Provocative question. Perhaps we could solicit the opinion of Sir Mick.

Very interesting. It's a complex subject and something of a moving target but my own observations are that more people know theres something about well bred people than you would think. Although America doesnt have titles, we do have circles of values. On top of that there is "golden rule" behavior which is practiced more or less


Now the sad part is, at least for me, that someone can have the best attitude and personality and demeanor and morals and still not be considered an equal socially to someone who's behavior is treacherous but still part of your class. The old, your mailman is an awesome guy but you still dont have dinner with him but with that awful brute from the club.

The good news is that just about everyone who isnt insane or a scumbag reacts positively to being treated with respect, courtesy and dignity. Typically, if you practice these well in America, the sky is the limit. This is the theory of manners and breeding and restraint, typically a part of the upper classes because they have more leisure time to develop it but certainly avaialble to everyone. I would imagine the ideal of the American middle class is to spread this sort of civilized behavior to as many households as possible, a mission which outsourcing might erode.


A complex subject indeed, and people dont like it here so it never gets hashed out. It's amazing how much money can modify the truth here though. Ive seen the rudest, bootstrapped slum pigs and people go on about what a "gentleman" he is. One little guy at a "function" forced his way past me by literally pushing his little paw into my rib cage. Well I have to say he was accidentally tripped and his resulting involuntary stumbling forward was quite comic. I told him I was frightfully sorry and asked him if he was alright, pointing out that it was fortunate that he was low enough to the ground already to be able the better to catch his fall. I am nothing if not compassionate.

the only people with class are good people

tips for Squire:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBjaim-NXM8

Class? Lots of people in the US hate to talk about it, if they feel trapped. But America is the mobile place where people can climb a class or at least try to  do it. We have no aristocracy other than the wealthy, artists & writers or the famous. But it's mainly measured by money or the appearance of money. Good character is often denigrated or ignored.

We're the land of pirates who become wealthy and a generation or two later they become old money. Or prohibition booze smugglers like Joseph Kennedy whose children become tragic, woman destroying, American royalty. Many women partnered with Kennedy men, such as Marilyn Monroe, only to suffer in the end.

But that's the great thing about America, the Horatio Alger fable. Start out saving money whether by legitimate hard work in business or by selling drugs, then send your kids to an Ivy league school. Viola! You're in the club. Well maybe the really old money families don't think you're in, but everybody else will accept your new social class. Once they have that literate mind & ability to express themselves with their voice and whatever ambition they may have we see what their character reveals. In the first half of the 1900's and still among some people who believed hard work, good character, thrift and frugality are rewarded by God with prosperity. This was a part of WASP character for a long time and you saw it in so many novels from the last century.

Me? I like people who are intelligent, read a book every so often, have a sense of humor and treat each other with honesty and respect. That's classy enough for me.

Last edited by edhillpr (2008-01-11 08:59:47)

Sir Peregrine Worsthorne (what a name) has his own angle:

http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/index.php?storyID=6774

Celebrate the death of social mobility 

In recent weeks there have been a spate of articles, as much from Conservative pundits as from Labour ones, deploring Britain's loss of social mobility.

Not enough people, apparently, are trying to climb up the social ladder; far fewer, sad to say, than in the bad old days. In the name of social justice, they all intone, 'something must be done about it'.

What none of these pundits ever consider is the possibility that a lack of social mobility might be a healthy development; a sign that most people nowadays - apart from the underclass - are content with where they are and do not want to elbow themselves up a rung or two of the social ladder.

To my mind that should be regarded as progress rather than retrogression, since the whole point of the welfare state, I would have thought, was to make life agreeable in Britain at all levels, not just at the top: to do away, that is, with the old necessity for social climbing.

What these authors fail to realise - perhaps because they have been upwardly mobile themselves - is that social ambition to get to the top is not particularly admirable or attractive. In fact it can be rather off-putting.

In any case surely one look at those who are at the top nowadays should be enough to put off others from wanting to follow suit. So loss of social mobility isn't a disaster. It's a sign the welfare state is working.

It is a sign that not everybody has to be on the make. It is a sign that not every soul is corroded with class envy and ambition. There is nothing to stop the thrusters from thrusting, but happy is the nation where joining the rat race is a not particularly admirable choice, rather than a dire necessity.

Last edited by Lucky Strike (2008-01-11 17:59:40)

My post only applies in the states. I lived in England many years ago. never did have a clue as to what was going on over there. It was all like trying to figure out cricket.

Both Worsthorne and Queenan have class(Worsthorne more so). Donald Trump is the antithesis of class. Who gets more publicity?(Rhetorical question, of course)

Thanks for the Worsthorne quotes, LS.
I think they are good stuff.