The United States is not supposed to have an official ruling class, but don't we really have one anyway?
- Click here for the article.
Politico Magazine recently published a guide to etiquette for life in the District of Columbia. One of the rules went well beyond simple etiquette, highlighting a provision of America’s unwritten Constitution: “If someone has ever been elected or appointed to anything, ever, they are to be addressed by that title going forward—a requirement that does not expire at death.”
Highlighting what now? Does the United States not have a written Constitution, unlike the United Kingdom? Do Cato Institute interns not walk around with physical copies, while even insurrectionists claim to adhere strictly to its text? Sure, the United States has a written Constitution as well. But it is difficult if not impossible to understand without a thorough knowledge of its unwritten counterpart—one that perhaps outsiders such as myself are better placed to grasp than Americans raised with a sweetly innocent civics-class understanding of how the system works.
Take the rule at hand. The title of nobility clause in Article 1, Section 9 of the written text states: “No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States.” But what are titles like ambassador, general, president, and senator—used for life and not just to indicate a temporary appointment—if not titles of nobility? It is not just Politico readers who use them: The federal government does, too. It is the U.S. equivalent of a life peerage, a British noble rank that is not hereditary.
And it does not stop there. Former presidents are entitled to a retinue, foot guards, and various other benefits. Former members of Congress enjoy access to the floor of the chamber in which they served as well as access to congressional facilities. The Army has its own Institute of Heraldry. The explicit constitutional ban has been supplanted, through long-standing practice, by an unwritten mandate.
This should not be that surprising. The United States’ constitutional order is old by Western standards and, while revolutionary for its time, underpins a political culture that is more hierarchical than that of the constitutional monarchies of Western Europe. This reflects both the enduring strengths and successes of the U.S. constitutional design and the dramatic changes wrought by war, genocide, and other forms of political upheaval on the other side of the Atlantic. It would be strange for a political culture so directly connected to 18th-century thinking not to adopt the kind of titles that are so characteristic of the ancient regime.
This formalization of aristocratic cultural traits matters, of course. The creation of a permanent ruling class runs directly counter to the spirit of the example famously set by George Washington. It perpetuates hierarchy without accountability or responsibility. And, one may argue, it creates additional barriers for outsiders in a system that already limits political representation through its adherence to first-past-the-post elections, restrictive ballot access for new parties and candidates, and high costs associated with election campaigns.
