Display:
The theory was this: the less the demotic presence, the more likely that the populace would defer to men of talent, judgment, and political experience--a governing class composed largely of lawyers, financiers, and plantation owners who would serve the common good although not necessarily all classes to the same extent. Thus was reborn the idea of a republican elite. The aim, which Madison, Hamilton, Adams and several other members of the emerging political class bluntly stated, was to ensure that the new regime, while abstractly based upon "the people," would be directed by the representatives of wealth, status (slave-owners), and achievement rather than of democratic majorities.
At the end of the 18th Century in Europe there were a number of Enlightened Despots, progress-minded absolute monarchs who surrounded themselves with some of the leading intellectuals of their country as ministers. The textbook description of this system summarised it with the phrase all for the people, but without the people. The US Founding Father just instituted their own version of this. Hamilton even advocated that the President should be elected for life, like the old Germanic kings. Washington thought otherwise.

En un viejo país ineficiente, algo así como España entre dos guerras civiles, poseer una casa y poca hacienda y memoria ninguna. -- Gil de Biedma
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Jan 31st, 2010 at 05:14:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Wikipedia:
Emperor Joseph II said, "Everything for the people, nothing by the people."


En un viejo país ineficiente, algo así como España entre dos guerras civiles, poseer una casa y poca hacienda y memoria ninguna. -- Gil de Biedma
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Jan 31st, 2010 at 05:15:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Hm. I would think this is apocryphal at least. Indeed a 1857 German lexicon ascribed it to [Honoré Gabriel Riqueti, Comte de?] Mirabeau.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Sun Jan 31st, 2010 at 05:24:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Yes, but the Age of Absolutism predated the rise of capitalism. It is hard for despots to be enlightened and progress-minded if they have to deal with powerful monied interests.

It was inevitable that, given how the constitution was designed to prevent a majority from emerging, the US would end up where it is today, a plutocracy. The only remedy against the political power that comes from great wealth is a vigorous democracy.

Of course, democracy is in a weakened state in Europe as well:

Ruling the Void? The Hollowing of Western Democracy

But at least European countries are not subject to the corrupting effects of running an empire.

A bomb, H bomb, Minuteman / The names get more attractive / The decisions are made by NATO / The press call it British opinion -- The Three Johns

by Alexander on Sun Jan 31st, 2010 at 05:54:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Yes, but the Age of Absolutism predated the rise of capitalism.

The start of capitalism depends on the definition, with some definitions it well predates Absolutism.

It is hard for despots to be enlightened and progress-minded if they have to deal with powerful monied interests.

Absolutism was a restoration of royal power against both powerful feudal and monied interests. Earlier kings were already dependent on bankiers to fight their wars.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Sun Jan 31st, 2010 at 06:03:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The absolutist rulers didn't have to contend with the plutocracy, because they were the plutocracy.

Democracy, by and large, was a convenient ideology to foment a revolution when the plutocrats and the nobility ceased to be coterminous.

Liberty and freedom and individual inalienable rights and all that jazz just piggybacked on that trend.

- Jake

If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sun Jan 31st, 2010 at 06:39:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Occasional Series