Aristocracy of power
If we look back in history we can see that national leadership was almost totally the province of the privileged until modern times when leadership was often chosen based upon merit.
In the last four presidential elections Americans have chosen Clinton for two terms on the bases of merit and Bush for two terms on the bases of privilege. Two elections were won by the boy from the wrong side of the tracks who displayed amazing merit. Two elections were won by the privileged son of privilege.
I think we can usefully examine these two leaders in an attempt to recognize the dangers to our nation by both types of leadership. In the case of Bush there is little need for examination because he is the incarnation of the weakness of leadership by an aristocracy of privilege. But the weakness of meritocracy may not be so obvious.
I think the major problem inherent in meritocracy is that the arrogance of privilege has been replaced by the arrogance of merit. Clinton was problematic for the nation because it appears that those who rise to the top because of merit have developed a sense of superiority even surpassing that of the aristocracy of privilege.
Elites by merit have the illusion that their success is solely on merit and it “strengthens the likelihood that elites will exercise power irresponsibly, precisely because they recognize so few obligations to their predecessors or to the communities they profess to lead. Their lack of gratitude disqualifies meritocratic elites from the burden of leadership, and in any case, they are less interested in leadership than in escaping from the common lot—the very definition of meritocratic success.
Of course, we can find evidence of great leadership from both the privileged and the meritocracy. How can we recognize the disabling arrogance before we elect them, rather than after?
Quotes from “The Revolt of the Elites by Lasch.
Aristocracy of power
Aristocracy of power
coberst;572754 wrote: Aristocracy of power
If we look back in history we can see that national leadership was almost totally the province of the privileged until modern times when leadership was often chosen based upon merit.
In the last four presidential elections Americans have chosen Clinton for two terms on the bases of merit and Bush for two terms on the bases of privilege. Two elections were won by the boy from the wrong side of the tracks who displayed amazing merit. Two elections were won by the privileged son of privilege.
I think we can usefully examine these two leaders in an attempt to recognize the dangers to our nation by both types of leadership. In the case of Bush there is little need for examination because he is the incarnation of the weakness of leadership by an aristocracy of privilege. But the weakness of meritocracy may not be so obvious.
I think the major problem inherent in meritocracy is that the arrogance of privilege has been replaced by the arrogance of merit. Clinton was problematic for the nation because it appears that those who rise to the top because of merit have developed a sense of superiority even surpassing that of the aristocracy of privilege.
Elites by merit have the illusion that their success is solely on merit and it “strengthens the likelihood that elites will exercise power irresponsibly, precisely because they recognize so few obligations to their predecessors or to the communities they profess to lead. Their lack of gratitude disqualifies meritocratic elites from the burden of leadership, and in any case, they are less interested in leadership than in escaping from the common lot—the very definition of meritocratic success.
Of course, we can find evidence of great leadership from both the privileged and the meritocracy. How can we recognize the disabling arrogance before we elect them, rather than after?
Quotes from “The Revolt of the Elites by Lasch.
Excellent post, unfortunately, I'm not really sure that any of us can truly recognize in advance all the disabling arrogance that is oft displayed after the fact.
If we look back in history we can see that national leadership was almost totally the province of the privileged until modern times when leadership was often chosen based upon merit.
In the last four presidential elections Americans have chosen Clinton for two terms on the bases of merit and Bush for two terms on the bases of privilege. Two elections were won by the boy from the wrong side of the tracks who displayed amazing merit. Two elections were won by the privileged son of privilege.
I think we can usefully examine these two leaders in an attempt to recognize the dangers to our nation by both types of leadership. In the case of Bush there is little need for examination because he is the incarnation of the weakness of leadership by an aristocracy of privilege. But the weakness of meritocracy may not be so obvious.
I think the major problem inherent in meritocracy is that the arrogance of privilege has been replaced by the arrogance of merit. Clinton was problematic for the nation because it appears that those who rise to the top because of merit have developed a sense of superiority even surpassing that of the aristocracy of privilege.
Elites by merit have the illusion that their success is solely on merit and it “strengthens the likelihood that elites will exercise power irresponsibly, precisely because they recognize so few obligations to their predecessors or to the communities they profess to lead. Their lack of gratitude disqualifies meritocratic elites from the burden of leadership, and in any case, they are less interested in leadership than in escaping from the common lot—the very definition of meritocratic success.
Of course, we can find evidence of great leadership from both the privileged and the meritocracy. How can we recognize the disabling arrogance before we elect them, rather than after?
Quotes from “The Revolt of the Elites by Lasch.
Excellent post, unfortunately, I'm not really sure that any of us can truly recognize in advance all the disabling arrogance that is oft displayed after the fact.
Aristocracy of power
If we look back in history we can see that national leadership was almost totally the province of the privileged until modern times when leadership was often chosen based upon merit.
Actually no it wasn't. It's a very simplistic view of history to see it that way. Early societies it was the leader most proficiant in war and getting others to follow him who became king. Election was by acclamation and the son of a king didn't automatically follow on. Promigeniture came later when the descendants of medeival warlords became managed to convince others that their children should take over to ensure there was not the normal conflict surrounding succession. The right to succeed was not automatic. The power of privilege was often curbed as society developed just as those who could take power copuld become priveleged. Athens was ruled by tyrants and became a democracy a democracy that became a tryanny again. Sparta had elected dual kings. Rome threw off it's oppressors to become a republic to become an empire. In europe viking warlords ended up founding most of th royal dynasties in europe.
That privilige always won out was not the case. Power does though, that's what really matters and the ability to either get people to follow or con them in to putting up with the status quo. The only difference between clinton and bush IMO is the money that gave them both power cames later in the day and by his own effort (I assume) for Clinton.
Actually no it wasn't. It's a very simplistic view of history to see it that way. Early societies it was the leader most proficiant in war and getting others to follow him who became king. Election was by acclamation and the son of a king didn't automatically follow on. Promigeniture came later when the descendants of medeival warlords became managed to convince others that their children should take over to ensure there was not the normal conflict surrounding succession. The right to succeed was not automatic. The power of privilege was often curbed as society developed just as those who could take power copuld become priveleged. Athens was ruled by tyrants and became a democracy a democracy that became a tryanny again. Sparta had elected dual kings. Rome threw off it's oppressors to become a republic to become an empire. In europe viking warlords ended up founding most of th royal dynasties in europe.
That privilige always won out was not the case. Power does though, that's what really matters and the ability to either get people to follow or con them in to putting up with the status quo. The only difference between clinton and bush IMO is the money that gave them both power cames later in the day and by his own effort (I assume) for Clinton.
Aristocracy of power
gmc
In what period of history would you say that sons seldom, if ever, succeeded the father in leadership?
In what period of history would you say that sons seldom, if ever, succeeded the father in leadership?
Aristocracy of power
coberst;574333 wrote: gmc
In what period of history would you say that sons seldom, if ever, succeeded the father in leadership?
Right up till medeival times I would say. Although I'm probably skating on thin ice. I wouldn't say seldom but if the sons weren't strong enough they didn't get to hang on to power for very long someone would take it off them. The idea of a Royal family with a right to succeed is a novel one. You became king by acclamation and in medeival times had to get your fellow warlords to accept your rule. In celtic tribes matrilinial descent was not unknown-one of the reasons for the rising under boudicca was the failure of the romans to accept her right to the throne.
There are also plenty examples of republics where one family ends up in control by one means or another. Even where there were kings their hold on power was not always a given.
Probably one of the achievemants of the aristicratic class was to convince everybody their rule was legitimate, anointed by god, and regicide a terrible crime to the extent it became hard to imagine a govt without a king at it's head and the social order was what you were born in to with your place set for life. Maybe the chrustian religon has a lot to answer for:sneaky:
From the 1848 version of all things bright and beautiful.
The rich man in his castle,
The poor man at his gate,
He made them, high or lowly,
And ordered their estate.
I think the biggest problem facing the US is that money seems to be all that counts when it comes to getting power.
We have a similar problem here-used to be the labour party got most of it's funding from the unions who perhaps had too much say, now the biggest contributor is big business with all the accomnopanying scandal and reports of undue influence. Hopefully they will arrest Tony Blair.
Both our main political parties are in debt up to their ears.
One parliamentary committee has suggested the banning of all large scale contributions and parties only being allowed to collect funds from its members by attracting members. can't see any of ours acceptuing that any more than they will accept proportional representation.
In what period of history would you say that sons seldom, if ever, succeeded the father in leadership?
Right up till medeival times I would say. Although I'm probably skating on thin ice. I wouldn't say seldom but if the sons weren't strong enough they didn't get to hang on to power for very long someone would take it off them. The idea of a Royal family with a right to succeed is a novel one. You became king by acclamation and in medeival times had to get your fellow warlords to accept your rule. In celtic tribes matrilinial descent was not unknown-one of the reasons for the rising under boudicca was the failure of the romans to accept her right to the throne.
There are also plenty examples of republics where one family ends up in control by one means or another. Even where there were kings their hold on power was not always a given.
Probably one of the achievemants of the aristicratic class was to convince everybody their rule was legitimate, anointed by god, and regicide a terrible crime to the extent it became hard to imagine a govt without a king at it's head and the social order was what you were born in to with your place set for life. Maybe the chrustian religon has a lot to answer for:sneaky:
From the 1848 version of all things bright and beautiful.
The rich man in his castle,
The poor man at his gate,
He made them, high or lowly,
And ordered their estate.
I think the biggest problem facing the US is that money seems to be all that counts when it comes to getting power.
We have a similar problem here-used to be the labour party got most of it's funding from the unions who perhaps had too much say, now the biggest contributor is big business with all the accomnopanying scandal and reports of undue influence. Hopefully they will arrest Tony Blair.
Both our main political parties are in debt up to their ears.
One parliamentary committee has suggested the banning of all large scale contributions and parties only being allowed to collect funds from its members by attracting members. can't see any of ours acceptuing that any more than they will accept proportional representation.