The elites must be imbued with a certain moral attitude and treat the education of their successors seriously. Virtue can be taught, and it can be inherited, and whilst privilege can be used as a reward, it must be exercised carefully, since the men and women who prove themselves to be most worthy are the only ones deserving of such honours, and today, the institutions of aristocracy and similar elite systems are openly mocked and degraded by their abuse at the hands of interested parties.
Chapter III
Life of the Elite
Precepts sown in the mind of the young frequently carry forward into later age, but sowing virtuous character into the mind of a young man, whilst it serves as the best groundwork for a beneficial life, does not necessarily make for a practical one. After all, like in the cultures of the ancient world, it is not mere mindset that is rewarded with the status of heroism; it is deeds which convey heroism on the doer. We must therefore examine how those with privilege can best use the gift bestowed upon them for the benefit of others, and how they might come to appreciate society more fully, enabling a more virtuous application of legislative and executive power.
It may seem like a generalisation, but it would be fair to say that elites live fairly sheltered lives. In modern Britain, most elites are not necessarily aristocracy but merely those who have inherited large amounts of money and behave as if they were aristocracy. They often send their children to public school,16 where they are educated in high culture, taught Latin and ancient Greek, which has fallen out of use in most state-run schools, and will then enter a selective university on account of their extensive education and, upon leaving university, work in some sector in which their family has a great deal of influence, with the family name to back them up and with no particular connexion with or care for any other member of society. Indeed, remaining in such circles renders it often unnecessary for such elites to ever enter the circles which non-elites move in, and we are left with a vicious cycle which cultivates the worst sort of elitism that a civilised society aspiring for more moral ends could ever suffer.
Now, we are not disputing whether or not the elites should have the right to send their sons to elite schools — that is a prerogative that should exist in any free society, no matter how much the left may hate the existence of schools which are independent of a state-central agenda. However, keeping these young future leaders in such closed circles for almost their entire lives leads them into the false belief that the concerns of the non-elites must be the same as theirs, and perhaps most worryingly in modern times, that a lack of income is not an issue for the vast majority of people. I recall a recent doctoral graduate at university speaking to me about future careers in academia; starting at the lowest rung of the ladder, his salary came at just under £40,00017 per annum, which most people would jump at the opportunity for. However, he was left with the debt to pay off from his university fees on top of his tax contributions, not to mention the fact that he had been earning no income whatsoever while studying for his doctorate, thus leaving him with the disposable income of the average worker. He was all right with this arrangement — his family had a large inheritance that they could provide him with — but I realised in this moment that the poverty of my family compared to his would always exclude me from an academic career, yet he looked at me with complete surprise when I stated I could not do the same.
In other instances, elites misconstrue the desires of those outside their circle, and engage in reverse-snobbery where they exclude those below them from indulging in the culture of their own circles in order to eliminate the notion of a certain environment being ‘upper class’, but parade their customs openly among the members of their own. For instance, banning certain dress codes perceived to be elitist from certain events in order to encourage those without that dress to come, when in fact it merely discourages those who have risen up the ranks to attain that same status from coming to such events.
These are just a few examples. Elites often simply do not realise the differences between themselves and those outside of their circles, no matter how good-natured and morally upright they might be otherwise. The solution to this problem is to encourage hands-on practical interaction between elites and non-elites, and to ensure that the attitude of ‘us and them’ is completely removed from public discourse. There should be a recognition of society as a community rather than a medium for individual life, and if the elites truly hold a moral responsibility to those below them (which as we have previously ascertained, they do), then they should follow the example of those estimable predecessors of theirs who set that moral example.
For sake of example, let us consider the actions of Lord Shaftesbury (1801–1885), who despite his education in elite circles (Harrow School, then Christ Church Oxford), used his privileged position in society for a great deal of social good. A lifelong Tory and supporter of structured community and moral responsibility, he supported the reclassification of the mentally ill to ‘patient’ status and helped to introduce a bill which specified certain standards of medical care for the mentally ill; perhaps most famously however, he petitioned the Prime Minister Robert Peel several times in support of a parliamentary bill preventing the exploitation of children who at the time were often forced to work in mines or as chimney sweeps. By 1847 a bill inspired by his ideas was passed, and the proper treatment of children has been considered a fundamental tenet of civilised society ever since.
Men like Shaftesbury were inspired to their virtuous actions to a large extent by their Christian faith. The Lord in question was a prominent figure in Anglican evangelical circles and believed that his actions were merely following teachings of Christ. One cannot underestimate the value of treating religious, or indeed simply moral, teachings seriously. If any group of society genuinely believes that it must follow the selfless and moral teachings of its religion, or its moral code as an imperative duty, then it will be more likely to use its legislative power for the greater good of society when faced with obviously wrongful situations.
Of course, another frequent criticism of elites, particularly when elites are afforded such status purely by nature of their financial wealth, is that they are often dissolute. Indeed, a large amount of money is often a path to sin, since the temptation to spend money on carnal pleasures is often irresistible, especially to the younger generation, whose minds are still pliable and eager to experience the pleasures of life. Whether or not we spend, rich or poor, money on material or bodily pleasures is purely a matter of morals, though of course one response would be that in a moral society, the dissolute, or indeed anyone who proved themselves unworthy of elite status, would not have it afforded to them, or would have it stripped of them when enough evidence came to light proving them to be setting a poor moral example. The reading of history which dictates that the aristocracy was frequently dissolute, citing examples of individuals such as Byron or the later Bloomsbury Group who were able to engage in immoral acts, is misleading. Yes, these individuals had the money to afford to be radical and immoral, but the truth is that many aristocrats of the last three centuries dedicated themselves to fundamentally moral pursuits. Many treated their position in society with reverence and produced such great political stock as the Duke of Wellington, the 2nd Earl Grey, who did much to advance the representative powers of the Commons, and of course men like Shaftesbury. There was then a better appreciation of community and the responsibility members of both the elite and the non-elite had to their society rather than to interested parties. Of course, today interested parties are quite literally the groups which permeate our political system, and that previous time was marked with much less political partisanship, and whilst loose political coalitions of men existed, organised parties with whips enforcing certain moral and political worldviews on their members did not.
Like any group of society, the elites are open to corruption if they lose sight of their moral responsibility. In recent years, with the aristocracy destroyed, and a political elite frequently refer
red to as ‘the establishment’ taking up its place, which is influenced by wealthy business and banking corporations, religion and morality has been replaced by wealth and selfish individualism. This sort of corruption has gradually eroded the ability of those in government to exercise moral justice in the exercise of legislative and executive power. The elite are frequently caught up in their own interests when they live lives completely removed from those of the ordinary citizens of society. In order to improve the moral quality and understanding of the elites for the plight of those who do not have the same privileges as them, be they monetary or purely titular, it is most beneficial for the elites not merely to be educated in virtue but also to spend time working with and listen to those who are not like them. The best education, after all, is often learnt ‘in the field’ rather than in the schoolroom. Virtue is an estimable concept, but it is much more than a concept — it can readily translate into action. If the examples of the past are anything to go by, modern conceptions about virtuous actions are almost non-existent, and if a functioning community with a hierarchy which benefits mankind rather than hinders it is to be brought about, the social bubbles in which those inclined to be in government often move within must be popped, or at the very least opened up with a vision to what lies beyond.
Chapter IV
Benevolent Dictatorships
We have already concluded that dictatorships are naturally oppressive, and even if dictators are by nature benevolent, they must still act in secrecy and maintain their absolute power by surreptitious means. We dismissed the concept of dictatorship in our discussion of government, but now in the context of legislative and executive power, we return to the topic, especially in the context of the elites we have just discussed.
The absolute rule of one man is oppressive, perhaps, but if, as we have discovered in the chapters above, that elected Presidency, such as the model used in the United States, is merely a renamed and constitutionally varied form of monarchy, then it is perfectly possible for a form of absolutism to be elected to power. Godwin dismisses elective monarchy in his discussion of these ideas on the grounds that, the deceptive function of absolute rule aside, it often reaches a stage where a single family is favoured for election over others, such as in the Holy Roman Empire, which was nominally elective, but in practice consistently elected the Habsburg family to the throne so often that it became de facto hereditary. In the United States, George Washington was elected to the office of President twice but refused to take up the office again out of his disapproval of monarchy — the same tendency here is shown. Society craves a single ruler upon whom it can place value to act as its head of state. However, whilst the American President’s powers are balanced out by the powers of the Congress and the Judiciary, they have endowed the President, unlike the monarchs of England, with the power to control the military, make warlike acts — all the prerogatives of a tyrant. Did Caesar not have a Senate, a body which could not touch him because he wielded the power of the military? The American Presidency is a form of benevolent dictatorship, for it allows one man, with the nod of goodwill from his people by means of election, great power over them all. It is in effect an elected monarchy, merely with a limit on its terms. Is it acceptable for the people to elect a monarch, however, no matter how well constituted the agreement between people and government, no matter how benevolent the individual elected?
Of course, election is a lottery. Electioneers can make false promises, they can be influenced by those in government when elected and they lack the inherited virtue which ensures that the duties of state which the head of state is obliged to conduct are undertaken in good faith. Recent political climates have shown that Presidency has produced no more transparency than tyranny — meetings concerning the safety of the nation, meetings of ministers and the private opinions of the President are kept as closely guarded secrets, and only released as highly classified documents to certain individuals or released to the public heavily censored. The idea that a democratically elected President, whom we may as well call a ‘monarch’, has any more legitimacy than a hereditary one is farcical. Neither acts in any particularly better way. There is an objection often raised, that the checks and balances in place in Presidential constitutions make it difficult for Presidents to abuse their power, but indeed, in mixed governmental systems, such as that in the United Kingdom, there are just as many checks and balances. The Queen of Britain has the right to dissolve Parliament, to declare war at will if she wished to, but she will not, for she knows that such action would lead to her swift demise. The British Parliament commands all military action; the recent decisions of Mr Trump in America have proved that Presidents have much more power than a consolidated hereditary monarch in a traditional mixed system.
When republican governments lack virtue, they also begin to tend towards the same hereditary tendencies as the elective monarchies described by Godwin. When the established order of a republic becomes corrupt, and loses sight of virtue and its obligations towards society, there is always chosen a named candidate who is considered the obvious successor to the previous ‘monarch’. In the United States, the election of Trump was a great shock, since it was widely assumed that Hillary Clinton would be the successor to Mr Obama’s Presidency — for she was the named successor by the media, by the establishment, by those who wanted to keep the natural order of the new agenda moving.
It is perfectly possible for a virtuous man to be elected to executive power and be served by virtueless ministers. The agendas of individuals, no matter whether appointed by a previous or incumbent administration, still have the potential to be corrupt. The objection to this is that it could be true for any government, but in fact this is not the case. A mixed government, where the executive power of the monarch is limited to certain duties, and the power of ministers is to serve the will of a Parliament which represents both the commons and the nobility, ensures that ministers can be more easily checked for failing to implement the will of the whole, rather than influencing a monarch who dictates the orders to the ministers, who in turn would find it easier to put pressure on one man or woman holding a great deal of executive power. For instance, if a minister wishes to go to war on behalf of a particular nation, he would rather attempt to bring a monarch with the power to bring about that war at the drop of a hat to his point of view, so that he could set about the administration of the war, than convince an entire Parliament of varied men with varied opinions, or try to manipulate that war himself and be forced to answer to an assembly of angry representatives.
It is also natural for a man with a great deal of personal power to take his own personal concerns to heart, and perhaps even to consider them virtuous, or for the benefit of greater society, even when they are not. When so much power is conferred upon one, it appears to the holder like a shame not to use it, and he begins to create reasons in his own mind why he should use aspects of his power which might be harmful to society for his own ends. To convey power upon one man, whether benevolent or not, produces, as we can therefore see, a selfish form of government, and since all virtue is derived from a form of selflessness, a powerful dictatorship of any sort over the major parts of a society is fundamentally an evil. There will be those who, when they learn about the sort of society we propose in its place, will say that our disdain for dictatorship is at odds with a hierarchical society with a monarch at its head. This could not be further from the truth, since it is perfectly possible to have a sharing of powers whilst recognising the natural order of things which is best to sustain the concept of virtue in society. Mixed government where a noble elite which has proved its virtue is represented separately to the common people in a legislature sustained by a dutiful monarch, governed by a virtuous executive with a vision of a communitarian society is in fact designed precisely to prevent the dictatorship of one man in any part of society.
The truth is that benevolent dictatorships are all around us today, and whilst the nuances of each individual constitut
ion may differ, it makes the end result no different. The mere fact that we say that our monarch is ‘democratically elected’ does not make him any more legitimate than a man with the same powers who received his position by virtue of inheritance. If government is not properly balanced, individuals not made accountable and the interests of all layers of society not represented, a President may still be a King, a wise man may still be a fool and society may still be deceived.
Political Justice Page 13