College of Political Knowledge
Subject: Political Theory
Now where have you heard that statement? Think back…..Obama is an elitist……the Dems are elitists because they appeal to academics and intellectuals……Elitists to the right, elitists to the Left……..your opponent must be an elitist because he does Not agree with you…..in other words elitist is a term used to denigrate an opponent…apparently it is more acceptable than calling him a bastard….
I have heard the term used many times by the Radical Right….they are truly concerned about the taking over of our government by people that think or have obtained some degree of wisdom…..and we realize that we cannot allow that to happen….elitists must be fought at every level or we will lose our beloved country……(Yes….Sarcasm)
Since it is used so much you would think that the definition would be readily available…..it is not! But allow me to assist anyone who wants to learn about the term……
| Societal power is concentrated in elite groups who control resources of key social institutions and are not accountable to the masses, origins of societal power lie in control of social organizations, regardless of how (un)democratic a society maybe, Elites hold the bulk of power; use all and any means to retain power, power becomes end in itself. |
To my way of thinking there are two schools of elitism……the first and let us call it the classical school is a way of dealing with society or government…..the thought is that it is impractical for ALL individuals to be part of the governing process, thus it is inevitable that a small group of people will be permitted to make the decisions for everyone…this type of elite becomes entrenched and vertically impossible to remove from the seat of power….The state cannot be anything other than an organ of a minority that will necessarily rule in its own interests…….the Arab leaders of today’s protests comes to mind as an example…..
Then there is the second school and I will be damned if I can think of a good name for it…..but it is where all decisions for society fall onto the shoulders of a collage of the three sectors of the society…..corporate, military and political…..I guess the “power elite” would be a good name for the marriage of the three….the ruling minority uses its access to control the decisions made in the name of the people….and most times is at odds with the true concern of the people they rule……
I guess the best example for this is the United States….
The accusations that have been leveled by some in the talk radio genre are truly correct….but most times NOT for the reason they claim…..because a person is educated does not make them one of the elite….just knowledgeable.
Yes – excellent post. I suppose in a way, a well educated person is a member of an elite group – a minority who have gained knowledge and wisdom… What a horrific INDICTMENT of the failure of successive governments at the most basic of levels THAT is!
In all other respects, I’m sorry, but I can’t see any material difference between your two examples – Arab despots or US despotism of the rich and the corporate – where is the real difference between those two? They both pretend to serve “the people” and they both pretend that what they do is “for the benefit of people”, however ridiculous that patently is.
I guess about the only difference is one is more subtle in its approach…..
Replace “is” with “was” and I’d agree with you…
Many in the Tea Party who hold the “Founding Fathers” up as role models would be surprised to learn that they were reluctant to give the common man the vote and have a direct impact on who represented them in government, especially after the Shay’s Rebellion incident.
As they haggled how best to improve the Articles of Confederation in the summer of 1787 many were still aligned with the idea that states should be represented in the new government by each state’s commercial wealth.
Many like Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts were skeptical about any “excessive popular participation” in politics. The Senate was mostly fashioned after the House of Lords in the British Parliament where “more nobler” men who had better education would best be suited to determine the fate of the country. It was even suggested by Alexander Hamilton that “at least one branch of the legislature, as well as the chief executive, should hold their office for life.”
So true Larry…..I try to help the people understand that their “founders” were not this divine presence that most historians would like for us to believe…..
You know, I never got understood “elitist.” Like it’s so wrong to have an education? I honestly want my POTUS to be at the top of his class, not a “C” student (looking in George W’s direction).
And that’s the perfect term for your trifecta of power – The Power Elite.
Spinny I am with you….I want a educated person if not we get those little twits that know nothing about history or even government……instead they rely on slogans
Yes. Do you think perhaps that (if the truth could be told – which it won’t) those in power (both publicly and not so publicly) don’t really want to see ordinary people get too well educated because 1) they might then notice that the jerks running the country are scamming them and 2) they might also realise that those in charge are not the sharpest knives in the drawer by some considerable distance?
Of course they want a stupid and uninformed public…..more pliable…….I feel the internet could change that and it could make it worse……
Maybe – though I fail to see at this moment in time how it could be much worse – but then, anything’s possible, eh?