Needed: A Better Ruling Class -- Dionne

[Donnachaidh]

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/needed_a_better_ruling_class_20110417/?ln

The American ruling class is failing us—and itself.

At other moments in our history, the informal networks of the wealthy and powerful who often wield at least as much influence as our elected politicians accepted that their good fortune imposed an obligation: to reform and thus preserve the system that allowed them to do so well. They advocated social decency out of self-interest (reasonably fair societies are more stable) but also from an old-fashioned sense of civic duty. “Noblesse oblige” sounds bad until it doesn’t exist anymore.

An enlightened ruling class understands that it can get richer and its riches will be more secure if prosperity is broadly shared, if government is investing in productive projects that lift the whole society, and if social mobility allows some circulation of the elites. A ruling class closed to new talent doesn’t remain a ruling class for long.

But a funny thing happened to the American ruling class: It stopped being concerned with the health of society as a whole and became almost entirely obsessed with money.

More at the link --

[Demeter]

1. Oh, Please!

That's the last thing we need---a ruling class. We need to give our present ruling class what the French of the 18th century gave theirs.

[Somawas]

2. Exactly!

[Silent3]

3. The French revolution didn't eliminate the ruling class

It eliminated many of its members, but French society is not now, nor was it even immediately following the revolution, devoid of a ruling class.

[Beam Me Up]

4. It was a step in the right direction and set and example. n/t

[immoderate]

5. It lowered their stature.

:hide:

--imm

[loudsue]

6. LOL! Lowered it by about one head.

So true. And I think we should start with execs at Goldman, BP, Exxon, Bank of America, BlueCross Blue Shield, and KKKarl Rove.

[Silent3]

8. The point is that "the ruling class" will always exist...

...because that's what we'll call whoever is either in office or exerts special influence over those in office. Even in the most egalitarian society imaginable, not everyone would have an interest in political power. Even if political influence were purely a matter of merit, not everyone would merit providing expert advice that carries special weight to elected leaders.

Short of the end of our species, or some sci-fi scenario where we all become nodes in a hive mind, this means whoever desires to be politically active, for good or for bad, and succeeds in that quest to be influential, by merit or by corruption, will be part of "the ruling class".

We might as well hope for a better ruling class if, practically by definition, there's always going to be one.

[immoderate]

9. Agree. The mistake would be to take a static view.

Life is change, and the methods of civilization will roll with it.

The fallacy is to imagine a "set state" that can deal with dynamic change.

--imm

[Demeter]

11. When there is no Social Mobility, and the Rule of LAW is Abandoned or Ignored

THEN you have a ruling class. When it becomes dynastic (Bush), then you have royalty.

Before that, you have employees.

[Silent3]

13. How is your comment in opposition to what I said?

Unless you somehow are taking the word "class" in "ruling class" to necessarily mean a rich elite or an aristocracy of some sort?

At any rate, I suspect the wealthy will always have outsized influence in politics, such that "class", as in a general categorization of function, and "class", as an economic and social distinction, will likely to one degree or another be linked. I'm not saying that this is a good thing, just saying there aren't enough guillotines and Mao jackets to change that.

We can, of course, attempt to reduce the size of the power imbalance, and, as the OP suggests as a not unreasonable thing which has historic precedence, we can hope for a more enlightened ruling class.

[Tom Rinaldo]

7. He's right. Of course ideally we don't need a ruling class...

...but almost every large society that has ever existed to date has had one, including the old Soviet Union. Maybe it would "sound" a little better to leftist ears if he said "an intimidated ruling class" or at least "a pratially domesticated ruling class."

When Dioone wrote about our current one: "It stopped being concerned with the health of society as a whole..." I don't think he meant to imply that they were a bunch of phioantropists. After the Detroit and Watts riots in the late 60's there suddently were a lot more of the while elite who became concerned about the health of the African American community. The American ruling class for most of the 20th century had reached an understanding that their own interests at that time were served by having an increasingly growing American Middle Class with at least some hope possible for those in the lower class to aspire to enter the middle if not (under rare circumstances usually involving the arts or sprots) the upper class.

That type of thinking has fallen out of vogue with the current breed of ruling class.

[Demeter]

12. Detroit got a lot of lip service

but the State of Michigan legislature treated it like sludge, and nothing improved.

[WCGreen]

14. Cool commercials, though....

[kentuck]

10. What nonsense!

Greed cannot control or monitor itself. It is only after more profits. The people have to control the greed or they will be overwhelmed by its voracity.