With the unfolding histrionics of Trump’s recent election, it is increasingly apparent that there is a rift between liberalism and libertarianism. One (liberalism) is openness to new ideas; the other (libertarianism) advocates minimal state intervention. The paradox (that is, the unanticipated conflict between social welfare and personal independence) is that anything which violates the entitlement of others to freedom from the conduct of others is interpreted as an invasion of that privacy.  As a result, the dominance of the majority (specifically its putative rulers) becomes the priority.  This in turn precipitates attack on anything which unsettles the unobstructed traction of the rulers’ interests. Examples of this transition include intolerance of minority religions, intolerance of minority needs and behaviour, intolerance of minority literature, division of labour interests, commercial and political governance, etc. Basically anything that disturbs the rule of governing interests is discounted. It must be expected that the universal human nature for preservation of its self-interest will prevail. There is no logical reason whatever that distances or defends that preoccupation. To imagine that the actors of the drama have attended some school of beneficence before assuming control is irrational.

Several commentators and scholars have suggested that the United States demonstrates characteristics of an oligarchy, particularly in relation to the concentration of wealth and political influence among a small elite, as exemplified by the list of top (political party) donors.

The so-called conservative thinking is often nothing more than dilution of possible intervention, sometimes assuming the horrific schemes of political assassination, murder of unfavourable news reporters and sometimes genocide, all of which has formed and continues to form part of global governance, from Russia to Rhodesia, from South Africa (Apartheid) to the Philippines (Marcos) and Iran (Shia).

Government by an oligarchy is convenient.  Conflict with the ruling class is eliminated. Elections become redundant and costly. Meanwhile the public is removed from the constancy of debate. The patterns of conduct become clearer and clearer, eliminating disruption on incalculable levels. Oligarchy is as well arguably a wiser form of government because it is composed of those who, by approved credentials, have proven themselves capable of directing traffic. But by definition oligarchy is incompatible with democracy.

Once again however the challenge arises between the interests of the oligarchs (to maintain fluid and uninterrupted control) and the interests of the masses (to sustain their separate needs and security). Democracy by definition is an infinite paradigm, constantly evolving and technically volatile.  Democracy is therefore not exactly the prescription for guaranteed quietude. For a disgruntled population, for people exhausted hearing of other people’s irrelevant ambitions, for those yearning for the faintly memorable past and for those pretending they might in fact revive it, the return to unblemished constancy is irresistible.

Unfortunately the prospect is purely fictional.  In a world of unlimited variety it is irresponsible to presume that everything will blend. Prolonged speculation that oligarchy is the answer is like thinking a cloudy day will obscure one’s pain. But neither the objection nor the regret will succeed to safeguard the assembly. Some things are plainly irreversible. Therefore while it is understandable to seek a return to imagined prior uniformity, while people cannot be blamed for disliking disruption of their erstwhile placidity, the world is moving on.  The proliferation of the internet and Artificial Intelligence, combined with its complexities of social media (which the ruling class naturally seeks to restrain) is a far greater innovation than printing and the written word; it is a medium that transcends and broadens the scope and manner of traditional communication.

Oligarchy (from Ancient Greek ‘rule by few‘) is a form of government in which power rests with a small number of people. These people may or may not be distinguished by one or several characteristics, such as nobility, fame, wealth, education, or corporate, religious, political, or military control.

George Bernard Shaw: I now want to give the common man weapons against the intellectual man. I love the common people. I want to arm them against the lawyer, the doctor, the priest, the literary man, the professor, the artist, and the politician, who, once in authority, is the most dangerous, disastrous, and tyrannical of all the fools, rascals, and impostors. I want a democratic power strong enough to force the intellectual oligarchy to use its genius for the general good or else perish.