Men like their gods to be above them, but not too far above them. When we create our gods we create them after our own image, just slightly better. We prefer our gods to be outside our world, yet in a world that matches the parameters of our own. Perhaps we can more easily fathom these lesser gods without the concept of infinite perfection, perhaps they are our fantasy of what we would like to be, perhaps we are less fearful of gods who are more like us, more human.
Given the human attributes of the pagan gods, as with the gods of Greek and Roman mythology, it is not a giant step in our age of enlightenment to redirect our worship to actual human beings, to accept as our new age lords the elite that walk among us, the favored ones, the aristocracy. They look like us; two eyes, two ears; they are seldom significantly more intelligent; they have no super powers. Still, there is always something that elevates them to this position above the rest of us. In the case of royalty, hindu castes, or even high society, it is the happenstance of birth. There was a time when certain bloodlines were thought to be imbued with greater nobility, and so fealty was given to these as superiors. That notion rarely exists in today’s world, and yet we still worship at the altar of family ties. Celebrity, athletic ability, and of course money, are all pathways to the new aristocracy. We seem to have a hard time appreciating ability in an individual without generalizing to the belief that somehow that person is superior to others in all ways. Why do we care what movie stars think about politics? Why does an athlete’s name make a shoe worth fighting for? What makes aging rock stars sexy? Why does having the last name of Kennedy, Bush or Clinton mean someone is more likely to be qualified to lead us?
“Aristocracy”, comes from the Greek “aristokratia” meaning “best power”, or government by the best people. On it’s face that seems a reasonable way to choose our leaders. Why would you not want our best and brightest to be our leaders? The rub comes in how you determine this elite group. Royal succession has been tried, and that gave us Henry XIII, Louis XVI, and King George III. There’s always military might, which brings to mind Hitler, Stalin, and Mao Tse Tung. If you see democracy as the people choosing from their brethren the best and brightest, then at first blush this would seem a more fruitful field from which to harvest our aristocracy. Of course our “more fruitful field” has yielded us such wonderful leaders as Rod Blagojevich, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Eliot Spitzer, Richard Nixon, and Barack Obama. Plato envisioned a society where leaders were formed from earliest childhood and trained apart from their families. He can perhaps be excused for his vision of “philosopher kings” as ultimately the best form of government. He postulated in a world of ideals rather than practical application; we now have thousands of years of history to show us that this can never be. Aristocracy is a myth. There are no gods among men.
It may be that as a vestige of our baser animal nature we always seek to find our place in the pecking order. That may also explain the constant drive for men to dominate others, or to attach themselves to those who dominate. Why else the mindless devotion you see to such tyrants as Saddam Hussein, or Kim Jong Un, which often goes beyond fear to a macro example of Stockholm syndrome. Even we enlightened Americans seem to prefer power and celebrity to goodness and humility. Mark Twain pointed out, “An American girl would rather marry a title than an angel.” And the devotion to position and status is one common to both sexes.
Central planning progressives are seldom students of history. They continue to believe in this elusive elite, this modern aristocracy, that if given the chance could rule the earth with benevolence, and transform it into something nearer to the heart’s desire. They see themselves as saviors, and the masses as something less… sheep in need of shepherds. History shows though that the shepherds more often turn out to be wolves; these are the Fabians, the eugenecists, the fascists… bogus aristocrats who overestimate their own genius, and underestimate the potential of their peers, who in the eyes of God are very much their equals.
IMHO: The American experiment began with a supposition, that there were no saviors among men, no class of men more suited to control the lives of others, no super race of geniuses, no aristocracy. The framers believed that despite the need for government, it needed to be constantly checked to avoid the menace it can easily become. Rather than imagine the evolution of an elite aristocracy that could lead us into paradise, they understood the frailty of all men, and devised a system of government that could exist with men as they are, not as we wish they could be. A government not subject to the whims of men as rulers, but leaders subject to the rule of law, based on the truth that all men are created equal. We all forget that sometimes. We suppose that if only we could rule the world, then all would be well. If our guy could be in charge, then he could lead with an iron fist and fix this mess. If there were such men, and there aren’t, and if their rule could order the earth aright, would the resulting tranquility be worth the price of freedom? With all the chaos, disharmony, and evil that exists in the Universe, God himself has not banished our free will to order things as they should be. Possibly domination and divinity cannot exist together as they did in the mythical gods of Rome, or in some imaginary aristocracy that could plan our society for good. As with Tolkien’s ring of power, leadership is not a mantle to be worn or a weapon to be used. It is a burden to born, and in the end, before the temptation takes hold of your human frailty, you throw it in the fire and go home.
