The New Feudal Lords: Trump, Musk, and Farage's Power Play
In an era of rapid technological change and political upheaval, the world is witnessing a profound shift in the nature of power and governance. This article explores the concept of neo-medievalism, a framework that suggests our global order is increasingly resembling the complex, overlapping authorities of medieval Europe rather than the nation-state system that has dominated international relations for centuries.
First introduced by political theorist Hedley Bull in 1977, neo-medievalism offers a lens through which to understand the erosion of traditional state sovereignty and the rise of influential non-state actors. This piece will examine the key features of neo-medievalism and how they manifest in today's world, from dispersed power structures to borderless economies.
Crucially, we will apply this theoretical framework to analyse the actions and influence of three contemporary figures: Donald Trump, Elon Musk, and Nigel Farage. These individuals, each in their unique way, embody and exploit neo-medieval trends, challenging established institutions and reshaping the political landscape.
By exploring concepts such as digital fiefdoms, the new feudalism of wealth as political power, and the fragmentation of the public sphere, we aim to shed light on the profound implications of these shifts for democracy, governance, and individual liberty in the 21st century. Finally, we will consider the challenges posed by this neo-medieval order and reflect on potential ways to resist its more antidemocratic tendencies.
This analysis seeks to provide readers with a comprehensive understanding of how ancient power structures are re-emerging in modern guise, and what this means for our collective future.
From Westphalia to Neo-Medievalism: The Shifting Landscape of Global Power
Neo-medievalism is a framework used in political science to understand certain modern forms of governance that exhibit characteristics reminiscent of medieval political structures. The concept was first introduced by the influential international relations theorist Hedley Bull in his 1977 book The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order in World Politics.
To understand neo-medievalism, it's crucial to first grasp the concept it challenges: the Westphalian system. Named after the Peace of Westphalia treaties of 1648 that ended the Thirty Years' War in Europe, the Westphalian system established the principle of territorial sovereignty for nation-states. This system, which has dominated international relations for centuries, is characterized by the ideas that:
1. Each state has sovereignty over its territory and domestic affairs,
2. All states are equal under international law,
3. Non-intervention in the internal affairs of other states is a fundamental principle.
The Westphalian model marked a shift from the complex, overlapping authorities of medieval Europe to a world of distinct, sovereign nation-states. However, Bull and subsequent scholars have argued that globalization, technological advancements, and internal political fragmentation are now reversing this trend, leading to a new form of political organization that in many ways resembles pre-Westphalian structures.
What is Neo-Medievalism?
Neo-medievalism describes a return to power structures reminiscent of medieval Europe. During the Middle Ages, power was distributed among various actors—kings, the Church, nobles, and autonomous city-states—resulting in overlapping jurisdictions and fragmented loyalties. This decentralized system was gradually replaced by centralized nation-states following the Peace of Westphalia in 1648 (Osiander, 2001).
The Westphalian model established principles such as territorial sovereignty, legal equality between states, and non-intervention in domestic affairs (Krasner, 1995). However, globalization, technological advancements, and internal political fragmentation are now reversing this trend. Neo-medievalism envisions a world where power is dispersed among various actors—states, corporations, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), religious movements, and even individuals (Bull, 1977).
Key Features of Neo-Medievalism in Today's World
The contemporary world exhibits several characteristics that align with the neo-medieval framework:
1. Dispersed Power: Authority is no longer concentrated solely in nation-states. Large corporations, international organizations, and influential individuals now share significant power on the global stage (Strange, 1996).
2. Multiple Allegiances: People often feel loyalty to various entities beyond their country. This might include multinational employers, online communities, or global movements (Cerny, 1998).
3. Influential Non-State Actors: Major corporations, non-governmental organizations, and international bodies increasingly shape global affairs, sometimes rivalling traditional government influence (Kobrin, 1998).
4. Cultural Diversity and Conflict: Societies are characterized by a mix of different belief systems and lifestyles coexisting—sometimes harmoniously but often with tension (Appadurai, 1996).
5. Evolving Nature of Conflict: Traditional wars between nations are less common. Instead, we see more internal conflicts, terrorism, and the involvement of private military companies (Kaldor, 2013).
6. Borderless Economy: Digital technologies and cryptocurrencies allow for economic activities that transcend national boundaries, challenging government control over financial systems (Castells, 1996).
These trends reflect a world order that's becoming more complex and interconnected—with power distributed in ways reminiscent of the medieval period but adapted to modern contexts. This shift challenges traditional notions of governance and sovereignty in the 21st century (Friedrichs, 2001).
In this neo-medieval landscape, certain political figures have emerged as powerful actors who both embody and exploit these trends. Donald Trump, Elon Musk, and Nigel Farage stand out as prime examples of individuals who have leveraged the dispersed power structures, multiple allegiances, and borderless economies characteristic of neo-medievalism to amass significant influence. Their actions and rhetoric provide a compelling case study of how neo-medieval tendencies manifest in contemporary politics and governance.
The Illusion of Freedom: A New Power Grab
Trump, Musk, and Farage often frame their attacks on state institutions as a fight for freedom and efficiency. However, a closer look reveals a more complex agenda: the consolidation of power in their own hands and those of their allies. Their rhetoric of decentralization and individual liberty often masks a desire to reshape power structures to their personal benefit.
Consider Trump's establishment of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), with Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy at the helm, aiming to slash federal bureaucracy by $2 trillion (TechPolicy.Press, 2024). This move, while framed as reducing government overreach, appears designed to remove checks on Trump's authority while concentrating power among his allies.
Musk's involvement extends beyond rhetoric. Reports suggest he may donate $100 million to Farage's Reform UK party (Sky News, 2024), demonstrating how wealth can directly shape political outcomes, bypassing traditional democratic processes. His acquisition of Twitter (now X) further illustrates how private individuals can reshape public discourse platforms without accountability (Zuboff, 2019).
Meanwhile, Farage's efforts to disrupt Britain's two-party system reveal his focus on creating alternative power structures he can influence. His media presence on GB News provides an outlet for his populist messaging while fragmenting public discourse (GB News, 2024).
These actions collectively point to a pattern where populist messaging serves as a tool for gaining popular support while reshaping power structures to benefit themselves—a hallmark characteristic of neo-medievalism (Risse, 2013).
The New Feudalism: Wealth, Power, and Project 2025
The ascension of figures like Elon Musk to positions of political power signals a troubling shift in modern democracies. Musk's appointment to lead DOGE in Trump's administration isn't just another cabinet shuffle—it's a stark illustration of how extreme wealth can bypass traditional democratic processes and translate directly into political influence.
This concentration of power in the hands of a wealthy elite eerily echoes feudal systems of old, where lords held disproportionate sway over governance (Holsinger, 2016). We're witnessing the emergence of what some scholars term "digital feudalism" (Morozov, 2011)—a system where one's economic status or alignment with powerful figures increasingly determines their access to resources and political voice.
Trump's reliance on wealthy individuals like Musk for key roles isn't just a matter of personal preference. It represents a fundamental shift towards governance based on personal relationships rather than institutional norms, mirroring medieval power structures in a 21st-century context (Fukuyama, 2014). As we watch this unfold, we must ask ourselves: Are we witnessing the erosion of democratic principles in real-time, all under the guise of efficiency and reform?
In this context, Project 2025 emerges as a stark manifestation of neo-medieval governance in modern America. This ambitious plan doesn't merely tinker with policy; it seeks to fundamentally reshape the U.S. government's architecture in ways reminiscent of medieval power structures. By envisioning a presidency unshackled from traditional checks and balances, Project 2025 mirrors the consolidation of power seen in feudal lordships. The proposed gutting of federal agencies isn't mere downsizing—it's a calculated dismantling of the administrative state, leaving a power vacuum that Trump and his allies aim to fill.
The project's emphasis on empowering non-state actors—from corporations to religious institutions—in traditionally government-held spheres reflects the fragmented authority characteristic of medieval societies. This isn't just about smaller government; it's about redistributing power to entities aligned with Trump's vision. Furthermore, Project 2025's focus on cultural warfare and ideological litmus tests for government officials harks back to loyalty-based systems of medieval courts. This isn't governance by merit or democratic mandate but by fealty to the leader.
Nigel Farage: The Neo-Medieval Populist
Nigel Farage, while often portraying himself as a champion of the common people against the elite, exemplifies many aspects of neo-medieval populism. His approach to politics is less about dismantling power structures for the benefit of the masses and more about repositioning himself at the top of a new hierarchy.
Farage's Brexit campaign, for instance, was framed as a fight against the EU establishment. However, it can be interpreted as an attempt to shift power from one set of elites (EU bureaucrats) to another (British nationalists led by figures like himself). This mirrors the medieval practice of local lords challenging the authority of distant monarchs, not to distribute power more widely, but to consolidate it locally under their control.
His use of media, particularly his show on GB News, further illustrates this neo-medieval approach. Like a medieval lord holding court, Farage uses this platform to shape narratives, rally supporters, and challenge opponents. This direct communication channel allows him to bypass traditional media gatekeepers, much as medieval lords might have bypassed official royal messengers to spread their own version of events.
Farage's potential alliance with figures like Musk, as evidenced by the reported $100 million donation, suggests a new form of political patronage. This relationship between wealthy benefactors and political figures echoes the patron-client relationships of medieval times, where powerful lords would support lesser nobles in exchange for loyalty and service.
In essence, while Farage and his counterparts claim to be anti-establishment, they are in fact against any power structures that they don't control. Their goal isn't to dismantle establishments for the good of the people, but to replace existing power structures with new ones where they hold the reins. This selective challenging of authority, combined with the cultivation of personal loyalty and the use of wealth to influence politics, aligns closely with neo-medieval patterns of power consolidation.
Digital Fiefdoms: The New Power Brokers
In the neo-medieval political landscape, social media and digital platforms have emerged as powerful tools for shaping public opinion and consolidating influence, often functioning as modern-day fiefdoms with their own rules and power structures.
Figures like Trump and Musk have leveraged these platforms to bypass traditional media gatekeepers and communicate directly with their followers. Trump's use of Twitter (now X) during his presidency exemplified this approach, allowing him to set the political agenda and rally his base with unprecedented immediacy (Enli, 2017). Similarly, Musk's acquisition of Twitter has given him direct control over a major platform for global discourse, raising concerns about the concentration of power in the hands of tech billionaires (Zuboff, 2019).
The governance of these platforms reflects neo-medieval structures. Social media companies function as de facto governors of vast digital territories, setting rules for acceptable speech and behaviour. This parallels the way medieval lords administered their domains, with platform policies serving as a form of digital feudal law (Gillespie, 2018). Much like medieval patronage networks, social media creates personalized information flows, where individuals receive news and opinions curated to their preferences, potentially limiting exposure to diverse viewpoints.
These digital fiefdoms have also changed the nature of political mobilization. They enable the rapid rallying of supporters, as seen in events like the Capitol riot or Brexit campaign. This mirrors the ability of medieval leaders to quickly summon their followers, but on a global scale and with unprecedented speed.
The Digital Public Sphere: Fragmentation and Mobilization
The impact of these digital fiefdoms on democratic processes is profound, reshaping the public sphere in ways that both challenge and reinforce neo-medieval tendencies.
Social media algorithms often create echo chambers, reinforcing existing beliefs and deepening political divisions. This fragmentation of the public sphere mirrors the fractured loyalties of medieval societies (Sunstein, 2017). Perhaps most concerningly, the ease of spreading disinformation on these platforms has created a ‘post-truth’ environment, reminiscent of pre-Enlightenment information landscapes (Waisbord, 2018). In this digital realm, charismatic figures can shape narratives and challenge established truths, much as powerful individuals in medieval times could influence the beliefs of their subjects.
These dynamics have accelerated the erosion of shared truths and common ground necessary for democratic discourse. At the same time, they have empowered populist figures to build personality cults and challenge institutional authority, further fragmenting the political landscape.
However, these platforms also offer potential for resistance and democratization. Grassroots movements have used social media to organize protests, raise awareness about social issues, and challenge entrenched power structures. The Arab Spring and various #MeToo movements demonstrate the double-edged nature of these digital tools (Howard and Hussain, 2013).
Conclusion: Resisting the Neo-Medieval Future
The neo-medieval order championed by figures like Trump, Musk, and Farage isn't just a temporary political shift—it's a fundamental restructuring of power that threatens to reshape our societies for generations to come. Once established, these new feudal-like power structures may prove incredibly difficult to dismantle.
The urgency of our situation cannot be overstated. Every day that passes without resistance is another brick laid in the foundation of this new order. The time to act is now, before these structures become so entrenched that they're accepted as the new normal.
Resistance doesn't always require grand gestures. In fact, it's the accumulation of small, everyday actions that can turn the tide. Staying informed and spreading truth in an age of misinformation is a radical act. Supporting independent journalism is crucial to maintaining accountability. Engaging in local politics and participating in community activities can foster connections and find common ground, countering the division on which neo-medieval power thrives.
As our lives become increasingly digital, advocating for online privacy and against surveillance capitalism is vital. Pushing for campaign finance reform can help limit the influence of wealth in politics. Sharing knowledge about neo-medievalism with others raises awareness, which is the first step towards action.
Remember, democracy isn't a spectator sport. It requires active participation from all of us. The future isn't set in stone: it's shaped by our collective actions today. By resisting the pull towards a neo-medieval future, we can work towards a more equitable, democratic society where power truly rests with the people.
The choice is ours: will we allow ourselves to become digital serfs in a new feudal order, or will we fight to preserve and strengthen our democratic institutions? The answer lies in our daily choices and actions. Let's choose wisely. Our future depends on it.
References
Appadurai, A. (1996) Modernity at Large: Cultural Dimensions of Globalization. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Bull, H. (1977) The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order in World Politics. London: Macmillan.
Castells, M. (1996) The Rise of the Network Society. Oxford: Blackwell.
Cerny, P.G. (1998) Neomedievalism, civil war and the new security dilemma: Globalisation as durable disorder, Civil Wars, 1(1), pp. 36-64.
Enli, G. (2017) Twitter as arena for the authentic outsider: exploring the social media campaigns of Trump and Clinton in the 2016 US presidential election, European Journal of Communication, 32(1), pp. 50-61.
Friedrichs, J. (2001) The meaning of new medievalism, European Journal of International Relations, 7(4), pp. 475-501.
Fukuyama, F. (2014) Political Order and Political Decay: From the Industrial Revolution to the Globalization of Democracy. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
GB News (2024) Nigel Farage claims Donald Trump and Elon Musk will throw weight behind Reform. Available at: https://www.gbnews.com/politics/nigel-farage-elon-musk-donald-trump-reform-uk (Accessed: 12 December 2024).
Gillespie, T. (2018) Custodians of the Internet: Platforms, Content Moderation, and the Hidden Decisions That Shape Social Media. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Heath, T., Perez, A. and Rios, C. (2023) The New Medieval Age: Global Trends and Their Implications,Foreign Affairs, 102(4), pp. 28-36.
Holsinger, B. (2016) Neomedievalism, Neoconservatism, and the War on Terror. Chicago: Prickly Paradigm Press.
Howard, P.N. and Hussain, M.M. (2013) Democracy's Fourth Wave?: Digital Media and the Arab Spring. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kaldor, M. (2013) New and Old Wars: Organised Violence in a Global Era. 3rd edn. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Kobrin, S.J. (1998) Back to the future: Neomedievalism and the postmodern digital world economy, Journal of International Affairs, 51(2), pp. 361-386.
Krasner, S.D. (1995) Compromising Westphalia, International Security, 20(3), pp. 115-151.
Morozov, E. (2011) The Net Delusion: The Dark Side of Internet Freedom. New York: PublicAffairs.
Osiander, A. (2001) Sovereignty, International Relations, and the Westphalian Myth, International Organization, 55(2), pp. 251-287.
Risse, T. (2013) Governance without a state? Policies and politics in areas of limited statehood, Perspectives on Politics, 11(4), pp. 1090-1092.
Sky News (2024) Tory co-chair accuses Elon Musk of trying to 'buy' Reform UK. Available at: https://news.sky.com/story/tory-co-chair-accuses-elon-musk-of-trying-to-buy-reform-uk-13267525 (Accessed: 12 December 2024).
Strange, S. (1996) The Retreat of the State: The Diffusion of Power in the World Economy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sunstein, C.R. (2017) Republic: Divided Democracy in the Age of Social Media. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
TechPolicy.Press (2024) Tracking Elon Musk's Politics. Available at: https://www.techpolicy.press/tracking-elon-musks-political-activities/ (Accessed: 12 December 2024).
Waisbord, S. (2018) The elective affinity between post-truth communication and populist politics, Communication Research and Practice, 4(1), pp. 17-34.
Zuboff, S. (2019) The Age of Surveillance Capitalism: The Fight for a Human Future at the New Frontier of Power. New York: PublicAffairs.