It is common in some circles, mostly liberal, to talk of celebrities or athletes as "America's royalty", and some on the left also like to speak of an "elite" of top businessmen, but those characterizations are far from the mark. Yes, all of these people enjoy fabulous wealth, and some enjoy a popular following and adoring fans, but they are unlike nobility in one very important way, they are still subject to the same laws as the rest of us. Oh, some may get a pass (eg. OJ Simpson) due to their fame, or they may be able to hire incredible lawyers who can get them off, and sometimes fawning fans may go out of their way to keep them out of trouble, but int he end, they are still citizens, subject to the same laws. Remove their money, remove their fame, and they end up the same as everyone else (eg. Dana Plato).

No, if there is a new aristocracy that has arisen in America, it is the political class.

Some may question this assertion, not on the grounds that politicians do not enjoy special rights, but that there is a special political class. However, I think recent events show that there clearly is a special group who pass political office back and forth between them. It is not entire closed, just as "novi homines" could break into the ranks of the patricians in the Roman Republic, or wealthy merchants could buy their way into the Venetian oligarchy, our political aristocracy is not completely closed, but it is still a separate class¹.

But, though it is open to newcomers, usually those who apprentice themselves to established political figures for a time, the political aristocracy is also, like most aristocracies, an inherited status. How else to explain the plethora of descendants of Joseph Kennedy filling various offices? The many Chicago politicians named Daley? Jesse Jackson Jr? Governor Patterson (son of Basil Paterson, NY state senator)? Hillary Clinton? George W. Bush? John Sarbanes (son of Senator Paul Sarbanes)? And the list goes on and on².

No, we definitely have an exclusive class of people, the political class. Often they start out in private life, working as lawyers, though more often in pseudo-political roles such as staffers, "community organizers" or in administrative positions at think tanks, charities, activist groups, or other semi-political organizations. However, once they embark on their political life with their first elected office, they then enter the political life cycle. Politicians, when not holding office, tend to fall into two other categories, either appointed or staff positions for other politicians (eg. Daschel and Clinton in this administration), or else being paid exorbitant sum as lobbyists (official or unofficial) to use their political connections for various clients. Which means that, either in or out of office, the same small group of people are behind all of the decisions being made in Washington, either as explicit law makers, or behind the scenes as appointees or lobbyists.

While they are bouncing back and forth between "private life" and elected office, politicians are as far removed form normal life as any aristocracy. Senators, for example, are explicitly prohibited form holding a paying job while in office. (So much for the Founders' idea of "citizen lawmakers". Hard to do when you can't work.) The press laughed when the senior Bush was surprised by supermarket scanners, but I have to ask, when was the last time any Senator or Congressman dropped into a supermarket to pick up some food? The entire elected elite is treated as pampered, insulated royalty, in or out of office. Whether as high paid lobbyists, running foundations, or holding office, they have the entourage of your average rock star or movie idol. There is no longer anything connecting elected officials to the common man.

And that, the existence of this out of touch, rigidly circumscribed political class, is the single greatest reason politics is so resistant to change. Whether we have Republicans or Democrats, term limits or not, we still have this established political class which is making all of the decisions, and making them first and foremost with an eye to maintaining their privileged status. While they may have differing agendas, the fact remains that politicians, above all else, will never enact a law which might drive them from office. Which is why we will never hear a politician say "the government should not be doing that". To do so would mean a quick loss of his status and a return to life among the plebians.

Not that I have any remedies for this. Thanks to the massive cost of running, the entrenched two party system³, and media attention given to family members of elected officials, it is almost inevitable incumbents, former office holders and relatives will have an advantage. Of course that advantage is magnified by our hideous campaign finance laws, which prevent many "insurgent" candidate, or interest groups who support outsiders, from using their resources effectively, and so repealing them may be of some benefit, but the problem would still remain. Lessened perhaps, but not removed.

The only solution I can see would be to reduce the government to the minimal version I have often promoted, along with handing power back to the states. Without the ability to grant economic favors, or inflict economic harm, there will be little incentive for maintaining an army of lobbyists. That would mean, when out of office, law makers would not be able to remaining in waiting, drawing huge salaries, and might cause a bit more turn over. In addition, stripped of their power, it is unlikely the prospect of holding political office will be as attractive to many, and so we may see more law makers running for office driven by a dedication to public service, rather than thoughts of massive wealth from lobbying, or the joy of wielding unlimited power.

But that is unlikely to happen soon. So until then, we may be able to help curb this problem somewhat. First, we could insist that law makers abide by the same laws as citizens. No more exemptions from OSHA, harassment laws, no more retirement plans separate from social security. If enough voters insist, they will have no choice but to subject themselves tot he same laws, which may be something of an eye opening experience. Second, we, as voters, can choose to not vote for "legacy" candidates. We can simply say as a blanket statement "no more family members", be they Bush, Clinton or Kennedy. It may mean we miss one or two good candidates, but it will probably more than make up for that harm by destroying the idea of inherited political office. Finally, through our votes we can strike a realistic blow against lobbying. As I wrote before, Obama's prohibition on his staff becoming lobbyists is absurd, as Daschel's non-lobbying lobbyist position shows. What we can do it ask anyone running for office what jobs they held before now. If they worked as a "consultant" or "compliance specialist" or any other subterfuge to hide lobbying, we can refuse to vote for them. It may take some time, but eventually politicians will get the message and will realize they cannot bounce between lobbying and elected office.

Then again, all of those are simply stop gap measures, intended to allow some new blood into the ranks of elected officials. It does not guarantee any improvement. As the 1994 elections showed, even the most ardent reformers can be corrupted by the unlimited power and massive wealth available to officials in our omnipotent government. Until we rein in the state, deprive it of its limitless power, elected office will be filled by those who love power, and we will suffer for it.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. If anything, our political aristocracy resembles nothing so much as the Spartan aristocracy, with youngsters attaching themselves as apprentices to established politicians as their means of entry. As Obama did his time as a "community organizer" in order to be handed his first sinecure state seat, young candidates need to serve under as established member in order to break into the ranks of the political class.

2. What is interesting is how new this phenomenon is. While we did have three presidential families holding more than one presidency in the past (Roosevelt, Adams, and my ancestors the Harrisons), it was, overall, a relatively unusual phenomenon. Only in the past three or four decades has nepotism become a route to political office. At least outside of a few machine-dominated cities.

3. Not that I have an objection to the two party system. I have not given it that much thought, but the two party system does seem to have some advantages over multiparty or "non-partisan" systems. However, whatever the benefits, it to does tend to limit the number of choices we have for any office, and pretty much demands anyone seeking office work their way up through one party or the other.