Those who can influence the politically powerful fall into one or all of five categories, the First through the Fifth Estates: 1) Clergy, 2) Nobility, 3) Commoners, 4) Press, and 5) Pundits, Bloggers, Podcasters, Entertainers, and University Faculty. Okay, I played a bit with the definition of the Fifth Estate. But consider these estates and political influence in the twenty-first century…
Begin with a list of the countries with Second Estate members:
Andorra
Antigua and Barbuda
Australia
The Bahamas
Bahrain
Belgium
Belize
Bhutan
Brunei (Negara Brunei, Darussalam)
Cambodia (Kampuchea)
Canada (Yep! King Charles III)
Denmark (Danmark, Faroes, Greenland)
Eswatini
Grenada
Jamaica
Japan
Jordan’Kuwait
Lesotho
Liechtenstein
Luxembourg (Grand-Duché)
Malaysia
Monaco
Morocco
Netherlands
New Zealand and Aotearoa (i.e., Maori)
Norway
Oman
Papua New Guinea
Qatar
Saint Kitts and Nevis
Saint Lucia
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
Saudi Arabia
Solomon Islands
Spain
Sweden
Thailand
Tonga
Tuvalu
United Arab Emirates
United Kingdom (England and the other 14 countries in the realm of King Charles III)
Vatican City (whose “king,” the elected Pope, has traditionally been an elected ruler though some popes have had biological descendants who might have had influence over the Vatican: Alexander VI and two of his famous children immediately come to mind, and Sergius III apparently fathered John XI).
The list could be shorter if one consolidates the kingdom ruled by King Charles III, who is the titular head of 15 countries, such as Saint Lucia, The Bahamas, and Tuvalu. The list could be longer if one considers the indefinite control exerted by Xi in China, Putin in Russia, Kim in N. Korea, Khamenei in Iran, and any other dictator with long-standing control. Generally, the more extensive the “nobility,” the greater the number of entitled people who are basically born with Versailles in their eye, party-goers with little political influence but plenty of political grift. Then there’s the mix of estates to consider: Pope Francis and Khamenei head both the First and Second Estate, and thus have control of politics as well as religion. By the way, in a constitutional monarchy, even the king or queen becomes a political influencer. Note that the English PM meets regularly with the king.
After a few centuries of revolutions and reforms, the list of countries with members belonging to the Second Estate is still apparently long, and it tells the tale of countries in which people related to the hereditary rulers (except Vatican City’s) have influence by virtue of their blood relationship. Thus, there are today people who are almost guaranteed success or favor by birth and who by blood tie exert at least a modicum of influence.
Office holders also have influence. They include the elected and the appointed. They include bureaucrats who derive from the Third Estate and move into the realm of the sub-wealthy, where they contribute to the coffers of the ruling politicians who keep them in their offices. They are often behind-the-scenes policy-makers, and they also succeed through favoritism—though not if they run amuck of the Press or the people in power. You can probably think of many who were once in positions of influence only to be cast out of the political “palace” for sundry reasons. Nicolas Fouquet, Louis XIV’s finance minister, comes to mind. The day after Fouquet in his palace threw a lavish party for the king and aristocrats, the Louis, envious in those pre-Versailles days, threw Fouquet into prison. Surely, you can think of cabinet members and White House staff who have undergone similar falls from grace if not prison terms. Even nepotism, an avenue to influence over the politically powerful, is no guarantee of continued influence, as murdered relatives of North Korea’s Kim and England’s Richard III discovered. Yet, the ties of family often open doors of influence.
Into what estate should we list the inordinately wealthy, such as those who are popular entertainers: The Hollywood crowd, that is, the TV network darlings, and those well-known defenders of the power du jour. Many of them began as members of the Third Estate, commoners, but rose to the status of idols by virtue of singing, acting, or merely talking. Who among the Third Estate like the restless mob at the foot of Mount Sinai, we might ask, can ignore the golden idols that speak, especially in an age of 24/7 music, acting, and speaking? Certainly, not the members of the Third Estate who rose to political power; adulation by former peers opens one up to influence.
The Fourth Estate, which is the Press and TV pundits, now has to vie for influence with the Fifth Estate, the bloggers, podcasters, and independents who ferret out the stories behind the news. Think James O’Keefe among others, many of who are muckrakers for either Left or Right political organizations. Think also of university faculties that also exhibit influence sufficient enough to get into the treasury room, almost like Fouquet whom Louis XIV accused of skimming money from the kingdom’s funds for his own use—including the building of that grand palace and gardens that made Louis envious. And then there are those like Bankman-Fried, who used money from FTX to support politicians or FaceBook’s Zuckerman whose support for politicians led to efforts in 30 states to ban such influence.
I might throw myself into the mix of people who belong to both the Third and Fifth Estates. Definitely not born with the proverbial silver spoon in my mouth, I think I can count myself as a commoner, but then I taught in a university, took grant money from both state and federal agencies, and I now write this blog. Maybe I influenced no one along that path to now, but there’s that possibility. Have I influenced you and by extension influenced those in your political sphere? I think that according to my definition and as a result of my having a number of government-funded research projects, that I might have worn the habit habillé and the justeaucorps like Fouquet. I’ll claim innocence since the agencies sought me out for their pet projects. But I believe that university faculties have reached new heights of grifting. The treasuries are full when it comes to grant funding, so the temptations are great. And I say that in light of the University of Michigan’s Office of the VP for Research granting an engineering professor $50,000 “to help U-M increase its competitiveness to secure a $160 million National Science Foundation Regional Innovation Engines grant.” * Want to talk about influence? That $50,000 probably came from previous government grants, so the Michigan “Fouquets” are using the public treasury to gain more from the public treasury. What, pray tell, will the professor do to entice the NSF to give out $160,000,000? Will it involve discussions with political leaders? Obviously, he’ll make a concerted effort to influence the grant granters.
Influencing government officials is nothing new. The scale has changed, of course, because of affluence. But so has the group of influencers. Well, if not changed, at least added onto. And now, this new group of influencers has found a way to get the government to pay for the influence. Why should I mention Fouquet in this context? It seems that Louis had him skim some funds for the king’s use and was upset that Fouquet’s hand got a bit sticky.
Not that that kind of sticky hand is new. Payment has generally been reciprocated in votes, you know, the way teacher unions support one party to the exclusion of the other and receive in return seemingly unlimited funding for running down any avenue of pedagogy that fancies their minds but that seems to make little difference in test scores or student achievement, and that now funds programs that seem more like indoctrination than education.
So, the type of government doesn’t seem to matter when it comes to influencing rulers: Monarchies influenced by the Second Estate or democratic republics influenced by the Third, Fourth, and Fifth Estates. At the heart of all this influence lies the central two questions for the leaders: Do you trust the motives of the influencers? Does the influence serve the people in general or the chosen elite?
Coupled with today’s attempts by almost all countries to influence the destiny of other countries, both friend and foe, domestic attempts to influence leaders make this a world headed down a path to… Okay, you finish the sentence. I could make it a multiple choice question if you like. Headed down a path to A) the dissolution of trustworthy organization, B) the creation of a new kind of society, one split by goals determined by competing influencers, C) the death of individual freedom in the Third Estate whose members live without recourse according to the whims of the influencers, or D) a future dystopian society so fractured that chaos makes it a twenty-first century Wild West, a borderless entity like a cell without a membrane, or a NY Fifth Avenue with sidewalks strewn with the homeless and disenfranchised.
*Keeves, Kelsey. OVPR awards large-scale planning grants to three teams. The University Record, 6 Feb 2023. Online at https://record.umich.edu/articles/ovpr-awards-large-scale-planning-grants-to-three-teams/ Access February 5, 2023.
Begin with a list of the countries with Second Estate members:
Andorra
Antigua and Barbuda
Australia
The Bahamas
Bahrain
Belgium
Belize
Bhutan
Brunei (Negara Brunei, Darussalam)
Cambodia (Kampuchea)
Canada (Yep! King Charles III)
Denmark (Danmark, Faroes, Greenland)
Eswatini
Grenada
Jamaica
Japan
Jordan’Kuwait
Lesotho
Liechtenstein
Luxembourg (Grand-Duché)
Malaysia
Monaco
Morocco
Netherlands
New Zealand and Aotearoa (i.e., Maori)
Norway
Oman
Papua New Guinea
Qatar
Saint Kitts and Nevis
Saint Lucia
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
Saudi Arabia
Solomon Islands
Spain
Sweden
Thailand
Tonga
Tuvalu
United Arab Emirates
United Kingdom (England and the other 14 countries in the realm of King Charles III)
Vatican City (whose “king,” the elected Pope, has traditionally been an elected ruler though some popes have had biological descendants who might have had influence over the Vatican: Alexander VI and two of his famous children immediately come to mind, and Sergius III apparently fathered John XI).
The list could be shorter if one consolidates the kingdom ruled by King Charles III, who is the titular head of 15 countries, such as Saint Lucia, The Bahamas, and Tuvalu. The list could be longer if one considers the indefinite control exerted by Xi in China, Putin in Russia, Kim in N. Korea, Khamenei in Iran, and any other dictator with long-standing control. Generally, the more extensive the “nobility,” the greater the number of entitled people who are basically born with Versailles in their eye, party-goers with little political influence but plenty of political grift. Then there’s the mix of estates to consider: Pope Francis and Khamenei head both the First and Second Estate, and thus have control of politics as well as religion. By the way, in a constitutional monarchy, even the king or queen becomes a political influencer. Note that the English PM meets regularly with the king.
After a few centuries of revolutions and reforms, the list of countries with members belonging to the Second Estate is still apparently long, and it tells the tale of countries in which people related to the hereditary rulers (except Vatican City’s) have influence by virtue of their blood relationship. Thus, there are today people who are almost guaranteed success or favor by birth and who by blood tie exert at least a modicum of influence.
Office holders also have influence. They include the elected and the appointed. They include bureaucrats who derive from the Third Estate and move into the realm of the sub-wealthy, where they contribute to the coffers of the ruling politicians who keep them in their offices. They are often behind-the-scenes policy-makers, and they also succeed through favoritism—though not if they run amuck of the Press or the people in power. You can probably think of many who were once in positions of influence only to be cast out of the political “palace” for sundry reasons. Nicolas Fouquet, Louis XIV’s finance minister, comes to mind. The day after Fouquet in his palace threw a lavish party for the king and aristocrats, the Louis, envious in those pre-Versailles days, threw Fouquet into prison. Surely, you can think of cabinet members and White House staff who have undergone similar falls from grace if not prison terms. Even nepotism, an avenue to influence over the politically powerful, is no guarantee of continued influence, as murdered relatives of North Korea’s Kim and England’s Richard III discovered. Yet, the ties of family often open doors of influence.
Into what estate should we list the inordinately wealthy, such as those who are popular entertainers: The Hollywood crowd, that is, the TV network darlings, and those well-known defenders of the power du jour. Many of them began as members of the Third Estate, commoners, but rose to the status of idols by virtue of singing, acting, or merely talking. Who among the Third Estate like the restless mob at the foot of Mount Sinai, we might ask, can ignore the golden idols that speak, especially in an age of 24/7 music, acting, and speaking? Certainly, not the members of the Third Estate who rose to political power; adulation by former peers opens one up to influence.
The Fourth Estate, which is the Press and TV pundits, now has to vie for influence with the Fifth Estate, the bloggers, podcasters, and independents who ferret out the stories behind the news. Think James O’Keefe among others, many of who are muckrakers for either Left or Right political organizations. Think also of university faculties that also exhibit influence sufficient enough to get into the treasury room, almost like Fouquet whom Louis XIV accused of skimming money from the kingdom’s funds for his own use—including the building of that grand palace and gardens that made Louis envious. And then there are those like Bankman-Fried, who used money from FTX to support politicians or FaceBook’s Zuckerman whose support for politicians led to efforts in 30 states to ban such influence.
I might throw myself into the mix of people who belong to both the Third and Fifth Estates. Definitely not born with the proverbial silver spoon in my mouth, I think I can count myself as a commoner, but then I taught in a university, took grant money from both state and federal agencies, and I now write this blog. Maybe I influenced no one along that path to now, but there’s that possibility. Have I influenced you and by extension influenced those in your political sphere? I think that according to my definition and as a result of my having a number of government-funded research projects, that I might have worn the habit habillé and the justeaucorps like Fouquet. I’ll claim innocence since the agencies sought me out for their pet projects. But I believe that university faculties have reached new heights of grifting. The treasuries are full when it comes to grant funding, so the temptations are great. And I say that in light of the University of Michigan’s Office of the VP for Research granting an engineering professor $50,000 “to help U-M increase its competitiveness to secure a $160 million National Science Foundation Regional Innovation Engines grant.” * Want to talk about influence? That $50,000 probably came from previous government grants, so the Michigan “Fouquets” are using the public treasury to gain more from the public treasury. What, pray tell, will the professor do to entice the NSF to give out $160,000,000? Will it involve discussions with political leaders? Obviously, he’ll make a concerted effort to influence the grant granters.
Influencing government officials is nothing new. The scale has changed, of course, because of affluence. But so has the group of influencers. Well, if not changed, at least added onto. And now, this new group of influencers has found a way to get the government to pay for the influence. Why should I mention Fouquet in this context? It seems that Louis had him skim some funds for the king’s use and was upset that Fouquet’s hand got a bit sticky.
Not that that kind of sticky hand is new. Payment has generally been reciprocated in votes, you know, the way teacher unions support one party to the exclusion of the other and receive in return seemingly unlimited funding for running down any avenue of pedagogy that fancies their minds but that seems to make little difference in test scores or student achievement, and that now funds programs that seem more like indoctrination than education.
So, the type of government doesn’t seem to matter when it comes to influencing rulers: Monarchies influenced by the Second Estate or democratic republics influenced by the Third, Fourth, and Fifth Estates. At the heart of all this influence lies the central two questions for the leaders: Do you trust the motives of the influencers? Does the influence serve the people in general or the chosen elite?
Coupled with today’s attempts by almost all countries to influence the destiny of other countries, both friend and foe, domestic attempts to influence leaders make this a world headed down a path to… Okay, you finish the sentence. I could make it a multiple choice question if you like. Headed down a path to A) the dissolution of trustworthy organization, B) the creation of a new kind of society, one split by goals determined by competing influencers, C) the death of individual freedom in the Third Estate whose members live without recourse according to the whims of the influencers, or D) a future dystopian society so fractured that chaos makes it a twenty-first century Wild West, a borderless entity like a cell without a membrane, or a NY Fifth Avenue with sidewalks strewn with the homeless and disenfranchised.
*Keeves, Kelsey. OVPR awards large-scale planning grants to three teams. The University Record, 6 Feb 2023. Online at https://record.umich.edu/articles/ovpr-awards-large-scale-planning-grants-to-three-teams/ Access February 5, 2023.
RSS Feed