Patriarchal Hierarchy and the Future?
Patriarchal Hierarchy and the Future?
People are not equal and anyone who thinks and observes is well aware
of that fact; and it is a fact. For that reason, and despite all the wishy-washy
feel good emotionalism devoted to the subject, human societies have always
organized themselves into hierarchies. The original hierarchical based
“government” was along the lines of families and clans and essentially hued
to either patriarchy or the so called rule of the jungle. Genghis Khan is a
perfect example of how a rule of the jungle structure was put together from
scratch.
On the smallest scale we need merely observe the primitive family unit.
The patriarch ran it because he built it and from the start and it was his
responsibility. The clan model grew from that, presumably with the strongest
patriarch becoming the patriarch in charge; think lion prides or herds of
horses, and more than likely families with idiots for patriarch probably took
care of that in similar fashion.
It is logical to assume, considering the importance of survival, that
patriarchs who couldn’t carry out their survival responsibilities didn’t last long.
One way or the other, either the entire clan ceased to survive or someone more
capable took over responsibility. In this way there was almost surely a lot of
clan merging done under patriarchs who had shown themselves to be
capable, and when this occurred clans expanded, but still hierarchically, with
family patriarchs subordinate to clan chiefs.
Patriarch model clans eventually morphed into kingdoms as agriculture
made it possible for clans to settle down. And kings became kings in one of
two ways: they were born to the patriarchy or they took it over by force. Such
models are interesting because they were essentially anchored in
responsibility: the patriarch had it all. That didn’t mean he did everything. His
women folk, for example, had their own responsibilities to fulfill and those
usually centered on infant children and the household; on the other side all
patriarchs also had their lieutenants or clan councils to assist in carrying out
orders and policies. Kingdoms were similarly constructed. And most
patriarchs – and many kings – took their responsibilities very seriously.
Subsequently two more models developed – oligarchy and democracy.
With the advent of money and credit oligarchy came up with a new basis for
elitism – wealth – and clan leadership responsibility was assumed by the
oligarchic patriarch. In representative democracy the people, in some form or
another, took over the responsibility for selecting the leadership. Oligarchy
highlights the other side of patriarchy – and monarchy – and that is self
interest. Regardless of the degree of patriarchal responsibility assumed by
either oligarchs or monarchical patriarchs the degree of entitlement was
always equal or greater. An interesting view of “royal” responsibility, expressed
in Albion’s Seed by David Hackett Fischer was that it was condescending,
while the “hegemonic liberty” it was espoused as liberty for the elite to lead
and control without interference while “caring for” their underlings as they
deemed expedient. That is, they saw themselves as patriarchs in a very
traditional sense.
All this is background for the subject I wish to address, and that is
representative democratic patriarchy. Beginning with traditional liberalism, the
move to democracy was based on a more egalitarian sharing of responsibility
and power, both carefully separated and checked, at least in the American
Constitution. “The people,” variously defined, were to take a hand in ruling
themselves through representatives which were nominally responsible to
them. It is still quite evident, however, that since we are not all equal in talent,
knowledge and motivation, those who are deemed most able by the voters
assumed the duties of ruling the others – within Constitutionally defined rules
and responsibilities. All well and good; “the people” elect them, re-elect them,
and replace them at their pleasure, but for many reasons it’s not that easy. In
their minds, our elected leaders’, they have become society’s new patriarchs;
they see themselves as such – with responsibilities, but also privileges that
one would expect would go along with them.
The drift to increased patriarchy is unmistakable, far more so in some
locales, East Asian societies for example, and to a lesser extent European,
where social privilege – patriarchy – is more readily accepted. Is this a positive
drift? Plato, with his philosopher kings (The Republic) would probably say so,
and so would Thomas Hobbes, who believed in the philosophical justification
of absolute monarchy. Their argument would likely have been that relatively
few are qualified to lead and they, logically, should be the leaders – the
patriarchs – accepted by the others. Democratic societies would not
necessarily disagree – not all wish to rule – but would argue that those that do
wish to, and are deemed best qualified, be responsible to all the rest that don’
t; in other words they should rule as “the people” would have them rule.
Alas, the people are divided, and every bit as selfish as those who would
rule, so “the will of the people” is a moving target. And as life – and economics
– becomes more and more complex, the people become less and less able to
know and understand what is really in their best interest. Furthermore, those
same people, with limited world view knowledge, and less detailed technical
knowledge, can be manipulated. By whom? By those who would maintain
their elite positions as rulers – patriarchs – who are generally convinced that
they know much better than “the people” what is good for them.
We are faced with the traditional social extremes: order and anarchy. The
people of a democratic republic lean toward anarchy and their patriarchs lean
toward order. In a perfect world a democratic republic would balance those
two Inclinations; can ours? The difference, aside from the part about who
comes out ahead, is frame of reference: one side argues that in the longer
term providing maximum flexibility to motivation and rewards for innovation will
achieve the best results for all. The other side allows that might be all well and
good in the long term, but they are not likely to live long enough to enjoy the
benefits. In between, of course, is continual compromise which is part of the
democratic process. All indications are that our populations want it both ways,
but are inclined to be impatient, and impatience seems to be gaining
ascendancy. Impatience is a powerful force particularly in the American
culture.
The drift suggests greater egalitarianism among the people with steady
development of elitism among the patriarchal class; that is, those who gain the
patriarchal power positions are likely to strive to maintain them. It seems that
the human condition leans strongly toward government of elites; with
democracy only providing a new way to determine elite. So how should our
hierarchical elite be chosen – and maintained? Birth? Wealth? Power? Or
selection? We would say, of course, selection; our patriarchal elite, however,
would in its turn do whatever can be done to influence the process of selection
so as to remain among the ruling elite, which is as one would expect it to be.
But looking at the influence of birth, wealth and power on the selection process
we must recognize that the line between them and selection is tenuous – and
fragile.
Can democracy survive? Considering its age it must be accepted as still
experimental – and it is evolving, in many different ways in different places. So
how will that evolution progress? The most important advantage selection by
the people has over traditional patriarchal elitism is, at least in the United
States, that our democracy has a strong middle class that is wedded to neither
birth nor wealth (at least not automatically) as means for selection, and have
access to information that can be used to determine qualifications, if it
chooses to do so; and that middle class is crucial to the success of modern
nation states, making its members the ultimate adjudicator over how much
power is held for the people, and how much is surrendered to the elite. The
struggle will go on, but stronger and stronger tendency toward at least a
shared patriarchy is evident; and clearly the goal of those in power is to lock it
up. It will be an interesting struggle in this country, perhaps less so in others,
where it is already further advanced. (See Oligarchy to the right)
People are not equal and anyone who thinks and observes is well aware
of that fact; and it is a fact. For that reason, and despite all the wishy-washy
feel good emotionalism devoted to the subject, human societies have always
organized themselves into hierarchies. The original hierarchical based
“government” was along the lines of families and clans and essentially hued
to either patriarchy or the so called rule of the jungle. Genghis Khan is a
perfect example of how a rule of the jungle structure was put together from
scratch.
On the smallest scale we need merely observe the primitive family unit.
The patriarch ran it because he built it and from the start and it was his
responsibility. The clan model grew from that, presumably with the strongest
patriarch becoming the patriarch in charge; think lion prides or herds of
horses, and more than likely families with idiots for patriarch probably took
care of that in similar fashion.
It is logical to assume, considering the importance of survival, that
patriarchs who couldn’t carry out their survival responsibilities didn’t last long.
One way or the other, either the entire clan ceased to survive or someone more
capable took over responsibility. In this way there was almost surely a lot of
clan merging done under patriarchs who had shown themselves to be
capable, and when this occurred clans expanded, but still hierarchically, with
family patriarchs subordinate to clan chiefs.
Patriarch model clans eventually morphed into kingdoms as agriculture
made it possible for clans to settle down. And kings became kings in one of
two ways: they were born to the patriarchy or they took it over by force. Such
models are interesting because they were essentially anchored in
responsibility: the patriarch had it all. That didn’t mean he did everything. His
women folk, for example, had their own responsibilities to fulfill and those
usually centered on infant children and the household; on the other side all
patriarchs also had their lieutenants or clan councils to assist in carrying out
orders and policies. Kingdoms were similarly constructed. And most
patriarchs – and many kings – took their responsibilities very seriously.
Subsequently two more models developed – oligarchy and democracy.
With the advent of money and credit oligarchy came up with a new basis for
elitism – wealth – and clan leadership responsibility was assumed by the
oligarchic patriarch. In representative democracy the people, in some form or
another, took over the responsibility for selecting the leadership. Oligarchy
highlights the other side of patriarchy – and monarchy – and that is self
interest. Regardless of the degree of patriarchal responsibility assumed by
either oligarchs or monarchical patriarchs the degree of entitlement was
always equal or greater. An interesting view of “royal” responsibility, expressed
in Albion’s Seed by David Hackett Fischer was that it was condescending,
while the “hegemonic liberty” it was espoused as liberty for the elite to lead
and control without interference while “caring for” their underlings as they
deemed expedient. That is, they saw themselves as patriarchs in a very
traditional sense.
All this is background for the subject I wish to address, and that is
representative democratic patriarchy. Beginning with traditional liberalism, the
move to democracy was based on a more egalitarian sharing of responsibility
and power, both carefully separated and checked, at least in the American
Constitution. “The people,” variously defined, were to take a hand in ruling
themselves through representatives which were nominally responsible to
them. It is still quite evident, however, that since we are not all equal in talent,
knowledge and motivation, those who are deemed most able by the voters
assumed the duties of ruling the others – within Constitutionally defined rules
and responsibilities. All well and good; “the people” elect them, re-elect them,
and replace them at their pleasure, but for many reasons it’s not that easy. In
their minds, our elected leaders’, they have become society’s new patriarchs;
they see themselves as such – with responsibilities, but also privileges that
one would expect would go along with them.
The drift to increased patriarchy is unmistakable, far more so in some
locales, East Asian societies for example, and to a lesser extent European,
where social privilege – patriarchy – is more readily accepted. Is this a positive
drift? Plato, with his philosopher kings (The Republic) would probably say so,
and so would Thomas Hobbes, who believed in the philosophical justification
of absolute monarchy. Their argument would likely have been that relatively
few are qualified to lead and they, logically, should be the leaders – the
patriarchs – accepted by the others. Democratic societies would not
necessarily disagree – not all wish to rule – but would argue that those that do
wish to, and are deemed best qualified, be responsible to all the rest that don’
t; in other words they should rule as “the people” would have them rule.
Alas, the people are divided, and every bit as selfish as those who would
rule, so “the will of the people” is a moving target. And as life – and economics
– becomes more and more complex, the people become less and less able to
know and understand what is really in their best interest. Furthermore, those
same people, with limited world view knowledge, and less detailed technical
knowledge, can be manipulated. By whom? By those who would maintain
their elite positions as rulers – patriarchs – who are generally convinced that
they know much better than “the people” what is good for them.
We are faced with the traditional social extremes: order and anarchy. The
people of a democratic republic lean toward anarchy and their patriarchs lean
toward order. In a perfect world a democratic republic would balance those
two Inclinations; can ours? The difference, aside from the part about who
comes out ahead, is frame of reference: one side argues that in the longer
term providing maximum flexibility to motivation and rewards for innovation will
achieve the best results for all. The other side allows that might be all well and
good in the long term, but they are not likely to live long enough to enjoy the
benefits. In between, of course, is continual compromise which is part of the
democratic process. All indications are that our populations want it both ways,
but are inclined to be impatient, and impatience seems to be gaining
ascendancy. Impatience is a powerful force particularly in the American
culture.
The drift suggests greater egalitarianism among the people with steady
development of elitism among the patriarchal class; that is, those who gain the
patriarchal power positions are likely to strive to maintain them. It seems that
the human condition leans strongly toward government of elites; with
democracy only providing a new way to determine elite. So how should our
hierarchical elite be chosen – and maintained? Birth? Wealth? Power? Or
selection? We would say, of course, selection; our patriarchal elite, however,
would in its turn do whatever can be done to influence the process of selection
so as to remain among the ruling elite, which is as one would expect it to be.
But looking at the influence of birth, wealth and power on the selection process
we must recognize that the line between them and selection is tenuous – and
fragile.
Can democracy survive? Considering its age it must be accepted as still
experimental – and it is evolving, in many different ways in different places. So
how will that evolution progress? The most important advantage selection by
the people has over traditional patriarchal elitism is, at least in the United
States, that our democracy has a strong middle class that is wedded to neither
birth nor wealth (at least not automatically) as means for selection, and have
access to information that can be used to determine qualifications, if it
chooses to do so; and that middle class is crucial to the success of modern
nation states, making its members the ultimate adjudicator over how much
power is held for the people, and how much is surrendered to the elite. The
struggle will go on, but stronger and stronger tendency toward at least a
shared patriarchy is evident; and clearly the goal of those in power is to lock it
up. It will be an interesting struggle in this country, perhaps less so in others,
where it is already further advanced. (See Oligarchy to the right)
Liberty: The condition of being free from restriction
or control; the right and power to act, believe, or
express oneself in a manner of one's own
choosing; freedom from unjust or undue
governmental control.
Freedom (political): the absence of interference
with the sovereignty of an individual by the use of
coercion or aggression
Democracy: a government by the people in which
the supreme power is vested by the people and
exercised directly by them or by their elected agent
under a free electoral system.
“Founded as a republic that believed in a balance
between the will of the majority and the rights of the
minority – or, more broadly, between liberty and
democracy – America is increasingly embracing a
simple-minded populism that values popularity and
openness as the key measures of legitimacy. This
ideology has necessitated the destruction of old
institutions, the undermining of traditional authority,
and the triumph of organized interest groups, all in
the name of ‘the people.’ The result is a deep
imbalance in the American system, more
democracy but less liberty.”
Fareed Zacharia ( The Future of Freedom)
“Fareed Zacharia is right that, where possible, a
liberal rule of law is initially more critical to
economic growth than democratic political
participation, and that modernizing authoritarians
might be preferable in some cases to feckless
democracies.”
Francis Fukuyama (America at the Crossroads)
or control; the right and power to act, believe, or
express oneself in a manner of one's own
choosing; freedom from unjust or undue
governmental control.
Freedom (political): the absence of interference
with the sovereignty of an individual by the use of
coercion or aggression
Democracy: a government by the people in which
the supreme power is vested by the people and
exercised directly by them or by their elected agent
under a free electoral system.
“Founded as a republic that believed in a balance
between the will of the majority and the rights of the
minority – or, more broadly, between liberty and
democracy – America is increasingly embracing a
simple-minded populism that values popularity and
openness as the key measures of legitimacy. This
ideology has necessitated the destruction of old
institutions, the undermining of traditional authority,
and the triumph of organized interest groups, all in
the name of ‘the people.’ The result is a deep
imbalance in the American system, more
democracy but less liberty.”
Fareed Zacharia ( The Future of Freedom)
“Fareed Zacharia is right that, where possible, a
liberal rule of law is initially more critical to
economic growth than democratic political
participation, and that modernizing authoritarians
might be preferable in some cases to feckless
democracies.”
Francis Fukuyama (America at the Crossroads)
ol•i•gar•chy:Government by a few, especially by a
small faction of persons or families; a state
governed by a few persons.
Iron Law of Oligarchy (Robert Michels, Political
Parties, 1911): “All forms of organization, regardless
of how democratic or autocratic they may wish to be
at the start, will eventually and inevitably develop into
oligarchies. The reasons for this are the technical
indispensability of leadership, the tendency of
leaders to organize themselves and to consolidate
their interests; the gratitude of the led toward their
leaders; and the general immobility and passivity of
the masses.” (Wikopedia)
“There is a cultural equivalent of the iron law of
oligarchy: small groups dominate every cultural
system. They tend to do so by contolling institutions
and processes so that they become ‘governors’ of a
culture in both a political and a mechanical sense.”
(David Hackett Fischer, Albion’s Seed pg. 896)
“The proposition is not that America’s future
should depend on an elite that is educated to run
the country, but that, whether we like it or not,
America’s future does depend on an elite that runs
the country…For practical purposes, the nation is
run by an elite that we do not choose.”
(Charles Murray, Real Education)
“Referendums and initiatives have accelerated the
process of taking power away from politicians and
giving it to ‘the people,’ but always through an ever-
growing calss of professional consultants,
lobbyists, pollsters and activists. In the name of
democracy, we have created a new layer of
enormously powerful elites…The new elites also
have fewer checks on them than did those before
them.”
Fareed Zacharia, The Future of Freedom, pgs. 197-
198)
“A relatively small group of people – perhaps 1
million or 0.5 percent of the country – runs most of
the major institutions in the United States or has
influence in other ways.” (Ibid pg. 235)
small faction of persons or families; a state
governed by a few persons.
Iron Law of Oligarchy (Robert Michels, Political
Parties, 1911): “All forms of organization, regardless
of how democratic or autocratic they may wish to be
at the start, will eventually and inevitably develop into
oligarchies. The reasons for this are the technical
indispensability of leadership, the tendency of
leaders to organize themselves and to consolidate
their interests; the gratitude of the led toward their
leaders; and the general immobility and passivity of
the masses.” (Wikopedia)
“There is a cultural equivalent of the iron law of
oligarchy: small groups dominate every cultural
system. They tend to do so by contolling institutions
and processes so that they become ‘governors’ of a
culture in both a political and a mechanical sense.”
(David Hackett Fischer, Albion’s Seed pg. 896)
“The proposition is not that America’s future
should depend on an elite that is educated to run
the country, but that, whether we like it or not,
America’s future does depend on an elite that runs
the country…For practical purposes, the nation is
run by an elite that we do not choose.”
(Charles Murray, Real Education)
“Referendums and initiatives have accelerated the
process of taking power away from politicians and
giving it to ‘the people,’ but always through an ever-
growing calss of professional consultants,
lobbyists, pollsters and activists. In the name of
democracy, we have created a new layer of
enormously powerful elites…The new elites also
have fewer checks on them than did those before
them.”
Fareed Zacharia, The Future of Freedom, pgs. 197-
198)
“A relatively small group of people – perhaps 1
million or 0.5 percent of the country – runs most of
the major institutions in the United States or has
influence in other ways.” (Ibid pg. 235)
Liberty, Freedom,
Democracy and Oligarchy
Democracy and Oligarchy
Patriarchal Versus Oligarchy Versus Elite
What is it we are talking about? Patriarchal is mostly what people seek - someone/some ruling
entity to care for us and defend us, but allow us liberty to function, within limits - to be a father
figure? Religion is the ultimate provider of patriarchy - so we seek the same on earth? Plato's
philosopher prince comes to ming. Is it something built into our psyche?
Oligarchy is rule of the few - it inevitably comes from the inequality of humanity - whereas people
seek patriarchy, oligarchs presume to provide it through their superior ability to do so. Superior
people (define as you will - so do they) either feel driven to or aspire to the role. Again we must
realize oligarchs are created from different seeds - birth, wealth, force, ability, cunning?
Elites are those that fall into oligarchy - they are those of which oligarchy is made.
Semantics? More than semantics. It is how we sort out.
Democracy? An experiment to make rule more egalitarian. The eternal question is whether we
are capable of it. Are we? The results thus far are impressive but inconclusive - and tenuous.
Can we have oligarchy (representative government through democratic choice) served by elite,
selected by merit that satisfies our need for patriarchal security, yet subject to our choice and
susceptible to replacement at our discretion? It depends on how capable we are in our ability to
choose those of ability rather than those who talk well and serve only themselves, or no one. The
track record at this point is not impressive, but then the pendulum swings back and forth. What
will come next? Can we learn from our mistakes?
Stay tuned, but realize success must come from being able to find balance - for agreement is
not something that is reasonable of human beings.
What is it we are talking about? Patriarchal is mostly what people seek - someone/some ruling
entity to care for us and defend us, but allow us liberty to function, within limits - to be a father
figure? Religion is the ultimate provider of patriarchy - so we seek the same on earth? Plato's
philosopher prince comes to ming. Is it something built into our psyche?
Oligarchy is rule of the few - it inevitably comes from the inequality of humanity - whereas people
seek patriarchy, oligarchs presume to provide it through their superior ability to do so. Superior
people (define as you will - so do they) either feel driven to or aspire to the role. Again we must
realize oligarchs are created from different seeds - birth, wealth, force, ability, cunning?
Elites are those that fall into oligarchy - they are those of which oligarchy is made.
Semantics? More than semantics. It is how we sort out.
Democracy? An experiment to make rule more egalitarian. The eternal question is whether we
are capable of it. Are we? The results thus far are impressive but inconclusive - and tenuous.
Can we have oligarchy (representative government through democratic choice) served by elite,
selected by merit that satisfies our need for patriarchal security, yet subject to our choice and
susceptible to replacement at our discretion? It depends on how capable we are in our ability to
choose those of ability rather than those who talk well and serve only themselves, or no one. The
track record at this point is not impressive, but then the pendulum swings back and forth. What
will come next? Can we learn from our mistakes?
Stay tuned, but realize success must come from being able to find balance - for agreement is
not something that is reasonable of human beings.
The Reality of Oligarchy
Oligarchy is the rule of a few. In 1911 Robert Michels, in a book entitled Political Parties, put forward the theory known as “the iron law of
oligarchy.” I ran across it in another book, Albion’s Seed, where David Hackett Fischer referred to it in discussing what he called the
cultural equivalent of the iron law of oligarchy.
“All forms of organization, regardless of how democratic or autocratic they may be at the start, will eventually and inevitably develop into
oligarchies. The reasons for this are the technical indispensability of leadership, the tendency of leaders to organize themselves and to
consolidate their interests; the gratitude of the led toward their leaders; and the general immobility and passivity of the masses.”
“There is a cultural equivalent of the iron law of oligarchy: small groups dominate every cultural system. They tend to do so by controlling
institutions and processes so that they become ‘governors’ of a culture in both a political and a mechanical sense.”
Fareed Zacharia (The Future of Freedom): “A relatively small group of people – perhaps a million or 0.5 percent of the country – runs most
of the major institutions in the United States or has influence in other ways.”
Charles Murray (Real Education): “The proposition is not that America’s future should depend on an elite that is educated to run the
country, but that, whether we like it or not, America’s future does depend on an elite that runs the country.”
Jonah Goldberg (Liberal Fascism): (referring to H.G. Wells) “Throughout his work he championed the idea that special men – variously
identified as scientists, priests, warriors, or ‘samurai’ – must impose progress on the masses in order to create a ‘New Republic’ or a
‘world theocracy.’”
There is little disagreement, except perhaps from anarchists, that a small number of people must ultimately govern modern nation
states. The disagreement comes in how that small group of people should be identified and selected. We have lived with birth
(monarchies), wealth (Italian oligarchies), military overthrow (dictatorships), and most recently democracy (republics). Like it or not, we
are, and always will be ruled by an elite group of people who operate the levers of government – for us, and for themselves. It is generally
believed that the democratic form is superior because the selection is made by those who are being governed, it is for limited duration, as
there is provision for replacement if results are unsatisfactory; although all republics are not the same, and the degree of success and
satisfaction varies from one to another. I have referred to patriarchal degree as one of the measures of difference, and that, I would
contend, is mainly a degree of culture.
The interesting thing about all this, from a democratic viewpoint, is that regardless of label the tendency remains essentially the same,
as does the motive: those who consider themselves superior, and are selected to rule, comprise an elite that feels it knows better than any
what must be done and how. Libertarians would limit government and lean toward isolationism; socialists, or progressives, would expand
government to support broader action ostensibly in the name of the people – the masses; conservatives would opt for traditional values.
But in the end the result is similar: the process of governing is tilted to achieve that which the governing elite deem appropriate, and since
they are human, personal considerations cannot be eliminated. The operative word is power, and power is a heady and potentially
corrupting thing; politics within each of the above governances ultimately comes down to power, who wields it, how and for what purposes;
Rousseau: “everything is politics,” to which I add, all politics is primarily economics, and Bryon Caplan (The Myth of the Rational Voter)
points out: “the economic role of government has greatly expanded since the New Deal, but the percentage of congressmen with
economic training remains negligible.”
And much as we would like to believe that the wisdom of the people rules, the truth is that the wisdom of the people is a myth and
selected elites rule – and want to continue doing so, as “voter irrationality reshapes the whole political landscape, from leadership and
delegation to propaganda and lobbying” (again Caplan). Joseph Schlumpeter put it perhaps more succinctly: “democracy today…is the
rule of the politician.” And John Dunn (A History of Democracy): “The passage of forms of government has been an uninterrupted struggle
over who exactly is entitled to act in the people’s name, and on what ground, over which forms of inequality, dependence or exclusion are to
survive, be suppressed or re-created, and over who is to be subject to whom over what.”
So, one might ask, what? Considering the “general immobility and passivity of the masses,” not much. It is what it is, and generally
observers agree that democratic selection of the ruler elite is preferable to any alternative, though far from perfect. And therein lies the
problem: people are not and will never be perfect, they will never be able to agree on much of anything other than their own perceived self-
interest, and thus government will always be an imperfect power struggle among diverse interests. Furthermore, most, although they may
understand their own immediate self-interest, are unlikely to know what policies are in their long term interest.
A few more observations and I shall leave this for now, feeling, however improbably, that the reading that led to the above has provided
great insight – for me – into the reality of that which constitutes our political environment.
“Although political scientists classify about one-third of the public as ‘know-nothings’ it is hard to find people whose political
knowledge is literally non-existent…the problem, one might say, is not that the ignorant vote randomly, but that the ignorant are easily
misled by propaganda. The trouble is not the shortage of information, but its bias, which fills the heads of the ignorant with lies.” (Caplan)
“We all have to rely on the quality of the information we get from the media – and, as of today, that quality is terrible.” (Murray)
“Most of the members of today’s elite are ethically illiterate.” (Murray)
“Unabashed populism plays well at first, but once the negative consequences hit, voters will blame (the politician) not themselves.”
(Caplan)
“Far sighted policies pay huge dividends; short-term patronage politics have immense costs.” (Zacharia)
"More than any institution in America today the press (media) defines reality and determines the political agenda. Yet unlike other
mediating groups, which have historically tempered public passions, the press today often inflames them. It sensationalizes, dramatizes,
and trivializes news.” (Zacharia)
Ah, enough. I could go on and on, and have on other pages of this website, relating quotations from those that are far more informed
than I. There is much to ponder – if one is willing to ponder.
Middle Ground - Democratic Republic
Middle Ground - Democratic Quotations
Oligarchy is the rule of a few. In 1911 Robert Michels, in a book entitled Political Parties, put forward the theory known as “the iron law of
oligarchy.” I ran across it in another book, Albion’s Seed, where David Hackett Fischer referred to it in discussing what he called the
cultural equivalent of the iron law of oligarchy.
“All forms of organization, regardless of how democratic or autocratic they may be at the start, will eventually and inevitably develop into
oligarchies. The reasons for this are the technical indispensability of leadership, the tendency of leaders to organize themselves and to
consolidate their interests; the gratitude of the led toward their leaders; and the general immobility and passivity of the masses.”
“There is a cultural equivalent of the iron law of oligarchy: small groups dominate every cultural system. They tend to do so by controlling
institutions and processes so that they become ‘governors’ of a culture in both a political and a mechanical sense.”
Fareed Zacharia (The Future of Freedom): “A relatively small group of people – perhaps a million or 0.5 percent of the country – runs most
of the major institutions in the United States or has influence in other ways.”
Charles Murray (Real Education): “The proposition is not that America’s future should depend on an elite that is educated to run the
country, but that, whether we like it or not, America’s future does depend on an elite that runs the country.”
Jonah Goldberg (Liberal Fascism): (referring to H.G. Wells) “Throughout his work he championed the idea that special men – variously
identified as scientists, priests, warriors, or ‘samurai’ – must impose progress on the masses in order to create a ‘New Republic’ or a
‘world theocracy.’”
There is little disagreement, except perhaps from anarchists, that a small number of people must ultimately govern modern nation
states. The disagreement comes in how that small group of people should be identified and selected. We have lived with birth
(monarchies), wealth (Italian oligarchies), military overthrow (dictatorships), and most recently democracy (republics). Like it or not, we
are, and always will be ruled by an elite group of people who operate the levers of government – for us, and for themselves. It is generally
believed that the democratic form is superior because the selection is made by those who are being governed, it is for limited duration, as
there is provision for replacement if results are unsatisfactory; although all republics are not the same, and the degree of success and
satisfaction varies from one to another. I have referred to patriarchal degree as one of the measures of difference, and that, I would
contend, is mainly a degree of culture.
The interesting thing about all this, from a democratic viewpoint, is that regardless of label the tendency remains essentially the same,
as does the motive: those who consider themselves superior, and are selected to rule, comprise an elite that feels it knows better than any
what must be done and how. Libertarians would limit government and lean toward isolationism; socialists, or progressives, would expand
government to support broader action ostensibly in the name of the people – the masses; conservatives would opt for traditional values.
But in the end the result is similar: the process of governing is tilted to achieve that which the governing elite deem appropriate, and since
they are human, personal considerations cannot be eliminated. The operative word is power, and power is a heady and potentially
corrupting thing; politics within each of the above governances ultimately comes down to power, who wields it, how and for what purposes;
Rousseau: “everything is politics,” to which I add, all politics is primarily economics, and Bryon Caplan (The Myth of the Rational Voter)
points out: “the economic role of government has greatly expanded since the New Deal, but the percentage of congressmen with
economic training remains negligible.”
And much as we would like to believe that the wisdom of the people rules, the truth is that the wisdom of the people is a myth and
selected elites rule – and want to continue doing so, as “voter irrationality reshapes the whole political landscape, from leadership and
delegation to propaganda and lobbying” (again Caplan). Joseph Schlumpeter put it perhaps more succinctly: “democracy today…is the
rule of the politician.” And John Dunn (A History of Democracy): “The passage of forms of government has been an uninterrupted struggle
over who exactly is entitled to act in the people’s name, and on what ground, over which forms of inequality, dependence or exclusion are to
survive, be suppressed or re-created, and over who is to be subject to whom over what.”
So, one might ask, what? Considering the “general immobility and passivity of the masses,” not much. It is what it is, and generally
observers agree that democratic selection of the ruler elite is preferable to any alternative, though far from perfect. And therein lies the
problem: people are not and will never be perfect, they will never be able to agree on much of anything other than their own perceived self-
interest, and thus government will always be an imperfect power struggle among diverse interests. Furthermore, most, although they may
understand their own immediate self-interest, are unlikely to know what policies are in their long term interest.
A few more observations and I shall leave this for now, feeling, however improbably, that the reading that led to the above has provided
great insight – for me – into the reality of that which constitutes our political environment.
“Although political scientists classify about one-third of the public as ‘know-nothings’ it is hard to find people whose political
knowledge is literally non-existent…the problem, one might say, is not that the ignorant vote randomly, but that the ignorant are easily
misled by propaganda. The trouble is not the shortage of information, but its bias, which fills the heads of the ignorant with lies.” (Caplan)
“We all have to rely on the quality of the information we get from the media – and, as of today, that quality is terrible.” (Murray)
“Most of the members of today’s elite are ethically illiterate.” (Murray)
“Unabashed populism plays well at first, but once the negative consequences hit, voters will blame (the politician) not themselves.”
(Caplan)
“Far sighted policies pay huge dividends; short-term patronage politics have immense costs.” (Zacharia)
"More than any institution in America today the press (media) defines reality and determines the political agenda. Yet unlike other
mediating groups, which have historically tempered public passions, the press today often inflames them. It sensationalizes, dramatizes,
and trivializes news.” (Zacharia)
Ah, enough. I could go on and on, and have on other pages of this website, relating quotations from those that are far more informed
than I. There is much to ponder – if one is willing to ponder.
Middle Ground - Democratic Republic
Middle Ground - Democratic Quotations
Celebrity Worship and Elitism
We cannot depart this subject without addressing celebrity worship; what is it all about? One can
understand obeisance to aristocracy, in part because it was demanded, and if ignored, punished.
But becoming organsmic over sight of someone whose name, face and personage are known -
famous - what is that all about?
I have to admit that I really don't know. But I have seen enough of it so that I recognize it when I
see it; people seem to have a need to be able to gape at the rich and famous, to say nothing of
bidding to own something that they have owned.
First it was the movie attractions (including now television personalities). Some of it admiration;
some just recognition (hi I see you reading the news on TV); some of it perhaps similar to what
grabs motorists when they drive by an accident. Then it was sports idols. And the rich? Probably, if
their faces are known, as is Donald Trump's and maybe Bill Gates. Now it seems charismatic
politicians have joined the lineup. We do worship celebrities.
But it's not only lollygogging at them any more; now, it seems, we also (we?) listen to what they
have to say, whether they have any credentials to point to or not; we listen to them because they are
famous, apparently. And what's more, many seem to want to believe what they have to say, just
because they said it.
Does that make them elite? In a strict of course they are elite; elite by definition is the "best or top
of a group", but it also gives them if not power, at least influence. Isn't that what makes for elite as
we are currently using the term? Of course the money many have contributes. We do worship
money and money talks. Perhaps people think its influence rubs off? Perhaps.
But undoubtedly in the terms in which we are using it, elite is more than best of breed (however
determined), but entails having influence as well. Today that is not nearly is clean as it might have
been during the era of aristocracy; today there is a plethora of influence at many levels and in many
different areas. First elitism in a national sense: it is very broad in our culture and there is no end of
influence at different levels and in different places, making modern "elite" something other than the
traditional meaning. That is good in that it spreads the wealth, so to speak, but not so good when it
gives influence to those that in no way deserve that influence. Call it populism of influence.
And then entertainment elites; do they have real influence? Some appear to due to actions they
take, and are able to take because they have access to the tools of propaganda. Others do just
because they are admired for their entertainment fame. How significant is that? In the power of
name recognition it is probably quite important; people respond deferentially to name recognition,
and even vote for it, although the perennial political candidate, Roy Rogers, in Texas was never able
to make it work for him. But others have; many others have.
I consider it unhealthy; with respect to entertainment, but name recognition as well, including
progeny of those who are famous; I also think we have misplaced our priorities, but I also recognize
it's nothing new. It is not the best for the process of democracy, however, because it gives power to
many who have no experience in using it, and little knowledge of how it should be used, particularly
as to the impact its use might have. However, I am in the minority and am fighting a losing battle.
So we will just leave it that modern elitism is a many faceted phenomenon which gives it great
diversity, perhaps good, but more likely bad - in my opinion, based on my belief that before power
should come knowledge and experience - to say nothing of some demonstrated responsibility - and
maturity.
We cannot depart this subject without addressing celebrity worship; what is it all about? One can
understand obeisance to aristocracy, in part because it was demanded, and if ignored, punished.
But becoming organsmic over sight of someone whose name, face and personage are known -
famous - what is that all about?
I have to admit that I really don't know. But I have seen enough of it so that I recognize it when I
see it; people seem to have a need to be able to gape at the rich and famous, to say nothing of
bidding to own something that they have owned.
First it was the movie attractions (including now television personalities). Some of it admiration;
some just recognition (hi I see you reading the news on TV); some of it perhaps similar to what
grabs motorists when they drive by an accident. Then it was sports idols. And the rich? Probably, if
their faces are known, as is Donald Trump's and maybe Bill Gates. Now it seems charismatic
politicians have joined the lineup. We do worship celebrities.
But it's not only lollygogging at them any more; now, it seems, we also (we?) listen to what they
have to say, whether they have any credentials to point to or not; we listen to them because they are
famous, apparently. And what's more, many seem to want to believe what they have to say, just
because they said it.
Does that make them elite? In a strict of course they are elite; elite by definition is the "best or top
of a group", but it also gives them if not power, at least influence. Isn't that what makes for elite as
we are currently using the term? Of course the money many have contributes. We do worship
money and money talks. Perhaps people think its influence rubs off? Perhaps.
But undoubtedly in the terms in which we are using it, elite is more than best of breed (however
determined), but entails having influence as well. Today that is not nearly is clean as it might have
been during the era of aristocracy; today there is a plethora of influence at many levels and in many
different areas. First elitism in a national sense: it is very broad in our culture and there is no end of
influence at different levels and in different places, making modern "elite" something other than the
traditional meaning. That is good in that it spreads the wealth, so to speak, but not so good when it
gives influence to those that in no way deserve that influence. Call it populism of influence.
And then entertainment elites; do they have real influence? Some appear to due to actions they
take, and are able to take because they have access to the tools of propaganda. Others do just
because they are admired for their entertainment fame. How significant is that? In the power of
name recognition it is probably quite important; people respond deferentially to name recognition,
and even vote for it, although the perennial political candidate, Roy Rogers, in Texas was never able
to make it work for him. But others have; many others have.
I consider it unhealthy; with respect to entertainment, but name recognition as well, including
progeny of those who are famous; I also think we have misplaced our priorities, but I also recognize
it's nothing new. It is not the best for the process of democracy, however, because it gives power to
many who have no experience in using it, and little knowledge of how it should be used, particularly
as to the impact its use might have. However, I am in the minority and am fighting a losing battle.
So we will just leave it that modern elitism is a many faceted phenomenon which gives it great
diversity, perhaps good, but more likely bad - in my opinion, based on my belief that before power
should come knowledge and experience - to say nothing of some demonstrated responsibility - and
maturity.
Elitism and Celebrity Worship
Perhaps we could use a little old
fashioned ancestor worship?
fashioned ancestor worship?