What do you think?
Country of Lords: Neo-Aristocrats, Social Darwinists, Tech Utopians, and the Long Fight against Equality in America
A Pulitzer-finalist historian charts a 250-year-old intellectual and political tradition—the conviction that all Americans are NOT created equal.
We think of the United States as a nation committed, at least on paper, to ideals of human equality, under God and/or under the law. But as robust as the notion of the “American dream” is a longstanding defense of social hierarchies, including vast gulfs between rich and poor.
Drawing on forgotten characters and neglected archives, Kim Phillips–Fein tells the story of the executives, intellectuals, and political leaders who have argued that the words of the Declaration of Independence—that “all men are created equal”—are a myth. John Adams, William Graham Sumner, Andrew Carnegie, journalist Lothrop Stoddard, Henry Ford, Harvard psychologist Richard Herrnstein, Peter Thiel, and others represent this counter-tradition of hostility to democratic government. Phillips-Fein explores their ideas, and the aspirations they were reacting to, in order to understand our political life today—in hopes we might imagine a more egalitarian way forward.
We think of the United States as a nation committed, at least on paper, to ideals of human equality, under God and/or under the law. But as robust as the notion of the “American dream” is a longstanding defense of social hierarchies, including vast gulfs between rich and poor.
Drawing on forgotten characters and neglected archives, Kim Phillips–Fein tells the story of the executives, intellectuals, and political leaders who have argued that the words of the Declaration of Independence—that “all men are created equal”—are a myth. John Adams, William Graham Sumner, Andrew Carnegie, journalist Lothrop Stoddard, Henry Ford, Harvard psychologist Richard Herrnstein, Peter Thiel, and others represent this counter-tradition of hostility to democratic government. Phillips-Fein explores their ideas, and the aspirations they were reacting to, in order to understand our political life today—in hopes we might imagine a more egalitarian way forward.
256 pages, Hardcover
Published July 21, 2026
About the author
Kim Phillips-Fein
9 books66 followersKimberly Phillips-Fein is a historian of twentieth-century American politics. She teaches courses in American political, business, and labor history. She has contributed to essay collections published by Harvard University Press, University of Pennsylvania Press and Routledge and to journals such as Reviews in American History and International Labor and Working-Class History. Professor Phillips-Fein has written widely for publications including the Nation , London Review of Books , New Labor Forum , to which she has contributed articles and reviews. She is currently working on a new project about New York City in the 1970s.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 18 of 18 reviews
August 23, 2026
The historical research for this book is extremely sloppy even if the general thesis is fine. An example of this is the authors belief that John Adams was an ally to aristocracy. I don't see how anyone could have read anything written by the man or any scholarly research about him & come to that conclusion (there are whole books specifically devoted to Adams fears about aristocracy!) Did the author mix up Adams & Alexander Hamilton!? The Adams here is the fictional one created by Jeffersonian journalists during the outrageous smear campigns that accompanied the birth of american factional politcs. To be fair, Adams was skeptical of the literal claim of "all men are created equal" (they obviously aren't, some are stronger, some are smarter, some have bigger dicks, &c) but not Jefferson's actual meaning that they have equal claims to liberty & political rights. In fact, as one of the few founders who never owned slaves & opposed the practice of slavery, Adams embodied Jefferson's dictum better than the hypocritical Sage of Monticello. In some John & Abigail Adams letters, he comes close to conceding that it ought to be "all humans are created equal" not just men, something that probably didn't even cross the minds of any of his fellow patriots. The author says that Adams endorced a "natural aristocracy", a rule by the most virtuous & enlightened men, a term actual coined & endorsed by Jefferson! Adams himself in his letters to Jefferson is skeptical of natural aristocracy, believing, no matter how virtuous the men, it would inevitably become corrupt, as had the Whig aristocracy of England. Adams was actually unusually mistrustful of natural aristocracy, compared to the other leaders of his time. This was one of his principle sins that condemned him in the minds of many of his contemporaries & one of the many reasons the treasonous & satanic Hamilton cock-blocked him out of a second term. Adams did also fear that a blind faith & a heedless trust in the goodness & wisdom of the common man, Jefferson's infinately noble yoeman farmers, would allow demagogery to envelop the public interest allowing aristocracy to seize political power by the balls (literally the MAGA blueprint predicted 2 centuries before hand). That some men are more conniving, more ruthless, more chasmatic, was something that must be guarded against, not something to be celebrated & rewarded. Protecting freedom & political equality from aristocracy's, natural or artificial, ceaseless lust for power was one of the principle concerns of Adams' great work of political philosophy, The Defence of the Constitutions. That the flamboyant equality of the French Revolution collapsed into a new aristocracy of blood-soaked revolutionary goblins with obscure skin diseases, then a Napoleonic martial aristocracy of men made more of metals & pins & epaulettes & first place prize pig at the county fair ribbons than flesh & bone, then the Ancien Regime reborn, this time with 10x more obesity & 20x more gout (but, tragically, 10x less horniness & threesomes), only confirmed these fears in Adams' mind. The author of this book either decided to purposefully misunderstand this or, more likely, did sloppy research. The author is an expert in 20th century poltical & labor history, so I assume this is a bad case of historians getting too far out of their area of expertise because the whole intellectual history of the early republic here just stinks. For anyone more familiar with the early US, the Southern Plantation class, esp in the Carolinas & Georgia, or the High Federalists would be a much better example of American aristocracy & anti-equality. Hamilton quite explicitly endorced these views & had open contempt for Jefferson's ideal of political equality. Hamilton is the enlightenment spitting image of a goose stepping fascist Wall Street Tech-Bro with daddy issues. Total failure not to get his ass & make the annoying musical fans mad too. I'd didn't read past this early section of the book as I was too annoyed & irritated to continue.
August 11, 2026
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal".
How did the politics of today come to reject these truths?
This book traces the thread of anti-egalitarian thinking through 250 years of American history.
As described in the first chapter:
"The common thread that runs through the thinking of the anti-egalitarians is that they see material and economic inequality as not only inevitable but something to celebrate.
For some of these writers, the poor are just the losers in the game of life; life’s winners, for reasons of luck, talent, brains, and strength, have left them at the bottom. For other commentators on the right, the underclasses are biologically inferior, incapable of abstract thought and reasoning, a menace, and a danger to those who are better than them. They must be controlled, managed, and their labor extracted to serve the glorious mechanisms of production, but they must not be allowed to exert any social power or permitted to have any say in how society runs. They have value only for what they contribute to the whole. For other observers still, those who must work are just not smart enough to compete. They are too emotional. They are too physical. They are not rational enough, not calculating enough. They are not sufficiently like machines."
How did the politics of today come to reject these truths?
This book traces the thread of anti-egalitarian thinking through 250 years of American history.
As described in the first chapter:
"The common thread that runs through the thinking of the anti-egalitarians is that they see material and economic inequality as not only inevitable but something to celebrate.
For some of these writers, the poor are just the losers in the game of life; life’s winners, for reasons of luck, talent, brains, and strength, have left them at the bottom. For other commentators on the right, the underclasses are biologically inferior, incapable of abstract thought and reasoning, a menace, and a danger to those who are better than them. They must be controlled, managed, and their labor extracted to serve the glorious mechanisms of production, but they must not be allowed to exert any social power or permitted to have any say in how society runs. They have value only for what they contribute to the whole. For other observers still, those who must work are just not smart enough to compete. They are too emotional. They are too physical. They are not rational enough, not calculating enough. They are not sufficiently like machines."
July 29, 2026
Historian Phillips-Fein shows the through line from the fascists of yesteryear to the right-wing tech bros of today. (It won't shock anyone to learn that most (all?) of the featured subjects are white men.)
August 6, 2026
Bought from Bezos's evil empire, ironically.
More cosmically horrifying than the HPL anthology I just read, since Curtis Yarvin is, unfortunately, real. Some of this is familiar if you know US history, as with the discussion of eugenics and immigration restriction or Andrew Carnegie, but in each case Phillips-Fein highlights something new to me at least, whether it's Carnegie's sincere conviction that, while economic inequality was natural, wealth was to be distributed rather than hoarded, or the origins and secret elitism of 50s meritocracy. What persists is the general sense that when Jefferson wrote "all men are created equal," he didn't really mean it, or he meant in a general sense, but certainly not a moral or intellectual or economic or racial one. I think the best part is teasing out that common thread in all of these ideas, the refusal to countenance notions that inequality is wrong and that your opponents are secretly scheming to install a regime where everyone is, horribly, the same--and worse, that it is foolishness to argue that wealth inequity is bad or should be challenged, or that corporations are not the ideal social and economic format (fascinating section of the Ford chapter on the distinction between Ford's essentially feudal notion of his company and GM's faceless structure, both of which ratified inequality for different reasons), or that white people are not the best of all, which of course is again very big among sections of the online right these days. (Do I wish she'd also looked into the looniness of Catholic integralism? I just find that so ridiculous that...I don't even know, though its bold undercutting of the last 250 years is certainly something.) Somehow Lothrop Stoddard comes off as even worse than I'd thought, as it turns out he debated WEB DuBois and got slaughtered, then decided to write an unsurprisingly sympathetic travel book about Nazi Germany in 1940 that he was sure would resuscitate his once-hallowed reputation (did not know Harding had celebrated his work by name, or that he'd written a book on militant Islam in the 1920s, which you gotta credit him for anticipating as a prejudice WAYYYY ahead of everyone else), and which...did not, even with his rote and minor criticisms of the regime.
Worst part, by far: how these ideas never quite go away, even as scientific racism (we thought! we hoped!) was left for dead in after the 1930s. Inequality as its own robust American tradition, basically. Or as HPL (himself a great believer in and fictionalizer of the ideas of people like Stoddard) put it, that which is not dead can eternal lie.
More cosmically horrifying than the HPL anthology I just read, since Curtis Yarvin is, unfortunately, real. Some of this is familiar if you know US history, as with the discussion of eugenics and immigration restriction or Andrew Carnegie, but in each case Phillips-Fein highlights something new to me at least, whether it's Carnegie's sincere conviction that, while economic inequality was natural, wealth was to be distributed rather than hoarded, or the origins and secret elitism of 50s meritocracy. What persists is the general sense that when Jefferson wrote "all men are created equal," he didn't really mean it, or he meant in a general sense, but certainly not a moral or intellectual or economic or racial one. I think the best part is teasing out that common thread in all of these ideas, the refusal to countenance notions that inequality is wrong and that your opponents are secretly scheming to install a regime where everyone is, horribly, the same--and worse, that it is foolishness to argue that wealth inequity is bad or should be challenged, or that corporations are not the ideal social and economic format (fascinating section of the Ford chapter on the distinction between Ford's essentially feudal notion of his company and GM's faceless structure, both of which ratified inequality for different reasons), or that white people are not the best of all, which of course is again very big among sections of the online right these days. (Do I wish she'd also looked into the looniness of Catholic integralism? I just find that so ridiculous that...I don't even know, though its bold undercutting of the last 250 years is certainly something.) Somehow Lothrop Stoddard comes off as even worse than I'd thought, as it turns out he debated WEB DuBois and got slaughtered, then decided to write an unsurprisingly sympathetic travel book about Nazi Germany in 1940 that he was sure would resuscitate his once-hallowed reputation (did not know Harding had celebrated his work by name, or that he'd written a book on militant Islam in the 1920s, which you gotta credit him for anticipating as a prejudice WAYYYY ahead of everyone else), and which...did not, even with his rote and minor criticisms of the regime.
Worst part, by far: how these ideas never quite go away, even as scientific racism (we thought! we hoped!) was left for dead in after the 1930s. Inequality as its own robust American tradition, basically. Or as HPL (himself a great believer in and fictionalizer of the ideas of people like Stoddard) put it, that which is not dead can eternal lie.
August 21, 2026
Social Darwinists, Tech Utopians, and the Long Fight against Equality in America is a fascinating work of American intellectual history that traces a remarkably persistent argument against equality across 250 years. Kim Phillips-Fein examines how influential thinkers, business leaders, and political figures have defended social hierarchy and questioned the democratic ideal that all Americans are created equal.
One of the book’s greatest strengths is the way it connects figures from very different eras. By bringing together figures such as John Adams, Andrew Carnegie, Henry Ford, Richard Herrnstein, and Peter Thiel, while drawing on lesser-known characters and neglected archives, Phillips-Fein reveals how ideas about hierarchy, wealth, merit, and political power can reappear in new forms.
The result is a thought-provoking history that speaks directly to contemporary debates about inequality, capitalism, democracy, and American political life. For readers interested in American history, politics, economics, business, and the intellectual roots of inequality, this is a timely and compelling examination of ideas that continue to shape the country.
One of the book’s greatest strengths is the way it connects figures from very different eras. By bringing together figures such as John Adams, Andrew Carnegie, Henry Ford, Richard Herrnstein, and Peter Thiel, while drawing on lesser-known characters and neglected archives, Phillips-Fein reveals how ideas about hierarchy, wealth, merit, and political power can reappear in new forms.
The result is a thought-provoking history that speaks directly to contemporary debates about inequality, capitalism, democracy, and American political life. For readers interested in American history, politics, economics, business, and the intellectual roots of inequality, this is a timely and compelling examination of ideas that continue to shape the country.
July 26, 2026
Country of Lords is a compelling and deeply researched examination of one of the most enduring yet often overlooked currents in American political thought. Kim Phillips-Fein masterfully traces the long history of arguments against equality, revealing how influential political leaders, industrialists, intellectuals, and modern technology elites have shaped competing visions of American democracy over more than two centuries.
What makes this book especially powerful is its ability to connect historical ideas with contemporary debates without sacrificing scholarly depth. The narrative is balanced, insightful, and highly accessible, inviting readers to critically examine the origins of inequality, the persistence of elite power, and the evolving struggle for a more democratic society. Richly documented and thoughtfully argued, Country of Lords is an essential contribution to political history and an invaluable resource for anyone seeking to better understand the ideological forces that continue to shape America today.
What makes this book especially powerful is its ability to connect historical ideas with contemporary debates without sacrificing scholarly depth. The narrative is balanced, insightful, and highly accessible, inviting readers to critically examine the origins of inequality, the persistence of elite power, and the evolving struggle for a more democratic society. Richly documented and thoughtfully argued, Country of Lords is an essential contribution to political history and an invaluable resource for anyone seeking to better understand the ideological forces that continue to shape America today.
August 19, 2026
Country of Lords is one of those books that makes you look around at civilization and think, “Well, shit.”
The deeply depressing takeaway is how often eugenics and obscene wealth have traveled together. From Carnegie and Ford to Musk, Thiel, and Trump, enormously wealthy men have repeatedly decided that having more money than God apparently qualifies them to redesign society too.
And when laws threaten to interfere with the grand vision? Spend enough money, and you can work on redesigning those as well.
The bleakest part is that inequality isn’t some unfortunate glitch in the system. For a lot of the people shaping that system, it’s the feature.
Fascinating, infuriating, and exceptionally well researched.
Four stars because I learned a lot. Minus one because now I want to crawl into a hole and live there.
The deeply depressing takeaway is how often eugenics and obscene wealth have traveled together. From Carnegie and Ford to Musk, Thiel, and Trump, enormously wealthy men have repeatedly decided that having more money than God apparently qualifies them to redesign society too.
And when laws threaten to interfere with the grand vision? Spend enough money, and you can work on redesigning those as well.
The bleakest part is that inequality isn’t some unfortunate glitch in the system. For a lot of the people shaping that system, it’s the feature.
Fascinating, infuriating, and exceptionally well researched.
Four stars because I learned a lot. Minus one because now I want to crawl into a hole and live there.
September 15, 2026
this is an interesting book. From early times, say, 1750s, Phillips-Fein traces the men who were proud to say that men are not equal. It's not a pretty picture. All of the men were influential in some way, founding fathers, professors, very rich business men, and more recent, tech bros. Tech bros seem to think that machines (AI) should eventually replace themselves.
They're a big ego bunch, certainly. Convinced of their status and beliefs.
Unfortunately, the author does not have a solution but that's not her fault. No one has in the arc of human history. If everyone gets a fair shake at a good life--that's what's needed.
Highlights???
- James Henry Hammond, speech in the senate, Mar 4, 1858. "all the powers of the earth could not abolish the essential inequality at the heart of social life."
...unfortunately, James might be onto something...
They're a big ego bunch, certainly. Convinced of their status and beliefs.
Unfortunately, the author does not have a solution but that's not her fault. No one has in the arc of human history. If everyone gets a fair shake at a good life--that's what's needed.
Highlights???
- James Henry Hammond, speech in the senate, Mar 4, 1858. "all the powers of the earth could not abolish the essential inequality at the heart of social life."
...unfortunately, James might be onto something...
August 1, 2026
This book traces a long line of people with elitist philosophies, though calling them philosophies gives them more credence than they deserve. All it really takes is money, greed, ego and a big mouth in order to spout self-justifying nonsense about how the rich are better than everyone else. There's not a coherent intellectual history here. It's whatever popular misreading of history and science they can latch onto at any given moment from divine right of kings to Social Darwinism, to Eugenics, to IQ tests, to meritocracy, to bogus genetics. If these guys were really so smart and superior, how could they fall for this garbage? But I guess flattery doesn't go out of style, so the super-rich never tire of being told how great they are.
August 4, 2026
This is an important topic, and I give the author great credit for even envisioning the book. It is well written and engaging. She covers a history from the American revolution to the present, and does an excellent job of distilling the philosophy of the main characters, as well as pointing out how events of the time required anti-egalitarians to change their claims and message.
I wish the book provided more perspective on how important the advocates were, and what kind of following they had. I sometimes wondered whether there weren’t others who had a greater hold on the population, and what segment of the population followed them or paid attention to them.
Well written and worth reading.
I wish the book provided more perspective on how important the advocates were, and what kind of following they had. I sometimes wondered whether there weren’t others who had a greater hold on the population, and what segment of the population followed them or paid attention to them.
Well written and worth reading.
August 29, 2026
Country of Lords is an eye-opening historical survey about the inequality that has existed in the USA since its inception. From John Adams to Henry Ford to anti-equality advocate Peter Thiel, there has always existed the notion that some, be it due to race, economics, or creed, are "lesser" and should be led by the "natural aristocracy." The "Technocracy" chapter is especially important. This book helps explain the widening gap between the "haves" and the "have nots."
July 31, 2026
Worth reading not for the political commentary, but for a good overview of anti-egalitarianism thought in the US. The author introduced me to some historical political and sociological thought and thinkers of which I was not aware (Technocracy Inc., Michael Young,
Thorstein Veblen, William Graham Sumner, James Henry Hammond) but into which I plan to do some further reading.
Thorstein Veblen, William Graham Sumner, James Henry Hammond) but into which I plan to do some further reading.
August 18, 2026
To over simplify and to be blunt, as long as the USA is controlled and run by billionaires and our government legislators are primarily old rich white men, equality in this country is a myth. There is not much new here but it is well presented and research supported. Caste: The Origins of Our Discontents by Isobel Wilkerson is a good companion read (and better IMO).
August 13, 2026
Definitely provides great context for the current environment and the previously discredited ideologies and charlatans pushing them. Why then does it end by “both sidesing” the noxious ideas yet is only able to list right wing groups and people?
August 23, 2026
Very thought-provoking read!
September 10, 2026
Excellent and tragic. Perfect prequel to Jill LePore’s latest which I have just begun.
August 17, 2026
Well wrought review of concepts that were covered in greater depth by Quinn Slobodian's book Hayek's Bastards, but the greater breadth accounts for the relatively shallow dives. Overall a useful and insightful exploration.
Displaying 1 - 18 of 18 reviews