Posted on 01/04/2007 9:57:59 AM PST by shrinkermd
INTRODUCTON:This book is about social class.
A excellent, well written, professional review written can be found HERE For those wanting to review the authors professional and personal biography, you can find that HERE
The purpose of this book review is to introduce a few basic concepts. To do this I have summarized and simplified a complex and nuanced book. Accordingly, this book review can not replace the actual text.
There are two matters that need brief mention before I begin.
First, the author is not only a British writer but a public intellectual. His works include both fiction and non-fiction. He writes for The Sunday Times and other periodicals. He was a Conservative Party Politician and served in the Thatcher Administration. His correct title is Sir William Robert Ferdinand Mount, 3d Baronet. He prefers to be referred to as Ferdinand Mount.
Second, Most Americans lump everyone into the middle class. A recent editorial by Robert Samuelson in the Washington post pointed out that only 2 percent of Americans thought they were in the upper class and only 8% thought they were lower class. Everyone else felt they were in the middle class with some 17% believing they were in the upper middle class and 45% being in the middle, middle class. Samuelsons editorial can be found HERE. The Free Republic Post with interesting Freeper comments can be found HERE.
Almost to a person, Americans wish to be seen as members of the middle class and are reluctant to admit social class differences exist. In spite of this reluctance, there is a class structure in America with the top rungs now being occupied by the meritocracy. This book reviews the meritocracy in Britain, how it is perpetuated and what this means for the culture and government policy. While not completely equivalent to America, Mount documents social class in Britain more clearly than most American authors; hence, on this basis alone this book is a valuable read.
BASIC CONCEPTS SOCIAL CLASS: Among other things, the author believes society has failed the poor. He sees an ever growing dangerous divide between uppers and downers. Mount does not believe the trickle down economic theory works nor does he see increasing upward social mobility.
Mount does not give downers a pass. He sees downer culture as deplorable and immoral. He blames the welfare state and the uppers for demolishing traditional lower class social organizations.
Similar to the US he sees the housing estates (think Cabrini Green in Chicago) as ghettos of crime and despair. Among his solutions is sort of a faith based welfare system run by local vicars. President Bush has encouraged a similar use of religious charities. Also like our President, Mount sees encouraging home ownership as an important policy goal.
Mount believes moving people out of housing estates will help. This mirrors anecdotal findings in the US. More recent US studies suggest only modest results from the geographic underclass cure. See HERE.
The upper classes and the British government protect rural areas from development. This makes for overly crowded living arrangements.
PREFACE: This is a very short chapter. Mount ridicules the view that social class does not exist.
People may dress alike but they dont think alike. Downer problems are usually seen as hopeless and needing professional attention. Denial of social class differences does not solve the problem.
CHAPTER I: OUTWORN SHIBBOLETHS: Until recently speech differences differentiated British social classes. They still do but noting differences is not politically correct; hence, the subjects is passé. Underneath it all British politicians almost to a person have a sine qua non conviction that class no longer matters. Many do not even believe there are appreciable class differences.
CHAPTER II: THREE VERSIONS OF CLASSLESSNESS: A classless society is a society where all are equal. As in the US, British citizens have political and legal equality. Health care is also assumed to be equally available. Equality has not been achieved in education, but the official college education target is 50%.
Income inequality still exists. Confiscatory income and inheritance taxes are a failed remedy. Since 1980 income inequality has risen not declined. Earnings of the top 10% went up 54 percent while the lower incomes went up only 46 percent.
Executive pay has gone up 90 percent since Mr. Blair came to power. The top tax rate in Britain remains 40% and the wealthy pay proportionately greater share of the National Health Insurance burden.
The author concludes that if we are talking about a classless society it is not about income. Things are actually more unequal than they were a decade or two ago.
If we cant have income equality how about One Volk, one Lifestyle? Maybe we can have cultural equality. Dress and behavior are becoming more similar between the classes but this is not true for homes and possessions. Overall, lifestyle differences continue between the uppers and downders.
There is one last hope for the classless society--equality of opportunity.
Equalizing opportunity seems to be an achievable goal. When universal education first kicked, in class differences narrowed. Unfortunately, after an initial improvement, progress ceased. Class differences in the age of leaving school and starting work were the same in the 1960s as they were in the 1920s. Recent data suggests children born in 1958 had more upward and downward mobility than those born in the 1970s.
Rather than a hereditary aristocracy we now have a meritocracy. People are sorted out by ability. The gap between the classes is now self-perpetuating and growing. Today the uppers know success is reward for their own abilities and efforts. Undeniable achievement is theirs by right and not by blood.> This superior class is no longer weakened by self-doubt and self-criticism. Class guilt is denied since meritocrats have earned their upper status.
Educational differences result in a situation where those who quit school at 16 cannot easily converse with uppers. The superior classs innate intelligence and acquired education results in pride of accomplishment. The downers lack accomplishment and, consequently, pride.
The downers know they have had every chance. Tested and tested again they know they did not measure up. For the first time in history the lower classes have no way to readily prove their self worth.
Because they lack intelligent leadership it is difficult for downers to rebel. When they do rebel, the result is poorly focused violence.
The old class system has been reconstituted into a meritocratic upper tier and a lower tier. The lower tier is defined as those failing to qualify for the upper tier. This is the new gap!
CHAPTER III THE UPPERS AND DOWNERS:The authors resources are Plato, More, Huxley and Orwell.
The psychological characteristics of uppers includes their being upbeat, upwardly mobile and possessing high self-esteem. They see sex as an area of personal discoverypromiscuity, infidelity, gay, bisexual and sadomasochism are not moral choices but experiences to be assayed.
Usually uppers believe that God given morals are encrusted superstitions detrimental to happiness. The ultimate goal of uppers is happiness within the context of a long, warm, well cushioned life.
Uppers have one persistent feardowners! They avoid them like the plague. They seldom live near downers and, if necessary, resort to gated communities. Actual, personal contact between uppers and downers is rare except in work situations.
Downers focus on television, drinking, football and sex. Dalrymple, a former prison physician, describes the lowest of the low as the underclass. People in the underclass are described as being foul-mouthed, chain-smoking, tattooed, body pierced drunks. Dalrymple associates crime, wife beating and welfare status with the underclass He points out the high incidence of spousal abuse and the inclination of the underclass to blame others for their problems.
Think of the underclass as described by Dalrymple as the lowest of the low downers. Marxs term for the underclass was lumpen proletariat.
Uppers sometimes feel guilty about their good fortune compared to downers. As a consequence they may express this guilt by aping the dress, speech and other accoutrements of the underclass. Young uppers frequently ape the downers but like their parents they are not really willing to give up their money, education or privileges.
Mount points out in a peculiar way uppers envy the working class downer for having genuine feelings, lack of aspiration and little intellectual baggage to consider or defend. This is a similar approach the young US boomers took when they rebelled against the constraints and demands of the upper lifestyle.
Contrary to the US most British adults see themselves as working class. In the Sunday 25 August 2002 Sunday Times55% claimed they were not middle class but rather working class. This is a definite downward mobility of the mind compared to the US experience where there is an upward mobility of the mind.
Mount points out something others have ignored. While we no longer defer to the upper classes we still note and admire people who are the rich or celebrities. On the other hand, we do not respect the lower classes.The successful are celebrated as much as ever but the lower classes are ignored. Previous generations have credited the lower classes for stoicism, patriotism and courage. No longer! Now we only recognize fame and fortune.
The lower classes suffer from respect deprivation more than actual deprivation. Mount asserts, and I agree, much of the nostalgia for WW II is because working class people were respected for their contributions and heroism. It was really the last time all the classes possessed a common goal and mutual regard and respect.
CHAPTER IV: THE INVENTION OF THE MASSES: This chapter begins with a review of class concepts and classifications. I will reveiw only twothat of Marx and that of Godthorpe.
Marx believed that there were two great classes in conflictthe Bourgeoisie and the Proletariat. Marx expected this conflict between the upper middle class and the working class to end with a working class victory. Following this victory we would then have a classless society. Socialists and leftists since the time of Marx seek not only an egalitarian society but a classless society as well.
John Goldthorpe in Social Mobility and Class Structure in Modern Britain (1980)developed a taxonomy of class that involved seven hierarchal levels. The levels were determined by employment status.
Goldthorpes Class I level is comprised of higher grade professionals, top administrators, high grade technicians and supervisors.
Goldethorpes Class II level is comprised of lower grade professionals and administrators.
Goldethorpes Class III level is comprised of clerical employees, sales personnel and other rank and file service employees.
Goldthorpes Class IV level is comprised of small landholders, self-employed skilled workers.
Goldthorpes Class V level is comprised of lower grade technicians and supervisors of manual workersa latter day aristocracy of the blue collar elite.
Goldthorpes Class VI level is comprised of all skilled manual workers.
Goldthorpes Class VII level is comprised of all unskilled manual and agricultural workers.
Actual compensation does not necessarily follow the levels low to high; for example, many in Class V make as much as those in II.
The classes are actually a continuum and Classes VI and VII are seen as working class in Britain. Classes III, IV and V are seen as intermediate classes and would be considered the ordinary middle class. Class I and II comprise the upper class.
Marx and many others pointed out that when class conflict erupts the middle class joins the upper class or the working class. Generally, which side the middle class comes down on determines the outcome.
Aristotle also believed in the primacy of the middle class. He saw the other two classes as derivatives of it.
No one, including Marx, has ever really operationally defined class. Marx did convince millions that there were two irreconcilable classes who were in a bitter life and death war for dominance. The wars occurred. We still have class differences even in socialist countries.
As a general rule, a social class does not become aware of itself unless threatened by a common adversary. Perhaps this is one reason social class is seldom discussed in America.
CHAPTER V: LOOKING INTO THE ABYSS:In this chapter Mount reviews past and present literature as only a professional wordsmith and author can. He does so in order to show the development of the working class in Britain.
Mount notes that in the Communist Manifesto Marx claims the family is based on personal gain. Families will eventually only be found in the bourgeoisie. The proletariat family will become extinct as a consequence of capitalist exploitation. To me Marx was less than clear as to whether the end of the family was a good or bad thing. Some leftists have interpreted this as a positive thing; therefore, they have striven to destroy family authority and replace it with state authority.
Concurrent with Marx, British intellectuals were looking at the rise of mass man with ever increasing horror. Writers such as George Gissing opined it was a mistake to educate the masses. He assumed the ability differential between the upper and lower classes was too much to bridge. Only the few should have an education because a little education was a dangerous thing.
Gissings views were common among the intellectuals of the day. Not mentioned by Mount is that Albert Jay Nock, considered by some to be the father of conservativism, also opposed public education.
The 19th century population increase alarmed public intellectuals. Mass culture was even more alarming. As late as the 1930s Ortega y Gasset lamented on how crowded the world was and that the masses were taking over. He saw the masses as average people but, nonetheless, vulgar and unimaginative. Ortega y Gassets book, The Revolt of the Masses,pictured the masses as mediocre and indistinguishable individuals. In this he was supported by the leading intellectuals of the dayKarl Mannheim, Erich Fromm and Hannah Arendt.
The late, great founder of modern conservativism was Russell Kirk; his book, The Conservative Mind: From Burke to Elliot, puffed T.S. Elliot. Yet Elliot was not only a snob and an anti-Semite but his poems had the ostensible purpose of excluding all but the cognoscenti. His poem, The Wasteland,was the first modern poem and the essential beginning of literary modernism.
Intellectuals (both the right and left) hate the suburbs; Roger Scruton, an esteemed contemporary conservative intellectual, pictures the suburbs as impermanent violations of the landscape. He sees them as lacking a history in that they have no real justification for beginning or ending. I see suburbophobia as the sine qua non of liberalism with environmentalism as the best example. I further note that red America is suburbia, exurbia and small town America. Some big city, paleo-conservatives also suffer from suburbophobia.
Most public 20th century intellectuals despised the masses. Ortega y Gasset was the foremost spokesman and his books are still in print.
A variety of intellectuals and politicians try to lead the masses but they do not respect the masses or their institutions.
CHAPTER VI: A HIDDEN CIVILISATION: Late 19th century intellectuals believed those working in factories were immoral, godless, ignorant, feckless and infantile. These working people were further incapable of real education and in many instances could not even look after themselves. They were unfit to take part in government.
It was also assumed that the extended family would be destroyed by the industrial revolution; actually, the opposite was the case. Until the industrial revolution parents and grandparents seldom lived together; industrialization resulted in more extended families rather than fewer.
Similarly, retrospective studies document illegitimacy was higher in the country than in the industrial towns.
Religion continued to be an important facet of everyday life both in towns and rural areas. The great majority of the lower classes was cradled in a complex hammock of religious education, controversy and ritual; religion in the industrial towns was more intense then before or since. Illiteracy was attacked in both Sunday and private religious schools with outstanding success. The lower classes even began private health insurance programs.
It is not too much to say that the lower classes in Britain between 1800 and 1940 had created a remarkable civilization of their own which it is hard to parallel in human history; narrow-minded perhaps, prudish certainly, occasionally pharisaical, but steadfast, industrious, honorable, idealistic, peaceful and purposeful.
As we shall see in the following chapters, all this would change under the onslaught of the intellectuals and the welfare state.
CHAPTER VII: ABODES OF DESOLATION: The culture of the lower classes that was once vibrant and expansive now seems in irreversible decline.
Why is this so?
The author sees this change as due to five factors.
First, work is now impermanent. People once found meaning and security in employment. This is less and less the case. Trust, loyalty, patience and tolerance are all easier to acquire with predictable, long-term employment. Now workers are cogs in a vast enterprise with much less satisfying tasks.
Two, workers at the bottom have been de-skilled. Economists and politicians claim more skills are needed to succeed yet, in practice, what one finds is that efficiency requires tasks be simplified. Work is now more boring, less demanding and less skilled for many members of the working class. As a consequence real pay suffers.
Three, typical masculine occupations in mining and manufacturing have been eliminated in favor of more feminine type occupationsservice jobs in restaurants, etc.
FourthThe intelligentsia has demonized patriotism; even minor patriotic sentiments are seen as politically incorrect. This began with the Marxian conviction that the proletariat was international, not national, and loyalty to a specific nation is forbidden. Presently, American leftists and statists more or less look at patriotism as a shared delusional disorder.
Fifth, family relationships have been weakened by easier divorce. The State has also assumed financial responsibility for out-of-wedlock births. The state may be eager to help the casualties of broken or non-existent marriages but the previous quasi-eternal quality of marriage has been breeched; consequently, parenting has been diminished as a useful and necessary occupation. In Britain as well as in the US pre-school is supplanting important years of motherhood with unknown unintended consequences.
What the downers or lower classes need more than anything else is a purpose and meaning for their lives.
CHAPTER VIII: THE PRESENT STATE: This chapter focuses on the present state in Britain. Presently, few expect the downers to really escape their condition. What is being done is to provide upper class supervision via the nanny state. The author also gives his suggestions for change. To me, none of his suggestions seem either novel or compelling.
CHAPTER IX BECOMING VISIBLE: Perhaps the best part of this chapter is a review of Sennetts book Respect: The Formation of Character In An Age of Inequaligy (2003). Sennett suggests rising pride and functioning can be achieved by: (1)self-development; (2)self-sufficiency; (3) and, mutual exhange.
Self-development means making the best of ones potential. Self-sufficiency means being able to provide without the assistance of the state. Mutual exchange means giving back to others.
MY THOUGHTS:This is an excellent book and any one of the chapters is worth the price of the entire book. Besides being well written and clear in its presentation it covers social class in a perceptive fashion without resorting to laundry lists of things purchasing habits.
Understanding the upper class attitude towards the working class is invaluable; particularly since uppers craft and implement government efforts.
I do have a couple of thoughts that might amplify the excellent job Ferdinand Mount has done. First, not mentioned is that civilization requires division of labor to both succeed and survive. Hayek or Von Mises as well as other Austrian economic theorists have written extensively on this subject.
Second, also not mentioned is the work of Pareto who theorized that about 20% of the people usually possess or manage 80% of the wealth. This is the famous 20/80 rule which has universal use in management. It means 20% of the input results in 80% of the output. In this sense, we never escape elites and merely go from one grouping to another. For example the Russians have gone from state controlled capitalism to communism back to a lesser form of state controlled capitalism. If you are interested in Pareto you can begin HERE.
Third, I would add a fourth thing under Sennetts list in Chapter IX. I would add recognition as an important personal goal seldom reinforced in the working and lower classes. Plato thought Thymos, a mixture of recognition and ambition to be a prime mover after basic life sustaining goals were achieved. Unfortunately, history has focused on causes rather than goals for normal behavior. In actual fact any understanding of people requires the concept of free will and goal directed recognition. I have posted a brief vignette on FR titled Why People Run For Office. This can be found HERE.
Fourth, Mount did not actually discuss the IQ Taboo. He alludes to differences in mental ability but like all public intellectuals avoids using the word intelligence or IQ. The uppers publicly and openly discuss bizarre and deviant sexual practices with ease; contrariwise, IQ is almost never discussed except in hushed tones and in private.
The academic literature on IQ is enormous and encompasses 100 years of study. Intelligence correlates with education which correlates with the meritocracy. Undoubtedly, uppers on he average are smarter than downers. But there is a lot more to say but space here is limited.
Just a few findings might help. IQ was devised to predict academic success; this it does. In addition there is an underlying derived factor called g that is predictive of a host of social abilities and disabilities. IQ is found on a Gaussian distribution (bell curve).
About 16% of the White population has an IQ over 115 and another16% less than 85. Those with an IQ of 115 find college graduation quite within their ability. Another 5 or 10% with more effort can also graduate from college. This means about 20% of the population can comfortably attend an academic demanding college; less able but highly motivated students may also graduate but only with great effort. The college graduation rate in Minnesota is now almost 28%. Whether Britain succeeds in graduating 50% of the population depends on whether they lower standards or not.
Only 5% of the population has an IQ over 125; this is important since these folks can do almost any job including all the professions, academia, engineering and so forth. It takes real, high powered brains to do high level engineering, mathematics and theoretical physicsprobably a fraction of one per cent of the population.
People with an IQ of 85 or less have great difficulty graduating from a traditional high school. People with an IQ of 70 or less have trouble completing grammar school.
There are minor to moderate racial and ethnic differences in IQ but the biggest current, taboo problem is the IQs of inner and big cities. The effect of urban flight on IQ distribution is such that the IQs of entering inner city children (all races) is 85. This means half of these children will either not graduate from HS or will have great difficulty in doing so. Of course, motivation and parental involvement matter a good deal but are probably not as important as we would wish to believe. The usual government way of dealing with this problem is to give the HS diploma whether it means anything or not. The urban flight problem is summarized HERE.
A few articles written for the general public can be found HERE as well as AND HERE.
Fifth and finally, it might do well to remind ourselves of a quote by Russell Kirk:
How to restore a living faith to the lonely crowd, how to remind men that life has endsthis conundrum the twentieth century conservative faces. Along with the consolation of faith, perhaps three other passionate human interests have provided the incentive to performance of dutyand the reason for believing that life is worth livingamong ordinary men and women: the perpetuation of their own spiritual existence through the life and welfare of their children; the honest gratification of acquisitive appetite and the bequest of property; the comforting assurance that continuity is more probable than changein other words, mens confidence that they participate in a natural and moral order in which they count for more than the flies of summer. With increasing brutality, the modern temperfirst under capitalism, then under state socialismhas ignored these longings of humanity. So frustration distorts the face of society as it mars the features of individuals. The behavior of modern society now exhibits the symptoms of consummate hideous frustration.
Russell Kirk1985 edition The Conservative Mind page 492 paperback edition.
Like the rest of us, the downers need a purpose for living. They can achieve this through religious faith, some level of economic self-sufficiency, a meaningful family life and the understanding they are part of a cultural continuum with ancient beginnings and an unknown future.
The alternative is to believe they and we are nothing but the flies of summer.
This went longer than I expected. Thank you for reading to the end.
As I said before this book is well written by a master wordsmith.
The downers know they have had every chance. Tested and tested again they know they did not measure up. For the first time in history the lower classes have no way to readily prove their self worth.
Because they lack intelligent leadership it is difficult for downers to rebel. When they do rebel, the result is poorly focused violence."
As I said before this book is well written by a master wordsmith.
You could have fooled me. Unless you are focusing on just words, and not ideas.
The first paragraph simply states the obvious. Doesn't matter if the cause is native intelligence or the exploitation of it through education. If some act inferior,they ARE inferior. The entire article here implicitly affirms that this has no bearing in the reality of the results. Whether the cause is cultural, or the negative effects of "rights" and freedom, the real underlying issue is never addressed.
For a conservative, that second paragraph is a true puzzler. Once having established that some people ARE inferior, regardless of the disappearing concept of "class", the implication here is that this is "unfair", and that artificial augmentation must be found to remedy that.
A rational counterargument is that the inferior must accept their fate. Penalizing the superior, or even the average simply exacerbates the results of the native inequalities.
How can the inferior have "intelligent" leadership?
The only choices are demagogues out for the power in the inferior mass, or I suppose, the fictional animal of "superior leadership" resulting in well-focused violence?
Sounds like a lengthy exercise in sophistry, to me.
nope. We have a de facto aristocracy in the US and we have an established caste systme (the lower caste being the illegal aliens)
The US aristocracy is hereditary. The vast majority of major coporate boardrooms (Fortune 250) are populated by men and women who have inherited their weslth and position.
A large proportion of the highest level exeucutives in the largest US corporations have 'achieved" their position through familial ties.
I personally know of such cases within corporations such as Boeing. One young man fresh out of college was moved up the ranks every 6-12 months moving him from 1 division to another until he achieved a VP position at a parts/logisitics division after about 4 years. His father was a long time senior VP. He had no special qualities whatsoever. he was a bit of a surfer dude, party animal kind of guy (a spoiled rich kid, with a less than stelalr college education, at an average universitiy).
In the largest US corporations the sons and daughters of the highest level execs are moved rapidly up the ranks, regardless of merit. And these are public, not private, corporations. Nepotism absolutely exists, even in these companies which ostensibly preach th absolutism of merit based advancement. (You all know of similar instances)
Now think of all the Harvard and Yale grads. Those schools are dominated by family connections, and then the grads are recruited by the most exclusive, and powerful, law firms, corporations and political organizations. WhY? because Ivy league schools are the finishing schools for the kids of the elite, and thus the elite who are already in the workplaces and positions of power patronize the schools, to protect and strengthen the "aristocracy".
They are certainly free to do so. And always should be.
However, the Republican and Democrat old guard, senior, leadership are all members of an elite group that has practically 100% control over the budget and agenda of the US government. They have deep personal ties that are stronger than party affiliations and stronger than patriotism.
It is fantastically incredible that in a supposedly open democratic nation that there are 2 families, that have assumed Royalty like power, the Bushes and Clintons.
The Bush dynasty is not part of a meritocracy but much more of an aristocracy. Their family has been in politics and money for generations. Each son from Bush sr to jeb has benefitted from family connections and money, not merit.
For 20 years this country may ruled by these people and their relatives. If the Clintons daughter chose to go into politics there is no doubt she would quickly "achieve" a position of great power.
Our goevrnment is a perfect example of a government run by organized crime families. The machine is Constituionally based but the machine operators are criminals that drive the machine wherever the paths of extortion and payoffs leads them.
BTW: The vast majority of Congressmen have their seats because of only perhaps 1-5 "ruling" families in their districts. Those families are responsible for selecting the candidate and then endorsing him, and seeing he gets funded (by their personal connections) to win the primary. Upstarts do indeed win the primary over the candidate selected by the establishment but it is the exception not the rule.
Again, I have personal experience there as well.
There is immigration. Britain is a pretty small place. In the past, the British lower classes "proved their self worth" in places like America, Canada, Australia, and South Africa. If those countries aren't open any more there are others. Young Britons have also proved themselves in the military.
It looks like there's still something of the upper class paternalist about Mount. Intellectuals scorn patriotism? So everybody else has to? I doubt most people would see things that way. Working class Britons may or may not be patriotic, but I doubt they'd simply roll over and accept the judgments of intellectuals or the "chattering classes."
Meritocracy, a term apparently invented by Sir Michael Young, another Englishman, does have its discontents, but I wonder if academics and intellectuals don't take meritocracy too seriously. There may be a lesson in the evolution from Michael Young, earnest socialist academic and meritocrat to his son Toby Young, who carries on for all the world like an upper class wastrel.
The lesson may be that the certified upper classes can carry on as much as they like, but it may also be that examination culture is overrated as an influence on later life. Sir Michael could assume (or fear) that he'd spend his life hobnobbing with the great and the good, but society and people's contacts may be more porous and heterogeneous than that, even in Britain.
Much of what Mount writes may have come from John Carey, an Oxford professor who thinks very little of his fellow intellectuals. He's right about most of them, but the enterprise reveals that he expects more of his colleagues and precursors than most Americans or Britons do. Carey had to write books like The Violent Effigy. A Study of Dickens' Imagination or Thackeray: Prodigal Genius before moving on to What Good Are the Arts? and The Intellectuals and the Masses: Pride and Prejudice among the Literary Intelligentsia, 1880-1939.
I don't mean to suggest that everything is okay, in the UK or here, just that the world of intellectuals is a small one which they take to be larger and more powerful than it actually is.
I thought Mount did a good job. I think some are resonating to his title as Baronet. Otherwise perhaps I was unable to communicate his basic conviction is that the lower classes have been denied affirmation.
As far as "meritocracy" being a useless or deficient concept. Just go to your doctor, dentist, lawyer and then your local professor and so forth. You will find to get where they are required intelligence, extraordinary efforts at education and so forth. Usually, such individuals love to tell you how they came from humble beginnings and now are in the upper tier. The Horatio Alger story.
Actually, Herrnstein and Murray in The Bell Curve went farther then Mount--they felt the population was segmenting and because of birth differentials faced the danger of dysgenesis. All in all I appreciated your comments.
Very interesting.
Putting it on my 'favorites' to read thoroughly tonight.
Dalrymple is being quoted: good. He is excellent.
Moneyed and well connected people number many more than the number of the ruling slots. The only time in memory that a seriously [by contemporary standards] moneyed person launched power bid was Ross Perot candidacy. Well, toss in Nelson Rockefeller. So you need to analyze the selection mechanisms amongst the elite, for their number is enough to staff a moderate size state all by themselves. [7+ million millionaire households in the US]
Most of the elite are not at all interested in actually getting involved in politics. Those that are treat it as a hobby, or a game. For them there is no prestige associated with it. it is dirty stuff beneath them, unless they have a long family history in a particular district.
The elite do not like to compete against fellow elites. So if "one of them" has a seat in their district they are not going to go head to head against them, unles they are feuding. it is the nouveua riche that will do that.
That is why there is rarely any real efforts between Rep and Dem elites to take each other out. The stability of the society of elites is far more important than the party goals.
That does not apply so much to the less senior party members, or those who never really joined the elite society.
But this is why the Rep "revolution" of 1994 fizzled out. it was staunched out by the senior elite Reps themselves. They have established a gentlemans agreement to share power 50/50 (as best it can be). The young upstarts in 1994 threatened that balance and stability.
BTW: It is also the reason why when Republicans dominated Congress, Senate and Presidency this last few years that Bush actually became more liberal than Clinton. He had to abide by the code of honor and carry the water for the liberals, and their agenda.
This is also why the first thing Bush did when he first took office (thus Reps gaining both Presidency and Congress) is pusyh through Ted kennedy's Education Bill, with largest increase ever and stood arm in arm in front of cameras for all Dem elites to see. George Jr was going to honor the social contract among elites, even if it meant apologizing for the Republican wins by pushing Dem programs.
The greatest problem for us and all Americans (but the elites) is that the ruling elites share the same political and social goals; they are advancing global progressive power structures.
Why? Because it is the most stable structure for maintaining their dominance and ruling status. In particular it further disconnects the American citizen from the levers of power (thus affecting change) becuase of international laws and authorities (UN, etc) which the elties hold superior to the Constitution.
So why progressivism? because it uses the approach of bourgoisie socialism (or conservative socialism) to pacify the lower classes, stop them from rising up in social unrest. Conservative socialism is designed to protect the status of the ruling powers by dispensing social welfare goodies to the lower classes.
Social security, welfare, medicare/medicaid, Cobra programs, etc etc...are all designed to keep folks calm and happy.
The public school system is absolutely being used to pacify the masses with their deconstruction of traditional value systems and standards (christianity in particular, american rugged individualism). They devalue Western civilization and promote pacifism, conflict resolution and egalitarianism etc etc...
I could write a book on where I've been, and done, and studied. LOL.
I'm speaking from experience managing congressional level campaigns and soliciting involvement from the wealthiest in the district (and beyond), inluding billionaires.
The wealthy elite already have everyone around them to "boss" around. They boss around far more important people than simple politicians.
Believe me they do not really need to get involved in politics for personal sense of power. They already have power and the little people cannot take it away. Mere politicians can lose their power though.
The wealthy use politicians though, which is much different than them getting involved in politics. Politicians are servants to them, a lower class.
So we are indeed just the flies of summer.
What is happening in culture today is basically just prepping us for the time when some future humans will have their consciousnesses uploaded into more permanent hardware.
Even now people can make rather significant changes to their circumstances and even their own bodies. A person with the right skills can relocate to any place on the globe. A person can choose to remain near their family or vanish into the abyss. A person can choose friends and make connections around the world.
With the internet, satellites and large screen TVs a person can experience pretty much any movie, play, musical, etc. almost anywhere in the world.
People can change their noses, their breasts, their bodies, and even their sexes. Soon it may be possible through the use of retroviruses to change oneself at the genetic level. Maybe next year I'll be a Mongolian with blue eyes!
All this is just prepping our psyches for the time when we will be able to upload ourselves into whatever contraption we wish: a Mars rover, an dolphin, a reanimated pterodactyl. Whatever.
The human race was a nifty thing while it lasted.
there is no difference, the British are slaves.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.