Wealth of Nations and Plutocracy

Selfishness vs. Sympathy is an open question in Smith's oeuvre because he leaves their relation unaddressed.  Thus, the more fundamental question may be--why does someone familiar with Hume, Rousseau, Locke, and Aristotle leave the relation of Wealth of Nations to Political Philosophy and Morality unaddressed? One answer is that he takes some received treatments of those topics for granted, and conceives the scope of Economics to be subordinated to them, much as the ethos of a sports competition is restricted to the event itself.  Another answer is that his ambition for Wealth of Nations is even greater than an innovative Economic system.  Rather, he might be projecting it as the foundation of a Plutocratic Political and Moral doctrine, thereby breaking with a long tradition according to which Wealth is, at best, a subordinate Good.  The latter answer seems to be accepted by some of Smith's followers, notably those who adapt Theology, Evolutionism, or Democracy, to Capitalism, e. g. some Calvinists, Social Darwinists, and some American Conservatives, respectively.  Implicit in that acceptance is an answer to the first question--Selfishness preempts Sympathy.