Elites vs. Natural Aristocracy
Steven Hayward at the Weekly Standard with a serious look at the fundamental issue raised by the Palin veep nomination and subsequent slams.
Lurking just below the surface of the second-guessing about Sarah Palin’s fitness to be president is the serious question of whether we still believe in the American people’s capacity for self-government, what we mean when we affirm that all American citizens are equal, and whether we tacitly believe there are distinct classes of citizens and that American government at the highest levels is an elite occupation.
…
American political thought since its earliest days has been ambiguous or conflicted about the existence and character of a “natural aristocracy” of governing talent. If the ghosts of Thomas Jefferson and John Adams are watching the storm over Palin, they must surely be revisiting their famous dialogue about America’s governing class. Adams’s widely misunderstood argument that there should perhaps be an explicit recognition and provision for an aristocratic class finds its reprise in the snobbery that greeted Palin’s arrival on the scene. It’s not just that she didn’t go to Harvard; she’s never been on Meet the Press; she hasn’t participated in Aspen Institute seminars or attended the World Economic Forum. She hasn’t been brought into the slipstream of the establishment by which we unofficially certify our highest leaders.
Hayward notes cases in which historically, the guts, brains and common sense of unanointed commoners have served us well, and concludes Palin has displayed the qualities of the uniquely American creature Adams called a “natural aristocrat.” Same argument theoretically could be applied to Obama … if you think he has guts and common sense. Whole thing here: Give ‘Em Hell, Sarah.
Posted by Jules Crittenden at 9:08 am on Monday, September 15, 2008
Leave a Reply
Trackback URLYou must be logged in to post a comment.
