Political Elitism Explained

Tim says:
I thought it was very interesting that Obama talked with the House Republicans. That never would have happened if he didn't have to do it.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean about the "party of elite power" having issues with capitalism. Which party do you think that is? Most people would say it's the Republicans. If you mean it's the Democrats, I'd like to hear why. Also, doesn't it seem that the ruling class uses capitalism to its advantage? Why would they have issues with capitalism when capitalism helps them stay on top?

I'm not sure you can say that the ruling class is either Republican or Democrat. It seems that the rich are the ruling class. It seems to me that there are just as many rich Democrats in power as there are rich Republicans....



Maurice Says:
Since the catholic church in the 17th century, through the English and European monarchies of the 18th and 19th centuries, ‘Elite’ rule has always been associated with intellectual hegemony, an authoritarian ruling class which dictates political and cultural attitudes through executive privilege. Since the enlightenment, this group has been characterized by liberal arts academics, scientists, lawyers, artists, and political ‘thoroughbreds’. Starting with the New Deal in America this elite class has put forth the “premise that Americans value the wrong things, that the view the American people have of the good life is wrong, and that Americans must give up the low-density living arrangements they have preferred since colonial days and live like Europeans, closely packed and using primarily public transportation.” (Angelo Codevilla – The Character of Nations) Hence the critique not about how to increase or even maintain America’s prosperity, but about redefining it to fit an economically incongruent narrative. (Repair America’s infrastructure? Was it government that built America?) Capitalists, pure capitalists, Atlas Shrugged, are repelled by the bureaucracy of government. You are not wrong that the ruling class can use capitalism to its advantage. No finer example than the Obama takeover of GM and Chrysler, AIG, Fanny and Freddie, heck Goldman Sachs is so tight with the Democrats; it gave nearly 70% of its political contributions to them. Why not, Clinton bailed them out in the 90’s and Rahm Emanuel is ensuring their continued success. But this is bigger than political party necessarily. Look to the ideologies in both camps. Which party has a platform of smaller government and which promotes expansion? Which talks of deregulation and tort reform and which of regulation and litigation? The meaning of free enterprise differs radically for people of different moral dispositions. While leftists in the elite bureaucracy chart a new “path to riches by knowing what the government wants, ever greater attention and effort being shifted away from production and toward fitting into government schemes” (Codevilla), capitalists expect to succeed or fail on their own ethic. Their interest in government, an interest reflected in originalist interpretations of the Constitution, is to maintain equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome. They prefer private to public investment, free trade to managed trade, and low taxes to high ones. Success will be achieved by a free exchange of ideas and capital. Can you say that the US Auto industry is truly a free market any longer? (Ironic isn’t it that Toyota, a competitor of Barack-O-Motors, is facing congressional investigations?) What about banking?

Wealth is not a determinant of ‘Elite’ status, ideology is. As noted, ‘Elitism’ is perceived by ‘commonality’ as an authoritarian, intellectual movement in politics which seeks control of the governmental and/or cultural apparatuses in an effort to fix the status quo or radically alter it against common sentiment. The nearest example of elite establishment conservatism, the Soviet nomenklatura. The nearest example of elite radical progressivism, the American Democrat party.

Glacial Science Myopia

Recently I quipped on fb that Glen Beck was one of only a handful of people practicing real journalism.

If a handful is two, the other is Mark Steyn.

Steyn has uncovered the source of the glacial melting myth fueling leftwing 'end of times' irrationality.

It appears the 'science', the catalyst for the IPCC's (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) Nobel Peace Prize winning Fourth Assessment Report, which predicts Himalayan glacial disaster by 2035, comes from a World Wildlife Fund (not a science org., but an activist one) article recounting a 1999 interview conducted by a British journalist, Fred Pearce, of a 'researcher' in Delhi India. The researcher, Syed Hasnain, now working for a 'melting glacier' research institution funded by the Carnegie Corporation, taking full advantage of the myth it seems he created, ironically admits he was "speculating" about the demise of the glaciers. He confesses he conducted no research.

http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/02/03/credibility-is-what-is-really-melting/print/

 

Healthcare for thee, but not for me…

This certainly doesn't bode well for those pushing for a public healthcare system. Canada is supposed to have the best socialized care in the world.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/newfoundland-labrador/story/2010/02/01/nl-williams-heart-201.html

Newfoundland and Labrador Premier Danny Williams is set to undergo heart surgery this week in the United States.

CBC News confirmed Monday that Williams, 60, left the province earlier in the day and will have surgery later in the week.

The premier's office provided few details, beyond confirming that he would have heart surgery and saying that it was not necessarily a routine procedure.

Deputy Premier Kathy Dunderdale is scheduled to hold a news conference Tuesday morning.

She's expected to provide more details about Williams's condition, as well as how the provincial government will function during his absence.

CBC reporter David Cochrane said Williams appeared to be in good health recently. He described the premier as "fairly active," playing pick-up hockey at least once a week when work permits.

 

U.S. Wealth Redistribution

Creative accounting UN style.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,551480,00.html

Led by a shock-wave of developing countries, the U.N. General Assembly abandoned a 20-year tradition of adopting its budgets only by consensus — a custom that gave major donor countries like the U.S., which enjoy only one vote, unofficial clout on budgetary matters in keeping with their financial contributions

In 2007, however, the General Assembly took an official vote on the 2008-2009 budget — and approved it, 142-1. The only No vote came from the U.S. — under the Bush administration.

That result, according to Heritage's Schaefer, meant that "the majority of UN member states who contribute very little to the budget no longer feel the need to listen to the concerns of its largest contributor."

Misery and woe to the world if America should realize the lefts' utopian dream and revert to the horse cart and subsistence farming.