Wikipedia: Society of the Cincinnati –
“The Society is named after Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus, who left his farm to accept a term as Roman Consul and served as Magister Populi (with temporary powers similar to that of a modern-era dictator). He assumed lawful dictatorial control of Rome to meet a war emergency. When the battle was won, he returned power to the Senate and went back to plowing his fields. The Society's motto reflects that ethic of selfless service: Omnia reliquit servare rempublicam ("He relinquished everything to save the Republic"). The Society has had three goals: "To preserve the rights so dearly won; to promote the continuing union of the states; and to assist members in need, their widows, and their orphans.
“Within 12 months of the founding, a constituent Society had been organized in each of the 13 states and in France. Of about 5,500 men originally eligible for membership, 2,150 had joined within a year. King Louis XVI ordained the French Society of the Cincinnati, which was organized on July 4, 1784 (Independence Day). Up to that time, the King of France had not allowed his officers to wear any foreign decorations, but he made an exception in favor of the badge of the Cincinnati.”
George Washington was, of course, invited to be the first President of the Society.
It would become a major controversy.
***
MR. FRANKLIN DISAPPROVES OF HEREDITARY KNIGHTS
Chernow –
“When Washington consented in 1783 to serve as first president of the Order of the Cincinnati, he imagined himself signing on to a fraternal organization that was charitable in intent and incontrovertibly good. So convinced was he of its virtue that he did not agonize over becoming president the way he mulled over comparable decisions in his life. Though not a founder of the group, he felt a fraternal camaraderie with his fellow officers and cottoned to the idea of perpetuating their comradeship. He even offered a five-hundred-dollar gift to invigorate the Cincinnati. Distracted by other matters, he didn’t heed at first the rancorous debates brewing over the organization’s character.”
The issue that luminous thinkers like Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson would dislike about the Society is that membership could be inherited through primogeniture – every member’s eldest son would subsequently become a member of the Society.
Wikipedia –
“Benjamin Franklin was among the Society's earliest critics. He was concerned about the creation of a quasi-noble order, and of the Society's use of the eagle in its emblem, as evoking the traditions of heraldry and the English aristocracy. In a letter to his daughter Sarah Bache written on January 26, 1784, Franklin commented on the ramifications of the Cincinnati: “I only wonder that, when the united Wisdom of our Nation had, in the Articles of Confederation, manifested their Dislike of establishing Ranks of Nobility, by Authority either of the Congress or of any particular State, a Number of private persons should think proper to distinguish themselves and their Posterity, from their fellow Citizens, and form an Order of hereditary Knights, in direct Opposition to the solemnly declared Sense of their Country.””
Chernow notes that Washington asked Jefferson for his opinion once the controversy started. Jefferson’s reply is unsurprising – he was worried about a group that relied on ““preeminence by birth” and also worried that some future president of the Cincinnati might “adopt a more mistaken road to glory.”
Washington, who had worked so hard to be beyond political squabbles, found himself squarely in the middle of one – and one that divided many of his closest supporters in two different camps they felt extremely strongly about.
***
DUBIOUS BATTLE #5: ARISTOCRACY
Well, I suppose we’re taking a stroll through a minefield with this chapter.
The word “aristocracy” has good enough origins – it’s a Greek word.
“Aristos” was the word for excellence of all sorts – a military commander, a horse, a building, anything could be “excellent” – aristos – in the general sense.
The Greek “-kratos” is the word for “dominion” or “power.”
Democracy – demos kratos – is thus demos (people) kratos (dominion of)… or something like “the people in power.”
Monarchy – monos kratos – monos means “one.” One in power, or solely one with dominion.
Once you paying attention to some of the common Greek and Latin root words, you start seeing thing everywhere. “Hierarchy,” “bureaucracy,” and so on.
Aristocracy thus could, perhaps should, be a nice word – “excellence in power.”
In actuality, it’s often used like how Wikipedia describes it –
“Aristocracy (Greek aristos "excellent," and kratos "power") is a form of government that places power in the hands of a small, privileged ruling class. The term derives from the Greek aristokratia, meaning "rule of the best".”
Isn’t that an almost laughably hilarious mashup of two sentences?
The Greek meaning second, “rule of the best,” the modern usage before it – “power in the hands of a small, privileged ruling class.” Robespierre would undoubtedly nod in agreement – as well as likely have some morbid suggestions as to what to do with that “small, privileged ruling class.”
We are in the midst of our Dubious Battle series, analyzing the conflicts that run through all of history never-endingly.
Aristocracy is particularly challenging, because there are at least three ways the word can be used that are all radically different meanings:
1. A general assessment of what is superior and what is not,
2. As a form of government, typically in its most recent (last 500 years or so) forms,
3. As an informal designation of a class or group of people.
This chapter, let’s try to untangle some of this mess – and see if we can learn anything thereby. Watch where you step!
***
ARISTOTLE’S GOVERNMENT THING
We’re less concerned in Machina and at The Strategic Review with stuff you could just look up in the encyclopedia, but we should touch briefly on what Aristotle thought about government.
In his Politics, he made two very simple observations –
First, a government could be ruled by one person, a few people, or many people.
Second, a government could work for the general good of the people, or could result in the rulers using the power of the government for their own selfish ends.
He then made a simple classification:
One Ruler, Good = Monarchy
One Ruler, Bad = Tyranny
A Few Rulers, Good = Aristocracy
A Few Rulers, Bad = Oligarchy
Many Rulers, Good = Polity
Many Rulers, Bad = Democracy
Of course, by "democracy" he meant direct democracy which tended to devolve into mob rule. Modern-style republican democracy with checks-and-balances and certain elevated offices is more like what he talks about he says polity.
Aristotle also noted that across governments there sometimes virtuous sole rulers who work for the good of all in the state, and he calls that monarchy. A sole ruler who brutalized and oppressed the state for their own gain would be classified as a tyrant.
Which brings us to the most interesting classification – aristocracy and oligarchy. In modern English in 2016, both of these are seen as bad things.
An oligarchy might be worse, but the modern usage of “aristocracy” doesn’t mean “rule by the best” so much as, well, that editor at Wikipedia summed it up as “the hands of a small, privileged ruling class.” I mean, doesn’t that just sound like the aristocracy is going to oppress and brutalize you for their own gain?
Under Aristotle’s definition, a “brutal aristocracy” is a contradiction. It’s impossible. There’s brutal oligarchies, but any aristocracy that got arbitrarily brutal and oppressive by definition wouldn’t be an aristocracy any more.
So how did we get to a world where “rule of the best in the interests of all” came to be synonymous with de
generacy and brutality? And indeed, we can see “true aristocracies” degenerate into oligarchies at a high enough rate as to consider just throwing both of them off the side of the boat.
But isn’t this… curious, at least? Why does this happen?
***
THE IRON LAW OF OLIGARCHY
The German sociologist Robert Michels was a relative latecomer to political theory, but he made some enormous contributions. The most quotable one was the “iron law of oligarchy.” Wikipedia –
“Michels' theory states that all complex organizations, regardless of how democratic they are when started, eventually develop into oligarchies. Michels observed that since no sufficiently large and complex organization can function purely as a direct democracy, power within an organization will always get delegated to individuals within that group, elected or otherwise.
“Using anecdotes from political parties and trade unions struggling to operate democratically to build his argument in 1911, Michels addressed the application of this law to representative democracy, and stated: "Who says organization, says oligarchy." He went on to state that "Historical evolution mocks all the prophylactic measures that have been adopted for the prevention of oligarchy."
“According to Michels all organizations eventually come to be run by a "leadership class", who often function as paid administrators, executives, spokespersons, political strategists, organizers, etc. for the organization. Far from being "servants of the masses", Michels argues this "leadership class," rather than the organization's membership, will inevitably grow to dominate the organization's power structures. By controlling who has access to information, those in power can centralize their power successfully, often with little accountability, due to the apathy, indifference and non-participation most rank-and-file members have in relation to their organization's decision-making processes. Michels argues that democratic attempts to hold leadership positions accountable are prone to fail, since with power comes the ability to reward loyalty, the ability to control information about the organization, and the ability to control what procedures the organization follows when making decisions. All of these mechanisms can be used to strongly influence the outcome of any decisions made 'democratically' by members.”
The most important line in there – “democratic attempts to hold leadership positions accountable are prone to fail, since with power comes the ability to reward loyalty…”
Note well, Michels was saying that all organizations become oligarchic – he’s not focused on aristocracies per se; he’s focused on democracies and trade unions.
But the general principle holds, and is very important. Note it down mentally; we’ll come back to it shortly.
***
NATURAL AND ARTIFICIAL ARISTOCRACY
Perhaps surprisingly – or perhaps not – Thomas Jefferson believed in a “natural aristocracy” and thought it a good thing, but considered “artificial aristocracy” to be a very bad thing.
From an 1813 Letter from Jefferson to John Adams –
“For I agree with you that there is a natural aristocracy among men. The grounds of this are virtue and talents. Formerly bodily powers gave place among the aristoi [Greek military commanders]. But since the invention of gunpowder has armed the weak as well as the strong with missile death, bodily strength, like beauty, good humor, politeness and other accomplishments, has become but an auxiliary ground of distinction. There is also an artificial aristocracy founded on wealth and birth, without either virtue or talents; for with these it would belong to the first class. The natural aristocracy I consider as the most precious gift of nature for the instruction, the trusts, and government of society. And indeed it would have been inconsistent in creation to have formed man for the social state, and not to have provided virtue and wisdom enough to manage the concerns of the society. May we not even say that that form of government is the best which provides the most effectually for a pure selection of these natural aristoi into the offices of government? The artificial aristocracy is a mischievous ingredient in government, and provision should be made to prevent it's ascendancy.”
It’s an interesting position – one you don’t hear so much any more.
Jefferson was of course one of the most committed of the Founding Fathers to liberalism. He was the author of, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal…”
And yet, Jefferson did believe in better and worse – he believed there was a “natural aristocracy among men” – “The grounds of this are virtue and talents.”
This line too is staggering –
“May we not even say that that form of government is the best which provides the most effectually for a pure selection of these natural aristoi [those with virtue and talents] into the offices of government?”
But he also believes in that “artificial aristocracy” exists – “founded on wealth and birth.” Unsurprisingly, he thinks it’s a problem to be warded against – a mischievous ingredient in government, and they should work to prevent its ascendancy.
Jefferson lays out some practical guidelines for achieving the ascent of the natural aristocracy – free and universal primary education, scholarships to higher education for the most talented students, religious liberty, land available for anyone who wants to own land and farm, and the American Constitution.
He notes that many of these characteristics are uniquely American, and then sighs a little bit at the direction the French Revolution went in before proclaiming nevertheless his optimism for the rest of the world –
“But even in Europe a change has sensibly taken place in the mind of Man. Science had liberated the ideas of those who read and reflect, and the American example had kindled feelings of right in the people. An insurrection has consequently begun, of science, talents and courage against rank and birth, which have fallen into contempt. It has failed in it's first effort, because the mobs of the cities, the instrument used for it's accomplishment, debased by ignorance, poverty and vice, could not be restrained to rational action. But the world will recover from the panic of this first catastrophe.”
***
ARTIFICIAL ARISTOCRACY, LOVE, AND FOSSILIZED RANK
Last chapter, we discussed how natural rank emerges from commissioned duties, and that it can be formal or informal. Rank that gets formalized into an office then goes through an inevitable cycle – the more excellent each early officeholder does, the more prestige and power becomes attached to the office, until finally, people become attracted to holding that office for the prestige, power, and resources instead of to discharge duties effectively.
We see this cycle often take hold with formal aristocracies.
It doesn’t always work badly – John Churchill became the 1st Duke of Marlborough for leading Queen Anne’s armies so effectively; the 7th Duke of Marlborough was the grandfather to an even-more-famous Churchill – Winston.
Janet Daniels of the International Churchill Society put it like this before going into Winston's genealogy –
"... no matter who you are, there are bound to be skeletons in the cupboard because our predecessors were not always honourable. Personally I find it adds spice to a family history, but I know there are some who resist digging up the past if they get so much as a whiff of anything unsavoury in their antecedents. […] I make this preamble because Sir Winston Churchill was no exception. Obviously there were rogues and blackguards in his ancestral past and it is as well to study all aspects of his background to be able to truly assess him for what he was: a great man, yes; perfect, no. It is the complexity of our genes inherited from the beginning of mankind that makes us what we are today, and accounts for the very nature of our being. Thus all Sir Winston’s ancestors played a part in fashioning his looks, character, thoughts, etc: each and every one contributed in some way to the make-up of this remarkable man.”
This quote by Daniels sums it up well enough – but beyond that, why do we so often get bad aristocrats eventually, over time?
I believe the answer is straightforward – love.
People naturally love their children, and attempt to set them up with formalized offices to better their chances in the world. Whereas informal rank is difficult to pass from generation to generation, formal rank in the form of hereditary titles and offices is much easier.
And certainly, the direct child or grandchild of someone particularly wise and sound-minded will likely be educated well, receive excellent tutors, be trained in excellent habits and patterns of action, and socialize with generally virtuous people.
Three or four generations hence, though, there is no guarantee that the original penchant for virtue and wisdom is there any more. At that point, you have fossilized rank – people lacking virtue, who do not care for discharging duties, who are not effective, inheriting offices and ranks where they are incapable of doing a good job.
MACHINA Page 49