Greg, I'm indebted to you for the idea that culture (and therefore politics) is downstream from psychology. And recent research identifying openness, conscientiousness, etc. as key dimensions points the way toward reality-based political analysis. I see this idea bearing much fruit in your columns.
I believe that a Jeffersonian aristocracy of virtue (having at least the four cardinal ones) and talent (honed to mastery) is most at home in a free republic that recognizes inalienable rights and has safeguards against tyranny of the few or of the many. But that's a bit like saying our traffic laws are crafted to give you the best chance of making it from Point A to point B safely--if they're followed.
A natural aristocracy may well attract the most bitter envy because they really are the best, and it's therefore harder to deceive oneself that the natural aristocrats came by their position dishonestly. Enter the dark aristocracy--unfortunately as natural as the Jeffersonian one--an aristocracy of cunning psycopathy and talent. One of their tricks is to redefine virtue in a way that makes virtues useless for a healthy society, but useful for making the envious feel superior.
Looking forward to a future column (or referring me to a past one) concerning whether a natural aristocracy tends to have a short shelf life. (E.g., envy aside, the "regression toward the mean" makes it likely that the children aren't as talented as their aristoi parents (although likely above average); thus, natural aristocrats must be prepared to see most of their sons and daughters in a lower-status position than they themselves occupy. That's asking a lot of a parent.)
Greg, I'm indebted to you for the idea that culture (and therefore politics) is downstream from psychology. And recent research identifying openness, conscientiousness, etc. as key dimensions points the way toward reality-based political analysis. I see this idea bearing much fruit in your columns.
I believe that a Jeffersonian aristocracy of virtue (having at least the four cardinal ones) and talent (honed to mastery) is most at home in a free republic that recognizes inalienable rights and has safeguards against tyranny of the few or of the many. But that's a bit like saying our traffic laws are crafted to give you the best chance of making it from Point A to point B safely--if they're followed.
A natural aristocracy may well attract the most bitter envy because they really are the best, and it's therefore harder to deceive oneself that the natural aristocrats came by their position dishonestly. Enter the dark aristocracy--unfortunately as natural as the Jeffersonian one--an aristocracy of cunning psycopathy and talent. One of their tricks is to redefine virtue in a way that makes virtues useless for a healthy society, but useful for making the envious feel superior.
Looking forward to a future column (or referring me to a past one) concerning whether a natural aristocracy tends to have a short shelf life. (E.g., envy aside, the "regression toward the mean" makes it likely that the children aren't as talented as their aristoi parents (although likely above average); thus, natural aristocrats must be prepared to see most of their sons and daughters in a lower-status position than they themselves occupy. That's asking a lot of a parent.)
Thank you. Followed the link from JRN's blog.