New world nobility

Remove all ads!

Most of us live in western democratic states who have most of them and mostly scrapped the old system of classes and the noble class on top. Atleast officially. Our ideals are all more or less liberty and equality and that we should be governed by common people elected for their achivements and not appointed for their blood. The ages of various clans and family struggling for power is over, or?

If we look at our societies leadership today we dont see them as a part of us. They are apart. A new nobility has emerged, a whole class where more or less all top politicians and business people come from. Blood seems again to be a prereqcuisitive for power. One of the most blatant example of modern day nobility are the two vastly powerful Bush and Kennedy clans in the US. Be born with one of those names and power and influence is guaranteed.

In Europe many of the old noble families have retained their power and influence, their official priviliges may be withdrawn but their power remains. I am sure that there in all boardrooms, parliments and governments in Europe sits a disproportionate number of old nobles.

Just like in the old days when a soldier or a merchantman could be granted nobility by the king for great service new nobles are still created today, some create themselves but when they get into the new class they never look back. Just like the "barons" created in the industrial age never looked back after they had created their seats of power.

Today, just like in all times throughout human history all seats of power are occupied by people from a very small clique. Once you get in you need never fear to get out. Jumping from boardrooms to political seats with no qualms. Screw up one position? Fear not, another one is always available. They take care of their own.

We in our vanity thought that democracy and freedom would put and end to heridatary power and the fews power over the many. Appointment by merit has again fallen short when faced by appointment through family and other connections.

As of yet, and this isnt a bash towards the US it is most blatant in the US. Political differences aside there isnt many powerful person in the US who doesnt come from new noble families. A few might have created their own spot there but that doesnt mean that they are not part of it. The socialistic influence in Europe has diminished the effect somewhat, making the old families and the businnes families to stick to one half of the political power, they still rule supreme in the boardrooms. This hasnt stopped the socialistic parties throughout Europe from creating their own nobility though, it is as of yet mostly at odds with the other set but I am sure that can change.

Is humanity doomed to create "classes" of people who hold all influence and despite slight differences in opinion has a lot more in common with each other than the common man? Is power through merit just a vain dream? All men are most definately not born equal, never have been and probably never will be. One system might be crushed but a new one replaces it right away.

 

What you're basically arguing about here is not whether there's a new social nobility, but about human nature. For an unnumbered amount of years we were ruled by kings, emporers, tsars, pharaohs--people that we claimed were our leaders because they were ordained by a particular god. Then we replaced them with politicians, saying these are normal people just like us that we have chosen to be our leaders. Now, I don't know how it is in Europe, but the prevailing attitude in America is that your local politician is somehow better than the general public, and the higher order of politics (the president) should somehow be untouchable. It's all human nature... humans as a social animal somehow desire to believe that the people who 'rule' over them have to be better. An individual human can say, well I know that's not true, I don't think that, etc... but if you get a group together, a leader will emerge and the others of the group will say, this person is more special than I. We can espouse democracy all we want, and it's far better than a monarchy, but there will *always* be a 'nobility' class, no matter what the system.

 

Another good thread, Joacqin. You are right in your observation of social classes. The more things change, the more they stay the same. America and France, with their revolutions, took the best shot at trying to eliminate the social class inequality problem. But as you have noted, they have had only partial success. When this matter is brought up here in the states, the first argument by the lackeys of the rich and powerful is the charge of "class warfare." I heard Jack Kemp - Republican, and all-around conservative and big business lackey - make that same charge just last week on TV.

Karl Marx was wrong about Communism as the "savior of the working class." It is a terribly flawed system, and as recent history has proven, it is quite unworkable compared to capitalism. But he was not wrong in his feeling that, if given the chance, those with power and wealth will certainly exploit those who have less power.

That is why representative government is so important in our systems. If a majority of people feel like giving away their destinies, and those of their families, to the rich and powerful, then they are free to do so. But there will always be those of us who feel just the opposite - that those with wealth and power need to be kept in check by a strong representative government, which, as the name implies, represents the public interest, and to protect those who are at a disadvantage. It will be interesting to see how many "defenders" of the powerful and wealthy you will be able to draw into this thread.

 

Hell let them have their higher social classes, its the only damn way to run things. I don't want some plumber as head of sanitation. I want someone who's been brought up to be a leader and has leadership in his veins (so to speak). Nobody says you can't make it big these days. Prove your worth and you get the benefits. Intelligent people have a habit of breeding intelligent children - sure there will be exceptions but there is a far higher _probability_ of an intelligent person having an intelligent child because the intelligent person will teach their child how to be intelligent.

Sure there is a chance where one of these 'new nobility' is a selfish bastard who exploits the people of the country, but that's what democracy is for right? Get rid of the twit and vote in who we think would be best suited for the job.

There are always going to be classes and the world is better for it. If everyone was a leader nothing would get done, if everyone was a worker nothing good would get done.

 

I forget the exact name of the system, but it is implemented in Europe, and it would work quite well to give third parties a voice. I believe it is percentage based(?) and if 1% of the election goes to green or something, then 1% of congress is then green party. I read about that on smirking chimp. Anyways, I think it would work well.

Back to the main topic, yes, there is a severe gap between the rich and the poor in this country, and it is widening by the day. One problem is that most americans don't realize it, I read that 17 percent of americans believe that they are in the top 1% of income earners in the U.S., and they are being duped into voting for Bush(what a fool) and think their stupid little tax cuts are great. The people who truly profit from the new administration are the new social elite, CEO's etc..., who get around 40% of Bush's new taxcuts. I'm surprised that the politics in this country can be run by such a small group, considering this is democracy. I fear it's slowly turning into an oligarchy run by the big businesses and the rich...

 

Alas, I am not connected to any noble or oligarchic families. So I'll forge my own noble line! All I need now is a rich Presbyterian heiress and a dozen kids, and I can start my own dynasty. Hmm...the Bush twins are still available...too bad I don't drink.

Anyway, I think the short answer, joacqin, is: there are social classes, and some aspects are merited and some aren't. Methinks the most jaded leftist should admit that people are not completely equal in the Borg sense - even if we all have an equal vote, we're still voting FOR somebody who, implicitly, is better than us humble voters at some particular task. And the craziest rightists (Ayn Rand acolytes excepted) should admit that corruption and perversion in the rich and powerful is a destructive and malignant force. The difficulty is contextual - where do you draw the line?

If I strike it rich, is it fair for me to give my hard-earned money to my kids? Or is it more just to have the government death-tax it so that it can be redistributed to the rest of society, so my kids have to earn on their own? If I schmooze with the rich and powerful, is it unjust for me to have my kids hang out with their kids? Or is that just reinforcing the clubby inner circle? And what happens when the pattern is repeated hundreds of times, across many families and generations?

I'd say that it's legitimate to care for your family and give your wife and kids unearned gifts. I'd even say that it's legitimate to spend most of your time with those with similar interests. Yeah, that tends to calcify classes, but what's the alternative? We could set the death tax to 100%, lock all kids in public schools, require companies to hire people besides their first-choice candidates, and break up any concentration of national wealth. Or we could remove the inheritance tax, allow homeschooling and school vouchers, let companies hire whomever they want, and let companies expand 'til they pop. Both have their strengths and weaknesses - the former corroding families and companies but improving equality, the latter strengthening families and corporations but at the cost of national cohesion. Who's to say whether your flesh-and-blood family is really more important than an abstract concept like equality? Especially when looking out for your family only perpetuates destructive social divisions.

Hmm...sounds like a Kerry-Bush issue in the making!

 

I'm not sure what you mean by this: Do you mean someone who has brought himself up to be a leader, like Bill Clinton? A middle class guy from Hope, Arkansas who was also a Rhodes Scholar. Or someone who was brought up by his family to become a leader, such as Shrub? A guy born to privilege, but a mediocre Yale type. How about someone like John Adams? A guy born to a New England farmer, who became the 2nd president of the United States? Or Lincoln? Was he born with leadership in his veins, so to speak? Or did he become a great leader because he chose to become one?

 

I have to chime in on this statement too. I don't really know how someone is brought up to be a leader - besides teaching the child early about the cruel facts of life so that nothing is viewed with rose-colored glasses.

Really this is a matter of wisdom, and can be obtained by anyone.

A leader has to understand humanity - how to please them and how to manipulate them if necessary. They cannot blindly follow one of the simplistic philosophies which is held to by the far-left and far-right. They must be able to understand that forcefulness is sometimes needed - especially when dealing with civilizations that operate on that priniciple.

 

As often seems to be case these days, I agree with Abomination. Let them have their upper classes. Being in a lower class hasn't harmed me so far.

And Rednik, the 'percentage' system you are talking about is Proportional Representation. We have a version of that in New Zealand called Mixed Member Proportional. A discussion of its pros and cons would best be left for a separate thread because the debate as to its merits can become quite heated.

 

What I mean is their family has a history of being good leaders. There is a far higher chance that someone whose parent has been a good leader will possess the traits of a good leader.

Since there are no schools teaching political leadership and there are no requirements for becoming a politician, bar being voted in, I'd rather have someone whose family has 'been in the business'. They have a history of knowing how things work, sure you get your exceptions but you must admit that there is a higher probability of someone with a family history of leadership will become a good leader than someone whose family hasn't.

 

Sorry, I must disagree. Leadership is not genetic. It certainly sounds like you're advocating the return of the aristocracy.

 

I have no real problem with people being rich per se, and that is really a question for another thread.

My point was that today, just as always throughout history all important positions of power are occupied by people from a small social elite. The biggest reason that they are sitting there are not merit or leadership qualities but that were born in the right family or which happens now and then they have made their way into this small elite on their own. Clinton and Edwards may have made themselves more than Bush and Kerry but they are still a part of the elite "class".

These people wander around from one position of power to another as soon as they are into the system, and quite a few as has been said were born into it. A mediocre or outright idiotic Bush or Kennedy still have everything set just because of their name. Bush II is a good example, the man drank away half of his life and fiddled around living on his families money. Then he managed to clean himself up and was immediately handed a governorship and then a presidency. Which normal guy can drink away half his life and even be able to do something else than flip burgers when they decide to sober up?

 

Yeah, but who else can be bothered doing the job? I don't want to, so if someone else does, fine. Plus, none of us believes that the head of state actually makes all the governing decisions by themselves anyway.

 

I never said it was. But smart people _breed_ smart children. If you were adopted into a rich, modern-noble family you would gain a better education and would probably be a better leader than Joe Average.

Upbringing, not genetics.

 

It's been a while since I've heard anything that anti-democratic and elitist. I suggest that you look at the historically great leaders and see if you still find that statement true. I think you will find that good leaders come from all walks of life. Of course now you're faced with having to define who is and who is not a good leader, which means having to define good leadership qualities.

 

*cough* aristocracy *cough*

 

Abomination - I still agree with you on this, mate. We can get all idealistic about the concept of representation by the people, but for better or worse, most people just don't care. I'm not saying this is a good thing, but if there are people who are brought up to do the cruddy job of being in 'power' then good for them. There are plenty of ways that other people can be real leaders in the ways that affect their daily lives more directly (like community leaders and other role models).

 

There is some merit in what Abomination says. I think all of us would like to think that everyone has a decent chance at succeeding for themselves, but the fact is, it doesn't work that way. Yes, John Adams was born to a farmer, but that's when nearly 1/3 of all Americans were farmers. Good luck getting a future president from a poor mid-western farmer in the 21st century.

The fact of the matter is some people are born more priveledged than others. Sure there are people like Clinton who did not come from insane wealth, but his family was certainly upper-middle class.

Our leaders have reached the social pinnacle, and while some movement up or down is possible, you're not going to make great leaps anymore. Someone who is poor may become lower middle class, and someone who is upper middle class may be able to join the socially elite, but switches from the very poor to the very rich do not occur with the same frequency with which they occurred in the past.

While I do not agree that some people are "born to lead", but who could lead if circumstances are right, there are certainly people who are "born not to lead" no matter what circumstances take place. While I do not think you can "bring up", "raise" or "breed" a leader, I think that your socio-economic status at the time of your birth is a big indicator at what opportunities you will be given.

It's a sad fact of life that if you aren't rich, the main reason for that is you didn't show the foresight of choosing wealthy parents when you were born. Call it anti-democratic, call it elitist, but also call it what it is - the truth.

 

See, I think the idea of disseminating the leadership trait into an argument of genetical versus not is viewing the whole thing in a somewhat black and white way. I think leadership is a genetic trait. Some children are born with the ability and/or charisma to lead other people and some children are not. It's a force of personality. However, that doesn't mean that the children who are born with that trait are always going to be the rich or priviliged ones. If you take a stupid dolt and send him to the best schools and give him the best help, and coddle his way into adulthood, you'll end up with... a stupid dolt that has a pedigree. As joa has said a couple of times, though, if you're a Bush or a Kennedy in the US, then you're guaranteed to go into politics if you want, regardless of your actual qualifications for holding a leadership position. It's like the aristocracies of old, where people were ruled by often syphillic ridden rulers who were not leaders, but bullies with money and power. So, upbringing can give you the power, and genetics can give you the traits, but that doesn't mean that both are going to be found in the person that's making your decisions for you.

 

http://ap.grolier.com/article?assetid=a2005815-h&templatename=/article/article.html

http://ap.grolier.com/article?assetid=a2024840-h&templatename=/article/article.html

I don't think that Reagan was an especially good prez. But when you look at his life, you have to admire what he managed to accomplish. His life is also good proof that anyone can be a leader, regardless of to whom one is born. Nevertheless, he was a successful and popular president. Again, what are good leadership qualities? Who embodies these the best? Reagan had some good qualities as a leader, but not some of the ones I would look for.

Clinton had some good ones also. But again, he lacked some of the ones I would really like to see in a leader: Honesty and integrity. Neither of these men had those qualities in a big way. Adams did, and so did Washington; Lincoln was maybe the last of them (but he has his detractors). This is what I would like to see REAL leaders have that so many don't, and should be a part of their characters that most others don't quite measure up to. Given that, and if we can agree that the ideal leaders should have these qualities, are these more exclusive to the powerful families? to the rich? Are Clinton and Reagan any worse than the Kennedies or the Bushes in this regard? If anyone says "yes," I will fall out of my chair from laughing so very hard.

By the way, Clinton's early life sounds like hardly that of upper-middle class, more like lower-middle class.

[ March 10, 2004, 05:17: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]