The Missing Pieces in Murray Rothbard's Theory of the Ruling Elite

Part I: The Bush Dynasty

Introduction

The exploration of ruling elites is far from a novel pursuit. In monarchical eras, the presence of a dominant elite was unmistakable, traditionally deemed a historian’s duty to trace the genesis and evolution of royal, aristocratic, and mercantile dynasties. However, in democratic times, this scholarly tradition has faded, often branded as illicit conspiracy theorizing when addressing the concept of a ruling elite.

Fortunately, the study of ruling elites persists on the revisionist fringes of both the political left and right. Despite their ideological disparities, these revisionists converge on two core tenets of ruling elite theory. First, they assert that the ruling elite derives its authority from the state, which facilitates access to subsidies, cartels, and monopolies. Second, they observe that most prominent businessmen, far from champions of free competition, frequently seek to shield themselves from it through cartels and monopolies. Notably, Big Business, particularly Big Banks, emerges as the most ardent monopolists. Thus, revisionists from both spectra argue that history’s fundamental structure remains unchanged—a perennial struggle between liberty and state-bestowed privileges.

Historical Context and Key Figures

A select group of historians and economists has delved deeply into modern power structures. From the New Left emerged Gabriel Kolko, who demonstrated that, at the dawn of the twentieth century, Big Business achieved regulatory capture—gaining dominion over regulatory agencies to insulate itself from competition.

From the Old Right arose Professor Murray N. Rothbard, an economist and luminary of the Austrian School. Rothbard seamlessly integrated Kolko’s insights into Austrian economic analysis, which extols the virtues of free markets while cautioning against the perils of cartels and monopolies. In doing so, he effectively synthesized the ruling elite studies of both the New Left and Old Right.

Yet Rothbard ventured further. He bridged macro-historical narratives with micro-historical detail by identifying specific dynasties, politicians, bankers, and businessmen within the ruling elite. In his seminal work, Wall Street, Banks and American Foreign Policy, Rothbard meticulously illustrated how Big Bankers and their dynasties constituted the ruling elite, achieving not merely regulatory but also state capture—manipulating and largely controlling the state’s most critical decision-making hubs.

This article serves as a continuation of "The Praxeological Foundations of Murray Rothbard’s Study of the Modern Ruling Elite and RWE," which distilled his thesis on state capture. Rothbard posited that the American facet of the Anglo-American Establishment comprised three Houses: Morgan, Rockefeller, and Kuhn, Loeb. Post-World War II, the Rockefellers ascended as the dominant, or senior, House, now steering what Rothbard termed the RWE—the Rockefeller World Empire. He elaborated on this shift in Wall Street, Banks and American Foreign Policy:
"After World War II, the Council on Foreign Relations became dominated by the Rockefeller rather than by the Morgan interests, a shift of power reflecting a general alteration in financial power in the world at large. After World War II, the rise of oil to prominence brought the Morgans and Rockefellers—once intense rivals—into an Eastern Establishment of which the Rockefellers were the senior, and the Morgans the junior partners." (p. 32.)

The Missing Piece

Rothbard’s grand narrative proves compelling, particularly given its grounding in micro-studies of real individuals and organizations. Yet, if the Eastern Establishment unified under Rockefeller hegemony post-World War II, what of the political conflicts spanning the past half-century? This query was also raised by Justin Raimondo in his foreword to Rothbard’s Wall Street, Banks and American Foreign Policy:
"But it would be great to see something like a sequel to Wall Street, Banks, and American Foreign Policy, a comprehensive and detailed but concise history starting where Rothbard left off during the Reagan administration and bringing us up to date for today." (2011 edition, p. xix.)

Rothbard never penned a sequel, though he continued commenting on the power elite for over a decade until his untimely death in 1995. He notably highlighted the ascendance of southern billionaires and neoconservatives. Regrettably, he never provided a systematic analysis of their evolution, leaving the modern ruling elite’s precise composition uncharted. Nevertheless, he spoke highly of Carl Oglesby’s "Cowboys and Yankees" thesis, noting:
"After World War II, the united Rockefeller-Morgan-Kuhn Loeb Eastern Establishment was not allowed to enjoy its financial and political supremacy unchallenged for long. ‘Cowboy’ Sun Belt firms, maverick oil men and construction men from Texas, Florida, and southern California, began to challenge the Eastern Establishment ‘Yankees’ for political power.
While both groups favor the Cold War, the Cowboys are more nationalistic, more hawkish, and less inclined to worry about what our European allies are thinking. They are also much less inclined to bail out the now Rockefeller-controlled Chase Manhattan Bank and other Wall Street banks that loaned recklessly to Third World and Communist countries and expect the U.S. taxpayer—through outright taxes or the printing of U.S. dollars—to pick up the tab.
More broadly, the assassination of Kennedy removed from power, by force and violence, a representative of the ‘Yankee’ Eastern Establishment, and replaced him by a leader of the Sun Belt (Florida, Texas, southern California) ‘Cowboys’—as explained in Carl Oglesby’s perceptive work, The Yankee and Cowboy War. …
On this analysis, the Watergate Affair consisted of a counter-coup leveled by the Yankees, installing Establishment rep Gerald Ford, and ousting Cowboy (southern California) Richard Nixon (see Carl Oglesby, The Yankee and Cowboy War)."

Oglesby’s thesis, as rendered by Rothbard, appears both explicit and falsifiable. It is explicit in naming Johnson and Nixon as "Cowboy" leaders, primarily representing "Sun Belt firms, maverick oil men and construction men from Texas, Florida, and southern California." It is falsifiable, per Oglesby, since "Cowboys" are "much less inclined to bail out the now Rockefeller-controlled Chase Manhattan Bank and other Wall Street banks." A politician eager to rescue Wall Street cannot, therefore, be a "Cowboy."

Evidently, both Johnson and Nixon were willing to bail out Wall Street banks. Rothbard himself acknowledges their alignment with the Rockefeller sphere, their cabinets boasting strong banker and Rockefeller representation. Moreover, he concedes that Kennedy—whom Oglesby deems a "Yankee"—posed a greater threat to the Eastern Establishment than either Johnson or Nixon, suggesting this as a possible motive for JFK’s assassination.

Did Rothbard contradict himself by endorsing Oglesby’s "Cowboy vs. Yankee" thesis? Not necessarily. For Rothbard, the thesis lacked clarity. Unlike Oglesby, he emphatically stated that Nixon was firmly under Rockefeller and Eastern Establishment control. Even Oglesby admits that "Cowboys" rely heavily on government support and contracts. Only Rothbard, however, seems to grasp that this dependency renders true independence from the Eastern Establishment elusive, explaining their reluctance—rather than opposition—to bailouts.

Rothbard’s "Cowboy vs. Yankee" interpretation appears weaker than Oglesby’s. He suggests that "Cowboys" aspire to autonomy yet remain largely dependent, often serving as fronts for the Eastern Establishment. Indeed, Rothbard notes that many "Cowboys" are Rockefeller proxies, a point starkly evident with the Southern Republicans clustered around the Bush family—Eastern transplants in the South.
"… George H. W. Bush, a Texas oil man who had served briefly as Ambassador to the United Nations. More important than Bush’s Texas oil connections was the fact that his father, Connecticut Senator Prescott Bush, was a partner at Brown Brothers, Harriman." (p. 58-59.)
Rothbard identifies George H.W. Bush as a Trilateralist, firmly ensconced in the Rockefeller camp:
"David Rockefeller formed the Trilateral Commission, as a more elite and exclusive organization than the CFR, and containing statesmen, businessmen, and intellectuals from Western Europe and Japan. The Trilateral Commission not only studied and formulated policy, but began to place its people in top governmental posts. (p. 34.) …
While Ronald Reagan’s early campaigning included attacks on the Trilateral Commission, the Trilateralists have by now been assured that the Reagan administration is in safe hands. The signal was Reagan’s choice of Trilateralist George Bush, who had also become a director of the First International Bank of London and Houston, as Vice-President of the United States, and of Reagan’s post-convention reconciliation visit to Washington and to the home of David Rockefeller." (p. 67.)

The Forgotten Patriarch: Samuel P. Bush

The nexus between the Bush and Rockefeller families appears even more direct than Rothbard disclosed. George H.W. Bush was not only the son of Prescott Bush but, more crucially, the grandson of Samuel P. Bush—both intimately linked to the Rockefellers. Remarkably, Rothbard seems unaware of this or chose not to highlight it, despite his familiarity with Samuel P. Bush. In War Collectivism During WW I, Rothbard briefly mentions him:
"The Industrial Board, conceived by Ritter in January, 1919 … At Ritter's urging, George Peek was named chairman of the IB; other members included … steel castings manufacturer Samuel P. Bush, former head of the WIB's Facilities Division; …"

Rothbard recognized Samuel P. Bush as a central figure in the power elite, overseeing the War Industries Board, which collectivized the economy during World War I. Yet, he overlooked that Samuel Bush also served directly under Frank Rockefeller, brother to John D. and William Rockefeller—a fact now readily acknowledged even on Wikipedia:
"In 1901, Bush returned to Columbus to be General Manager of Buckeye Steel Castings Company, which manufactured railway parts. The company was run by Frank Rockefeller, the brother of oil magnate John D. Rockefeller, and among its clients were the railroads controlled by E. H. Harriman. The Bush and Harriman families would be closely associated at least until the end of World War II. In 1908, Rockefeller retired and Bush became president of Buckeye, a position he would hold until 1927, becoming one of the top industrialists of his generation."

Samuel Bush hailed from a venerable WASP lineage. His father, James S. Bush, attended Yale and counted Admiral Rogers among his close associates. Samuel’s mother descended from the esteemed Fay family, claiming ties to British royalty. His wife, Flora Sheldon, also sprang from a distinguished lineage, her younger brother later graduating from Yale.

Why did Rothbard omit that George H.W. Bush’s grandfather worked directly for Frank Rockefeller? He notes Samuel P. Bush as a "steel castings manufacturer" but neglects his role as General Manager of Buckeye Steel Castings, managed by Frank Rockefeller.

The Harriman-Walker-Bush Triumvirate

When Samuel Bush joined Frank Rockefeller, the Railroad War between James J. Hill and Edward H. Harriman raged. Hill was backed by the formidable House of Morgan banking empire, while Harriman enjoyed support from the Walker family and Kuhn, Loeb bankers—allying with the Rockefellers against the Morgans. Thus, Samuel Bush found himself at the epicenter of both a commercial conflict and a dynastic struggle.

Soon, Samuel Bush ascended to president of Buckeye Company and forged close ties with Edward H. Harriman and his banker, George Herbert Walker. The rapport among these men and their families fostered a Harriman-Walker-Bush triumvirate, effectively serving as a Rockefeller proxy.

The intertwined interests of Edward H. Harriman, George H. Walker, and Samuel P. Bush ensured their sons would perpetuate this alliance. Edward H. Harriman led this effort, fathering W. Averell Harriman and Ronald Harriman. Their close companions included Robert A. Lovett, son of their father’s personal secretary Robert S. Lovett, and Prescott Bush, Samuel’s son. All four attended Yale concurrently and were inducted into the elite Skull & Bones society.

These offspring of the Harrimans, Bushes, and Lovetts remained socially and professionally intertwined throughout their lives. This second-generation triumvirate safeguarded Rockefeller interests for the ensuing five decades. The alliance was cemented in 1919 when George H. Walker’s eldest daughter, Dorothy Walker, married Samuel Bush’s son, Prescott Bush. Among the bridesmaids was Isabel Rockefeller, granddaughter of John D. Rockefeller’s brother, William Rockefeller. The most renowned of Prescott and Dorothy’s sons is George Herbert Walker Bush, named after his maternal grandfather.

The Auchinclosses and the First Coalition War

In his final book, The Case Against The Fed (published 1994, a year before his death), Rothbard notes the Rockefellers’ reluctance to aid the Morgans in propelling America into World War I alongside the Morgan-aligned British Empire:
"And of all the leading ‘Anglo’ financial interests, the Rockefellers, ally of the Kuhn, Loebs, and a bitter rival of the Anglo-Dutch Royal Dutch Shell Oil Company for world oil markets and resources, was one of the very few who remained unenthusiastic about America's entry into the war."

This raises the question: What might have been the price of Rockefeller support for the war effort? It seems plausible that, at minimum, they would have demanded representation in both the war’s administration and the subsequent cartelization of the economy—encompassing cabinet positions and the collectivized war economy. Samuel Bush was a prime example, not only heading the Facilities Division of the War Industries Board but also representing the Rockefeller-affiliated Remington arms industries. Yet, surely Samuel Bush was not the sole Rockefeller emissary in this endeavor. Who else might have been involved?

A pivotal figure in the war push was Gordon Auchincloss, personal secretary and son-in-law to Edward House, President Wilson’s right-hand man. Though initially aligned with the Morgan faction, Auchincloss maintained ties to the Rockefellers. His brother was a rising Republican politician, and more significantly, his cousin Hugh Auchincloss inherited a share of the Standard Oil fortune through his mother.

A notable cabinet shift occurred in 1915 when the pro-peace Secretary of State William Jennings Bryan resigned, protesting President Wilson’s pro-British policies that breached American neutrality in World War I. Edward House recommended George Lansing as Bryan’s successor. Auchincloss soon ascended to a prominent administrative role. Were Lansing and Auchincloss compromise candidates, bridging the Morgan and Rockefeller camps?

George Lansing’s father-in-law, George Foster, a former Republican Secretary of War, appeared close to the Rockefellers. More crucially, Lansing propelled his nephews, John Foster Dulles and Allen Dulles, into significant government roles. Rothbard notes the Dulles brothers’ allegiance to the Rockefeller camp, likely bolstered by their in-law ties to the Rockefellers:
"Most important is the little-known fact that Dulles’s wife was Janet Pomeroy Avery, a first cousin of John D. Rockefeller, Jr."

Robert Lansing also co-founded U.S. foreign intelligence operations, notably the secretive U-1 unit. John Foster Dulles received an Army commission as Major on the War Industries Board. It would not be surprising if the Dulles brothers, alongside Colonel House, Gordon Auchincloss, and Samuel Bush, began shaping America’s secret intelligence apparatus at this juncture. Much official business soon bypassed formal channels through Colonel House, fostering a shadow or deep state within the government—not only to draw the U.S. into war but to prepare for it.

When the war commenced, Samuel Bush’s eldest son, Prescott Bush, joined both the army and military intelligence. Did Auchincloss facilitate Prescott’s recruitment? Was Prescott Bush part of the clandestine U-1 network with the Dulles brothers? Were Lansing, the Dulles brothers, Auchincloss, and Samuel Bush collectively safeguarding Rockefeller interests within the Wilson administration?

Might this explain why U-1 recruited William Yale as Middle East operations director? A direct descendant of one of Yale’s founders and an employee of Standard Oil tasked with exploring Middle Eastern oil, Yale’s appointment suggests that expanding influence in the region was part of the price for Rockefeller support in entering World War I.

The Mohrenschilds and the Baku Oil Fields

During the early twentieth century, the world’s largest oil fields lay in Baku, Azerbaijan, then part of the Russian Empire, dominated by the Nobel brothers. The second-largest producers were the Rothschild-backed Shell Oil Company and other British entities. Baku oil posed the greatest threat to the Rockefellers in global markets. Naturally, they would have sought to seize control—could this have been their ultimate price for aiding U.S. entry into World War I? Was this why George Herbert Walker initiated negotiations with the Mohrenschilds regarding Baku’s fate?

The Mohrenschilds, a German-Russian family, managed the Nobel brothers’ oil business in Baku through three brothers. Ferdinand Mohrenschild traveled to the U.S. in 1916, winning favor in high society and soon marrying President Woodrow Wilson’s granddaughter. Prior to that, he brokered a monumental deal with the Rockefellers: the majority of Nobel Oil stock was sold to them just before the Russian February Revolution.

This positioned the Rockefellers advantageously. Regardless of the war’s outcome, they could claim control of the Nobel oil fields. Even a German victory might have honored Rockefeller rights, given pre-war collaborations with German chemical cartels. An Allied victory, however, was the optimal scenario. Perhaps not coincidentally, America soon joined World War I.

As Nobel dynasty representatives, the Mohrenschilds were a pivotal family. It is no surprise that the Rockefellers entrusted George Herbert Walker with negotiations. Post-deal, the Mohrenschilds deepened their Rockefeller ties by befriending the Bush family.

The Paris Peace Conference and Global Division

With the First World War won and the German Kaiser and Russian Tsar deposed, the Paris Peace Conference determined the new global power structure. The American delegation included House, Auchincloss, and the Dulles brothers. However, the Morgans soon dominated the proceedings, exacerbated by Secretary of State Lansing’s resignation, which further bolstered Morgan influence.

The Morgans, alongside the British establishment, emerged as senior partners, with the Rockefellers relegated to junior status within the ruling elite. Yet, this did not preclude collaboration. Together, they established organizations like the Royal Institute of International Affairs (RIIA) and the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) to solidify the Anglo-American Establishment’s global dominion.

A deal seemingly emerged: the Morgans and British elite sought dominance over the British and French Empires, as well as new minor allies carved from the Russian, German, and Austrian Empires. The Rockefellers and their Kuhn, Loeb allies were left with the economically ravaged Germany and Russia—a arrangement suiting the Rockefellers, who coveted control over German chemical cartels and Russian oil. Their Kuhn, Loeb partners, meanwhile, planned substantial investments while ensuring anti-Semitism’s suppression in these regions.

Was this power-sharing agreement the impetus for creating the American International Corporation (AIC)? As its name suggests, it served as a vehicle for American economic hegemony, mirroring Versailles’ de facto decisions. Its board teemed with luminaries from the Morgan, Rockefeller, and Kuhn, Loeb factions.

The Mohrenschilds and Stalin’s Cartel

The Russian Civil War, ignited during World War I, pitted Communists, Tsarists, and other factions against one another. The Anglo-American ruling elite shared an interest in preventing Russia from posing an economic or political threat, as it had under the Tsar. Yet, identifying the group best securing their interests proved challenging. For the Rockefellers, two options emerged: control over Baku and other Russian oil fields, or civil war chaos halting oil exports, thereby inflating global oil prices. The former might be secured with an economically subjugated democratic Russia; the latter with a protracted civil war and economic turmoil.

The Rockefellers appear to have earnestly supported Alexander Kerensky’s government, which opposed both Tsarists and Communists. Kerensky seized power in 1917, declaring Russia a constitutional republic. However, his continuation of Russia’s war participation eroded public support. The Rockefellers clearly required a contingency plan should Kerensky falter.

Could the Communists have been that contingency? From the Rockefellers’ and Kuhn, Loeb’s perspective, Communists were preferable to a Tsarist restoration. Thus, it might not be coincidental that, as Kerensky’s grip weakened, he ceded power to the Communists rather than aligning with Tsarists. This could have been the contingency from the outset, given the close friendship between the Kerensky and Lenin families.

Post-Bolshevik Revolution, Kerensky emigrated west, where his attorney was Kenneth Simpson—a ’17 Bonesman, close friend of Prescott Bush, and partner at the deep-state banking firm Brown Brothers. So intimate were Kerensky and Simpson that Kerensky maintained a room in Simpson’s New York apartment.

Stalin as a Rockefeller Front

The Bolsheviks ensured a prolonged civil war, possibly deliberately extended with Western military interventions. They also offered a means to monopolize Russian oil production. The challenge lay in controlling the Communist Party. Might the Mohrenschild family and Kerensky have aided the Rockefellers in maintaining ties with key Soviet figures?

Stalin’s early career as a strike organizer for Baku oil workers is pertinent here. The Mohrenschilds likely monitored his activities from the start, potentially explaining his rise as Lenin’s right hand. It might also account for Lenin’s sudden capitalist pivot with the New Economic Policy (NEP). Similarly, Anastasia Mikoyan, the Soviet Union’s long-serving foreign minister and second-in-command, had led the Caucasus Communist Party in the Baku oil fields. Known as the only figure capable of confronting Stalin—and even reprimanding him—Mikoyan remained untouchable by Stalin, Khrushchev, and Brezhnev alike.

Did the Baku oil fields account for the disproportionate influence of Caucasus Communist Party members in the Soviet Union? Were Lenin, and especially Stalin and Mikoyan, mere fronts for the Rockefellers? Antony Sutton’s thesis may be relevant. Sutton argued that Soviet industry was largely constructed by American businessmen and capital, beginning with Lenin’s NEP shift and persisting until the Soviet Union’s end. In return, the Soviet Union joined oil and raw materials cartels led by American firms.

If the Soviet Union was integral to the RWE, what of modern Russia? Is it truly independent? Is President Vladimir Putin as autonomous as the Tsar, or merely another Rockefeller proxy? Notably, Putin’s paternal grandfather, Spiridon Ivanovich Putin (1879-1965), served as personal cook to both Lenin and Stalin.

Serving as a dictator’s cook signifies trust from the dictator and his security apparatus. Subsequently, Spiridon’s son, Vladimir Spiridonovich Putin, and grandson, Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin, joined the NKVD/KGB. In 2000, Vladimir Putin ascended to Russia’s presidency. Jewish-Russian oligarchs reacted with outrage, much as they did when Stalin defeated Trotsky.

Conclusion

Murray Rothbard significantly advanced ruling elite studies by identifying the dynasties and key figures shaping them. He demonstrated how the Rockefeller dynasty unified the ruling elite into an Anglo-American Establishment under the RWE, Rockefeller World Empire. Yet, for reasons unclear, Rothbard failed to recognize—or chose not to disclose—the Bush family’s pivotal role within the RWE throughout the twentieth century. Four generations—Samuel, Prescott, George, and George W. Bush—clearly acted as Rockefeller fronts. Alongside the Harrimans and Walkers, they played a crucial role in building America’s secret intelligence apparatus and the deep state, effectively governing the United States and the world for the Rockefellers.

Why did Rothbard overlook the Bush family’s central role in the deep state’s evolution? And why did he not attempt to integrate Sutton’s thesis into his RWE framework, given its seamless compatibility?