Replies

I am pondering the relevance of this article. Why is it that Americans, while they repudiate the theory of hereditary succsssion, ignore the fact that we are ruled by our own hereditary "aristocracy." Is George "II" Bush really the best man for the job? By rights, the logical successor to George "I" Bush, should've been Vice President Quayle. Are the Kennedys and Rockefellers elected on their merit? Would Algore have had the same draw if he were not from the Senatorial class? And then there's the Roosevelt family. Do the duPonts still own Delaware? But my experience is limited; I'm sure that there are many states and counties that have their ruling families who have not yet made it to national fame.

So what is worse, overtly hereditary rule, or hereditary rule that masquerades as election of the most capable? Democracy has always been, and will always be, a fraud. To the extent that our optimates actually beleive that they were chosen on merit, they are merely delusional. But when they foist their fraudulent system on the rest of the world (i.e., Austria-Hungary and the German Empire) they are doing Satan's work.

Your reference to the optimates is apt; they occupy roughly the same position in Rome the families you mention do in America. If our republic ever falls, the hereditary ruler, like the emperors of Rome, will never call themselves kings.

In our case, I think name recognition has as much to do with it as family money or influence. There was an election a few decades ago (I think in the 70s) in Wisconsin which was messed up by name recognition. A little background: the Secretary of State, in Wisconsin, is a very minor official (unlike Illinois, where he's almost as important as the Governor). For years the same Republican guy held office, and spent all his time playing cards. After he died his son was elected, and polls showed voters thought they were re-electing the old office-holder. So the son got in, and was re-elected term after term. There was a gas station owned by a third party member, and he had hired an attendent with the same name as the son. In order to embarrass the two-party system, he got the attendant to run as a Democrat. He got the nomination. He almost got elected, but the head of the state Democratic told everyone to vote for the Republican that year.

I am pondering the relevance of this article. Why is it that Americans, while they repudiate the theory of hereditary succsssion, ignore the fact that we are ruled by our own hereditary "aristocracy."

I would also question the premise that kings are necessarily usurpers. Both monarchies and republics are constituted by universal consent of the vassals/citizens, while the national borders of either are a product of wars. In fact, since in a monarchy a vassal either explicitly states his allegiance or finds another monarch, or becomes a monarch himself, while our allegiance to the Constitution is at most implicit, or, as many opponents of the social contract theory of government would argue, non-existent, government by consent of the governed is best exemplified by a feudal society.

The Enlightenment era's objection to monarchy is twofold: it is either an objection to an absolute monarchy which indeed usurps the power of the independent gentry, or it is an objection not to monarchy per se, but the lack of meritocracy in succession. I won't argue with the former; as to the succession, the critisism is totally spurious. It should be clear to anyone that democratic rule of succession brings up the worst qualities in a politician as he needs to appeal to the lowest common denominator in the electorate. If you think that the goverment overblown with functions that any sane person would choose to hire an illiterate maid for rather than paying taxes, -- if you think that this kind of government is anything but a direct result of democratic rule of succession, well, think again.