Every society has a ruling class, but the ruling class in the United States hates this country — they hate its history, its traditions, its religion, and its people.
Barack Obama has announced his intention to “radically change” America, and the Democratic Party, in concert with the Republican majority, is doing just that. Both parties either actively encourage or fail to prevent mass immigration, the destruction of public monuments, and the destruction of the traditional family. The future of America depends on the creation and infiltration of a ruling class that respects and loves the country it governs and is deeply concerned with the welfare of its people.
There will always be a ruling class, but America deserves to be led by elites who have earned their position through righteous behavior and loyalty to their communities.
The American project began with a rejection of the rigid class distinctions rooted in European aristocracy and an embrace of republican government, and perhaps this inherent aversion to formalized ruling classes has contributed to modern Americans’ indifference to the character of their elected officials.
Lacking clear indicators to identify the unified interests of those in power, many voters came to believe that the democratic process itself was sufficient to restrain politicians’ greed. Elected officials who felt no obligation or connection to the people they represented quickly discovered ways to collude with other politicians to enrich themselves and avoid accountability.
Although America’s Founding Fathers rejected the formalization of a ruling class, they understood that a natural aristocracy was an inevitable and desirable aspect of human organization. Extended families were the backbone of colonial life, helping to establish the churches, schools, community organizations, and fraternal orders that were central to the functioning of the early state. In Democracy in America, Alexis de Tocqueville pointed to active participation in these voluntary associations as a uniquely American feature that enabled the young nation to flourish. Because Americans could not rely on the inherited structures of the Old World, leadership emerged through organizations that built strong social structures outside the direct influence of the state.
This natural aristocracy emerged in all spheres: politics, military command, economic production, and religious leadership were led by great families, with knowledge, training, and status passed down from father to son. Though this continuity was often through families, it wasn’t a birthright title that conferred authority. The natural aristocracy had to legitimize itself by action, with each generation proving itself worthy of leadership or stepping aside in favor of others who had the vision needed to lead the community.
Today’s ruling class has forgotten these obligations to the ordinary citizens they govern. America’s billionaire class thinks nothing of buying up corporations, dismantling their assets, destroying the communities they once employed, and draining their jobs and profits to other countries. Leaders no longer derive their wealth and power from the betterment of their communities, but from no obligation to the people who helped them.
Even the industrial tycoons of the Gilded Age felt an obligation to build libraries, churches, universities, monuments, and other public works that enriched the lives of ordinary citizens. Most of the philanthropic efforts of modern tycoons are global, and often intended to undermine the well-being of people currently living in the United States.
While ruling elites have largely abandoned the people their members were meant to serve, average Americans have, in their own ways, contributed to this alienation. America’s organic aristocracy felt an obligation to its community because its members came from the institutions that defined that particular people. Political, religious, and economic leadership were largely local phenomena that had to appeal to the needs of particular regions and their residents. Scale is the enemy of particularity, and as the institutions that controlled the social infrastructure became consolidated across multiple regions, the leadership of those institutions became less rooted in the community and more interested in the interests of a common ruling class.
In the name of efficiency and professionalism, Americans have delegated to larger central bureaucracies many of the responsibilities that once characterized local and regional organizations. Educating our children, caring for the elderly, feeding the hungry, and providing mutual aid in times of need were once the duties of families, churches, or local civic associations.
Local leaders gained authority by organizing the important functions of their communities, and the power of these organic aristocracies was directly tied to the people they served. Delegating these duties to a central government or state organization meant that the average person no longer felt the need to constantly participate in local organizations to maintain his or her own well-being, temporarily creating greater individual freedom.
But this freedom was only a temporary illusion, as the elites running the far-flung organizations demanded greater ideological uniformity while treating their subordinates as interchangeable cogs.
This process creates a learned helplessness, where people have learned that they can no longer manage basic social functions without huge bureaucracies run by qualified professionals. Most people cannot imagine educating their own children or co-financing a friend’s medical expenses, even if they have children or friends. This also deprives citizens of the local and regional structures they need to develop leadership skills and validate their presence in their communities.
Natural opportunities for social advancement are taken away and the only opportunities for advancement are concentrated in large, far-flung institutions like elite universities, where ruling elites have no loyalty to the far-flung regions they control and who foster a uniform class culture and interests that are radically at odds with those of the people.
To re-establish a natural aristocracy based on the well-being of the community, we must create alternative institutions outside of a centralized state apparatus. For example, in Florida, the state legislature has defunded public schools, making it easier for parents to home educate their children or send them to religious schools of their own faith. This empowers parents and encourages them to re-accept responsibility as the primary educators in their children’s lives.
As federal programs lose credibility and become hostile to the people they ostensibly serve, fraternal organizations, churches, and other civic organizations must step in to fill the gap. This shift in responsibility not only helps those in need, it also creates opportunities for young leaders committed to their communities to gain real influence.
The process of remaking America’s social fabric will be a slow one, but with hard work and committed leadership, a new aristocracy can emerge — one dedicated to the well-being and lifestyle of a particular people, rather than the interests of a global neoliberal project.
There will always be a ruling class, but America should be led by an elite who have earned their position through good behavior and loyalty to their communities. The American form of self-government has always required active participation in local institutions, and now is the time to build them.
