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I think the major problem inherent in meritocracy is that the arrogance of privilege has been replaced by the arrogance of merit.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.

Your first three paragraphs are total BS.

But the next two coin what has been said for a long time ....

Meritocracy usually breeds arrogant leaders because they know they earned it and rightfully [in their minds] feel superior.

Aristocracy breeds either an arrogant leader because he feels his privilege makes him superior or a guilty leader because he knows he did not earn it.
It all depends on his character.

There are exceptions of course.
FDR was neither arrogant or guilty.

FDR was neither arrogant or guilty.

Unless you count Pearl Harbour....

I generally agree, certainly with the sentiment and to some degree with the distinction.

But Clinton was not simply a candidate of merit. Like the best and the brightest rose to the top. There were other people out there who never could have come close to governorship, let alone the presidency, because they would be unwilling to relate the way Clinton did to people with power. Sure, he was well educated, well spoken and intelligent. But the way he kissed ass, manipulated, towed the line, played power games, etc. These all rolled the carpet out for him toward the White House. And no candidate who has serious questions about corporate power and influence in the US stands the slightest chance of getting into office.

I don't think that arrogance through merit is so much the problem, it's what you have to do to even be considered for local office let alone higher office and all the incredible money you need to get there.

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.