Why Do Governing Elites Support Harmful Policies?
Inside the Social, Economic, and Psychological Drivers of Elite-Driven Militarization in Global Politics
A Perplexing Question
It’s March 2025, and we find ourselves in a moment when major geopolitical players—from the European Union to the United States—are openly preparing for scenarios that can only be described as catastrophic. For instance, the European Commission, under President Ursula von der Leyen, recently unveiled its White Paper for European Defence – Readiness 2030 (source: EC Press Corner), which solemnly warns of the pressing need to bolster military capacities in anticipation of a possible large-scale conflict with Russia. With an almost ominous flair, von der Leyen stresses that “history will not forgive inactivity” (source: t-online coverage). Meanwhile, across the Atlantic, the “American Dynamism 50” event—where Senator JD Vance voiced concerns about the pitfalls of globalization—provides hypothetical but detailed scenarios of a Chinese incursion into Taiwan by 2027 (source: a16z.com). The assumption woven through all these policy briefings is that the U.S. and its allies (or vassals, depending on your perspective) must prepare for war in the near-to-mid future.
In light of this looming threat narrative that ruling Western elites are constructing, remarks by Inspector General of the Bundeswehr Carsten Breuer become much more ominous:
“Deterrence does not always have to be reactive, it also has active components.”
Breuer said the Bundeswehr must quickly become “war-ready” and “operational” by 2029. This could only be achieved by continuing to rely on NATO and purchasing weapons from the USA despite the current tensions with Washington. The European arms industry alone would not be able to meet the demand so quickly. Who is threatening whom here? (But this is a question for another article.)
These developments aren’t mere exercises in strategic forethought; they’re visions of large-scale violence that stand to imperil countless human lives. This begs the question: Why do the governing elites who craft these policies—ostensibly for the benefit of their citizens—chart such destructive courses?
Historian Richard Sakwa, in various interviews (source: Sakwa on Burning Archives), reminds us that within Western hegemonic liberalism, no alternative framework is tolerated. He paints a picture in which the entire system holds fast to an ossified ideology that demands militarization, strips away social welfare, and normalizes inequality. I’m also reminded of Hauke Ritz, who notes how the U.S.-led West consistently demonstrates an almost reflexive rejection of ideologies at odds with its classical intellectual lineage (source: Hauke Ritz on Ulrike Guerot / European Citizen Radio). That lineage, by the way, once considered slavery and stark inequality perfectly normal. In effect, any system that dares to champion robust equality or welfare is swiftly labeled “dangerous” or “impossible” while, in the same breath, reinforcing militarization as the only “rational” defense of a single, unyielding worldview.
Yet to say “it’s just ideology” is too simplistic. My aim here is to draw together threads from the material, ideological, economic, social, and psychological realms in hopes of explaining how these elites rationalize and sustain policies that ultimately hurt large swaths of the population. Consider this a guided tour through the often opaque labyrinth of power structures, group dynamics, and self-fulfilling prophecies. These are my thoughts as a social scientist—not definitive pronouncements, but rather reflections I hope will spur deeper inquiry and broader dialogue.
A Personal Anecdote: Witnessing an Elite Worldview
Before we delve into how militarization takes root, I want to share a personal story that vividly illustrates the gap between elite mindsets and everyday realities. Some years ago, in Mexico—before the MORENA party’s rise—I worked as a private language tutor for an older banker, a clear product of “real old money.” His opulent apartment and the hierarchy it exuded were striking; servants even laid small mats for my shoes, so I wouldn’t sully his floors. Equally unsettling were his offhand remarks: he praised my jaw structure as though it signaled a superior gene pool, and he labeled the social-democratic MORENA party “Hitler-like,” claiming ordinary Mexicans would back it only because they “had nothing to lose.” To him, wealth was the sole measure of genuine stakes, while everyone else “owned nothing anyway.”
This experience underlined how deeply some in power can dismiss those “outside” their circle. Tellingly, such attitudes usually surface only when the conversation isn’t scripted. Many scholars of elites note that open, unguarded interviews are almost impossible; the official line prevails if they see your questions in advance. Go off script, however, and you glimpse the genuine worldview. My time teaching him confirmed a suspicion: the higher you go, the more you find an insular culture that views the rest of us—voters, workers, entire social classes—as mere pawns in a larger power game.
1. Material and Geographical Realities: Infrastructure and ‘Tech Oligarchs’
The material sphere of the world may be essential for understanding why militarization develops its own momentum—why elites persist in harmful policies, or at least why those policies become difficult to reverse once they’re embedded in physical structures, armaments, infrastructure, and so on. Moreover, territories and their resources also shape geopolitical thinking and, in turn, action. This doesn’t mean geography is destiny, but these factors remain crucial to consider.
When we say “material processes,” we’re talking about tangible elements such as geography, resources, trade routes, and infrastructure. Military bases, arms factories, and distribution networks don’t simply appear by accident; they are deeply integrated into national and regional economies. If you’ve been following the latest think tank briefs—particularly those coming out of Brussels and Washington under labels like “Dormant NATO” or “Project 2025”—you’ll see references to the strategic need to position forces in specific areas, whether near the Black Sea or along Eastern Europe’s borders.
Geographical Fixation: Leaders often treat geography as destiny, echoing theories like Halford Mackinder’s Heartland thesis, which asserts that certain landmasses are perpetually contested and key to global power. If a specific territory is considered paramount for hegemony or domination, militarization can become inevitable—as if the territory must be seized by force if necessary. Once a region is deemed strategically “essential,” the step to justifying billions in “defense” spending is a short one. When a place is classified as essential, vulnerable, or aggressive, a political decision based on a perceived inevitability can set in motion the very process it assumes—potentially leading to war.
Tech Oligarchs and New Alliances: By 2025, we’re seeing an increasing push from major tech players—think AI surveillance, next-gen robotics, and cybersecurity. Firms like Palantir, Anduril, and SpaceX have as much to gain from national security contracts as the traditional arms industry did decades ago. The synergy is clear: governments acquire cutting-edge technology for “defense,” while tech companies secure massive, long-term deals. (Palantir’s Alex Karp, in his book “The Technological Republic” wrote that Americans face a “moment of reckoning” over “what this country is and what we stand for,” making it evident he envisions a global technological arms race driven by government-industry cooperation to preserve America’s “fragile geopolitical advantage over our adversaries.”) Opening up tech and defense to these “tech oligarchs” will have lasting consequences.
Entrenched Economic Interests: Military spending is highly lucrative. From advanced weapon systems to logistics contracts, entire sectors depend on the perpetual churn of militarization. Even if a government sees a need to redirect funds to healthcare, it faces backlash from powerful industries that have long steered policy through lobbying and social networks. Furthermore, once social safety-net institutions are dismantled, rebuilding them is no simple task—particularly in the absence of public pressure. And regrettably, using profit as an incentive for developing harmful technologies often proves problematic. This recalls another CEO, Karp Gem, who, during an investor call celebrating Palantir’s stock surge, declared,
“Palantir is here to disrupt. And, when it’s necessary, to scare our enemies and, on occasion, kill them.”
In short, geography, along with material structures and processes, provides a sturdy foundation for endless militarization. Once large-scale infrastructure—like missile defense systems or data surveillance hubs—is in place or under development, dismantling it becomes politically fraught, if not downright unthinkable.
2. Ideology: A Narrow Lens on Human Rights and the ‘Need’ for Enemies
Policies never exist in a vacuum; they’re rooted in belief systems that shape how leaders see the world. It often seems as if there is a singular definition of human rights that the West vigorously promotes, leaving little room for alternative frameworks. This vision of human rights excludes the common good and, specifically, social welfare—the very institutional structures that make communities and individual lives livable and dignified. Indeed, any system emphasizing genuine equality or robust welfare is swiftly cast aside as “dangerous” or “unviable,” and any nation pursuing such a system becomes an obstacle.
Binary Worldview (Good vs. Bad): Western political culture, especially in foreign policy, often relies on the existence of a clear enemy. Think of the Cold War or the War on Terror trope—“us versus them.” Even though we’re now in what some call a “New Cold War,” the underlying mentality hasn’t shifted much. A tidy good-versus-evil narrative justifies extensive military spending and curtails introspection. This framework is not only about binary oppositions but also about the domination of one side over the other.
Classical Thought as a Baseline: Our modern liberal system traces its roots back to classical civilizations where slavery and stark inequality were the norm. We may have abolished slavery in its most overt forms, but the hierarchical worldview persists. Consequently, a society that seeks deep equality or a welfare-heavy model is dismissed as “radical,” “socialist,” or “unfit” for the “real world.” One might assume Jesus’ Christian thought—emphasizing equality over hierarchy and profit—would guide Western ideals, but instead, classical civilizations’ philosophies hold sway.
Take Vermeulen’s ostensibly well-sounding “Common Good Constitutionalism.” He explicitly rejects “the liberal goal of minimizing the abuse of power,” advocating broad executive and administrative discretion to pursue the “common good” without judicial or legislative constraints, and prioritizing “the authority of rulers” over individual rights. This perspective draws on natural law, which posits universal moral principles derived from reason or divine order, yet its historical application frequently codified inequality. In ancient Greece, for instance, thinkers like Aristotle deemed some groups (e.g., women and enslaved people) “naturally inferior” and thus suitable for subjugation. These ideas influenced later Christian thinkers like Aquinas, who saw social roles as part of a “natural” hierarchy.
Equally concerning is the renewed popularity of monarchical systems and hyper-elitism—actively favoring those from elite circles deemed inherently more capable. This trend appears in Silicon Valley’s ideological proponent Curtis Yarvin, who extols monarchy, and in Peter Thiel (a financial supporter of JD Vance), who has voiced contempt for democracy.
Suppressing Alternative Ideologies: As soon as a government proposes a different path—nationalizing key industries or de-emphasizing alliances like NATO—it often encounters intense external and internal pressure. In the 2020s, leaders hinting at neutrality or non-alignment were quickly labeled “strategic liabilities,” sometimes facing severe sanctions or even threats of regime change. Neutrality, in other words, becomes perilous in highly charged political times. Antonio Gramsci’s concept of cultural hegemony offers insight into how a single ideological framework—such as Western liberal capitalism—defines the boundaries of acceptable discourse. Competing ideologies (e.g., those advocating radical equality or robust welfare) are dismissed as “dangerous” precisely because they fall outside that hegemonic norm. Furthermore, if hegemony has not been achieved or is in decline, coercion, and violence often fill the gap to impose control.
Ideology, then, is the lens through which facts are interpreted. When this lens is hostile to systemic alternatives, militarization ceases to be merely tolerated; it becomes the championed means of preserving the singular mode of liberal-capitalist thought. And if that project falters or the dominant position is threatened, the end result can be fascism—or at least some version of authoritarianism.
3. Economic Drivers: Capitalism Meets the Military-Industrial Complex
It’s one thing to say militarization is “ideologically” justified; it’s another to see how deeply it’s woven into our economic fabric. With arms industries controlling large swaths of the job market and tech giants vying for a share of the security sector, money and profit motives form a massive tailwind propelling potentially harmful policies.
Arms Sales and Profit Models: Countries like France, the United Kingdom, and the United States don’t just build weapons; they export them globally. This creates a perverse incentive to maintain or exacerbate conflicts and enmities so that client states keep buying. Even smaller European nations see potential gains in specialized sectors—such as drones, communications, or cybersecurity.
Banking and Investment Ties: Major financial institutions like Goldman Sachs or BlackRock hold substantial stakes in defense and tech companies. Because these industries promise stable, long-term returns, bankers and fund managers pressure policymakers to maintain a favorable climate for arms development. If spending dips, profit projections do too, sending shockwaves through portfolios and pension funds. Currently, several Western leaders are former bankers from large banking conglomerates, which entangles them in these interests and leads them to perpetuate militaristic, so-called “military Keynesian” policies.
Crisis as Opportunity (Spatial Fix): In economic downturns, militarization or open conflict can become a “spatial fix,” generating new markets for rebuilding or rearmament. David Harvey uses spatio-temporal fix to describe how capitalist crises are deferred through territorial expansion and investment in new regions. When capitalism overaccumulates—creating surplus capital and labor—fresh arenas are sought for profitable investment, whether in underdeveloped territories or large-scale military and industrial projects. Historically, accumulation by dispossession—seizing common or state-owned resources—has accompanied these spatial fixes. States, armed with legal frameworks and coercive power, have often driven this process. Today, the United States, amid a crisis of hegemony, seems eager to resolve overaccumulation by securing new resources through force or coercive diplomacy: consider the Trump administration’s talk of “buying” Greenland for its resources—a dramatic bid to dispossess other nations. For Harvey, the “sinister and destructive side” of spatio-temporal fixes appears when financial or military power is used to shift devaluation onto “vulnerable territories.” A declining hegemon faces a catch-22: allow capitalist development elsewhere—thus intensifying competition—or shut it down and lose investment opportunities. Both paths undermine its supremacy, prompting states on the verge of losing hegemony to turn to warfare, financial predation, or both. This pattern links militarism, declining hegemony, and the violent pursuit of a new spatial fix amid capitalist crisis.
What emerges is a tightly bound relationship: elites sponsor policies that favor the military-industrial-technological nexus, which in turn bankrolls campaigns, funds think tanks, and perpetuates narratives of perpetual threat but also claws into the physical space through infrastructure and, in the worst cases, robs other nations’ territories.
4. Social Dynamics: Elites, Groupthink, and Identity
Elites don’t operate in a vacuum; they belong to social groups embedded in networks such as academic circles, lobbying organizations, defense summits, and exclusive clubs. Sociologically, these cliques function as echo chambers, where deviating from the accepted line can be career-ending. Ruling and governing elites have their own codes, norms, and unspoken rules, just like any social group. The problem arises when they insulate themselves to such a degree that their decisions—decisions which do affect societies—fail to account for the broader public.
Conformity and Rivalry: Within NATO-aligned leadership, for instance, no one wants to be labeled “soft” on security. Politicians, generals, and lobbyists reinforce each other’s stances, and alternative voices are quickly sidelined. Rivalries push leaders to outdo each other with “tough” policies, fueling escalation.
Threat Narratives: Media outlets often rely on soundbites from these elite networks, amplifying perceived threats. Over time, fear-based narratives harden into “common knowledge,” shaping public opinion and stifling dissent.
Social Sanctions: Within these elite circles, expressing skepticism about the status quo can lead to isolation. You risk being passed over for promotions, excluded from high-level meetings, or branded naïve. Given the stakes—prestige, funding, and career advancement—there’s a powerful incentive to conform.
Norms and Values: Compared to the working class, middle- and upper-class groups tend to emphasize independence, individualism, and personal achievement. This fosters self-expression, differentiation from others, and status-seeking behavior. They may also act less ethically if their cultural emphasis on self-interest outweighs collective well-being. In many cases, the upper class defines worth through achievements and status symbols rather than character or daily actions. Rather one could say the more insular such a group becomes, the less empathy is practiced.
The result? A reinforcing cycle in which everyone at the top nods in agreement that militarization is necessary, and no one dares to ask, “Wait a second, do we even need this? Is this even a good idea?”
5. Psychological Underpinnings: Detachment from Human Costs
We’re human. So how do elites sanction policies that cause real suffering, sometimes even to their own citizens?
Cognitive Dissonance: Once you’ve justified a policy—even if it has questionable outcomes—admitting error becomes psychologically painful. It’s often easier to push forward than to do a public 180, especially when you risk humiliating your network.
Lack of Empathy in Abstract Governance: Ruling elites frequently see the nation as an abstract ideal rather than a community of individuals with daily struggles. Budgets become numbers, not people. War is a tactic, not a tragedy. It becomes startlingly easy to approve harmful measures when the human face is replaced by charts and strategic reports. Indeed, this is a hallmark of bureaucratization: a consequence of modernity that slides closer and closer to bureaucratic violence. When a person is reduced to a mere statistic, their fate no longer matters. Jürgen Habermas’s critiques of modernity and Heinrich Popitz’s analyses of power both illustrate how bureaucratic systems can turn moral reflection into a mere procedural step. Nations become data points on spreadsheets, and human casualties turn into line items. In these highly rationalized structures, authorizing decisions that lead to real harm or destruction on the ground is far easier, precisely because bureaucracies often prize efficiency over empathy, insulating officials from the moral weight of their choices.
Historical Trauma and Collective Memory: Some societies carry deep wounds—like Russia’s experiences in World War II or Germany’s post-Holocaust guilt—that shape how elites rationalize high defense spending or confrontation. Similarly, the United States still resonates with the shock of 9/11, justifying a near-constant “war footing.” Drawing on the Jungian concept of a collective unconscious, Jonas Tögel proposes that nations bear deeply ingrained, formative traumas. Think of Russia’s catastrophic losses in World War II, Germany’s historical guilt for the Holocaust and its involvement in two World Wars, or the United States’ guilt over colonizing the American continent under the banner of manifest destiny. These events imprint themselves on the collective psyche—affecting how societies perceive threats, how rapidly they mobilize for conflict, and how readily they frame readiness as a moral or existential duty rather than a strategic choice. By invoking this layer of national identity, elites often find it easier to justify escalatory or militaristic policies. Of course, elites themselves are also woven into these national narratives.
Different psychological processes at varying levels are thus intertwined. In my view, a lack of empathy is arguably the most salient factor here.
6. Historical Patterns: The Self-Reinforcing Cycle
You’ve likely noticed a pattern recurring throughout history:
Elites define a threat (e.g., a neighboring power, a rising ideology).
Resources flow to the military (arms development, logistics, alliances).
Media and think tanks legitimize these expansions, silencing dissent.
Fear of the “other” becomes ingrained in public discourse.
Conflict or near-conflict situations arise, justifying yet more militarization.
Economic interests (banks, tech, arms) gain from this cycle, reinvesting profits into political influence.
The cycle hardens until a crisis either explodes (war) or some massive social shift disrupts the entire system.
It’s not a grand conspiracy orchestrated by a single mastermind—it’s a mesh of overlapping interests, fears, ambitions, and institutional inertia. Everyone’s simply doing what they believe they “have to” within a framework that rarely gets questioned. Unfortunately, it doesn’t involve the general population, but rather those whose decisions and plans have immediate consequences for entire communities and nations. This is precisely where a lack of empathy, hierarchical thinking, a feeling of superiority, and a Manichean worldview become dangerous.
Lastly, what is particularly bitter about this analysis of Western elites is that the United States played a key role in shaping and transforming Europe and other “vassals” to the point that they largely act in tandem with U.S. aims—often through a kind of mental colonization. As a result, different concepts and ideologies that flourish under hegemony go unchallenged, and those who implement them may not even be fully aware of what they’re perpetuating. Coupled with revisionist history—also believed and repeated (e.g., who truly won WWII and who made the greatest sacrifice?)—no one can learn from the past or draw inspiration from the positive ideas that arose over time (such as social welfare). All that remains is the present moment, which is a tragically shortsighted way of understanding, and shaping, our future.
Closing Note: A Call to Reflect and Engage
The current moment is shaped partly by orchestrated anxieties and partly by genuine ones. The notion of a US-EU split is being underscored by so-called “leaks,” a narrative that primarily serves to push both the US and the European Union into unprecedented military and defense spending. And these expenditures won’t simply gather dust. Meanwhile, discussions about public health and income inequality remain on the back burner while new security measures dominate the spotlight. We see some European leaders speaking in hushed tones about the possibility of direct confrontation with Russia or even tension with China. In the United States, the synergy between Silicon Valley and military programs continues to deepen. Many people sense we’re on the brink of something significant, yet no one seems to know how to put on the brakes.
So, why do elites keep supporting policies that look downright harmful? Because they’re embedded in a system where militarization feels inevitable—reinforced by material infrastructures, ideological stances, powerful economic incentives, social conformity, and a psychological aversion to admitting errors. As well as capitalism’s own entrenched logic. But as we know, “the market” isn’t just a natural phenomenon; it is people, governing and ruling elites. It’s a tangled knot, but not an unbreakable one.
Still, hope isn’t lost. Public sentiment in various countries can shift. The real question is: In which direction? If anything can break the cycle, it’s an informed and active citizenry—one that’s truly aware of the present, the past, and the possibilities for the future.
I look forward to reading your comments and continuing the conversation. After all, it’s through robust debate and open exchange that we truly come to understand the challenges—and the opportunities—that lie ahead.
Let’s keep the dialogue going. Share your thoughts, critiques, and experiences. Are you seeing shifts in your local political landscape? Have you encountered grassroots efforts trying to redirect funds from arms to social welfare? Drop a comment, send me a message, or write your own post in response. After all, we’re in this mess together—and the only way out is, well, together.
Support Independent Analysis
If you found this deep dive into ruling elites and militarization valuable, consider supporting my work:
Subscribe to this Substack for more long-form analysis of European politics.
Subscribed
Share this article with friends, colleagues, or social media—debate thrives when ideas circulate.
Democracies fray when scrutiny fades. By subscribing or sharing, you help sustain independent journalism that cuts through noise and dogma.
Contact:
Bluesky: @themindness.bsky.social
X: @noirnen @Nen_senb
Stay curious,
Nel