What do you think?
Rate this book
John Adams and the Fear of American Oligarchy
Why American founding father John Adams feared the political power of the rich―and how his ideas illuminate today's debates about inequality and its consequences
Long before the "one percent" became a protest slogan, American founding father John Adams feared the power of a class he called simply "the few"―the wellborn, the beautiful, and especially the rich. In John Adams and the Fear of American Oligarchy , Luke Mayville explores Adams’s deep concern with the way in which inequality threatens to corrode democracy and empower a small elite. Adams believed that wealth is politically powerful not merely because money buys influence, but also because citizens admire and even identify with the rich. Mayville explores Adams’s theory of wealth and power in the context of his broader concern about social and economic disparities―reflections that promise to illuminate contemporary debates about inequality and its political consequences. He also examines Adams’s ideas about how oligarchy might be countered. A compelling work of intellectual history, John Adams and the Fear of American Oligarchy has important lessons for today’s world.
Long before the "one percent" became a protest slogan, American founding father John Adams feared the power of a class he called simply "the few"―the wellborn, the beautiful, and especially the rich. In John Adams and the Fear of American Oligarchy , Luke Mayville explores Adams’s deep concern with the way in which inequality threatens to corrode democracy and empower a small elite. Adams believed that wealth is politically powerful not merely because money buys influence, but also because citizens admire and even identify with the rich. Mayville explores Adams’s theory of wealth and power in the context of his broader concern about social and economic disparities―reflections that promise to illuminate contemporary debates about inequality and its political consequences. He also examines Adams’s ideas about how oligarchy might be countered. A compelling work of intellectual history, John Adams and the Fear of American Oligarchy has important lessons for today’s world.
232 pages, Paperback
Published December 4, 2018
57 people are currently reading
198 people want to read
About the author
Luke Mayville
1 book5 followersLuke Mayville writes and teaches about political philosophy, inequality, and the political ideas of Founding-era Americans. His book, John Adams and the Fear of American Oligarchy, draws on John Adams's political writings to uncover a unique theory of the political power of wealth. He is currently a postdoctoral fellow at the Center for American Studies at Columbia University, where he teaches “Contemporary Civilization,” a year-long course exploring primary texts in the western tradition of political philosophy.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 14 of 14 reviews
October 29, 2016
What an incredible read! I had some apprehensions about diving into a book seemingly quite niche when my knowledge on the subject of early American political philosophy is superficial, to say the least. I do, however, have a keen interest in contemporary American politics which proved all that is required to enjoy the analysis within.
In the early pages we are told that an aim of the book is to clarify one of the essential "truths" about ourselves that american values and ideology make difficult to admit. The author then takes a complex and varied body of work from the writings of John Adams and his contemporaries, as well as historical thinkers, and thoughtfully teases out central themes with respect to the nature of power, influence, and the human psyche. He does this with great care for the reader, providing historical context and the depth necessary to ensure that the layman can enjoy the richness and originality of the political, philosophical, and psychological thought alongside the academic. It is precisely this attention to the uninitiated reader that allows him to so effectively expose the "truth" that lay dormant in the introductory chapter.
This book was filled with wonderful little "a ha!" moments when my own intuitions or suspicions related to inequality and the human condition seemed to be plucked from my own brain, organized and made sensible, and eloquently put forth by Adams and the author. It also harbored ideas that made me reexamine some of my own assumptions when it comes to the nature and structure of governorship. Perhaps most of all it made me appreciate the discourse, passion, and ingenuity embodied by the fathers of the 'American Experiment', and the many ways in which their philosophical struggle with the nature of oligarchy, including it's precedents and it's consequences, mirrors our own.
I believe this book has broad appeal for anyone interested in politics, philosophy, psychology, as well as historical or contemporary affairs. A remarkable, and perhaps above all a relevant read deserving of our attention.
In the early pages we are told that an aim of the book is to clarify one of the essential "truths" about ourselves that american values and ideology make difficult to admit. The author then takes a complex and varied body of work from the writings of John Adams and his contemporaries, as well as historical thinkers, and thoughtfully teases out central themes with respect to the nature of power, influence, and the human psyche. He does this with great care for the reader, providing historical context and the depth necessary to ensure that the layman can enjoy the richness and originality of the political, philosophical, and psychological thought alongside the academic. It is precisely this attention to the uninitiated reader that allows him to so effectively expose the "truth" that lay dormant in the introductory chapter.
This book was filled with wonderful little "a ha!" moments when my own intuitions or suspicions related to inequality and the human condition seemed to be plucked from my own brain, organized and made sensible, and eloquently put forth by Adams and the author. It also harbored ideas that made me reexamine some of my own assumptions when it comes to the nature and structure of governorship. Perhaps most of all it made me appreciate the discourse, passion, and ingenuity embodied by the fathers of the 'American Experiment', and the many ways in which their philosophical struggle with the nature of oligarchy, including it's precedents and it's consequences, mirrors our own.
I believe this book has broad appeal for anyone interested in politics, philosophy, psychology, as well as historical or contemporary affairs. A remarkable, and perhaps above all a relevant read deserving of our attention.
August 31, 2023
An interesting thesis with a compelling argument, however, where was this man’s editor? The phrase, “As we shall see,” should not be so prevalent that I’m tempted to start a drinking game.
December 18, 2020
What is the greatest threat to representative democracy – the unwashed masses or the powerful elite? It’s the “mob” conservatives insist. John Adams disagreed.
A Founding Father who helped to write the Declaration of Independence, Adams recognized two threats to self-government, one from the masses, and the other, more serious, threat from wealthy elites. The latter could, after all, dominate the democratic process with their money and prestige, thus undermining the republic. From the hindsight of 2020, Adams’ repeated warning seems prescient about money dominating elections.
He defined a “republic” as “a government in which the people have collectively, by representation, an essential share in the sovereignty.” Adams was influenced by Machiavelli, who wrote that republics had the tendency to devolve into elite tyranny. Democracy becomes oligarchy when elected officials become puppets of the powerful. Adams also saw oligarchy as a continual threat, with the rich seeking to exempt themselves from taxes and the law. Elite interests, he believed, are not identical with the common good.
Even in the absence of nobility, the Founders expected that a natural aristocracy would arise. Jefferson, for example, thought that influence would be based upon virtue and talent. By contrast, Adams believed that elites are not formed by meritocracy, with the best and the brightest rising to the top. He knew that inheriting wealth, beauty and a family name, along with good luck had more to do with who comprises the elite.
In commercial societies, people are more likely to admire and respect wealth than character and wisdom. Admiration bestows influence. Adams quoted Adam Smith, who contended that it’s easier for people to sympathize with the successful than with the afflicted. The universal regard for the wealthy translates into disproportionate political power. Wealth also translates into power.
Adams wrote that it was “a natural and unchangeable inconvenience in all popular elections…that he who has the deepest purse, or the fewest scruples about using it, will generally prevail.” The result is “oligarchy in effect, though a simple democracy in name.”
During this era of rapidly increasing economic inequality, there is increased risk of oligarchy, rule by the wealthy. Madison contended that via elections, the common people could control the elites. The Anti-Federalists, however, had warned that a narrow elite would dominate Congress. Yet Congressmen nowadays spend more time fundraising than legislating. The donations come primarily from lobbyists, large corporations and special interests. Though politicians deny they are influenced by generous donors, the public doesn’t believe it.
A recent example of disproportionate influence came in 2020 where Illinois voters had to decide whether to amend the state constitution to permit a graduated income tax to raise rates on the well-to-do while giving a small cut to everyone else. The state’s richest man spent $58 million to defeat the amendment, which narrowly lost.
Alexis de Tocqueville was impressed by the equality of conditions in the early 1800s. Today he would surely notice the stark inequality. As this review is being written, there’s a billionaire in the White House, while the Senate is called the millionaire’s club. An incumbent Georgia senator on the ballot in January 2021 comes from the family that owns the New York Stock Exchange.
In short, Adams’ warning about the danger of oligarchy is being vindicated today. Thanks to Luke Mayville’s book, we can learn from Adams about where the real threat to self-government comes from. ###
A Founding Father who helped to write the Declaration of Independence, Adams recognized two threats to self-government, one from the masses, and the other, more serious, threat from wealthy elites. The latter could, after all, dominate the democratic process with their money and prestige, thus undermining the republic. From the hindsight of 2020, Adams’ repeated warning seems prescient about money dominating elections.
He defined a “republic” as “a government in which the people have collectively, by representation, an essential share in the sovereignty.” Adams was influenced by Machiavelli, who wrote that republics had the tendency to devolve into elite tyranny. Democracy becomes oligarchy when elected officials become puppets of the powerful. Adams also saw oligarchy as a continual threat, with the rich seeking to exempt themselves from taxes and the law. Elite interests, he believed, are not identical with the common good.
Even in the absence of nobility, the Founders expected that a natural aristocracy would arise. Jefferson, for example, thought that influence would be based upon virtue and talent. By contrast, Adams believed that elites are not formed by meritocracy, with the best and the brightest rising to the top. He knew that inheriting wealth, beauty and a family name, along with good luck had more to do with who comprises the elite.
In commercial societies, people are more likely to admire and respect wealth than character and wisdom. Admiration bestows influence. Adams quoted Adam Smith, who contended that it’s easier for people to sympathize with the successful than with the afflicted. The universal regard for the wealthy translates into disproportionate political power. Wealth also translates into power.
Adams wrote that it was “a natural and unchangeable inconvenience in all popular elections…that he who has the deepest purse, or the fewest scruples about using it, will generally prevail.” The result is “oligarchy in effect, though a simple democracy in name.”
During this era of rapidly increasing economic inequality, there is increased risk of oligarchy, rule by the wealthy. Madison contended that via elections, the common people could control the elites. The Anti-Federalists, however, had warned that a narrow elite would dominate Congress. Yet Congressmen nowadays spend more time fundraising than legislating. The donations come primarily from lobbyists, large corporations and special interests. Though politicians deny they are influenced by generous donors, the public doesn’t believe it.
A recent example of disproportionate influence came in 2020 where Illinois voters had to decide whether to amend the state constitution to permit a graduated income tax to raise rates on the well-to-do while giving a small cut to everyone else. The state’s richest man spent $58 million to defeat the amendment, which narrowly lost.
Alexis de Tocqueville was impressed by the equality of conditions in the early 1800s. Today he would surely notice the stark inequality. As this review is being written, there’s a billionaire in the White House, while the Senate is called the millionaire’s club. An incumbent Georgia senator on the ballot in January 2021 comes from the family that owns the New York Stock Exchange.
In short, Adams’ warning about the danger of oligarchy is being vindicated today. Thanks to Luke Mayville’s book, we can learn from Adams about where the real threat to self-government comes from. ###
July 16, 2024
Beautifully written and easy to finish in a couple of sittings, which is a *real* rarity in books about early American history. On the other hand, there's still a bit of bloat here. Enjoyable as it is, it could have been a longish journal article and lost nothing of the argument--which I find pretty unconvincing.
Mayville's central claim is that Adams foresaw how non-monarchical government could lead to the development of economic oligarchies, rather than non-economic and non-hereditary 'aristocracies'. That is, rule would devolve onto the rich, rather than onto the good.
It's not incredibly difficult to look at American politics over the last couple of hundred years and nod and say 'Adams was so prescient!' But remember that Adams thought this was *inevitable*. It was not inevitable, it was a political choice, led by Hamilton, Adams himself, and then many other politicians and Americans over a long period of time.
So, I would say in response to Mayville's book: Jefferson and Madison were wrong to think that the good *would* rule; they weren't wrong to think that a society could be organized *so that* the good would rule. Adams was right to think that the rich *could* come to rule, but wrong to think it was inevitable. We wouldn't be in a better place if everyone had heeded Adams and assumed that the rich would inevitably rule, so we had to have a king to keep them in line. Then, we'd have a king.
We would be in a better place if Adams had put his efforts into helping build a society in which the good ruled, and the rich could not. But he assumed oligarchy was an inevitable tendency, and so did not put his efforts there.
Mayville's central claim is that Adams foresaw how non-monarchical government could lead to the development of economic oligarchies, rather than non-economic and non-hereditary 'aristocracies'. That is, rule would devolve onto the rich, rather than onto the good.
It's not incredibly difficult to look at American politics over the last couple of hundred years and nod and say 'Adams was so prescient!' But remember that Adams thought this was *inevitable*. It was not inevitable, it was a political choice, led by Hamilton, Adams himself, and then many other politicians and Americans over a long period of time.
So, I would say in response to Mayville's book: Jefferson and Madison were wrong to think that the good *would* rule; they weren't wrong to think that a society could be organized *so that* the good would rule. Adams was right to think that the rich *could* come to rule, but wrong to think it was inevitable. We wouldn't be in a better place if everyone had heeded Adams and assumed that the rich would inevitably rule, so we had to have a king to keep them in line. Then, we'd have a king.
We would be in a better place if Adams had put his efforts into helping build a society in which the good ruled, and the rich could not. But he assumed oligarchy was an inevitable tendency, and so did not put his efforts there.
July 23, 2025
A stellar examination of John Adams political thought vis a vis aristocracy or oligarchy in America (Adams did not really think there was a difference between the two). Focusing mostly on Adams political philosophy and not his personal foibles (which seems popular to do), the author presents a Founding Father with deep insights into the new country’s vulnerabilities and how to address them.
Without getting into the complexity, the author’s main argument is that “aristocracy” was Adam’s biggest fear. This analysis requires some deep digging into Adams’ writings that lead to some seemingly contradictory, or at least nonlinear, interpretations. However, the author performs this analysis adroitly and convincingly without totally dismissing other interpretations along the way.
In addition to its thoughtfulness and interesting topic, I found the brevity of the book (just over 150 pages of main text) refreshing. So many popular history books are full of anecdotes, side stories and unnecessary fluff, but this academic work sticks hard to its thesis and follows through to the end.
Without getting into the complexity, the author’s main argument is that “aristocracy” was Adam’s biggest fear. This analysis requires some deep digging into Adams’ writings that lead to some seemingly contradictory, or at least nonlinear, interpretations. However, the author performs this analysis adroitly and convincingly without totally dismissing other interpretations along the way.
In addition to its thoughtfulness and interesting topic, I found the brevity of the book (just over 150 pages of main text) refreshing. So many popular history books are full of anecdotes, side stories and unnecessary fluff, but this academic work sticks hard to its thesis and follows through to the end.
October 1, 2019
This book was a pleasant surprise as history has labeled Founding Father/President John Adams as sympathetic to monarchs and oligarchs--not a democrat. Certainly Adams' term as president did little to help his reputation. The author of this book reviews Adams' writings, however, and debunks Adam's critics, establishing that Adams' writings show a democrat trying to protect our new nation from naturally devolving into an oligarchy over time. This is not light reading. Adams' realistic conviction that Americans would naturally tend, in the absence of aristocratic titles, to instead become overly sympathetic to fellow citizens who accumulate wealth. The author then persuasively argues that increasing income inequality in the last half century is the source of growing oligarchic tendencies in our country--exactly the wrong Adams wanted America to avoid.
July 12, 2025
In this book, Mayville makes the case that one of John Adams primary fears for the United States was the rises of an oligarchic class that would reduce the free exercise of democracy. This, of course, is directly counter to the narrative spun by Adams' political opponents that portrayed him as a monarchist that wished to bring titles and nobility back to the US after the revolution had successfully cast them off. (Of course, Thomas Jefferson was a primary source of those accusations, a wealthy slaveholder himself. So calling Adams a supporter of royalty and oligarchy is a bit rich.)
The passages Mayville cites and the overall case he makes has some merit. Adams does say that oligarchy begins as soon as one person's influence allows them to control or influence more than one vote. He further notes that we tend to emulate and support those we admire...those with great wealth and beauty among them. Thus, even aside from owning organs of publicity and controlling businesses that others depend upon, the wealthy people in a society tend to have the ability to sway votes to their interests and thus bend the political system unfairly to their own ends.
Mayville argues that Adams saw titles and honors as a way to co-opt some of that influence, especially if titled people can be isolated in the senate in a manner that leaves the house more free from the influence of the wealthy.
However, Adams never fully abandoned his strict puritan roots, which seems to have created an authoritarian bent in at least some of his personal relationships. This fact alone complicates the narrative. Establishment and use of the Alien and Sedition Acts further confuses efforts to portray Adams as an unvarnished supporter of popular democracy.
Overall, the book illuminates some parts of Adams legacy that are often overlooked, but I felt that a stronger case was needed to fully overturn the image of Adams as President struggling to find a way to administer the union that was not essentially monarchic. I was never able to embrace the idea that his indictment of oligarchy was as thorough and modern as Mayville makes it out to be.
The passages Mayville cites and the overall case he makes has some merit. Adams does say that oligarchy begins as soon as one person's influence allows them to control or influence more than one vote. He further notes that we tend to emulate and support those we admire...those with great wealth and beauty among them. Thus, even aside from owning organs of publicity and controlling businesses that others depend upon, the wealthy people in a society tend to have the ability to sway votes to their interests and thus bend the political system unfairly to their own ends.
Mayville argues that Adams saw titles and honors as a way to co-opt some of that influence, especially if titled people can be isolated in the senate in a manner that leaves the house more free from the influence of the wealthy.
However, Adams never fully abandoned his strict puritan roots, which seems to have created an authoritarian bent in at least some of his personal relationships. This fact alone complicates the narrative. Establishment and use of the Alien and Sedition Acts further confuses efforts to portray Adams as an unvarnished supporter of popular democracy.
Overall, the book illuminates some parts of Adams legacy that are often overlooked, but I felt that a stronger case was needed to fully overturn the image of Adams as President struggling to find a way to administer the union that was not essentially monarchic. I was never able to embrace the idea that his indictment of oligarchy was as thorough and modern as Mayville makes it out to be.
October 24, 2017
John Adams and the Fear of American Oligarchy is a book for these current times. While many of Adams's contemporaries discounted his arguments about the potential for a uniquely American form of oligarchy, history has proven Adams correct.
"The men of moneyed influence could make up in intrigue what they lacked in numbers by constantly scheming to divide their opponents in order to prevent formation of general coalitions."
-Author
"The poor are attracted and dazzled by the apparent happiness and splendor of the rich; and they regard a man of large fortune with a sort of wonder, and partial prepossession, which disposes them to magnify and overrate all his advantages."
-John Millar
"The men of moneyed influence could make up in intrigue what they lacked in numbers by constantly scheming to divide their opponents in order to prevent formation of general coalitions."
-Author
"The poor are attracted and dazzled by the apparent happiness and splendor of the rich; and they regard a man of large fortune with a sort of wonder, and partial prepossession, which disposes them to magnify and overrate all his advantages."
-John Millar
April 21, 2021
This book goes into detail how Adams worried about the growth of monied aristocracy and how he made suggestions to temper its influence. Mayville believes that Adams has been misunderstood in history and has not been the credit that he deserves. One has to read Adams' writings to get a true sense of the man. Unfortunately, with Hamilton and Jefferson on either side of him, he was between a rock and a hard place. Yet, as time goes on, his reputation continues to grow.
November 16, 2025
A difficult read but worth maybe a second read!
John Adam’s was a very intelligent man, but a man with conscience. He was able to see in depth what can cripple a democracy. Autocracy is always lurking in the shadows. He was raising the alarm bells to see what evil lurks in the hearts of men. Today we are on the brink of losing democracy in America. This book helps to understand how we got there.
John Adam’s was a very intelligent man, but a man with conscience. He was able to see in depth what can cripple a democracy. Autocracy is always lurking in the shadows. He was raising the alarm bells to see what evil lurks in the hearts of men. Today we are on the brink of losing democracy in America. This book helps to understand how we got there.
February 22, 2019
An excellent work of biography and political theory. Mayville argues convincingly that Adams’ push for titles and executive prestige was an attempt to curtail the power of aristocracy which Adams, argues Mayville, believed was inherent in human nature, rather than in political or social creation. A must read for students of early national and constitutional era politics.
March 6, 2025
“I will tell you in a few words what I mean by an aristocrat, and consequently, what I mean by aristocracy. By aristocrat, I mean every man who can command or influence two votes; one besides his own.” - John Adams, 1814
“The proof we live in a plutocracy is not that the wealthy get most of the prizes in our society, but that majorities think that is how it should be.”
- Garry Wills, 2014
“The proof we live in a plutocracy is not that the wealthy get most of the prizes in our society, but that majorities think that is how it should be.”
- Garry Wills, 2014
April 9, 2019
Concise 150pgs. Deals strictly with Adams thoughts on Aristocracy and the influence of wealth. A more enjoyable read that involves more of Adams life is John Adams and The Spirit of Liberty by C. Bradley Thompson.
September 11, 2024
Reads like a droning lecture. Repetitive, dry, and otherwise sleep inducing. Luke Mayville's John Adams and the Fear of American Oligarchy is the type of myopic reading one would expect from a university press.
Displaying 1 - 14 of 14 reviews