I am reading The Ruling Class by Gaetano Mosca in a desperate attempt to understand the present post-election chaos. For Mosca deals, as does Joseph Schumpeter in Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy, with the fact that the majority, or The People, do not rule. They cannot rule. Instead we are ruled by a ruling class, and the ruling class is necessarily a minority.
So how does the ruling class do it? And, more important, when "the natives are restless," what does the ruling class do to stay in power and/or accommodate the restlessness of the natives?
That, it seems to be, is the current political situation in the United States in the Trump era.
Obviously, the ruling class does what is best for the ruling class. But how much should it accommodate the feelings and tendencies of the lower orders? Should it just tell the rubes to shut up? Or should it accommodate the lower orders, catering to their agenda even if the rulers think the lower orders are deplorable bitter clingers?
The Z-man reckons that the whole show is a sham.
All human societies have elites and those elites control the institutions of the society. In theory, popular forms of government either check the power of the elites or place real power into the hands of the people...
In reality, voting is entirely meaningless in a liberal democracy, as the elites control public policy exclusively.
Is voting "entirely meaningless" or would a wise elite take the results of elections into account when making its ruling-class decisions?
Victor Davis Hanson categorizes the various flavors of NeverTrump, the GOPers that didn't like Trump back in 2016, that
First, were a small cadre of self-described conservatives and doctrinaire Republicans, who under no circumstances would have ever voted for Trump or embraced his agenda, or in some extreme cases, ever voted for any who would vote Trump.
So there are gradations of NeverTrumpers. But mostly the general pique comes down to cultural, comportment, class—and often careerist—concerns, rather than policies per se.
It is hard to avoid the notion that the NeverTrumpers are not that smart. Does not the smart political operator put himself at the head of the parade rather than grumbling in a café on the sidelines?
Mark Bauerlin looks at the establishment Republicans in DC, and how the likely 2020 outcome,
To hold the Senate, close the gap in the House, and get rid of Donald Trump—that’s a big, big win for establishment Republicans in and out of office.
They’ve lived in Washington, D.C., for a long time. Life’s been very good to them, and so has the swamp. If you don’t live here, if you’ve never worked in an agency or met with congressional staffers or been to the dinners, it’s hard to imagine the sublime air in which these people circulate. It’s like Versailles under Le Roi Soleil, an American version of courtiers and entourages, rivalries and intrigues, who’s up and who’s down and who’s next, what is the king’s and the duke’s and the general’s pleasure. Most importantly, the whole scene is limited to insiders.
So on this view DC is just like the Capitol in The Hunger Games. They are all courtiers, and the Trump people are all poor schmucks living from hand to mouth out in the Districts.
The big question, between the three takes above, is how much the ruling class is a ruthless criminal gang, cunningly manipulating the plebs for power and profit, and how much of it is clueless courtiers that really don't look much beyond the ins and outs of court life in the Capitol, cluelessly assuming that they will rule over the Districts forever.
Honestly, I don't know. But I do know this: ruling classes don't rule forever. They get slack and corrupt. They are like family business empires, started by a cunning and lucky upstart, kept going by the son and heir, and eventually bankrupted by the clueless grandson.
But read what Mosca writes on France and England, from The Ruling Class at the end of Chapter IV: "Ruling Class and Social Type."
One should note... that in the course of the nineteenth century England adopted peacefully and without violent shocks almost all the basic civil and political reforms that France paid so heavily to achieve through the great Revolution. Undeniably, the great advantage of England lay in the greater energy, the greater practical wisdom, the better political training, that her ruling class possessed down to the very end of the past century.
Really, how did they do it? It wasn't from reading Anthony Trollope's The Pallisers. For Trollope was merely anticipating Mosca, that, in the crunch, the Brit ruling class still had its wits about it.
For Mosca politics is not just a dumb show, a Hunger Games at the Capitol to amuse the courtiers. It is real power politics, and the wise ruling class sees which way the wind is blowing and prunes the trees so that they do not get blown down in the storm. And if it transpires that the old ruling class must give way to new men, well, there is a graceful way of doing that, that preserves the honor of the old regime as it exits the stage, and that avoids a butcher's bill.
The fact is that Donald Trump took the Capitol by surprise. They had no idea that a guy like him appealing to ordinary Commoners had a chance of winning a presidential election. Their response ever since has been to get rid of him, by shenanigans.
So the question is whether we have an English-type ruling class with its "practical wisdom" or do we have a court of the Sun King, the roi soleil, that does not have a clue and that abandoned France to a century of revolution and turmoil.
If you ask me, today, it looks like we have a Frenchie ruling class rather than the Wellingtons, Disraelis and Salisburys of the 19th century Brit ruling class.