Though I wish that I could write, “We are all elitists now,” the string of letters and columns which reacted negatively to Anish Mitra ’10’s recent column (The Brown Daily Herald, “A little elitism goes a long way,” Feb. 27) confirms that populism is still in vogue.
It seems, in fact, that the Sirens of democracy, leveling culture and disrespect for the rightful leadership of the aristoi have intoxicated the public – even Brown men (and women) – to no end.
I hope therefore to make a strong case both for the fact of a natural aristocracy among the citizenry and for the liberal notion that such an aristocracy can (and should) incorporate all persons worthy of existing among that elite. The vulgar crowd is unfit to groom the members of the governing classes, and Brown undergraduates especially must internalize this truth in order to fulfill their noble duties.
This concept of the natural aristocracy has for quite some time been overlooked in the American body politic. Though one inevitably exists, demagogical politicians claim simply to be agents of the people – thus giving them a license to pursue tyrannical ends that a self-identifying, moderation-prone aristocrat would never even contemplate. For while the demagogue acts by ‘representation,’ the aristocrat acts by duty.
Innumerable federal agencies (for instance, the Departments of Education, Health and Human Services and even Defense) also claim such mandates, and have consistently offered radical departures from traditional Anglo-American liberty in order to pursue the alleged will of the people. That will of the people, of course, is almost invariably either the rigid ideology or personal interest of any given politician or bureaucrat.
Moderation is never a virtue of the populist. Rather, radical change from the trajectory of history is his virtue; he was neither schooled in the wisdom of our forebears nor properly humbled by the sheer incapacity of the human mind to accomplish much of anything. So he levels away, all the while crying democracy and demanding an end to the power of traditional elites. (Think of the maniacal FDR attacking “economic royalists.”)
Notwithstanding the claims of the power-hungry, a natural aristocracy does exist. That is simply one of the consistent facts of life, which figures as diverse as Thomas Jefferson, Friedrich Nietzsche and H.L. Mencken have repeatedly noticed. Some are more intelligent, more talented or more gregarious than others, and only the envious or the excessively haughty would deny it.
In a letter to fellow natural aristocrat, John Adams, Jefferson remarked, “The natural aristocracy I consider as the most precious gift of nature for the instruction, the trusts, and government of 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?” (Somehow, the crowd-obsessed Democratic Party claims Jefferson as one of its founders.)
This natural aristocracy is, unlike a bureaucratic or purely hereditary aristocracy, heavily meritocratic in nature. Institutions such as the colleges of the upper-crust Ivy League, then, serve as a chief means by which the members of that natural aristocracy can interact and exchange the stuff of mind and manners in a dignified environment.
Brown, to remain true to its historical identity and to maintain an influential base of alumni, must continue to be an institution of the aristocrats, for the aristocrats, and by the aristocrats. The natural aristocrats, to be sure.
Brown must continue to harness the most creative, most intelligent, most cultured and most promising minds in America and abroad. And although I would want my alma mater to retain the spirit of New-England, nonconformist Protestantism, I would likewise want Brown to search for all natural aristocrats, wherever they may be.
I wager, too, that Mitra desires not to limit Brown’s undergraduate seats to “elite white Protestant males,” which Alyssa Rutledge ’11’s bland satire (The Brown Daily Herald, “A modest proposal,” March 6) claimed – particularly because he is neither white nor elite nor Protestant. After going to Brown, however, he may one day become part of the elite, just as I (and others) hope to become.
Honestly, what is wrong with wanting to better oneself and to inject educated class into one’s life? Why do so many people bristle at the idea of becoming part of an elite that entails grave duties and refined behavior? Is it a matter of feeling ashamed for natural talent?
An admirer of Alexander Hamilton, a natural aristocrat if ever there were one (and a man born into terrible material circumstances), I detest that worldview which places the uncouth above the urbane and the coarse above the sophisticated.
Exclusion is not my hope, and reaction not my politics. Indeed, I would like Brown to search far and wide for the most naturally aristocratic students. For some reason, I think that Brown already does that. Once we get them, however, perhaps we should do a better job of civilizing them and allowing them to network properly.
I fail to see why that is so offensive.
Sources
http://www.bigeye.com/aristocracy.htm
