The divide between the elite and the 'common-man' has been central to American life from the earliest days of the Republic. What troubled the founding fathers was the potential of a mob-rule democracy and the urgent need they saw for some checks against that. Remember that Washington had to refuse the proposal that he be named king. However, except for the stain of slavery and a common disregard for American Natives, there was more similarity among Americans than differences, both with respect to owning property and general literacy. The close similarity of conditions for most Americans -- and the absence of a genuine aristocracy -- helped to create a popular belief that direct democracy is fine. But regional differences, rooted in the cultures of the separate colonies, exposed strong contrasts when perceived on a national scale and so it was felt necessary to convince the common man that a direct type of democracy was more dangerous than a representative type.
In the early days of American Independence, almost any free man could own property, something unheard of in Europe, and that gave him a sense of of independence and privilege --and equality -- that still forms the solid core of American exceptionalist mythology (The American Dream) even though America is becoming more and more a land of sharp distinction between haves and have-nots. Thus there was a time in America, up to the recent past perhaps, when the so-called 'ruling class' was an 'everyman' class, open to any as a meritocracy, and consisting of the majority of citizens. Some early leaders feared that the common man -- however ennobled by property and literacy -- would never have the selfless virtue to subordinate self-interest to the greater good for all. The history of American political and social life has been one of proving again and again the wisdom of the common man, usually edging ahead of the fears of an elite paternalism. Until now. The big difference between today and, say, the early 19C in America with respect to opportunity and 'equality of condition' (outside of slavery and utter subjugation of Natives) is that now a genuine elite is forming, made up of those who own most of the property (wealth) who deprive others of any real chance to succeed by merit and rise from any social position. The rich today are not simply millionaires who can go broke through profligacy but, as we know, billionaires, who cannot possibly spend all of their money on self-indulgence. To spend a billion dollars in a 75 year lifetime would require a daily depletion of at least 75,000 dollars, seven days a week, even at no interest. Miss one day and the next spend !50,000 just to keep pace. (Do the math. My guess is not far off). The new excess wealth being accumulated by a few will last for generations, perhaps even increasing, and that will certainly lead to a genuine aristocracy, a genuine ruling class with inherited privileges and weapons to enforce any fancy and subjugate the mass of people everywhere. That's the super rich solution to world problems. The new Middle Ages is upon us. It is a reality today that the super rich can do as they please, ignoring any national or international law if they choose, for their own benefit or self-proclaimed wisdom. They can make anything happen. I've seen it in the art world, a small part of the world, to be sure, but the whims of the super rich can make or break any institution, any career, any history.....and they relish that power by pretending to be helpful folks. An Ezra Pound, for all his hubris, was a pipqueak in today's terms. There are no influential intellectuals anymore, whatever their views. There is big money, very big money, and it creates the reality we all live by. wc ----- Original Message ---- From: caldwell-brobeck <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Sun, June 10, 2012 9:42:59 AM Subject: Re: "Flying cat turns heads at art show" On Sat, Jun 9, 2012 at 9:15 PM, Michael Brady <[email protected]> wrote: > Pound's message here exudes the condescension of the person of superior taste > deploring the baseness of the "public." In the last century, we in Western > cultures have been pummeled with evidence, obvious and evanescent, of various > kinds of biases: racism, sexism, ageism, even specieism and others newly > minted. But I don't remember anyone remarking about rampant "public-ism," the > disdain for the taste and ethos of the generalized public. This public-ism > started with Babbit, perhaps even before, and has proceeded unabated since > then. Writers, artists, philosophers, and others have created a > pseudo-aristocratic ambience of elevated and ennobled interests in contrast to > the mundane and gauche interests of the hoipolloi. > > > | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | > Michael Brady > Addressing the issue seems to be the bread and butter of many conservative writers such as Victor Davis Hanson (particularly in his Work and Days column, where he often focuses on the social decay of his area of California). An article that made significant waves on the issue two years ago was Angelo M. Codevilla's :America's Ruling Class -- And the Perils of Revolution: http://tinyurl.com/2d8quul Cheers; Chris
