Elitism discussed
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
28-12-2010, 02:41 PM
Elitism discussed
I had heard "elitist" thrown around as a derogatory term by repubs so often, that I was forced to look up the exact definition. I had always thought it was a mindset that you were better than everyone else, therefor meriting all the dismissive attitude towards you. However, the term "elite" is a good thing, which always confused me. How could adding the suffix "ist" make a good term bad?

So after delving into the term for a while, I perceive it to mean giving the most credit and decision making power to a select group of individuals, the intellectuals, wealthy, and/or trained or experience. Discarding the wealthy part of it, since wealth can be acquired through immoral and unearned methods, I don't see much of a problem with this. Shouldn't the smartest and most experienced be granted the most influence in governing the human race? I realize this begs the question "who decides who is smart or experienced?" since "the intellectuals" could appoint those who they deem "intellectuals" into power, and also give themselves special privileges all in the name of "I'm smart so I know what's best." I've drifted into the more specific elitist government aspect of it, but the basic belief that the smartest should be given the most merit still rings true to me.

Ignoring the wealth aspect would likewise discard the Plutocracy possibility. And technocracy, where in each professional field, the most knowledgeable would be in charge, also makes sense to me. I realize this is all very anti-democratic, but when the general populace are a collective of willfully ignorant morons, most of whom base their decisions on the misguided morals of a 2000 year old book... maybe someone else should be in charge of the quality of life and moral standards that govern a country.

"Ain't got no last words to say, yellow streak right up my spine. The gun in my mouth was real and the taste blew my mind."

"We see you cry. We turn your head. Then we slap your face. We see you try. We see you fail. Some things never change."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-12-2010, 01:41 AM
RE: Elitism discussed
I think you would encounter a "borders" problem. Where would you lie the border on who is intelligent enough to lead an who isn't? Are these borders flexible? If so, you risk them to become arbitrary.

Any self-respecting democracy should grand you the choice to vote for the most intelligent person.

Observer

Agnostic atheist
Secular humanist
Emotional rationalist
Disclaimer: Don’t mix the personal opinion above with the absolute and objective truth. Remember to think for yourself. Thank you.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-12-2010, 02:08 AM
RE: Elitism discussed
I'm going to have to say, I am slightly elitest, I think there should be an intelligence test to vote (not necessarily IQ however). I will also agree that Generals should be in charge of wars, and the best in their respective fields should fill the leadership position of that field. Almost like, I don't know, a job? Why vote for a CIC when you have a four star general who is worthy of the position (however I also see the CIC as being somebody that should NOT be the president, since the president is the face of the people, not the war god of them). However democracy should remain for representatives, but there should be restrictions on the right to vote, restrict it to those who can pass the test, maybe give more voting power to a person who scores higher? But not eliminate democracy.

Btw, republicans think the wealthy, the white, and the christian should be in charge. Their elitism is classist, racist, and bigotted.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-12-2010, 03:13 AM
RE: Elitism discussed
I think there's an issue of fields.
In the field of exact science the most intelligent should lead.When it comes to issues of politics that logic fails to apply.No matter how qualified someone is you can't expect the best decision making in all aspects of leadership.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-12-2010, 03:33 AM
RE: Elitism discussed
However you can expect the more intelligent to elect the more qualified.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-12-2010, 03:37 AM
RE: Elitism discussed
It's possible , but intellect and experience are two different things.The school of life has no diplomas.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-12-2010, 03:46 AM
RE: Elitism discussed
It's a good point, but either way, if you have more intelligent people voting and less idiots, then you have a more intelligent decision, at least the probability is that you would select a more qualified person more often.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-12-2010, 03:48 AM
RE: Elitism discussed
Yes.That's true.
My only fear was neglecting experience or quantifying capability where it does not apply.
Education is our salvation. Big Grin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-12-2010, 05:18 AM
RE: Elitism discussed
I personnaly think
1: the issue in all of the above formula's lie in the fact that you are first going to have to agree in what tests you want. This means the test have to be deigned and approved by the leaders who benefit from the results.
2: Althoug they are not aloud a full volte, you are still going to have a large majority of "dumber" pepole to whom it is hard to explain to that ...
"That they are getting a school/airport/opera in their town instead of the footballstadion/racetrack/swimingpool they have asked for." for example

Observer

Agnostic atheist
Secular humanist
Emotional rationalist
Disclaimer: Don’t mix the personal opinion above with the absolute and objective truth. Remember to think for yourself. Thank you.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-12-2010, 09:25 AM
 
RE: Elitism discussed
The republicans use the elitist argument to stir up populist support for their party and disguise the fact that the republicans themselves are servants of the elites of wealth. Not that Democrats aren't either, but they are just less efficient at stirring up populist anger/using propaganda.

The majority of American people are stupid or easily malleable. If you can create a scapegoat, create fear, or paint your opponent as a specific group, and then incorporate this message into endless propaganda in the form of the media and advertisements, then you've won yourself an election.

Obviously the most intelligent and most capable people should govern. But, it is this very intelligence which creates a separation between the "ruling class" and the working classes. Republicans (not that Democrats don't, they just suck at it) blow up this difference to paint Democratic politicians as overly educated snobs who are "out of touch" with "American" values. What voters do not realize is that the ruling class uses antagonism towards the ruling class to get itself re-elected. At the same time, Republicans do little to improve our educational system, thus maintaining the intelligence divide.

Elitist is just one of the many words that are thrown around. Apparently, one can be an elitist, Muslim, socialist, and a member of an anti-American Christian church at the same time.
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: