Whenever a new US president is sworn in, media pundits and court historians gush about the supposed "peaceful transfer of power" that is taking place. This has become a key tenet of the mythology and ideology surrounding democracy—that governing elites willfully abandon their control over the machinery of the state in response to election outcomes.

Indeed, this narrative about democracy is absolutely foundational to the perceived legitimacy of democracy. The contention that elections lead to a "peaceful transfer of power" reinforces the idea that the governing elites are determined by elections, and therefore by the "will of the people." If "we the people" vote for a new group of rulers, then the old leaders will step aside a new group will take over.

At least, that's how the story goes.

The first problem with this myth is that there is no "will of the people." This is a fantasy that not even mainstream political scientists believe. The notion of the "general will" is simply a doctrine of a civic religion that is employed to claim that elections grant government officials a "mandate" to rule.

The absurdities of political "representation" and "the will of the people" are problematic, for sure, but in this column I want to address the central claim of the myth of the "peaceful transfer of power." Namely, that power is meaningfully transferred from one group of governing elites to another.

It is indeed true that in the United States elected members of two major political parties rotate in and out of government offices. These elected officials, however, are only the public face of the actual governing elite which very much retains power before and after the ostensible "transfer" of power from one group of elected officials to another.

Signs of this reality can be found in how policies change very little in spite of alleged "transfers" of power. Yes, some less-significant policy areas experience changes as the regime-sanctioned political parties circulate. These include "culture war" policies such as abortion and DEI jobs at universities. But policy areas that significantly augment the ruling elite's financial power—most notably foreign policy, central banking, and major welfare-state programs such as Medicare—are largely untouchable by the elected government.

Moreover, access to positions of elected office are controlled. Specifically, only certain political parties are allowed to actually compete for elected positions of importance. Access to positions of power within the parties themselves, with only a handful of exceptions, are restricted to candidates acceptable to the governing elite.