A dichotomy Lester Thurow once created is very useful.
An establishment vs an oligarchy.
An establishment is like the Founding Fathers. They are powerful and wealthy but with a strong sense of public spirit and civic virtue. They believe in duty and consider the well being of the country as their own well being.
An oligarchy is like a definition I once heard of "upper crust". A bunch of crumbs held together by dough. They are like Brezhnev's nomenklatura and Yeltsin's oligarchs and the Mexican ruling elite and the boards of Enron and Tyco and Global Crossing. The country is just something to be milked for their own benefit. They are parasites who build nothing. Its wealth is something to be drained into Swiss and Cayman Island bank accounts. They are devoid of any conception of duty or responsibility.
A distinction he didn't make is that the sons of an establishment will do their duty in time of war. The sons of Prescott Bush and Joseph Kennedy were in high casualty front line positions. There is nothing safe about being a carrier pilot or a PT boat commander. But as we move away from WW2 the sons of the powerful are further and further away from harms way. The sons of an oligarchy will save their own butts and leave the dying to others. When things go south they will, like Arab officers, abandon their men and hightail it out of there.
Unfortunately, Thurow's analysis would place a large percentage of State and Federal legislators in the 'oligarchy' class.
There is little concern for the common good--but a great DEAL of concern for the Party's good--and, of course, the Friends of the Party.
Gingrich's recent conversion to HillaryCare has more to do with the desire of Fortune500-types wishing to ditch medical-insurance costs than any 'common good' theme. Gingrich, a good student, cannot possibly have missed the lessons taught by Canada's medical system.
But the people most often the victims of socialized medicine are old, infirm, and potential, if not actual, "useless eaters."
Who needs THEM?