I suspect that among the increasingly small American leisured class, being from a family “with background” still matters; the nouveau riche are still marked out by their lack manners and personal history. The concern with “background” used to be more widespread than it is today because Americans used to exercise more political power, i.e., they used have greater control over the states and towns. Since states and towns are increasingly “administrative units,” the locals do not “run” their own towns; party apparatchiks are now more likely to be put into DA roles, Sheriff roles, Town Council roles and so on than ever before. When men are considered for “management” roles in administrative units, being from a town is not as good as being a member of the Democratic party or bearing a fancy credential that could only be had by leaving the town and entering into the regime’s university system. A man who spends his life in a town will find himself being ruled by a Sheriff from the state capitol (or another state entirely), a District Attorney piped into power with foreign money, and a local Council made up of men and women whose primary activity is finding new ways to enforce federal laws and receive the Federal grants. I will never forget when the Obama administration offered, and my hometown accepted, the “free gift” of money and armored vehicles to the local police department.
– Now, I am not so blind as to realize there aren’t many towns across America that still hold genuine local elections, whose police are all locals. In these places, being “from there,” “having roots there” is still considered an important qualification for engaging in public life. I know such places exist, but it is undeniable they are fewer and less important—essentially every city “lies at the monster’s feet.” Wherever a town or city is under the control of men not living there, not from there, not genuinely concerned with “there,” it is no surprise that “being from there” is not much of a qualification, and the men who are indeed from there are, in a profound sense, ruled by outsiders who view them more as threats than fellows.
So, as I say, there are two groups of men where “being from there” matters: those collected in the Metropolitan and Capital centers, as well those men living in towns under their own control. In other words, men with political power care about with whom they share that power. Some men in America exercise power on a large scale, and others—increasingly few—exercise it locally, and wherever power is exercised having background matters. That, at least, is my initial claim in this essay.
There are authors that denigrate, can’t help but mock, poor Southerners and their tendency—a now romantic or naïve tendency—to think “having come from something” still matters. For example, take Flannery O’Connor; I admit she has grown on me, but her insistence on this point—mocking poor Southerners for remembering their former station in society—led me, for a long time, to dismiss her as unserious, just some Irish Catholic who didn’t fit into Southern life and never got over it. However, it must be admitted, there is a reason behind her decided dislike for “background.” While I dislike this kind of attack, the reason behind it should be frankly admitted. The reason the Southern concern for ‘background” is mocked is because it has become laughable; most people have no power and, having no power—no access to political life—makes speaking of background, caring about background, laughable.
I am not trying to make “having a background” into something it is not, or to deny how silly (and sad) it looks to insist on such things, when there is neither wealth nor political power attached. What I want to show here is that there is no making someone without a background into something they aren’t, namely, a full citizen. That is, while some people do look ridiculous for clinging to their background, the people of no background still cannot be citizens, or equal citizens, or bearers of civil-power.
I do not deny that a group of armed men could take power by force, or that foreign “investors” can buy American politicians and universities. But these have no claims on anyone as “fellow citizens”—no genuinely moral or or even legal claims. They are taking power in such a way that they couldn’t complain if they were equally overcome. Their power is not civil-power vis-à-vis those not in their gang or cabal.
What I deny is that someone without any background can enjoy civil power, which includes civil equality.
Take for instance the situation where people are admitted into citizenship; they are not the equals of those who admit them into citizenship. Those who grant admission are benefactors, and the benefited owe the benefactors gratitude and all that it implies. The admitted may be on their way to background, to being able, one day, to grant or deny admission; but they must get there with time and good deeds.
“What about Ilhan Omar? What about the mass importation of immigrants who quickly acquire all the rights of citizens?”
Things appear differently in America today—politicians speak differently, making equals of freshly transplanted populations to families that have lived and fought for this country for generations—but what is really going on is that the newly minted “citizens” of America are equal to nobodies, to non-citizens. The populations being transplanted into Europe and the USA are being made “equals” to “citizens” by powerful men who are not at all the equals of either the transplants or the average citizen. It’s not for the average citizens to admit or deny new citizens—the “average citizen” isn’t actually a citizen. There is no political power. Those with the power to humiliate the “citizenry of liberal democracy” by bringing in the new populations are not making these new populations their equals; instead they are diminishing the prestige of the “voters” in general.
Consider: a Somali family is brought into the USA. Can they be expected to feel gratitude to the average Minnesotan who does little for them willingly, and who often doesn’t even like them? No gratitude will be felt; it will not even be encouraged. A power greater than both the Somali transplant and average Minnesotan is humbling the average Minnesotan with Somali “equality.” The claims of “civil society” are weakening as a result: the Somali has little to no idea what civility requires; he does not know to whom he owes gratitude, and the people who control these populations teach them ingratitude as a matter of policy. The last thing wanted is for the newly imported underclass to feel grateful to the average citizen—that would not humble the average citizen.
Having a background means “you weren’t admitted” or, if you were, it was long enough ago to have been paid back and more. It’s only once there isn’t a genuine imbalance of graciousness that there can be civility and equality.
Civility and inequality can be established, but not in our liberal regime where the newest citizen has the legal standing of a Daughter of the Revolution.
Our nation is in for a reckoning because these simple demands of nature are as antithetical to the regime’s rhetoric as sound economic policy. Printing money doesn’t cause inflation. The newest citizen deserves the same legal rights as the most storied families. These are platitudes; they represent oligarchy wearing the faded remnants of republicanism. As the moral force—the civility—of republicanism is spent and lost, the naked reality of oligarchy will become manifest. It will not be a good time.