘purchased’ influence, which brought together JP Morgan, Andrew Carnegie, and John Rockefeller when they collectively supported William McKinley's presidency.
Ultimately, the U.S. federal government broke apart the Rockefeller empire in a signal to others. As the Gilded Age ended, the federal government's role reached an unprecedented size and strength. In 1907, JP Morgan had effectively ‘bailed’ out the government, stock markets, and other banks during that monumental financial crisis. By 1913, this led to the eventual formation of the Federal Reserve, which created an intermingling of Wall Street and the American money machine that continues to this day.
The shifting of weight meant that magnates moved from protecting their wealth from the government to using their influence to access government wealth. The groundwork for today’s military-industrial complex was fostered during World War I and World War II, which unlocked unprecedented financing for American industry. Consequently, industrialists shaped American war policy to suit their business interests.
One of these budding industrialists was Henry Ford, who uniquely leveraged a public profile for his business interests and embodied the antecedents of the contemporary entrepreneur in many ways. Thomas Edison, the founder of General Electric, and to a lesser degree, Nikola Tesla, also built business ventures, building on their public acclaim as inventors. Ford would reach prominence by organizing and winning an automobile race that attracted much fanfare in 1901. The American newspaper – reaching perhaps 20,000 variations in 1900 by some estimates - enabled a broad new platform for building an ‘image.’ And Henry Ford embodied the entrepreneurial spirit in the public imagination, which he leveraged to drive support for his business ventures.
Yet Henry Ford was still anomalous. More common was the example of publisher William Hearst, who inspired the movie Citizen Kane. In many ways, a precursor to Rupert Murdoch, he shaped the parameters of political debate and even sought political power himself. As the Great Depression took hold in the 1930s and the lead-up to World War II, there did not appear to be space in the public square to chase clout in the mold of an industrialist influencer.
Chasing clout
Until World War II, most modern magnates leveraged wealth to safeguard interests, advance positions, or pursue political power directly, and the clout to do that was developed through direct patronage of individuals and shaping institutions. In the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s, fame grew as a societal phenomenon. Billionaires and the wealthy became icons of fascination and were pursued by tabloids due to their stature.
Through the post-World War II period, a new class of oil tycoons to power the American boom came to prominence. These included Paul Getty, HL Hunt, and Sid Richardson. They also began to become broader patrons of the new cultural fabric of Americana, from museums to foundations to universities. Others, such as Howard Hughes, started to become the builders of the new era of industrial America. All of them, such as Hughes, became icons. Their iconography would be captured, such as on the cover of Time magazine.
The iconography of the individual began to take on pantheonic prominence for politicians, celebrities, and cult-like figures. It started in many ways with the movie star, catapulting Marilyn Monroe, James Dean, and Rock Hudson into the cultural spotlight. In the 1960s, political figures such as John F. Kennedy, Malcolm X, Martin Luther King Jr., and Robert F. Kennedy became icons. It is no wonder they were assassinated. It was unprecedented power of the masses with a leader to represent them, the concentration of celebrity and political power into one person.
That iconography and centrality of the individual also characterized occult figures like Charles Manson, Jim Jones, and Father Yod, for example. Society grappled with the new phenomenon of ubiquitous celebrity and fame driven by mass media and the elevation of the individual icon through that prism. America’s business figures avoided the spotlight rather than pursuing it. Stories like the Getty kidnapping were cautionary tales about seeking the spotlight for its own sake.
Furthermore, marginal tax rates in the post-World War II era had reached 91%! The goal for the wealthy was to hide the prominence of their wealth. Two of the wealthiest individuals of the era were John MacArthur and Daniel Ludwig. MacArthur gained his wealth through various insurance companies and then real estate. Ludwig was a famous recluse, not just in his latter years, akin to Hughes, but throughout his life. He gave only one media interview and was at one point the richest man in America.
The 1970s eventually led to a reimagination of the American economic model. First, hyperinflation upended the system, and the masses increasingly blamed the government rather than the capitalist class. Second, the divorcing from the gold standard gave way to a new way to accumulate wealth. Finally, the advent of computing technology and a new gateway of innovation laid the groundwork for wealth creation at speeds never seen before.
The post-World War II image of the reclusive billionaire and the mysterious magnate was about to be shattered. A new class of wealthy individuals was emerging, including lords of finance, masters of technology, and captains of new conglomerates. The mold of Nelson Rockefeller would give way to this group.
From icons to influencers
Through the late 1970s and 1980s, the rise of the billionaire influencer began to take shape. A new cast of neo-Henry Fords were coming onto the scene. The founder of Apple, Steve Jobs, graced the cover of Time Magazine on February 15, 1982. Bill Gates, the founder of Microsoft, followed on April 16, 1984. In 1982, Forbes published its list of the 400 wealthiest Americans. Five years later, in 1987, it became the world’s billionaires list.
While the public became obsessed with the billionaire, there were still two paths. The first one was that of the businessperson or industrialist, building a ‘linear’ business and remaining somewhat out of the limelight. If they entered the public eye, they remained an icon above the fray, in the vein of the Walton family.
The second path was markedly different. The 1980s brought business into the spotlight like never before, and the wealth of Wall Street captured attention more than anything, culminating in the 1987 crash, the fall of Mike Milken (himself subsequently featured on a 1990 Time Cover), and the movie Wall Street starring Michael Douglas. The billionaire (or rising billionaire) was squarely in the public spotlight and imagination.
Individuals seeking a meteoric rise—a disruptor—pursued clout to advance and safeguard interests. This would mean shaping the public narrative and building followership. Reaching a sufficient level of influencer status became not only a way to build wealth but also a way to shape or access power and, in some ways, a form of power itself.
No one took more advantage of this than Donald J. Trump, perhaps ‘ahead’ of his time as a bombastic billionaire. He came in at #286 on the original Forbes 400 Rich List (1982) at 39 years old. In 1988, he appeared on the Oprah Winfrey Show and was even interviewed about running for office. Trump made countless appearances throughout the 1980s and 1990s on mass media platforms, from tabloids to television, including getting involved in the drama of boxing and the pageantry of wrestling. He also published best-selling novels aimed at the masses (rather than just the regular biography) that, in some ways, also became part of his empire. It culminated (initially) in the popular TV show The Apprentice in 2004.
The crudeness of Trump’s interface with the media left a lot to be desired. While some like Richard Branson mirrored Trump’s frame, from a consumer perspective, how many billionaires wanted to descend into that madness? In the 1990s, television was in the Jerry Springer era. There was no pseudo-business set in that audience to pursue. What was the point of appealing to the masses and amassing followers except as a marketing ploy?
By the mid-90s, Bill Gates was the wealthiest individual in the world. In 2000, he faced government actionunder the Sherman Antitrust Act, just as John Rockefeller had. In an age of mass media, he became enemy number one. He possessed an apparent absence of clout in the new modern age. Access, yes. But an absence of the needed clout that suited the times. Business leaders took notice.
The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation was formed shortly after the anti-trust action. The Giving Pledge, inaugurated by Warren Buffett and Bill Gates, and philanthro-capitalism began to take off. A more professionalized set of formats suitable for the modern magnate also emerged around that time. CNBC was founded in 1989. Bloomberg Television was founded in 1994. In the early 2000s, TED was acquired by Chris Anderson. Davos was becoming a global destination.
Hi society!
Building upon and, at times, leveraging the content from various business formats, the expansion of the Internet, particularly YouTube, enabled the sharing of ‘billionaire’ content that otherwise would have been inaccessible. The era of the wise billionaire was upon us. The Apprentice also created a ‘counter’ role for the billionaire influencer—a mogul for the masses. New television shows, such as Shark Tank, featuring Mark Cuban, seemed to follow this mold.
Clout-chasing was still seemingly controlled, with only ostentatious figures seeking the ubiquitous spotlight. No one wanted to become an object of fascination like socialites such as Paris Hilton. The idea of virality seemed to be far from the billionaire consciousness. There was still a ‘line’. Social media in the 2010s and the 2016 elections blurred this line and eventually opened the floodgates, bringing us to the present.
A one-dimensional billionaire is still relevant and respected. They are magnates of their industries. They have countless resources to channel to various interests, and that money can shape political fortunes. Transcendent money-makers, like the Mercers, George Soros, and Miriam Adelson, have enough of a mysterious largesse operation that it is its own form of clout.
Nevertheless, the publicly dormant billionaire today lacks a dimensionality. They are a one-dimensional billionaire. A one-dimensional billionaire is not as interesting as another billionaire, with depth, a following, and a second pillar of influence in addition to wealth—celebrity. Those in political power benefit much more from the support and engagement with a billionaire influencer than simply another billionaire. Thus, the aspiration abounds to rise to the level of billionaire influencers.
While George Soros is not on social media, his son, Alex Soros, is. He posts what political leaders he meets with daily on Instagram. Billionaires are micro-positioning their personal and family lives. They speak at any range of conferences, from SXSW to TED to Milken to Davos, and then push the virality on social media. They are ‘writing’ a ‘best-selling’ book. They are engaged in various battles online, weighing in on the inane and insane. They are not avoiding the spotlight. They are chasing it. They are chasing the modern-day form of clout.
Defining future America and flying with Icarus
When Henry Ford launched his new car, he understood that his celebrity among the wider population and being seen in the public imagination as both a hero and their advocate would strengthen him in front of politicians and regulators. Some of today’s clout-chasing follows a similar mode, and social media has made it more accessible.
Yet, there is something more. In decades prior, clout would have been leveraged primarily with powerholders themselves. Noted philosopher Marshall McLuhan once said the medium is the message. Social media has changed the object of the message by the nature of the medium. The people are the objective.
To be a billionaire influencer, you must capture a sufficient portion of the public. You need to have a captive audience. In effect, the pursuit of the captive – and active - audience is more important than what is said, at least at the outset.
For many billionaires, the objective has moved beyond narrow corporate interests to shaping the entire zeitgeist. This is creating a rivalry among billionaire influencers. Those in power also seek their own line-up of billionaire influencers, and billionaires are happy to play this role. The public square is reflecting this evolution.
What is the ultimate vision of the billionaire influencer set? There are theories around a grand objective of transhumanism, especially since much of today’s wealth is concentrated in Silicon Valley. Others posit that the pursuit is of an even more nefarious—if not conspiratorial—future. Yet, there is no clarity on the world desired by the billionaire influencer set and certainly no consolidated view among them.
Trump himself broke an unwritten rule by crossing over from billionaire influencer status. That combined too much potency—wealth, celebrity, and political power—held by one person, which can override the system for better or worse. For society and the billionaire, there is a significant risk of the accumulation and concentration of wealth, celebrity, and power without transparency and checks and balances. It creates a substantial risk of political corruption and hyper-influence in society.
The backlash from ruling systems against billionaires will be swift. The rise of the billionaire was permitted because they would not seek ultimate political power in the New World. There is now the risk that a collective of billionaires could usurp power.
Thus, a check and balance between wealth and power is critical in the modern political system. Yet, at least in America, that balance is intended to be adjudicated by the people themselves, informed by a free press. Populist support today – on a partisan basis – for billionaires in the public square signals that the public feels something is deeply wrong. The system is not able to check or balance itself.
Thus, it is unlikely there will be a climbdown of billionaire influencers. The stakes are too high, the game is at a critical juncture, and the die has already been cast. That means there will be further political crackdowns and investigations of billionaires. This will lead to bandwagoning of further billionaires to one side or the other, with another group simply moving assets underground.
For the billionaire influencer, perhaps the advice of Daedalus to his son Icarus are wise words to heed in the months ahead:
“I caution you to keep the middle way, for if your [wings] dip too low, the waters may impede your flight, and if they soar too high, the sun may scorch them.”