# Is there an American aristocracy? Who would you consider part of it? **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [November 3, 2008, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-an-american-aristocracy-who-would-you-consider-part-of-it/470883 "2008-11-03T16:52:25Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 14\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Sri\_Theo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f04885/32.png) [@Sri\_Theo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sri_Theo)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2008, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-an-american-aristocracy-who-would-you-consider-part-of-it/470883/1 "2008-11-03T16:52:25Z")
Over here in the UK it’s pretty easy to tell who the upper class families are. They’re generally the ones that have Lord or Lady in front of their name, especially since successful business people (compared to the Rockefeller family and such) tend to acquire titles through marriage or knighthoods and such. Then I ran across [this](http://lordsoftheblog.wordpress.com/2008/11/02/us-presidency-quiz-question/#comments) blog post today, which pointed out that there hasn’t been a winning republican ticket without a Bush or a Nixon on it since 1928 and Herbert Hoover. Do you think that they count as aristocracy yet, political aristocracy at least? I always thought that this as set America apart from the ‘old world’, but I’m wondering if there are any other family names which pretty much guarantee political or financial success. I can imagine the Clinton’s as such and then there are the aforementioned Rockefellers and maybe the Carnegies? ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2008, 4:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-an-american-aristocracy-who-would-you-consider-part-of-it/470883/2 "2008-11-03T16:56:08Z")
I think this is more a matter of opinion than fact, and so perhaps better suited for IMHO than GQ (though it may end up in GD). Colibri General Questions Moderator ---
**Author:** ![Sri\_Theo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f04885/32.png) [@Sri\_Theo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sri_Theo)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2008, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-an-american-aristocracy-who-would-you-consider-part-of-it/470883/3 "2008-11-03T17:02:35Z")
Thanks, probably should have thought that through a bit more. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2008, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-an-american-aristocracy-who-would-you-consider-part-of-it/470883/4 "2008-11-03T18:07:59Z")
The Kennedys, Rockefellers,and maybe now the Bush’s are acting like they own the country. They assume high puplic office seemingly at will. ---
**Author:** ![Ro\_Carter](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/7feea3/32.png) [@Ro\_Carter](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ro_Carter)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2008, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-an-american-aristocracy-who-would-you-consider-part-of-it/470883/5 "2008-11-03T18:16:01Z")
I would have said the Kennedys and Rockefellers. I hadn’t considered the Bush family, but they might fit. I would consider them lower on the totem pole than the two previous families, however. ---
**Author:** ![Fretful\_Porpentine](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fretful_porpentine/32/2873_2.png) [@Fretful\_Porpentine](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fretful_Porpentine)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2008, 6:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-an-american-aristocracy-who-would-you-consider-part-of-it/470883/6 "2008-11-03T18:30:35Z")
“A” Nixon? Are there other well-known members of the Nixon family? ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2008, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-an-american-aristocracy-who-would-you-consider-part-of-it/470883/7 "2008-11-03T18:48:57Z")
> [@Sri\_Theo](#): > > Then I ran across [this](http://lordsoftheblog.wordpress.com/2008/11/02/us-presidency-quiz-question/#comments) blog post today, which pointed out that there hasn’t been a winning republican ticket without a Bush or a Nixon on it since 1928 and Herbert Hoover. Do you think that they count as aristocracy yet, political aristocracy at least? Well your link is a bit misleading. An aristocracy, IMHO, sort of implies a passing on of wealth or title from generation to generation. Those “Nixons” were all the same Richard M Nixon. And somehow I doubt the Bush name will carry much weight in years to come. And as they are elected officials, there is never a guarantee. Ask Hillary Clinton. We certainly have an upper class in the US. Really several upper classes. We tend to make distinctions between “Old Money” families like the Rockefellers, DuPonts, Hiltons (Paris not withstanding), and Kennedys from “nouveau riche” - people like Donald Trump, Bill Gates and other businessmen, entrepreneurs and entertainers who are self made. We also tend to view wealthy entertainers and athletes different from successful entrepreneurs and executives. For example no one seems to bat an eye over Jim Carey making $25 million a movie, Oprah’s billions or Derek Jeter’s $189,000,000 contract with the Yankees. And for the most part, people seem to enjoy the outrageous antics of what are essentially attractive high school graduates with emotional issues and drug and alchohol problems after they recieve more money than they should be able to spend in a lifetime. Wealthy businessmen and entrepreneurs, OTOH, tend to lead more low profile lifestyles, content to occassional appear in Fortune or Forbes magazine when they aren’t running their businesses or hanging out in the Hamptons. It is only when we discover some sort of fraud or other wrongdoing do regular people take interest in them. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2008, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-an-american-aristocracy-who-would-you-consider-part-of-it/470883/8 "2008-11-03T18:55:43Z")
The best answer I’ve yet seen to the OP’s question comes from [_The Next American Nation,_](http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0684825031/sr=8-1/qid=1151677963/ref=pd_bbs_1/103-8508178-8162241?ie=UTF8) by [Michael Lind](http://www.newamerica.net/people/michael_lind): > [@](#): > > Understanding the white overclass requires revising the most common misconceptions about class. The discussion of social class has been confused for generations by Marxist thinkers, who made the mistake of completely identifying class with economic function. Like the Marxists, old-fashioned American liberal pluralists tend to misunderstand class. What they refer to as class is typically not a social class at all, but a mere occupational or income category, such as service-sector workers or millionaires. Meanwhile, the New Left which came to prominence in the sixties has tended to drop the idea of class altogether, in favor of race and gender. . . . In recent years, conservative ideologues have added further confusion by defining political factions and lifestyle subcultures as classes. . . . > > In order to think about class in twenty-first century America, we must first clear our minds of these Marxist, liberal, New Left, and conservative definitions of class, and return to the older notion of class found in classical and European political thought from Aristotle to Montesquieu. > > A class is a group of families, united by intermarriage and a common subculture, whose members tend to predominate in certain professions and political offices, generation after generation. Note that the class – the group of similar families – has an existence independent of the offices which its members tend to hold. Indeed, we cannot talk intelligently about class unless we make a distinction between a social class and a mere institutional elite. Those who talk about “the political class” or, with C. Wright Mills, about “the power elite,” are confusing two very different things. Every modern society, even the most perfectly egalitarian, will have an institutional elite – top civilian politicians, military officers, judges, diplomats, financial and industrial executives, publishers, editors and leading intellectuals, clerical leaders, and so on. The subject of class is raised only when you examine the social origins of the particular individuals who hold office in the institutional elite or elites. Learning the organization of judicial offices in a country tells you nothing about class. However, if you find out that most of the judges tend to come from old-money families in a particular region of that country, and that most attended one of half a dozen schools, then you have learned something important about that country’s class system. > > The United States at the end of the twentieth century has both an institutional elite and a dominant social class. The institutional elite is composed of upper-level officials in the federal and state governments, plus executives and professionals in the concentrated private sector and foundation and university executives (low-level government officials and small business owners are not part of the institutional elite). Almost all of the members of the American institutional elite also happen to be members of a single social class: the white overclass. To put it another way, the labor pool from which most elite positions are filled is the white overclass. The overlap is not complete. Though most members of the institutional elite belong to the white overclass, most members of the white overclass are not part of the institutional elite (since the overclass greatly outnumbers the elite); and – though this is uncommon – a person can become a high-ranking politician, military officer, judge, CEO, foundation president, or university president in the United States without having been born into the white overclass. It is possible to imagine a United States in which most members of the institutional elite did not have similar class origins. But that is not the country in which we live. > > . . . The white overclass is the child of the former Northeastern Protestant establishment, produced by marriage (not only figurative but literal) with the upwardly mobile descendants of turn-of-the-century European immigrants and white Southerners and Westerners. Unlike the Northeastern establishment . . . this relatively new and still evolving political and social oligarchy is not identified with any particular region of the country (though it is concentrated in East and West Coast metropolitan regions). Nor does the white overclass dominate other sections through local, surrogate establishments, as the Northeastern establishment once did. Rather, overclass Americans are found in the higher suburbs of every major metropolitan area, North and South, coastal and inland. Unlike the sectional elites of the past, members of the white overclass are not even identified with the regions in which they happen (temporarily) to live. The white overclass, homogeneous and nomadic, is the first truly national upper class in American history. > > The white overclass is the product, not merely of the amalgamation of Anglo- and Euro-Americans, but of the fusion of the rentier and managerial-professional classes. This blurring of the upper and upper-middle strata is a relatively new development in the United States. In earlier generations, there were distinct landowning and rentier classes, with their own lifestyles and institutions – cotillions, seasons spent in the country, and the like. The elaborate rituals that governed upper-class life, such as dressing for dinner, were designed to conspicuously display wealth, including a wealth of leisure time. That was a long time ago. There is a class, or rather a category, of the celebrity rich, and there are still pockets of old-fashioned rentiers in the U.S. – in Virginia, there are still planters who do not work and who hunt foxes with hounds – but these subcultures are detached from the summits of power. Members of the upper class who want to make a mark in the world tend to adopt the style of life and dress and speech of the managerial-professional elite. Even though they do not have to, most members of the small hereditary upper class go to college and get executive or professional jobs, and work, or at least pretend to. Instead of serving as a model for well-to-do executives and lawyers and investment bankers, the hereditary segment of the American overclass conforms to the segment immediately below it, the credentialed upper middle class. > > . . . The composition of student bodies at Ivy League schools is a good surrogate for the composition of the white overclass. If you factor out black and Hispanic students admitted under affirmative action programs, you are left with a student body that is disproportionately of British or German-Scandinavian Protestant and European Jewish descent. There are relatively few evangelical Protestants and Catholics in the overclass, despite their significant numbers in the general population. If you are Episcopalian or Jewish, have a graduate or professional degree from an expensive university, work in a large downtown office building in an East or West Coast metropolis, watch MacNeil/Lehrer on PBS, and are saving for a vacation in London or Paris, you are a card-carrying member of the white overclass, even if your salary is not very impressive. If you are Methodist, Baptist or Catholic, have a B.A. from a state university, work in or for a small business or for a career government service, watch the Nashville Network on cable, and are saving for a vacation in Las Vegas, Atlantic City, Branson, Missouri, or Orlando, Florida (Disneyworld), you are probably not a member of the white overclass – no matter how much money you make. > > Although there are residual religious and ethnic differences among members of the white overclass, these are minor compared to what they have in common. There is, for example, a common white overclass accent, which is more or less identical in corporate boardrooms from one end of the continent to another – the “NBC standard,” which is the equivalent of BBC English or Britain’s Received Pronunciation (RP). As formerly distinct local elites have fused into a single national ruling class equally at home in New York and Texas and California, this accent has become the badge of elite status. In order to advance in overclass circles in America, a white American has to suppress any regional or ethnic dialect, whether it be a Southern drawl or a Boston honk or Brooklynese, and learn to speak this flat, clipped, rather nasal version of English. . . . > > . . . The overclass eats pate and imported cheeses; the middle class eats peanut butter and Velveeta. The overclass sips wine; the middle class drinks beer. The overclass plays squash and tennis; the middle class plays pool and bowls (both golf, but the middle class does so at second-tier country clubs and public courses). The overclass jogs; the middle class does not. . . . These are cliches, but they are a better guide to the real class structure in the United States than income categories in the census or pseudoscientific sociological measures like the SES (socioeconomic survey). ---
**Author:** ![Horatio\_Hellpop](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e5b9ba/32.png) [@Horatio\_Hellpop](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Horatio_Hellpop)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2008, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-an-american-aristocracy-who-would-you-consider-part-of-it/470883/9 "2008-11-03T20:04:36Z")
America sure has wealthy, old-money families, but not the way Europe does. In European old money families, inherited wealth transfers to one person, usually the oldest son, who has been trained from birth to maintain it. American fortunes tend to be split up evenly among all the heirs. Consequently, few American fortunes last more than three generations. Consider the Kennedys. Joseph Kennedy was a product of the middle class. He made his stake with a combination of stock trades, real estate and allegedly rum-running (He was pretty rich before Prohibition began, but never mind). He was worth tens of millions of dollars in 1960, which in today’s money is a couple of billion; not too shabby. He also had ten children, many of whom also had 6-10 children apiece. Joseph’s children mainly leaned towards politics and philanthropy, not so much commerce; they did little to increase the family fortune and had expensive tastes. The grandchildren–a largely handsome but undistinguished bunch–diluted the coffers further. The great grandchildren will have to develop cheaper hobbies than light aircraft and the US Senate. (Remember the “Save room for coffee” gag in [The Birdcage](http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0115685/)? Yeah.) ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2008, 10:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-an-american-aristocracy-who-would-you-consider-part-of-it/470883/10 "2008-11-03T22:08:58Z")
So am I a memeber of the “white overclass”? If you are Episcopalian or Jewish, CHECK have a graduate or professional degree from an expensive university, CHECK work in a large downtown office building in an East or West Coast metropolis, CHECK watch MacNeil/Lehrer on PBS, Um…NO and are saving for a vacation in London or Paris, just came back from London, CHECK you are a card-carrying member of the white overclass, even if your salary is not very impressive. um…CHECK. well by the standards of what I would consider “wealthy” it isn’t It seems to me that Lind defines this “overclass” as anyone who is white and graduated from a private university. Clearly I belong to this class by his definition, but I’m pretty sure there is at least an entire class of people above me. (Basically, whoever is buying those multi-million dollar Park Ave appartments). Oh, never mind. Those are the institutional elite. I guess those are like the Partners in the law firms and investment banking managing directors who are the overlords of the overclass and to which we eventually aspire to. This seems to me more of a distinction between Middle Class and Upper Middle Class. ---
**Author:** ![ultrafilter](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/3d9bf3/32.png) [@ultrafilter](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ultrafilter)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2008, 11:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-an-american-aristocracy-who-would-you-consider-part-of-it/470883/11 "2008-11-03T23:05:16Z")
Not any more. From roughly 1870-1960, we had a de facto hereditary aristocracy (although, as **Krokodil** points out, the fortunes tended to disperse a little more quickly than their European equivalents). But they’re just not quite the power players they used to be, even if some of them are still quite wealthy. While I don’t think that Lind is describing the real upper class, I do agree that class in America is not a function of wealth or income. There is a difference between being rich and having money. ---
**Author:** ![Shagnasty](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9dc877/32.png) [@Shagnasty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shagnasty)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2008, 12:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-an-american-aristocracy-who-would-you-consider-part-of-it/470883/12 "2008-11-04T00:06:11Z")
> [@msmith537](#): > > So am I a memeber of the “white overclass”? > > If you are Episcopalian or Jewish, CHECK > have a graduate or professional degree from an expensive university, CHECK > work in a large downtown office building in an East or West Coast metropolis, CHECK > watch MacNeil/Lehrer on PBS, Um..NO > and are saving for a vacation in London or Paris, just came back from London, CHECK > you are a card-carrying member of the white overclass, > even if your salary is not very impressive. um..CHECK. well by the standards of what I would consider “wealthy” it isn’t Mine is exactly the same. Maybe some of the European Dopers can help us come up with suitable titles, rights and responsibilities when it comes to those beneath us. One thing me and most Americans don’t believe is that you can be a member of the white overclass even if your income is not very impressive. That makes no sense unless you are just looking at income and not net worth. If you don’t make all that much money, you aren’t part of any overclass. It doesn’t matter who your grandfather was. However, the reverse is not true. You can have tons of money and still be white trash (Tonya Harding for example. Britney Spears is stepping right on the line). ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2008, 2:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-an-american-aristocracy-who-would-you-consider-part-of-it/470883/13 "2008-11-04T02:24:42Z")
The richest and most powerful fams in America Guggenheim Dupont Swift Ford Astor Frick Vanderbilt Eastman And the newcomers the Walton ---
**Author:** ![Omniscient](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/omniscient/32/3290_2.png) [@Omniscient](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omniscient)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2008, 3:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-an-american-aristocracy-who-would-you-consider-part-of-it/470883/14 "2008-11-04T03:08:36Z")
> [@Sri\_Theo](#): > > I always thought that this as set America apart from the ‘old world’, but I’m wondering if there are any other family names which pretty much guarantee political or financial success. We don’t have anything resembling an aristocracy. Any attempts to shoehorn the concept into American life is going to fail. We have plenty of rich people, we have many rich families that have maintained and grown their wealth over a series of generations. However, they aren’t generally thought to be entitled to anything. Wealth is increasingly fleeing because more and more companies are publicly held and more and more wealth is “paper wealth”. Now, that’s not to say that rich people don’t have a leg up, especially in politics where money can buy a campaign, but there are far more examples of where this failed than where it succeeded. The Kennedys and Bushes are interesting in that wealth and politics dovetailed across a couple of generations but they aren’t long standing by any stretch. I don’t think that many people would agree with the notion that they were bequeathed their positions based on their family name though. They were popularly elected and their family names probably created just as much negative perception as positive while the campaigns went on. Rich people get attention. Often that spans generations. But there isn’t any station or preference accorded to that attention beyond what they are able buy. Capitalism and all.