A Handful of Tyrannical Nobles
A few days ago, DRJ posted an article by Angelo Codevilla which argued – I can’t resist – that there were two Americas: one which perceived itself a “ruling class”, wed to and empowered by an ever-expanding federal government, and hell-bent on dictating to average Joes everywhere what they can or cannot do; and a “Country Class”, who was sick of the ruling class and its superiority complex and just wanted to be left to live their lives free of unnecessary government intervention.
Over the past few days, I’ve been arguing – in much the same spirit as Codevilla, I believe – that obscenely wealthy individuals don’t necessarily (and perhaps necessarily don’t) make good Congressional representatives, on the grounds that they usually can’t “think, feel, reason, and act” as their constituents do – which is their job, if you buy the logic of John Adams, who argued as much in his “Letter to John Penn”.
Such arguments – that the wealthy should not be representatives for the not-wealthy – are usually dismissed as “class warfare”. But the notion is not unprecedented – indeed, we find it in the pages of one of our nation’s most important collections of documents, The Federalist.
Federalist 39: “It is essential to [a republic] that it derived from the great body of society, not from an inconsiderable proportion or favored class of it; otherwise a handful of tyrannical nobles, exercising their oppressions by a delegation of their powers, might aspire to the rank of republicans, and claim for their government the honorable title of republic.”
It’s a prescient warning, I think – the whole “aspire to the rank of republicans” bit is interesting, in light of how many captains of industry manage to worm their way into the Capitol.
This is my point: while there obviously cannot (and should not) be any sort of exclusionary cap on personal wealth for aspiring members of Congress, we would do well to remember 1) that we have elected a Congress much wealthier than their constituents, 2) that we have allowed those wealthy individuals to preside over matters which affect their own wealth in a serious way, and 3) that “no man is allowed to be a judge in his own case, because his interest would certainly bias his judgment, and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity.” (Federalist 10)
In the interest of staving off the predictable, eight (8) of the ten wealthiest members of Congress are Democrats - so this has nothing to do with party. It’s about resisting a ruling class, which dances across party lines with a whimsical step. Simply put: we need to stop electing people to deal with our issues who don’t understand our issues in the first place.
One of my favorite reform ideas has for many years been to dramatically increase the number of representatives, perhaps in line with the amendment originally proposed to do so.
Yes, it might result in an unworkably large legislature which required partisan whips to function.
But: the original design of the republic had representatives representing thirty-thousand people; today’s republic has representatives representing more than six hundred and fifty thousand people.
Is it any great surprise that those representatives are completely out of touch with their constituents, or that elections are by and large determined by expensive advertising campaigns?
Comment by aphrael — 7/21/2010 @ 4:22 pm
I think we need a proportional representation system which does away with geographic constituencies. Geographic districts make a single person responsible for advocating the preferences of diametrically opposed groups – we’re too heterogeneous for districts. Let people form ideological constituencies, then give them a share of seats in the House equal to their share of the popular vote. That way, the people they choose to speak for them can do so without leaving anyone disenfranchised. (Plus, it would significantly increase the number of parties in the House, which would lead to increased competition and more accountability).
Comment by Leviticus — 7/21/2010 @ 6:02 pm
Yes, it is class warfare. And all forms of class warfare are wrong because they all require class envy, which is a sin.
And doing away with geographic constituencies runs counter to a decentralized government position.
Comment by John Hitchcock — 7/23/2010 @ 12:08 am
I don’t have to envy someone to tell them they have no right to rule me, and to fight against them if they try to rule me anyway. I don’t begrudge them their wealth, and I wish them a life full of blessings.
Comment by Leviticus — 7/23/2010 @ 4:25 pm
Leviticus, your #4 is a worthwhile statement and I agree with it. But to claim someone is unworthy of being my representative in government because that somebody owns a fleet of Maseratis (which you did in not so many words in your article) is indeed class envy. I don’t care how much money someone has or doesn’t have; I care about their positions and their life-long evidence surrounding those positions. Their money or lack thereof is wholly irrelevant.
I don’t need some 50-year-old who spent his entire life making less than 40k a year representing me. I highly doubt such a man could even come close to representing me. (I’ve never earned 40k in a single year.)
Comment by John Hitchcock — 7/23/2010 @ 8:29 pm
It all comes down to what we think representation ought to be. I think true representation is descriptive: a “representative” is someone who thinks, feels, reasons, and acts as I do, someone who shares my policy concerns and is willing to be my ideological advocate in the Legislature (which is supposed to be “an exact portait, in miniature, of the people at large” – Adams again).
Others believe that representation is substantive – that a representative’s task is getting things for their constituents, or winning legislative battles for their constituents, rather than giving their constituents a true and honest voice. From this perspective, I can see the logic behind the election of rich businesspeople to office: they’ve demonstrated an aptitude at getting things done, and for navigating bureaucracy and the like.
But again: I don’t think representation is about representatives getting things for their constituents; I think it’s about representatives thinking, feeling, reasoning, and acting like their constituents. And I don’t know what thought process leads someone to think they need a fleet of Maseratis – no thought process of mine, that’s for sure.
It isn’t a straight-up indictment of all expensive lifestyles – Solomon was one of the wisest men of all time, and he lived in extravagance. But at the same time, Solomon recognized that such extravagance was “vanity, a chasing after the wind”, and he rejected it as any sign of merit.
Comment by Leviticus — 7/24/2010 @ 8:03 am
Nowhere did I suggest a “need” for the fleet of luxury cars. Your logic failed you on that point. Have you ever owned two watches at the same time? Did you actually need a second watch? Or was it more of an extra to have for a different situation?
I can’t remember whether it was Carnegie or Rockefeller who set a personal goal to give away half a billion dollars in his lifetime. He set the goal well before he ever came close to amassing that kind of wealth, and he more than surpassed that goal, all the while living in luxury. If you have great wealth and you give great wealth away, what is wrong with using some of your great wealth on yourself, filling other aspects of your life beyond “need”?
Beyond that point, I agree with your most recent comment. But your comment is at odds with part of your article.
Comment by John Hitchcock — 7/24/2010 @ 7:26 pm
Leviticus, sorry to be late to this discussion and I understand if you have already moved on, but I am curious to know if you make a distinction between the wealthy who are self-made versus the wealthy whose lifestyle comes through inheritance. Would you feel more of a kinship to someone who grew up middle-class (or even poor) and became an Internet millionaire? Would you content that the sheer process of moving into a gated neighborhood or running with the jet set starts to irrevocably spoil someone who otherwise might hold on to their working-class roots?
Comment by JVW — 7/27/2010 @ 7:56 am
Statement above should be “Would you contend. . . .”
Comment by JVW — 7/27/2010 @ 7:57 am
“I am curious to know if you make a distinction between the wealthy who are self-made versus the wealthy whose lifestyle comes through inheritance… would you feel more of a kinship to someone who grew up middle-class (or even poor) and became an Internet millionaire?”
- JVW
Perhaps, but only a little. The key point is this: I think there’s a certain quality of character evidenced in a modest lifestyle, regardless of personal wealth. Obviously, it’s a relative point, so it’s not the kind of thing I would want to see enforced by anyone, but I think it’s still valid.
Comment by Leviticus — 7/27/2010 @ 10:54 am
I tend to agree with John Hitchcock. When I give a $1.00 (or $5.00 or $20.00) to some homeless person, at the Jewel parking lot, it’s because of my personal whimsy at the moment. I don’t consider it a point of honor or obligation, and I know that I cannot bribe God.
Comment by nk — 7/28/2010 @ 9:59 am
Yet, despite the statement by James Madison that the Third Book of Moses quoted from Federalist #39, it has to be noted that the Framers themselves were wealthier men in eighteenth century America, and that many of the states initially limited the franchise to white male property owners. To say, as Mr Madison did, that it is essential that the government not be constituted from a “favored class” of the people was actually hypocritical.
Comment by The historian Dana — 8/15/2010 @ 2:11 pm