When the American colonists raised their bloody rebellion in 1776, part of the goal was to speed the destruction of the old feudal order. For example, the new nation outlawed hereditary aristocracy altogether. It’s right there in the Constitution. You can’t be a lord. No barons or dukes or viscounts, and certainly no monarchs.
But that doesn’t mean Americans, and in particular the revolutionary leaders, rejected all forms of feudalism.
The founders, on the whole, were a fairly elitist bunch (remember slavery?) who had little interest in democratizing American society. One sign of that elitism was their inherent mistrust of common folk. You know. The peasants.
Common Americans were kept far from the levers of government power. In the new United States, citizens would not be allowed to propose or vote upon legislation. This would not be a democracy. It would be a republic. Citizens could merely have some say in choosing their rulers. And only a choice few people even qualified as voting citizens.
Individual states determine voting rights, and they all erected class-based barriers to the franchise. Most required citizens to amass a certain amount of wealth before being eligible to vote. At first, roughly half of white American men were not wealthy enough to vote. Such property requirements were eventually removed during the 1810s and 1820s, though poll taxes and other economic restrictions remained until the 1960s.
In addition to economic class, there were also various social class barriers. Of course most black Americans, even free ones, were officially prohibited from voting throughout the nation until 1866. Afterwards, most had their voting rights sabotaged by various Jim Crow laws in that did not specifically cite skin color; thus many poor whites were also erased from the rolls. It would be another century until blacks regained their voting rights en masse. Women were not 
guaranteed the franchise until 1920. American Indians were not full enfranchised until 1924 and several states denied them the vote until the 1940s.
And for those people who could vote, there was not much to actually vote for.
The House of Representatives. That was the only office for which the relatively small number of privileged citizens could cast a direct vote during the early years of the republic. U.S. senators were chosen by state legislatures until 1913. Federal judges are appointed by the president and approved by the Senate. And to this day, citizens vote only indirectly for the president; that pesky Electoral College remains a buffer between citizens and the White House. Indeed, electors are not even required to cast their electoral votes for the candidate voters direct them to. So-called “faithless electors” can and sometimes do jump ship, regardless of how the people vote. It has happened many times, and in fact we’ve just dodged the possibility of that occurring again in the upcoming presidential election.
A Republican elector from Iowa recently resigned from the Electoral College because she decided she doesn’t want to vote for Mitt Romney regardless of what the voters in that state direct her to do. But she just as easily could have held the position, and voted for Ron Paul (whom she favors) without impunity.
Why was so much electoral obfuscation enshrined in the Constitution? Why allow citizens to vote for only one-half the legislature and nothing else? Because the aristocratic attitudes of the feudal era were still very much alive and well in late 18th century America. To one degree or another, most of the elites who founded a new nation did not trust the average person to participate in its governance. Some men are simply better than others. So they created a republican system that placed great limitations on the franchise, both in terms 
of quantity and quality, minimizing who could vote and what they could vote for.
In some ways then, the American Revolution wasn’t about upending the colonies’ feudal origins, but rather modifying them in ways that made sense to men of the Enlightenment. They still wanted political power to be concentrated among the leading men. They just mocked the idea that those leading men should be determined by heredity. Instead, they wanted a meritocracy. They didn’t want to tear down the pyramid of hierarchy. They simply wanted more fluidity within it.
Here in the 21st century, it’s easy to dismiss feudalism as an awful political, economic, and social system of a long bygone era. And of course feudal influences on the United States have greatly diminished since the 1780s. The nation has democratized substantially. But that does not mean all traces of the feudal past have disappeared. Most citizens’ political participation is still limited to choosing some of our rules. But beyond that, the legacy of feudalism can also be seen in American culture and its vision of the ideal society.
Of course no one wants a hereditary aristocracy or an economic system based on serfs being legally tied to the land. But many Americans don’t want a complete dissolution of that system either. Though they may not consciously realize it, they seem to want an economic and social system that is much like their political system: an improved feudal order that 
features an emphasis on fairness and “freedom.” They want an equality of opportunity. But they do not want actual equality.
At the heart of the feudal system was the notion that a small number of people are superior to the masses who should gratefully toil on their behalf. Many Americans still embrace this basic vision of society. They just don’t think the elite should be determined by birth. Rather, they want to näively believe that the cream usually rises to the top. That the rich and powerful are rich and powerful because they’re talented and hardworking, and that they deserve all the perks of their wealth and prestige.
Most Americans don’t fully reject the notion of an aristocracy. They just don’t want it to be determined by who fucks whom. Most Americans don’t seem to actually want a true democratization of society. Rather, In many ways they still adore Thomas Jefferson’s vision of a natural aristocracy: a select group of leaders who earn their power, wealth, and privilege instead of inheriting them.
Of course, it’s a pretty shitty vision for society. It champions endless competition and stark stratification. It trades generosity for selfishness and social obligation for a winner-take-all mentality.
The question then is, Why? In a nation where most people believe anything is possible, why do Americans continue to embrace a modified vision of feudal elitism?
Simply put, they all want their crack at a modern lordship. Everyone wants to be a tech wizard billionaire or glamorous movie star. And barring that, they’d settle for being Paris Hilton or “The Situation” from Jersey Shore, trading on dumb luck for their wealth and fifteen minutes of fame. Indeed, too many Americans lay down at night and dream about a day when they can hire someone to make their bed.
A fetid popular culture offers the sweet scent of saccharine dreams and broken promises: A four-post California King with satin sheets and enough throw pillows befitting a Lord and his Lady.
Why else would so many poor and working class people vote for Mitt Romney? The rah-rah team spirit of mindless party loyalty and fear of Barack Obama’s dark skin explain only so much. The truth is, many people will vote for Mitt Romney because they want to be Mitt Romney. They want to be unfathomably rich. And they fall for the lie that they could pull it off if bad luck and government bureaucrats would just get out of their way. So they’re eager to believe Romney when he insinuates that he can help them get there.
Every man’s home is his castle. Feudal lordships for all!
Note: A longer version of this article first appeared at 3 Quarks Daily.