90 years after Harvard adopted the SAT, it has become test-optional in the name of DIE. FIRE also ranked it as the worst university for free speech. Ken Griffin's recent $300 million donation to Harvard is a case study in conventional philanthropy - he could have practiced courageous dissident philanthropy by supporting UATX instead ;)
Aristoi is a great word. It's time to bring back noblesse oblige as well. Ameritocracy?
A useful call to action. If we have statesmen like Jefferson and Adams at present, it is not obvious. I think we should institute term limits to eliminate "career" legislators. This could bring many benefits, not least being making the elderly politicos go back home after, say, 12 years in DC. (Two senate terms, six house terms.) Fresh ideas, new energy.
Great article but like your friend Peter Thiel said “what’s good for General Motors is good for America” sarcasm expressing that Technology companies like Facebook and Instagram have not provided all that much for society. Both aren’t big employers for Americans or produce great products. It’d be a net positive if Facebook got shut down today. Where as a productive vehicle company shutting down would be a bad thing
This article misses one of our the largest problems in government: the 17th amendment. Our Senators were supposed to embody this natural aristocracy, and at the same time represent their state. Repeal of the 17th amendment would partially restore the SPQR balance originally in our Republic and in our constitution.
Aristotle explicitly identified three ruling classes: rule by one, by many, and by all. The Romans provided a good mix of the three, and the British government improved on it slightly. Our former system of senators, elected in smoke-filled rooms of state legislators, was far better than our popular election of the most partisan primary candidates.
"But what did the richest men of the age do in America — become dictators? No, far from it. They spent their talents and wealth building for the next generation: venerating the system, endowing new institutions, and passing on the promise of social dynamism."
The slight issue here is that elite they educated almost immediately went on to overthrow the American Republic, in favor of a managerial state in which they and their friends could forcefully tinker with every aspect of American life. Meanwhile the foundations they created quickly became vehicles for ideas that would have profoundly disgusted them. It doesn't seem like the natural elite are particularly good at delegating outside of their immediate skill-sets and so their resources quickly go towards creating and feeding the parasites that make their intervention so desirable.
Perhaps we'd be better off if we could find a way to draft the wealthy into government decision-making.
Joe- really enjoyed the piece – thought-provoking and inspiring as always. We're very aligned with your call for virtuous and talented leaders to engage more deeply in fixing our institutions. But we do think the piece may gloss over some of the realities of the Gilded Age. It's not a period of time that we want to replicate today.
While the likes of Rockefeller and Carnegie were great philanthropists, they also operated in ways that concentrated power and wealth, often bending the rules until anti-trust efforts reined them in. Without Roosevelt's interventions, that trend might have continued unchecked. The portrayal of that era misses the extreme wealth inequality and corruption that plagued it – from Credit Mobilier to Tammany Hall. Many of today's wealthiest families trace their roots to that age, which suggests the plutocratic tendencies were not entirely self-correcting.
America's post-WWII economy (with up to 90% income tax on top brackets) outperformed the economy of the Gilded Age while also seeing the least wealth inequality since before the Gilded Age. The trickle-down economics of the 80s (whether we're talking 1880s or 1980s) may provide limited, short-term boosts in overall productivity and economic well-being, but cannot be held as necessarily better for the country and its citizens, a priori, without deeper study and analysis. And the ability to generate wealth does not equate to a natural aristocrat.
That said, we share your optimism that today’s entrepreneurs can shape the future positively, and agree that more need to step up. But we need to acknowledge the full picture – the good and the bad – to ensure we’re learning the right lessons.
Appreciate your leadership on these issues and looking forward to more of your work!
Yes!!! I am a student of Don Lutz, and the concept of natural aristocracy and republican virtue were the foundations stones of our Constitution and Declaration.
90 years after Harvard adopted the SAT, it has become test-optional in the name of DIE. FIRE also ranked it as the worst university for free speech. Ken Griffin's recent $300 million donation to Harvard is a case study in conventional philanthropy - he could have practiced courageous dissident philanthropy by supporting UATX instead ;)
Aristoi is a great word. It's time to bring back noblesse oblige as well. Ameritocracy?
A useful call to action. If we have statesmen like Jefferson and Adams at present, it is not obvious. I think we should institute term limits to eliminate "career" legislators. This could bring many benefits, not least being making the elderly politicos go back home after, say, 12 years in DC. (Two senate terms, six house terms.) Fresh ideas, new energy.
Great article but like your friend Peter Thiel said “what’s good for General Motors is good for America” sarcasm expressing that Technology companies like Facebook and Instagram have not provided all that much for society. Both aren’t big employers for Americans or produce great products. It’d be a net positive if Facebook got shut down today. Where as a productive vehicle company shutting down would be a bad thing
If you want a good idea, read an old book.
This article misses one of our the largest problems in government: the 17th amendment. Our Senators were supposed to embody this natural aristocracy, and at the same time represent their state. Repeal of the 17th amendment would partially restore the SPQR balance originally in our Republic and in our constitution.
Aristotle explicitly identified three ruling classes: rule by one, by many, and by all. The Romans provided a good mix of the three, and the British government improved on it slightly. Our former system of senators, elected in smoke-filled rooms of state legislators, was far better than our popular election of the most partisan primary candidates.
"But what did the richest men of the age do in America — become dictators? No, far from it. They spent their talents and wealth building for the next generation: venerating the system, endowing new institutions, and passing on the promise of social dynamism."
The slight issue here is that elite they educated almost immediately went on to overthrow the American Republic, in favor of a managerial state in which they and their friends could forcefully tinker with every aspect of American life. Meanwhile the foundations they created quickly became vehicles for ideas that would have profoundly disgusted them. It doesn't seem like the natural elite are particularly good at delegating outside of their immediate skill-sets and so their resources quickly go towards creating and feeding the parasites that make their intervention so desirable.
Perhaps we'd be better off if we could find a way to draft the wealthy into government decision-making.
You mean, our state legislatures could draft them into the Senate? What a great 230-year old idea.
Joe- really enjoyed the piece – thought-provoking and inspiring as always. We're very aligned with your call for virtuous and talented leaders to engage more deeply in fixing our institutions. But we do think the piece may gloss over some of the realities of the Gilded Age. It's not a period of time that we want to replicate today.
While the likes of Rockefeller and Carnegie were great philanthropists, they also operated in ways that concentrated power and wealth, often bending the rules until anti-trust efforts reined them in. Without Roosevelt's interventions, that trend might have continued unchecked. The portrayal of that era misses the extreme wealth inequality and corruption that plagued it – from Credit Mobilier to Tammany Hall. Many of today's wealthiest families trace their roots to that age, which suggests the plutocratic tendencies were not entirely self-correcting.
America's post-WWII economy (with up to 90% income tax on top brackets) outperformed the economy of the Gilded Age while also seeing the least wealth inequality since before the Gilded Age. The trickle-down economics of the 80s (whether we're talking 1880s or 1980s) may provide limited, short-term boosts in overall productivity and economic well-being, but cannot be held as necessarily better for the country and its citizens, a priori, without deeper study and analysis. And the ability to generate wealth does not equate to a natural aristocrat.
That said, we share your optimism that today’s entrepreneurs can shape the future positively, and agree that more need to step up. But we need to acknowledge the full picture – the good and the bad – to ensure we’re learning the right lessons.
Appreciate your leadership on these issues and looking forward to more of your work!
Yes!!! I am a student of Don Lutz, and the concept of natural aristocracy and republican virtue were the foundations stones of our Constitution and Declaration.
Well said.