In Favor of Nobility

It is with great caution that one may attempt to criticize any part of the Constitution, for it is the political document that has sustained the most powerful and prosperous nation in history, by men who were endowed with more wisdom and prudence than any other nation founders, it is only in recognition of their own foresight and current circumstances that any critique may be offered, and thus, it is not from one’s own intellect or virtue that one does write a criticism, but from the necessity of circumstances that one may try. It's within the republican theory, that James Madison believed that when it’s necessary power is granted to enlarge, diminish, or new-model the powers of government and it’s to be taken into account the regime has already been changed in ways founders would’ve never intended it to. It also now has been clear that the aristocratic element of the republic has been deeply diminished, and so, with these acknowledgments, I write this piece.

It is my opinion, as highlighted in my last piece, that the rapid change that infected the Republic was the result of the decline of the regime’s aristocracy, but this raises an important question, for how could the WASP aristocrats—whose history reads as they were God’s chosen people, and who achieved heights no one could have imagined in their way of life, which it could be said that they were the superior of any other people, that they were the first who pursued the actualization of the gospel of the kingdom not through law but through pure love—disappear so quickly. It’s I believe is the result of both the expansion of democracy to the Senate, immigration, rise of equality, but also and mainly a fault in the regime's constitution that it didn’t allow for the maintenance of a stable aristocracy and this was due to the ban of Titles of Nobility and not having a more aristocratic Senate similar to the House of Lords that of England.

The ban on legal protections and inherited privileges for a noble class has resulted that they could be destroyed over a short span within bad circumstances. There was no legal framework for them to stand against the tyranny of the majority and none for them to maintain their earned privileges and status in the institutions that they’ve built. Although I've said that the American regime maintained an Aristotelian sense of aristocracy because of its emphasis on the equality of men, it’s also that the country was very selectively chosen that such a statement could be made. The Aristotelian sense was operating under the assumption that the country will be inhabited by the same quality of men who were at the time of the founding with the same cultural and religious conditions at the time. It is also that the absence of a stable aristocracy has resulted in the many innovations and changes in the regime over the decades.

There was no purely aristocratic body or legally protected aristocracy that America needed in the time of the rise of the Progressive regime and the tyranny of equality—to look from above, to look at the past with a sense of duty to maintain the founding order, independent and protected from the masses and weakness of representation. It’s my strong conviction now that such a body or a protected noble class could have maintained the Republic. There were no Archbishops similar to the ones in the House of Lords to foresee that the culture and religion of the people was declining to be able to intervene through political means. There was no means in the government of people who could look to the past through historical family duties and ties, to look through the ancient thinkers to stop the secularization and the decline of religiosity from inflicting the Republic. It was all left to the lowest of the low to fall and what did the low do when they were handed the keys of the Republic, they with their demonic envy went about to destroy the high and the nobles of society. They created a tyrannical constitution to take every privilege that the WASPs have earned.

It seems that the reasons for the Ban of Titles of Nobility or the un-establishment of a stronger aristocratic body, although some of the Founders argued for a more aristocratic Senate. The Senate was also deeply weakened because of the 19th Amendment as it was no longer protected from democratic whims. It’s also the time of the founding had very perfect conditions, that the conditions of decline of both religion and the American way of life were not taken as seriously as it should’ve been. The Founders had a fear of monarchy and distrust in the House of Lords because they were abandoned by it. There was a fear that the United States, as a young Republic, might be open to foreign influence so they decided to ban titles of nobility. One can also see that the House of Lords was struggling at the time so the founders tried to avoid copying its design. Having now the chance to have a longer view of history, it appears there was no greater aristocratic system than that of England. It has been shown now that an aristocracy of the English people, won’t be like the aristocracy of Rome and the other nations of Europe. The English people's habits and customs allow for the establishment of a virtuous nobility. It can now also be seen in more clarity that the idea of not relying on an aristocracy is of Machiavellian and modern origins. The moderns didn't believe that classical virtue in politics was attainable, and regimes could only be maintained through structural and democratic means.

The necessity of establishing noble titles or a purely aristocratic body in the modern mode is of utmost necessity. It’s also worth noting that today’s laws offer the privileges, without the duties, that are accompanied with the titles. Titles of Nobility though unofficial today are granted through the most vulgar and unconservative of the methods. These methods are capitalism, meritocracy which are void of any connection to the past, and fame contestes. Nothing needs to be said about fame contests for nothing could be more obviously degenerate.

The consensus today among conservatives is that the selection of the few should happen through meritocracy but the people who reach political power through meritocracy have no historical and timely experience and it’s also that without an aristocratic upbringing, an aristocrat lacks the necessary conditions to become a noble. My single line argument against meritocratic aristocracy is that it allows for the rise of figures like Barack Obama, the Clintons or Vivek Ramaswamy.

If we look at Burke’s definition of a Natural Aristocracy, or we look at the history of the WASPs, it’s clear that the conditions he sets for an aristocracy need the environment of an inherited aristocracy. A meritocratic aristocracy as Francis Bacon described new aristocracies are an act of power, not an act of time. The aristocracy of merit will have no familial ties or conditions of upbringing that would abide it to maintain the traditional order. On the contrary, their upbringing’s envy and sake of recognition will drive them to innovate in the regime. Their poor upbringing will not equate them with a classical education or understanding from above that an inherited aristocracy has because of their lack of leisure and connections to other nobles and wise men. It’s by definition a meritocratic aristocracy can’t be a conservative aristocracy.

There’s no escape however from the rise of new figures from unnoble families or moments of weakness in the aristocracy. Thus, this leads to the other issue with the absence of an inherited aristocracy and the ban of titles of nobility in the regime. Having no titles, means having no models to imitate and abide by or to return to in times of crisis. It’s thus the Constitution left the models of what to be imitated to chance and not strictly defined. On the other hand, the absence of this fully defined class doesn't give ambitious men, rules and long standing people to abide by their historical wisdom. They don’t have to gain the tradition acceptance, they could just yield power.

An elevated and a protected nobility, being isolated from the concerns or the whims of the many could allow for the maintenance of a sense of idealism in the Republic. For these men will have the time and the leisure to counsel the Bible, the ancients of Athens, history and their ancestors and not share the momentary worries and concerns of the masses, thus they will maintain the tradition and the order of the regime. Aside from the advantages of having a noble class that has already been covered. Titles of Nobility have an importance for the current spirit of the moment. A reaffirmation of the differences between the few and the many and an opposing force against the tyranny of equality. It would give a legal framework for American society to return to its tradition of exclusion. It would give the government a path to build institutions for the few and set an aim for the government to foster and maintain the few.

It’s undesirable to make any changes of this kind today except through the private sphere. For one there are no nobles left who are worthy of such honor and this only could happen after the coming aristocracy revives the religious foundations of the Republic, and resolves the current crisis of the regime. It’s too that titles of nobility or the reformation of the Senate into the model of the classical House of Lords could only happen when the people are very grateful for those men.