Aristocracy

“All men are created equal.” These are our founding words, our founding credo. All they really ever meant were: we are all equal souls in the eyes of God, he loves us all equally; and we are all equal under the law (OK, we know this is not true, but it remains our founding ideal nonetheless). But in all other ways, we are surely not equal. Not equal in health and strength and good looks, not equal in wealth, not equal in power and influence, not equal in education and intelligence and wit and cleverness and sense of humor, not equal in character and virtue, not equal in any of the ways that make us all unique (and therefore special and irreplaceable) human beings.

So maybe an argument can be made that asserts that an aristocracy is a superior form of government to a democracy. Where aristocracy means that “the best” govern, while a democracy means that the people rule.

In considering this possibility, the first question that we must ask is: what qualities entitle a man to belong to an aristocracy? Strength, wealth, power, brilliance, wisdom, even common sense, a weighted combination of the above? The next question is: who decides the answer to that first question (what qualities do we demand for an aristocrat)? Then, how do we measure a human being on this quality or set of qualities? Wealth may be the only quality that has an easily defined way to measure it (dishonesty notwithstanding). As an example of the difficulty of measuring the qualities of an aristocrat, if education were the quality being measured, many factors might apply: number of years of formal education, rank|prestige|quality of the schools attended, grades earned, and not last at all, how do you compare degrees in philosophy, art, political science, geology, mathematics, business, etc.? The fact that only wealth is easily measured objectively is not an argument for its choice, Heaven forbid! No serious thinker in the history of political philosophy has ever suggested that wealth should determine who rules (despite the obvious reality that in the world of liberal democracies, wealth does seem to have always trumped popular rule).

So, that is the first problem: determining who belongs in the aristocratic class.

The second question is: are an aristocrat’s heirs aristocrats as well? Throughout human history, the answer has invariably been Yes. But that answer defies common sense, as all the qualities we have considered (except, once again, for wealth) are not inheritable. A strong man is one who has worked hard to make his body strong (his genes will not pass on his strength). An educated man has earned his education (his genes will not pass on his accumulated knowledge). Wisdom, which takes decades and is very rare notwithstanding, cannot be passed on. Only wealth. We don’t want an aristocratic class whose generations remain exalted to the end of time. Not only is it rare that a child of a real aristocrat would ever win the title of aristocrat for himself, it is just unfair to the rest of us. Nevertheless, it seems to be a property of human nature to want to project our elevated status into an indefinite future, not a good idea for anyone else, but inevitable nonetheless.

So, what are we left with? First, who will decide what traits make a man an aristocrat? And will the evaluations of men be honest and objective? What is the likelihood? Second, aristocracy must not be inheritable, but human history shows clearly that it will be passed on.

The kind of aristocracy that I have discussed thus far is the original linguistic notion of the word (from the Greek “aristos,” the best, and “kratos,” rule, therefore “rule of or by the best”) and the philosophical idea of aristocracy (see Aristotle’s Politics). Whereas, humanity has a tendency to corrupt ideas and philosophies, leaving us with only the shadow of the original thing; in this case, aristocracy has come to mean the nobility, or the elite. And even in this case, the aristocracy is not solely the wealthy class but rather the class of those who have found favor with the King or Queen (and, of course, those so favored end up with titles and estates … and wealth). If such an aristocrat loses favor with the boss, he loses his title and his identification as an aristocrat, even if he gets to keep his wealth (instead of losing his head). In the United States, however, we have no aristocratic class as the Constitution forbids it, and we have no King or Queen or European-style royal family (the Donald J Trump family and the John F Kennedy family notwithstanding, in very different ways). We do, unhappily, have an elite whose power derives from their wealth (and/or celebrity). For the purpose of this blog post, no real American would choose to be ruled by such a moneyed aristocracy, or such an elite, but that is exactly what we do have. Wealth rules, and so long as we do nothing to reverse it, that is the way it will continue.

Maybe, just maybe, a representative democracy is the best we can hope for at our current level of civilization, because it allows each of us to answer the question “who is an aristocrat?”, “who is the best among us?” with our vote. Look at the Senate and the House of Representatives. Is anyone there not a high-achieving college graduate of a top college? Most are lawyers and that is not an easy path to travel. Some are religious leaders, some doctors, some military, some businessmen, all (most?) worthy of our respect. (Unhappily, the same cannot be said of our Presidents, and our Governors, and this is clearly our own fault for allowing celebrity – even notoriety – to trump honest talent and skills – and brilliance.)

But here is the rub. While we elect worthies, aristocrats of their own creation, once they take their seats in Congress, they all get bought and paid for and are owned by men of wealth, the only measurable quality that should never qualify anyone for being an aristocrat, one of “the best.”

What is to be done? You, my patriotic citizen, must do your part. We are nominally a democracy, yet we are honestly a plutocracy (where money rules, not even an aristocracy where “the best” rule), and money should never rule. The Democracy Movement is a push for the 28th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, erecting a permanent and impenetrable wall of separation between money and government. Join the march, we need your help! Will your singular assistance tip the balance in our favor? Of course not. So, bring your family and friends and neighbors along, no matter what their partisan politics. The Democracy Movement is not a partisan undertaking; this is about “do YOU matter?”, “do you have a government that listens to YOU?”, or are you OK letting the unfittest aristocracy of them all – the fake aristocracy of wealth – lead us down the path to becoming a once great nation.