“You either have an extractive elite — an oligarchy — or you have a productive elite — an aristocracy — in every society,” he said in an interview in his office in Scottsdale, Arizona.
History, according to Chris Buskirk, J.D. Vance’s operative in the American “White House”. (Source: Elizabeth Dwoskin, The secretive donor circle that lifted JD Vance is now rewriting MAGA’s future, The Washington Post, 4 November 2025)
The Challenge to a Person’s Historical Understanding (more than knowledge): Either a Level of Stupidity or Propaganda (lying and knowing it). Now, all lies contain mundane truths, and the truth here in Chris Buskirk’s argument is the surface appearance between oligarchy and aristocracy. It is true as a instrumental basic model, whereby certain groups of persons can be divided between aristocrats with no interest in political power (or so declared) and oligarchs who are obviously politically interested. However, the model is very thin, and the truths relate to certain persons. Beyond the thin model are persons who fool themselves in declaring having no political interest.
Knowing the history, and more, understanding the history, the issue is that there are no significant differences in the categories designed as the two groupings: oligarchy and aristocracy. There are distinct meanings here: the latter is more about culture and social hierarchy, and the former more about power of influence. However, at a personal level within the categories is it is about degrees of such characteristics.
History is not an instrument for political use if there is to be understanding. Those cited in the references below provided a more nuanced story which opposes Buskirk’s argument.
REFERENCES
Cherry, K. M. (2009). The Problem of Polity: Political Participation and Aristotle’s Best Regime. The Journal of Politics, 71(4), 1406–1421. https://doi.org/10.1017/s002238160999003x
Cherry, K. M. (2009). The Problem of Polity: Political Participation and Aristotle’s Best Regime. The Journal of Politics, 71(4), 1406–1421. https://doi.org/10.1017/s002238160999003x
Drescher, S. (2003). Who Needs “Ancienneté”? Tocqueville on Aristocracy and Modernity. History of Political Thought, 24(4), 624–646. http://www.jstor.org/stable/26220009
Goodrich, A. (2013). Understanding a Language of “Aristocracy”, 1700–1850. The Historical Journal, 56(2), 369–398. http://www.jstor.org/stable/24528841
Lockwood, T. C. (2006). Polity, Political Justice and Political Mixing. History of Political Thought, 27(2), 207–222. http://www.jstor.org/stable/26222194
Mittiga, R. (2021). Ranking the Regimes in Aristotle’s Politics: The Four-Principles Approach. The Review of Politics, 83(1), 1–20. https://www.jstor.org/stable/27111374
Sikkenga, J. (2002). Plato’s Examination of The Oligarchic Soul in Book VIII of The “Republic.” History of Political Thought, 23(3), 377–400. http://www.jstor.org/stable/26219874
Featured Image: Divided Thinking
Neville Buch
Latest posts by Neville Buch (see all)
- Death in Life and Life in Death: Affective, Intellectual, and Ontological Dimensions of Human Mortality – October 2, 2026
- Psychological Symbol Cards – October 2, 2026
- The Washington Post Impact Report and American Studies – October 1, 2026