Success, Elite, Leadership and Arrogance - and The People
Success, Elite, Leadership and Arrogance – and The People
In an article in The American magazine Arthur C. Brooks suggests that money doesn’t buy happiness but
success does. He also cites studies in which college students opted for jobs that promised more money
than contemporaries, than just more money: they chose jobs that paid more than others in the company, than
companies that paid more money. Since I have been thinking about the concept of elite and what it entails,
this caught my attention. It is not so much money, Brooks wrote, as success that drives people. Of course
money is the outward sign of success, but perhaps those who want more and more money are likely to want
more than they can possibly spend as a sign of greater and greater success, rather than which the money
might be able to provide them.
The interesting thing to me, however, is how this plays out on the grand scale, particularly as it relates to
elite and power – and egalitarianism – and the challenge of fashioning a form of government that works; well,
works as well as can be expected in any human environment. I shall try to sort that out so that it makes some
sense.
The core of it for me is recognition of the differences among people and how this affects almost
everything they – we – touch, and I think success is the key. People who are successful are so for a reason;
talent, intelligence, connections, ability, personality, forcefulness, ruthlessness – yes, and luck for starters.
There are many ways they can get there, but when it arrives it is always with a certain level of power. That
success and the power that accompanies it changes people and I believe is the first step of understanding
elite, for the feeling grows on them that they are better than other people; and sometimes, perhaps often, they
are. I think that’s something that needs to be accepted, but is resisted by many, particularly those that
believe, or argue for, egalitarianism. We are not equal. The Constitution establishes equality before the law,
and that is a wonderful and important principle that we should honor and attempt to achieve. But it is a goal
and not a reality because power – and money – provide resources that will always make the game unequal,
even though it should not. That, after all, is life, like it or not.
As a result, differences among people lead – always – to a division among us that must be recognized
and with which we must deal, individually and collectively. It has always been so throughout history, and it
has always been exploited. Our experimental form of government (and it is still experimental) attempts to
deal with it as fairly as is possible, and it does so better than most, but not perfectly. An important part of our
success in doing so derives from the fact that we have created a strong middle class. That is, instead of
haves and have-nots, we have an almost seamless gradation in between, characterized by an inability to
define the boundaries among us. What is rich? What is poor? We argue incessantly and the boundaries
change continually in line with how people attempt to benefit from defining them. That, also, is life, like it or
not, because we are all in constant competition for all that goes to make up what we call life.
The successful, also (depending on definitions) considered as the elite, tend to assume certain
characteristics. They have achieved their station through what we mentioned above, and established, at least
in their minds, their superiority. They have proven that they have a superior ability to achieve – to get things
done, because they have done it, and are proud of it – perhaps more so than they should be, but they point to
their success to prove it. The unsuccessful tend to resent both the success and the attitude of superiority due
to a great extent to the growing and strongly enforced concept of egalitarianism that has been preached
powerfully and incessantly. It has not always been so; in times of the distant past the difference was
accepted and the peasant, if you will, deferred to the wealthy land owners and their peers, for that’s all there
were. The differences were clear and obvious, and not questioned, and that only began to change with the
growth of a merchant class that ultimately morphed into the strong middle class with which we are blessed
today. But the strong feeling of egalitarianism felt by those less successful often and often forcefully rejects
the airs of superiority expressed by the successful, feeling they are just as good as anyone, success or no.
As incentive this is a good thing, since in a mobile culture those who can prove they are as good as anyone
can go out and prove it, and many do, some becoming in their turn, the new successful elite.
All that is for the good, but it doesn’t change the fact that at any time there will be a successful elite that
exudes superiority (that might be real) and the less successful who harbors an envious resentment, albeit on
a poorly defined and sliding boundary scale. Allow me a few examples taken during the period after the War
of Revolution from a book entitled, For the People: American Populist Movements from the Revolution to the
1850s, by Ronald P. Formissano, the William T. Bryan Chair of American History at the University of
Kentucky. These for the purpose of putting in perspective the changes in thinking that came with the
American people.
“The political culture of the early republic was undergoing transition from eighteenth century deferential
politics to a deferential-participant and more egalitarian politics. It was a mixed period, deferential and
democratic, elitist and participatory at the same time.”
“The Regulators (the people) accepted that gentlemen would rule, but they insisted on their right to intervene
when convinced that the rule of law was out of balance.”
“Popular sovereignty is a fiction because while the people may be the source of legitimacy, they themselves
cannot rule; through the mechanism of representative government elites rule in the name of the people.”
(quoting Edmund Morgan, Inventing the People: the Rise of Popular Sovereignty in England and America,
1988)
“We (the people) are not fighting for this or that form of government, but to be free from arbitrary power and the
Iron Rod of Oppression on one hand, and from Popular Licentiousness and anarchy and confusion on the
other.” (quoting from The People the Best Gove[r]nors, anonymous,
1776)
The wisdom of the people, or the superior knowledge and experience of the successful elite? It is surely not
an exact science, nor will it ever be, but the third quotation from a pre-revolution pamphlet puts the limits on it:
arbitrary power versus anarchy, a difficult balance.
I believe that success does tend to breed arrogance. I also believe that the people, those who have not
experienced the challenge of actually accomplishing the tasks of leading and governing, have a great deal of
ignorance as to what it takes to get the job done. And both have too little understanding of or concern for the
law of unintended circumstances. But more importantly each is highly susceptible to self interest. This was
essentially the struggle between the Federalists and anti-Federalists that ended with the Constitution. The
result was, of course, a compromise, that really satisfied no one, and the struggle between the extremes
continues to this day: elite versus “the people.” Arrogance versus ignorance? Self interest versus self
interest. But elite is a much more shifting amorphous mass today than it was at the time of the Revolutionary
War, and the resulting government is quite different from that envisioned for that reason. Who are the
people? Who are the elite? Once the leaders in government were the elite; are they still? It is questionable –
powerful middle class; business, academic, government, media have both diluted and consolidated,
stretched and confused, obfuscated and dominated the powers of the chosen to sit in the halls of leadership,
who now lead with heavy outside influences and towering pressures from the dominant elites, and the fickle
and illusive elective powers of the people.
The extremes are not so much different: the rights of the successful and the liberties of those less
successful, but balanced by the shifting weight of the mass of middle class humanity in between. May the
pendulum continue to swing with periods small enough to ensure continual restoration of balance.
In an article in The American magazine Arthur C. Brooks suggests that money doesn’t buy happiness but
success does. He also cites studies in which college students opted for jobs that promised more money
than contemporaries, than just more money: they chose jobs that paid more than others in the company, than
companies that paid more money. Since I have been thinking about the concept of elite and what it entails,
this caught my attention. It is not so much money, Brooks wrote, as success that drives people. Of course
money is the outward sign of success, but perhaps those who want more and more money are likely to want
more than they can possibly spend as a sign of greater and greater success, rather than which the money
might be able to provide them.
The interesting thing to me, however, is how this plays out on the grand scale, particularly as it relates to
elite and power – and egalitarianism – and the challenge of fashioning a form of government that works; well,
works as well as can be expected in any human environment. I shall try to sort that out so that it makes some
sense.
The core of it for me is recognition of the differences among people and how this affects almost
everything they – we – touch, and I think success is the key. People who are successful are so for a reason;
talent, intelligence, connections, ability, personality, forcefulness, ruthlessness – yes, and luck for starters.
There are many ways they can get there, but when it arrives it is always with a certain level of power. That
success and the power that accompanies it changes people and I believe is the first step of understanding
elite, for the feeling grows on them that they are better than other people; and sometimes, perhaps often, they
are. I think that’s something that needs to be accepted, but is resisted by many, particularly those that
believe, or argue for, egalitarianism. We are not equal. The Constitution establishes equality before the law,
and that is a wonderful and important principle that we should honor and attempt to achieve. But it is a goal
and not a reality because power – and money – provide resources that will always make the game unequal,
even though it should not. That, after all, is life, like it or not.
As a result, differences among people lead – always – to a division among us that must be recognized
and with which we must deal, individually and collectively. It has always been so throughout history, and it
has always been exploited. Our experimental form of government (and it is still experimental) attempts to
deal with it as fairly as is possible, and it does so better than most, but not perfectly. An important part of our
success in doing so derives from the fact that we have created a strong middle class. That is, instead of
haves and have-nots, we have an almost seamless gradation in between, characterized by an inability to
define the boundaries among us. What is rich? What is poor? We argue incessantly and the boundaries
change continually in line with how people attempt to benefit from defining them. That, also, is life, like it or
not, because we are all in constant competition for all that goes to make up what we call life.
The successful, also (depending on definitions) considered as the elite, tend to assume certain
characteristics. They have achieved their station through what we mentioned above, and established, at least
in their minds, their superiority. They have proven that they have a superior ability to achieve – to get things
done, because they have done it, and are proud of it – perhaps more so than they should be, but they point to
their success to prove it. The unsuccessful tend to resent both the success and the attitude of superiority due
to a great extent to the growing and strongly enforced concept of egalitarianism that has been preached
powerfully and incessantly. It has not always been so; in times of the distant past the difference was
accepted and the peasant, if you will, deferred to the wealthy land owners and their peers, for that’s all there
were. The differences were clear and obvious, and not questioned, and that only began to change with the
growth of a merchant class that ultimately morphed into the strong middle class with which we are blessed
today. But the strong feeling of egalitarianism felt by those less successful often and often forcefully rejects
the airs of superiority expressed by the successful, feeling they are just as good as anyone, success or no.
As incentive this is a good thing, since in a mobile culture those who can prove they are as good as anyone
can go out and prove it, and many do, some becoming in their turn, the new successful elite.
All that is for the good, but it doesn’t change the fact that at any time there will be a successful elite that
exudes superiority (that might be real) and the less successful who harbors an envious resentment, albeit on
a poorly defined and sliding boundary scale. Allow me a few examples taken during the period after the War
of Revolution from a book entitled, For the People: American Populist Movements from the Revolution to the
1850s, by Ronald P. Formissano, the William T. Bryan Chair of American History at the University of
Kentucky. These for the purpose of putting in perspective the changes in thinking that came with the
American people.
“The political culture of the early republic was undergoing transition from eighteenth century deferential
politics to a deferential-participant and more egalitarian politics. It was a mixed period, deferential and
democratic, elitist and participatory at the same time.”
“The Regulators (the people) accepted that gentlemen would rule, but they insisted on their right to intervene
when convinced that the rule of law was out of balance.”
“Popular sovereignty is a fiction because while the people may be the source of legitimacy, they themselves
cannot rule; through the mechanism of representative government elites rule in the name of the people.”
(quoting Edmund Morgan, Inventing the People: the Rise of Popular Sovereignty in England and America,
1988)
“We (the people) are not fighting for this or that form of government, but to be free from arbitrary power and the
Iron Rod of Oppression on one hand, and from Popular Licentiousness and anarchy and confusion on the
other.” (quoting from The People the Best Gove[r]nors, anonymous,
1776)
The wisdom of the people, or the superior knowledge and experience of the successful elite? It is surely not
an exact science, nor will it ever be, but the third quotation from a pre-revolution pamphlet puts the limits on it:
arbitrary power versus anarchy, a difficult balance.
I believe that success does tend to breed arrogance. I also believe that the people, those who have not
experienced the challenge of actually accomplishing the tasks of leading and governing, have a great deal of
ignorance as to what it takes to get the job done. And both have too little understanding of or concern for the
law of unintended circumstances. But more importantly each is highly susceptible to self interest. This was
essentially the struggle between the Federalists and anti-Federalists that ended with the Constitution. The
result was, of course, a compromise, that really satisfied no one, and the struggle between the extremes
continues to this day: elite versus “the people.” Arrogance versus ignorance? Self interest versus self
interest. But elite is a much more shifting amorphous mass today than it was at the time of the Revolutionary
War, and the resulting government is quite different from that envisioned for that reason. Who are the
people? Who are the elite? Once the leaders in government were the elite; are they still? It is questionable –
powerful middle class; business, academic, government, media have both diluted and consolidated,
stretched and confused, obfuscated and dominated the powers of the chosen to sit in the halls of leadership,
who now lead with heavy outside influences and towering pressures from the dominant elites, and the fickle
and illusive elective powers of the people.
The extremes are not so much different: the rights of the successful and the liberties of those less
successful, but balanced by the shifting weight of the mass of middle class humanity in between. May the
pendulum continue to swing with periods small enough to ensure continual restoration of balance.