Government by Ego and Envy

By on November 17, 2019 in Uncategorized

What genius said this: “The people that are producing climate change, the folks that are responsible for the largest amount of emissions, or communities, or corporations, they tend to be predominantly white, correct?” Answer at the end of the post.

The evolution of the theory of governance is a subject that should be addressed in every school, public and private. Required reading would include The Progressive Era by Murray Rothbard. What Rothbard portrays would make the founders rethink the whole revolution thing. But some background is required.

Western nations were, in the Middle Ages, monarchical. The ruling class based its claim to power on the divine right of kings. It gave civil authority a religious foundation. Royalty relied on the approval of the Papacy for acts of governance and used the Pope to undermine local and regional enemies. To get a better understanding of the ebb and flow of power in Europe I recommend The Plantagenets by Dan Jones. Governance was chaotic at best and, as Hobbes said, “life was solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short”. The ruling monarchs had a limited power and were subject to constant internal and external challenges and threats. In the end, however, Britain established and organized a somewhat stable system of government.

In the late 18th century there were two contemporaneous events that represented a fork in the road of the evolution of governance. The American Revolution commenced in the 1770’s and the French Revolution began in 1789. They were similar in some ways but the differences had the greatest impact on the political future.

The French Revolution included two dramatic changes to the status quo. The anti-monarchists set out to destroy the religious foundation of political power. In England Henry VIII had broken away from the control by the papacy but he merely transferred the religious roots of government to the newly established Church of England. In France the church was basically disenfranchised. The second change was less obvious at the time but was a harbinger of things to come. The movers and shakers of the revolution relied heavily on the Philosophes, a group of intellectuals who, through their writings, applied “reason” to the study of politics and economics. They did not, however, actively participate in the overthrow of the French government. They merely provided the guiding philosophy. In any case the revolutionaries quickly descended into anarchy and the lasting symbol of the revolution became the guillotine.

The American Revolution also relied on the philosophical teachings of a number of European philosophers: Montesquieu, Locke, Voltaire, Rousseau and Hobbes. These men heavily influenced the authors of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. The result was truly revolutionary as evidenced by the structure of the American government. One of the pillars of our revolution was the decentralization of power and the Constitution incorporated obstacles designed to minimize the migration of power from the states to a central authority. The second pillar was the protection of individual liberty. These pillars were well protected for over 100 years.

According to Rothbard things began to change in the late 19th century. The Progressive movement emerged and was based on two theories: (1) The government should be managed by a cadre of self-identified intellectuals. Unlike the French experience these intellectuals would lead the movement and not work behind the scenes. (2) These elite thinkers would also exercise control over the economy in a manner which would end the laissez faire capitalism that had been the engine of growth since Alexander Hamilton’s Report on the Subject of Manufactures. The Constitutional effort to restrict the centralization of power would be overridden and, as we see today with Brexit, opposition to President Trump and impeachment, the will of the people has become unimportant to the ruling elite.

So how does one qualify for admission into this elite cabal of intellectuals. Historically being an “elite” was derived from royal or peerage bloodlines or social status based on conspicuous wealth. The qualifications were easily defined by genealogy or financial statements. The elites who led the progressive movement were identified by educational pedigree. Schools such as Harvard, Yale, Princeton and Stanford turned out the leaders of the movement. It became, in short order, a cult of ego. You would not find among this group Nebraska Cornhuskers or Tennessee Volunteers. More importantly you will not find much real world accomplishment. Being a community organizer might be deemed to be enough of a qualification.

The elite tried to convince the world that by virtue of having the right alma mater they were better suited to understand and address the needs of the country and, more importantly, the people. You just can’t leave the important work of managing the country to the unwashed masses or, as Mencken called them, the “Booboisie”. To the charming and erudite Hilliary Clinton they are the “deplorables”. These common folk are simply unable to manage their lives without the guidance of the elite.

Teddy Roosevelt was a firm believer in an educated elite. He was the first progressive President. A graduate of Harvard he was one of the most accomplished men to hold the office. His successor, William Howard Taft, a graduate of Cincinnati Law School, proved to be a disappointment in Roosevelt’s eyes because he was more passive about using the power of the presidency. The Republicans renominated Taft. But the huge ego of TR was such that he did not support Taft choosing instead to run as a third party candidate in 1916 thereby ensuring the election of Woodrow Wilson, a fellow progressive.

It has been an article of faith that individuals “had to be smart” if they graduated from an elite school such as Harvard or Yale. Victor Davis Hansen wrote a wonderful piece recently entitled “Our Bankrupt Nomenklatura” which puts the lie to the value of the degrees donated to the graduates of those august institutions. One must always keep in mind that Ted Kennedy and Adam Schiff have Harvard degrees and George W. Bush graduated from Yale. A sobering perspective.

The progressives focused immediately on the US economy because they felt the capitalist system was simply too chaotic and the results of rough and tumble competition did not yield “fair” results. It was felt that a firm elite hand on the tiller would make the system work better for the people and, not by accident, for the elite managers. The term that Rothbard uses is “cartelization”.

The captains of industry have an inordinate fear of competition. Much better that it be “managed competition”. Managing competition ensures orderly production and distribution of goods and guaranteed profits. It was believed, erroneously as it turned out, that perturbations in the economy would become a thing of the past. It is distressing to note that Gerard Swope, President of General Electric, was an enthusiastic participant in the entire project. Thus did the US embrace fascism.

The most depressing thing about Rothbard’s analysis of progressivism was his observation that the elites were enthused about war because it gave them a reason to centralize power and their control of that power. During and after World War I Herbert Hoover (Stanford) accumulated as much power over the economy as he could. To describe him as a conservative Republican is a colossal error. He was a card carrying member of the intellectual elites.

The most audacious and most damaging action was the cartelization of the financial world, i.e. the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve Act was signed into law by Woodrow Wilson in 1913. The best history of the creation of the Federal Reserve is The Creature from Jekyll Island by G. Edward Griffin. It was intended to stabilize the economy and within 20 years the US suffered two major depressions, 1920-21 and the Great Depression that commenced in 1929. The Reserve should have been strangled in its cradle.

The desire to control the American economic engine also required a means of controlling the people. The politics of the 21st century seems to be focused not on the equality of opportunity but rather the inequality of result. You would think, listening to Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders and AOC, that capitalism invented disparities in wealth. Such disparities have existed in every economic system including socialism. In fact huge disparities in wealth can be readily found in leftist economies, such as Venezuela, and it inevitably favors the elites but this is seldom remarked on. The richest person in Venezuela is the daughter of the late, and unlamented, Hugo Chavez. Name the last politician who left Washington poorer than when they arrived.

The way to control the masses and secure their support is through the politics of envy. Tell them that all we need to do is tax the rich to the point of extinction and distribute the proceeds so that everyone can enjoy free healthcare, free college and free time. Margaret Thatcher observed: “Socialism works until you run out of other people’s money.”

Like arrogance and ignorance, ego and envy are a lethal combination. The political result undermines personal freedom and individual prosperity.

Answer to the quiz: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is the author of that moronic statement. There is one question she needs to answer: When did the Chinese and Asian Indians, inhabitants of the two most significant polluting countries on the planet, become “white”?

(35) Comments

  2. Barry O

    Listen, capitalism is great but that’s not exactly what we have now. Too many people at the top are winning even when they fail. CEOs of major banks walking away with huge severance packages after destroying the banks and nearly the entire economy (some people think it’s not over and we will see the full effect when interest rates can no longer be held low by the federal reserve). But these aren’t the only one paid to fail What about Jeff immelt or Adam Neumann of wework ignominy? Immelt took a paltry $200 million to Neumann $1.8 billion but who’s counting? All of this to fail in dramatic fashion.

    That’s not capitalism in any way I understand it. I thought capitalism was risk capital and either succeed or fail. Succeeding like these people after failing is something I don’t recognize.

    Our system, that I won’t call capitalism, must reform itself or even lost to the failed ideas of socialism. Because not only did the ceos plunder the corporation’s treasury for what was left after ruining it many ordinary people lost jobs, health insurance, retirement etc. for the mistakes of clown ceos. No wonder the siren song of socialism is finding an audience.

    Reply
  3. Rick Halperin

    Very well done. Kind of glad that Northwestern doesn’t have a graduate that became President, or you might have included it as an elite university. Currently reading about Benjamin Franklin who could have gone to Harvard but did not. He always felt that Harvard grads were elitist and out of touch. He was truly a self made man who loved being middle class, one of the key elements of our capitalistic foundation.

    Reply
  4. Brett

    The irony of it all, only the “elite liberals” define themselves as elite. I always bring up how ironic it must be for Pelosi to leave her SF penthouse from a gated and secured garage to SFO without even a glance or care at the despondent filth that liberal policy breeds. Only the enlightened can see the root cause, which the “elites” choose to ignore.

    Reply
  5. The Observer

    Well written and good history lesson. The only thing I’m left wondering is how the likes of the AOC etc. are now the leaders of the “intelligentsia” party. They clearly don’t possess the pedigree you discussed.

    Reply
    • admin

      The most important thing to remember is that the so-called “intelligentsia is based on self-nomination. Harvard or Yale degree means you are in the “smart” club. A Nebraska or Iowa State degree is met stifled laughter. No one will ever accuse AOC or Adam Schiff or Eric Smallwell of being intellectual elites. AOC and the Squad are protected by diversity because they repeat the droppings of the self-identified elite and can respond to criticism with howls of racism and sexism. Check the press on Candace Owens (University of Rhode Island) a woman of color who runs rings around the left. Her crime is being a thinking person who supports the Republicans.

      Reply
      • The Observer

        So my conclusion is that placing diversity ahead of merit is a fundamental belief of the “intelligentsia”. Something that us commoners will never grasp.

  12. creep shots

    I don’t even know the way I finished up right here, however I assumed this publish was good. I do not know who you might be however definitely you are going to a famous blogger if you aren’t already. Cheers!|

    Reply
  17. Lilian Streat

    After looking into a handful of the blog posts on your web page, I really like your technique of writing a blog. I book-marked it to my bookmark site list and will be checking back soon. Please check out my web site too and let me know how you feel.

    Reply
  18. cinezzz

    I was curious if you ever thought of changing the structure of your blog? Its very well written; I love what youve got to say. But maybe you could a little more in the way of content so people could connect with it better. Youve got an awful lot of text for only having one or two images. Maybe you could space it out better?|

    Reply
  32. nina-wliilam.jimdosite

    Great post. I was checking continuously this blog and I am impressed! Extremely useful info particularly the last part 🙂 I care for such info much. I was seeking this certain info for a very long time. Thank you and best of luck.

    Reply

Leave a reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *