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.