Thanks for sharing. Worth reading if only for its prescience but, of course, mostly for its warning.

Unfortunately, Macaulay's remarks are somewhat 'Delphic' in that they can be interpreted as supporting either side -- in select aspects -- of today's American ideological divide. The left will point out that Macaulay favors a "wise elite," while the right will point out the folly of demagoguery, indolence and welfare, and pandering to the mob.

What Macaulay missed in his letter is that America had/has supplanted Britain's upper and propertied classes with an even broader one that, by de Tocqueville's observations, had not yet lost touch with more humble American citizens. Even in Macaulay's Britain, Charles Dicken's was celebrating the emerging middle class there as a bulwark against open rebellion and demagoguery (it's one reason he wrote Tale of Two Cities).

Macaulay was projecting. He equated Europe's "masses" with America's citizenry, something that both European and American elitists do now. But to be fair, Macaulay was also warning us that we were not immune from a European-style future if the mix of our citizenry and populace should change for the worse. We see that happening now.

Tocqueville found Macaulay to be the most brilliant of all political philosophers. There is only one flaw in Macaulay's understanding (to my mind) which is that the disintegration of the aristocratic ruling-class mind was already upon them. Henry Adams, who worked with them all during the War Between the States, was constantly puzzled by their positions, factions, true allegiances, and impenetrable ways. After living there forty more years, he finally concluded that the major players during the war were in fact all mad or senile.

Lord Acton saw it correctly--The danger is not that a particular class is unfit to govern. Every class is unfit to govern.

The American Constitution was designed not to be inclusive of ideas, but to remove a very large number from even being discussed, which made it nearly idiot proof. And idiots we had right along. Tocqueville, 1831--"When I stepped ashore in the United States, I discovered with amazement to what extent merit was common among the government but rare among the rulers. On close scrutiny of the defects and weaknesses of those who govern in America, the growing prosperity of the people is astonishing; but it should not be so. It is not the elected official who produces the prosperity of the American democracy but the fact that the official is elected.
It is not always the ability to choose men of merit which democracy lacks but the desire and inclination to do so. In the United States, where public officials promote no class interest, the general and continuous course of government is beneficial even though the rulers are often incompetent and sometimes despicable.
Those who consider universal suffrage as a guarantee of the excellence of the choice made are under a complete delusion. Universal suffrage has other advantages but not that one.
The race of American statesmen has strangely shrunk in size over the last half-century."

The race of American statesmen has strangely shrunk in size over the last half-century

And that was almost two centuries ago!

What made America back then able to survive the "low quality" of its governing leadership was the fact that government was so much smaller and less intrusive than it is now. Therein lies what may be the most important lesson about why big, and even more so the COLLOSSAL, government we have today to be such a bad idea. Flawed "leaders" and insane bureaucrats with limited power can make less mischief.

Thank you, James Wilson

Wow!

Not relevant in any way, really, but Macaulay died in 1859. It seems this was published posthumously.

The more powerful the government, the higher the stakes of seeking office. The higher the stakes, the more tempting it is to employ dirty and downright illegal tactics. These tactics drive away the honest men (those whose drive in life is something other than power), leaving the field open to the power-hungry scoundrels.

The solution to corrupt politicians is to make all politicians as powerless as possible, by making government as small as possible.

The heading was apparently left off,
HOLLY LODGE, KENSINGTON, LONDON, May 23, 1857.

Quite right, it was published posthumously.

/re-reads carefully

Wow. What a pompous horse's ass. He puts all his sneering upper-crust Victorian disdain for grass-roots democracy on display and you guys take him seriously....? For shame, sirs.

Grass roots democracy is composed of a million asses and the donkeys they rode in on. Democracy is very over-rated, sir. A republic is much, much better.

Oh and, BTW, as it was in 1860 Lord M really was the real thing when it came to the upper crust. He actually was superior. There is such a thing as a superior human being. Honest. Trust me on this, Phil.