"A tiny and closed fraternity of privileged men, elected by no one, and enjoying a monopoly sanctioned and licensed by government"

The quote by Spiro T. Agnew critiques a specific societal structure characterized by exclusivity, opportunity, and federal government endorsement. At its core, Agnew is dealing with the concentration of power and influence in the hands of a choose group of people. This "tiny and closed fraternity" suggests an elite group that is not just little in number but likewise resistant to external influence or the inclusion of outsiders. The term "fraternity" evokes the concept of a close-knit, possibly deceptive group that runs with its own internal guidelines and advantages, independent of the wider public's interests or examination.

"Privileged men" highlights the inherent inequality within this structure. These people most likely take pleasure in advantages and access to resources that are not readily available to the typical person. Their advantage may originate from socioeconomic status, expert standing, or political connections, enabling them to wield substantial impact over crucial social, financial, or political matters.

The expression "chosen by nobody" underscores a lack of democratic legitimacy. Unlike chosen officials who obtain their authority from the authorization of the governed, this group's power is unaccountable to the general public. They run without a mandate from the people, possibly allowing them to prioritize personal or group interests over those of society at large.

Last but not least, "enjoying a monopoly approved and licensed by government" indicate a system where government actions or policies have actually effectively eliminated competitors in favor of this elite group. This monopoly suggests exclusive control or impact over particular markets, resources, or areas of public life, which is legitimized, either explicitly or implicitly, by government authority.

In summary, Agnew's quote is a review of undemocratic class structure where a little, fortunate, and unaccountable group holds considerable sway, supported and preserved by governmental systems. This situation raises issues about fairness, accountability, and the capacity for systemic abuse or neglect of more comprehensive public interests.