The Founders and the Fathers on the American class system

At no other time in history have Westerners been so out of touch with economic reality. The socialist ideal of “income equality,” for example, is not a Christian idea. Equal dignity as human persons created in the image and likeness of God, yes. Equal justice and representation in a court of law, yes. But income equality and forced wealth redistribution through taxation are extremely harmful to the Christian way of life.

From the early debates among the Founders to the insights of the Church Fathers and modern reflections on class dynamics, the tension between aspiration and humility offers valuable lessons for how we should view wealth, status, and our responsibilities in society.

The Founders of the United States were divided on the role of class in society, with Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson advocating for a more egalitarian, agrarian vision while Alexander Hamilton, John Adams, and James Madison recognized class distinctions as natural and beneficial. Hamilton argued that a wealthy class is essential for stability and prosperity, while Adams emphasized the inevitability of a “natural aristocracy” based on talent and virtue. Madison acknowledged the inherent existence of factions tied to economic and social differences, proposing representative government as a way to manage these tensions. The U.S. Constitution itself reflects a mutual agreement, balancing popular representation with legal protections for private property.

Ultimately, the Founders’ debates and the structures they created suggest that social and economic classes are not only natural but necessary for a stable and functional society, as they provide balance, incentives, and a framework for governance.

The idea that class distinctions serve a beneficial purpose is echoed in Pope Leo XIII’s 1891 encyclical Rerum Novarum:

There are truly very great and very many natural differences among men. Neither the talents, nor the skill, nor the health, nor the capacities of all are the same, and unequal fortune follows of itself upon necessary inequality in respect to these endowments. And clearly this condition of things is adapted to benefit both individuals and the community; for to carry on its affairs community life requires varied aptitudes and diverse services, and to perform these diverse services men are impelled most by differences in individual property holdings. (§26; emphasis added)

Pope Leo’s perspective affirms that wealth inequality is unavoidable and fundamentally serves the common good when individuals fulfill their roles and responsibilities within society.

The concept of socioeconomic class in the United States has developed from a focus on land ownership and economic independence in the colonial era to a more complex understanding shaped by industrialization, globalization, and cultural shifts. In the nineteenth century, class distinctions became more pronounced with the rise of industrial capitalism, as wealth concentrated among a small upper class while a growing working class moved off of farms and into factories. The twentieth century brought the expansion of a prosperous middle class, fueled by wartime savings being channeled into technological innovation and business growth, which enabled higher wages and expanded homeownership. During this period, many Americans embraced the ideal of upward mobility, recognizing that hard work and determination could elevate one’s economic status, and going to college would likely secure a position in the upper middle class.

Today, socioeconomic class is defined not only by income or wealth but also by education, occupation, and social identity. However, while “wealth inequality” has reversed course, many Americans still feel entitled to “identify” with the upper middle class through their spending habits—purchasing luxury goods, embracing trends, and maintaining lifestyles beyond their means. Despite this aspirational consumption, most Americans lack the productive assets or high income necessary to sustain such lifestyles, often relying on debt to sustain their spending habits. This disconnection between actual economic status and perceived class identity highlights the cultural power of the American Dream and the societal pressure to appear upwardly mobile while, in fact, this delusional consumer debt spending is fueling a return to greater economic disparity among the classes.

Additional signs of this growing disparity between rich and poor and the decline of the middle class are illustrated by the facts that, first, wages have stagnated in the face of rampant inflation since 2020 and, secondly, we are seeing increasing numbers of middle-class people struggle with problems historically more associated with poverty—namely addiction, isolation, financial instability, spiritual poverty, and family breakdown.

Humility comes before wealth

The Fathers of the Church would see Americans’ obsession with projecting wealth and status as financially irresponsible and a failure to practice humility. St. John Chrysostom warned, “Do not adorn the body, but clothe the soul with great virtue.” That wisdom applies today: instead of trying to keep up with the Joneses, we should be striving to cultivate the virtues of charity, prudence, temperance, and modesty. True wealth isn’t found in appearances or possessions but in living a life of love, fidelity, and service. Humility demands that we focus on our duties and obligations toward God, family, and community and let go of the pride that derails us.

Humility also demands that we take our place graciously, which is to say that we need to live in reality. If we are poor, we should not spend like we are middle class and we should seek out assistance from family or our church community, if we need to, without feeling ashamed. If we are middle class, we should not adopt the spending habits of the wealthy. If we are wealthy, we need to be mindful of the needs of the Church, the poorly educated, and the innocent poor, while not spending all our wealth on luxuries and self-indulgence.

This is not to say that social mobility is wrong. Social mobility is a good thing and can go both ways. St. Basil the Great and his siblings gave up their wealth voluntarily to serve the Church and founded two monastic communities on their family estate. On the other hand, if you are the father of a family and desire to provide a better education for your children or want to be able to be more generous, it is a noble thing to want to move one’s family out of poverty into the middle class. Understand, however, that social mobility from poverty to wealth usually requires multiple generations, which is ordered, natural, and good.

Americans are obsessed with “rags to riches” stories, which are very inspiring but not a guarantee or an entitlement. There is a little more to it than just “following your dreams.” Immigrants can come to America, who already have virtue, humility, and aptitude and do very well here, but 40% of Americans are still trying to get there by winning the lottery.

Each socioeconomic class has its particular duties and responsibilities, which require their own set of virtues. These virtues are best handed down from parent to child and constitute a large part of one’s moral upbringing.

An abundance of wealth will not solve anyone’s root problems. More money will only make a man more of what he is already. If he is a scoundrel, he will become more of a scoundrel, and if he is a saint and can keep his head, he will become more of a saint.

The American Founders and the Church Fathers alike understood the importance of accepting and embracing one’s station in life with dignity while also recognizing the opportunities for growth and service that come with it. True virtue lies not in projecting affluence or striving for status but in living a life of prudence, temperance, piety, fidelity, and true charity. By cultivating humility and recognizing the natural roles and responsibilities of class, we will be happier, and our example will help move society toward more just and virtuous ends—a society that values character over consumption and charity over selfish pleasures.