State inspired altruism is not Noblesse Oblige
Joe, we're not talking about the same thing at all. I'm talking about the voluntary restraint of power out of human decency, if I dare use that word. Not giving up power, only the voluntary restraint of its display.
When some people are in a position to have power over other people, the empowered group has to decide how to handle that power. They can be indifferent to or dismissive of the unempowered. They can rub the noses of the unempowered in their lack of power. They can wipe out the unempowered totally if they choose. Or they can go out of their way to give the unempowered some dignity, if not a share of the power. My view is that the last choice is the classier way to handle power and I have been using the term, noblesse oblige, to express it. It's a common theme of mine.
I have argued it here recently in the case of Christians, who are a totally dominant religion in our countries, and who can easily afford to allow a little sunlight for those of other religions.
I have argued it here in the case of the US treatment of its allies, whom the US could easily send to oblivion, but could instead opt to treat as respected partners.
If a powerful entity is really that powerful, it can afford to be gracious and decent to the powerless. Doing less, IMO, is really low class.
It perfectly settles the matter
Of course it settles the matter if that's how we want to wield our power. I just think it's tacky and beneath us.
Karen |
