More and more you can find out whether someone is a liberal or a conservative (in the American sense of the words) by getting the answer to a simple question:
Do you think the average person is too stupid to do the right thing?
If you answer yes, you're probably a liberal. If you answer no, you're probably a conservative.
Obviously it's not a 100% truism but in most discussions with people in "real life" (or on-line) the inevitable root distinction between the two philosophies is whether the government is there to rule us or whether the government is there to serve us. Few liberals would agree that the government is there to rule us, because they don't think it is there to rule them just all the stupid yokels who make up the majority of the country.
Here's a conversation I had recently:
Friend: We need to make sure all Americans are ensured a certain basic standard of living. Me: I support your right to your opinion, but why does the federal government have to be the means to make your belief a reality? Why not work through charities and volunteerism so that those who believe as you do can work towards your goal? Friend: Because people aren't smart enough to do what's right.
Friend: We need to make sure all Americans are ensured a certain basic standard of living.
Me: I support your right to your opinion, but why does the federal government have to be the means to make your belief a reality? Why not work through charities and volunteerism so that those who believe as you do can work towards your goal?
Friend: Because people aren't smart enough to do what's right.
From Hotair:
Elitism is a sense that the hoi polloi are simply incapable of governing themselves, let alone a nation, and that a small group of “experts” have to take control of everything they do. That goes far beyond mere matters of state. Elitists see people getting more obese and believe that government has to intervene to remove food choices from individuals, as one rather timely example, as in New York City. They believe that removing personal choices will keep people from making bad decisions, because they — in all their wisdom — will make the right choices for them. This describes perfectly the policy direction of the Democratic Party, and perhaps even a part of the Republican Party as well. That’s why the charge of elitism sticks so well to Democratic candidates in national elections. Their humble origins are immaterial to the concept of elitism. Candidates who want to grow the federal government in order to increase its nanny-state power are by definition elitists, because they believe individuals cannot make choices for themselves. For Obama, the trappings of his ego make this even more obvious than perhaps it should be. He can’t understand why a man who makes his own presidential seals before being elected, gins up a rally of cheering Germans in an attempt to impress the yokels back home, and creates a Greek temple to his wisdom can be seen as elitist if he had to struggle in his early life. I don’t think anyone doubts the struggles of his childhood, but part of the problem is that his struggles really aren’t all that exceptional. He came from a broken home; probably half of all adults his age do now, or close to it. He traveled the world, grew up in Hawaii, and got scholarships to Columbia and Harvard Law School. That’s not that tough of a start in life. Forest de Rothschild notes that McCain has at least one event in his life when he rejected his own privilege in favor of his nation. He could have accepted the North Vietnamese offer of early release, based on his status as an admiral’s son. At the risk of his life and certainly at the risk of more torture, he refused. She believes that’s why McCain can make the elitist argument against Obama, and perhaps that’s true in terms of credibility. However, the real reason it sticks is because Obama and his allies want to govern us as though we were idiots, and McCain and Palin appear more likely to treat us as adults.
Elitism is a sense that the hoi polloi are simply incapable of governing themselves, let alone a nation, and that a small group of “experts” have to take control of everything they do. That goes far beyond mere matters of state. Elitists see people getting more obese and believe that government has to intervene to remove food choices from individuals, as one rather timely example, as in New York City. They believe that removing personal choices will keep people from making bad decisions, because they — in all their wisdom — will make the right choices for them.
This describes perfectly the policy direction of the Democratic Party, and perhaps even a part of the Republican Party as well. That’s why the charge of elitism sticks so well to Democratic candidates in national elections. Their humble origins are immaterial to the concept of elitism. Candidates who want to grow the federal government in order to increase its nanny-state power are by definition elitists, because they believe individuals cannot make choices for themselves.
For Obama, the trappings of his ego make this even more obvious than perhaps it should be. He can’t understand why a man who makes his own presidential seals before being elected, gins up a rally of cheering Germans in an attempt to impress the yokels back home, and creates a Greek temple to his wisdom can be seen as elitist if he had to struggle in his early life. I don’t think anyone doubts the struggles of his childhood, but part of the problem is that his struggles really aren’t all that exceptional. He came from a broken home; probably half of all adults his age do now, or close to it. He traveled the world, grew up in Hawaii, and got scholarships to Columbia and Harvard Law School. That’s not that tough of a start in life.
Forest de Rothschild notes that McCain has at least one event in his life when he rejected his own privilege in favor of his nation. He could have accepted the North Vietnamese offer of early release, based on his status as an admiral’s son. At the risk of his life and certainly at the risk of more torture, he refused. She believes that’s why McCain can make the elitist argument against Obama, and perhaps that’s true in terms of credibility. However, the real reason it sticks is because Obama and his allies want to govern us as though we were idiots, and McCain and Palin appear more likely to treat us as adults.
Ok, did your friend REALLY say "Because people aren't smart enough to do what's right."
That just sounds insulting to most people everywhere.
I agree with Draginol. The sense of the government having to do everything is so demeaning to those of us who would try to make a difference on our own.
It's amazing that Liberals believe Conservatives want Big Government... when it's Liberals saying the Government should be in charge of more.
If you believe the average person is capable of high level political thought, why should we have competitive elections? Surely the best path would be to simply select someone at random. It would have the advantage of being significantly cheaper and would fairer than the current US system where the wealthy have an advantage, or the Westminster system where only large, established party leaders have a feasible chance of high office.
I don't think the average person is particularly worthy of rule. By definition there are many superior candidates. Why shouldn't we use the best people we have available? Why shouldn't those with the greatest merits, the greatest ideas and the largest capacity to make their ideas work be in power? The best should be the ones who make it into office. Can you imagine living under a system where every leader is as capable as Lincoln, Churchill or your own political hero of choice?
What, in essence, is the problem with being an elitist? The alternative is to support candidates who seemingly aspire to nothing and claim to be nothing because they either lack self-confidence or have a streak of duplicity you could drive a bus through. I'm not sure what the advantage of rule under the self-proclaimed ordinary could be. George Bush is as ordinary as muck (a high class of muck, sure, with plenty of fresh bank notes mixed in, but still muck). He wasn't awful, but was he really what the American people deserved? Don't they deserve the best - don't they deserve an elite class of leader?
cacto is typing words that I agree with. ^^^
~Zoo
That is not what was stated or intended. No place did Brad talk about "high level political thought", but rather "people are not smart enought" period. There is a big difference. I doubt many people here are "smart enough" to create a particle collider, but that does not make them stupid.
People who "know" are not eliltist. They dont have to be. It is those that dont know, but think they do (they are not smart enough to know that they know not). And do you really want a failed mechanic to work on your car? Yet that is what we have with the "elitist". People that are not smart enough to know that they do not know. And that is what is wrong with them.
HAHAHAHA
I am in a liberal Arts Program and one of the facets is for people who want to work in public service.
Besides the actual sneering that goes on when they discuss "serving the public" (read: good selfless) as opposed to the "me corporations of America." (Read: bad selfish businesses who only care about making a buck) I hear the "the public is too dumb to vote" thing all the time...not from instructors but from the liberal OLDER adult students.
It's enough to make me throw up a little in my mouth.
Sure the best and brightest should be running the country. But the best and brightest aren't the kind of people who go round believing they are the best and brightest. Part of being "bright" is knowing you don't know it all.
To build a particle collider, you need a high level of knowledge in particle physics and various forms of engineering. I may be unfairly paraphrasing Draginol in suggesting that those he spoke with were talking about political awareness, but the impression I got was that his liberal friends were more or less saying that non liberal elites didn't understand the political situation, in other words lacked a high degree of comprehension of political thought.
I disagree that elitism is only ever found in conjunction with incompetence.
That's a misleading question, the average person does do the right thing, but there's a big difference between believing the average person will do what's right and the average person will be able to run a country which involves understanding of several very complicated problems, balancing them all at once while balancing the books (which Bush has failed in doing, meaning the next Pres will need to make an effective profit or else the interest payments will really become hurtful).
Well, realistically, nearly every successful leader of a major country has been an 'elite' as you put it. Not part of an ultra Jünker style elite, but part of the educated elite. The Founding Fathers were mostly part of the educated elite too, it's not as if American peasants lead the rising against the evil elitist British (which is an alarming misconception amongst some Americans), they were educated people who, amongst other things, had the reasonable grievance that they should not be paying taxes without a say in what goes on in their country. The leaders weren't Joe Normal, from Kentucky either. Even the 'communists' of this world (though true communism has never existed and never will because communism as we are familiar with it is contradictory of itself) such as Lenin (who grew up in a very middle-class family), Marx (an economist and philosopher) and Engels (a socio-economist and political-philosopher) were not uncultured and poorly educated. Most communists were intelligent, but didn't get along with the authorities of the time.
I don't think there have ever been none-elites in charge of large successful movements or countries, the Russian communist revolutions were headed by rebellious men of fairly equal intelligence to the American Foudning Fathers, even the Bauernkrieg of 1524, which was hailed as the roots of the German states rising against the elites, were headed by educated men and professionals such as monks, priests, and smithys.
The popular belief in an elite class leading is now becoming more futile in some ways, since education has rocketed in the Western World over the past century, but economics, business philosophy, and welfare demands are now so complex that specialists are essential to the effective running of a country. Sure an average joe could learn this (as Obama seems to portray himself as) but they need education and a few years experience at the very least (very good education is something Obama has received, but experience in the actual issues have come out in his confused views which seem to change as he becomes more enlightened into the actual situations, causes and effects of problems in the world, as opposed to the mass' ideas which are spoonfed to them by the media and their fellow peer-groups).
Does that make me a conservative-elitist? Well I loved the idea of a black-man who had risen up (a la the American Dream) to lead the country, so in one respect no. But then his lack of credentials which only come from the elite class of politicians and businessmen really began to show and pushed me towards preferring a McCain or Giuliani figure. The idea of an elite class where people are born to elite parents and become elite themselves, is alarming though. This is where inequality will become rife. The important thing in my opinion is an elite-class which is ever-shifting which is accomplished by giving good education prospects to all and the chance of a top-university education to anybody who is intelligent enough, regardless of their background and wealth. People like Obama really do make a difference to the elites, as do people like Palin. They are two entirely different people though. Obama has essentially joined their ranks, bringing some of his own ideology to their pool, while Palin hasn't (yet) and so her rocketing to the peripheries forces a shakeup, both of which are good. The worst possible candidates to lead the country are people like the Clintons, the Kennedys, Romney, and the Bush's, since they are all established elites who begin to be so far removed from the average American because of their vast wealth and 'upper-class' 19th century style status.
No, what they usually support is the clamping down on foods which, in one portion, give over 100% of the recommended calories for a day. This is widespread throughout America and the UK and isn't a matter of being authoritarian on what people eat, but outlawing the most ridiculously dangerous foods. The government bans drinking under the age of 21, why? Because alcohol is dangerous and would be used without responsibility by people under 21 (which I personally disagree with) and the idea is the same with food, by allowing people to eat nothing but chocolate cake and fat-soaked meat all day and taking away the dangerously fatty foods, which would kill you pretty if you had what is designed as one-portion per day on top of a balanced diet, they aren't saying 'you must eat X, Y, Z' they're saying 'you may eat anything but 'A, B, C.' If a foodgroup gave you cancer, you'd expect them to retract it. Some of the products out there will kill you about half as quickly simply in themselves, yet you believe they should be allowed to stay?
I think you've raised brilliant points, but again I disagree with an element of this. I don't believe that Obama wants to rule as if the American people are idiots, he wants to rule them like idiots on X, Y and Z, yet on things like Abortion, infanticide, probably drugs, he would preach that the American people are clever enough to make up their own minds. That's not wanting to rule people like idiots, that's simply two-faced double standards, or idiocracy and inconsistence on his part.
P.S. I know I didn't express myself too well there, but my overall point is that the educated elite (as opposed to the cultural elite/born elite) are the only ones who are qualified to make some decisions. Sure the average Joe should be able to decide what he does most of the time, but some things are fairly blatantly not being chosen correctly. There is such a fuzzy line between what could be construed as an icorrect decision and what is definitely one, but dangerous foods etc. are statistically a poor decision, because they will kill you just as quickly as smoking. But i'm not talking about a sugary trifle, i'm talking about some extreme cases of food.
I am one who tends to believe that the average person is too stupid for their own good. But I am also one who believes people should learn from their mistakes because as the saying goes "ignorance of the law is no excuse ".
Yes. Exact quote.
And I've heard it countless times in such discussions.
The key question is: Why not let people donate to charities and let charities help the people who need help?
And the answer is always that people won't do what's right (i.e. they won't voluntarily contribute) so we need the government (men with guns) to make us do "what's right".
I'm not suggesting the average person should be President of the United States.
I am saying that the average person knows what is best FOR THEMSELVES.
If people support universal healthcare, for instance, why not let charities provide help to those who can't afford healthcare? Let those who think that healthcare is a "right" pay into it.
If people support more aid to the "needy" then let charities to do it.
But over and over again, the liberal response in conversation is that people won't do the right thing unless they're forced to.
(draginol = frogboy, just depends on which machine I'm posting from)
People as individuals will tend to make decisions in their own best interest based on the information at hand. This was the essance of Adam Smith's unseen hand, and it applies to society as much as to economics. And in so far as the conservitives are more proponents of this philosophy than liberals, concervitives are the "true" liberals.
Indiviuals are fine. It's the groups that worry me.
Political awareness is not "high level political thought". Again you are being elitist in trying to explain it. I know what a particle collider does, but I do not know how to make one. SO that makes me ignorant, right? That is elitism on your part.
I never said it was, now did I? I only pointed out examples, not absolute truths. But thanks, you really are proving his point.
Economic theory. Utilitarianism.
Depending on your definition of "elite" Republicans fit it too.
McCain came from 2 generations of Admirals... Got a free ride to the Naval Academy (which he couldn't have gotten into by competitive selection). Was in the bottom 10 (not 10%, but 10 people) of his class but still got chosen to be an elite fighter pilot, which again he could never have gotten by his merit. Crashed 3 planes in accidents.... which would have gotten the "common man" thrown out of the military, and today is considered some kind of hero because he managed to crash a plane again in Vietnam? My stepfather TURNED DOWN a DFC for a crash in Vietnam because he felt he should have been good enough to keep from crashing. McCain got about a half-dozen medals for it... and kept every one.
McCain and Bush are the same elite. People who have no ability, but come from the nobility. Neither would have been more than shoe salesmen if they had been born in a "common man's" family.
And somehow you think they believe the people can govern themselves and the the Democrats don't? Haven't you ever heard Bush call himself the "Decider" ... aren't you aware that the "Decider" routinely went against the experts, including career military people, to the point that he almost lost 2 wars and has killed thousands of our kids needlessly?
The Republicans are the ultimate elite. Mostly nobility, with no ability, who practice Faith-Based governance. They don't need experts because they know better than absolutely anybody else, because GOD TOLD THEM SO.
Claiming the Democrats are elitist and the Republicans aren't is one of the most incredible reversals of the truth I've ever seen.
I suspect a lot of "common men" identify with Bush and McCain, because they too have no ability and can only dream of having been born into the nobility to lift them up out of obscurity.
Such men can never hope to be the self-made men that folks like Obama are, and they are jealous as hell.
I've never had any far left person (far left in my mind) point out their viewpoint like that to me...but the fact that the person you talked to said that makes me think my idea of left and your idea of left, while probably the same in general, are off by orders of magnitude probably. I'd probably have to move to the Northeast somewhere to really understand that culture Brad...not sure...I don't get too much personal contact with that here in Texas.
Like, you mentioned that person saying people should have a guaranteed standard of living. Usually, the argument I hear is that people should get a certain level of help get a start, but they need to earn their standard of living. Otherwise, the lazy moochers will just take advantage of the system, which in my mind would eventually happen in such a system.
I can usually begrudgingly agree with a certain level of help to get a start when that argument is brought to me, but my parents (and me as when I was younger) didn't get any help AT ALL from the government, and moved ourselves up in the world, so I feel that giving that extra 'help' is already an extremely generous charity from the government (if such a system was in place) and not necessary to get to a comfortable class in America so I'm not inclined at all to ever have some type of forced guaranteed standard of living given to people.
I mean, basically, (minus some extreme unfortunate cases), putting in hard work and being smart with one's money (not going out and buying 4 iphones for the whole family or a 60 in lcd tv if it's out of their realistic budget) is enough in America to get to ~middle class imo.
I kind of went off on a tangent from the topic there.
Sigh, I'm so sick of hearing about conservatives and liberals. Both sides think the other is out to destory the country and that they, and they alone, have all the answers. Your blog is just as elitist as the people you are complaining about though. You think you know what's right (ie, that the government should not be used to keep people in line) and that anyone who says otherwise just doesn't know how to make proper decisions for themselves. And, yes, I'm aware that I'm exagerating your view point--but with all due respect, you're exagerating the liberal viewpoint to make your argument so I say it's all in fair play.
It's not like this is a new argument or anything. Are people by nature corrupt and in need of organized society to keep them in check or is it the other way around? One of my favorite books is an allegory about just this sort of argument--the book being Lord of the Flies. The book leaves it up to the reader's interpertation, but I think the easier read of that book suggests that society is the problem.
Outside of literature though history seems to suggest that there is no clear and easy answer. Certainly examples abound of people not doing the right thing. For every person who volunteers as you suggest there are many (I won't presume to make up numbers) who don't. But then examples also abound of government that abuses its power to the harm of society, so it's not like I think handing every responsibility over to the government is the answer either.
My point is get off your high horse. You're right down here in the muck with the rest of us, and pretending to ride about like you've got human nature all figured out is just silly. We're all so stuck in this bi-polar political universe where there are only two options that I think we sometimes forget the world is not black and white (or red and blue to improve my metaphor). It's a complicated place filled with moral ambiguity. I'm not even saying that there is no right or wrong, but I am saying that I don't believe any one person (or even group of people) is ever likely to figure it all out. There are obvious problems with all political parties and view points.
And I wish people would achknowledge that instead of posting blogs about how elitist such and such is for not thinking the same way you do. It does no good. It doesn't help, it doesn't even add to a conversation. It's just there to stir up dirt and make you feel better about the way you see the world.
Sigh, and now I'm the one up on the high-horse riding around like I know everything. But of course I don't. All I know is that I DON'T know everything.
Then why are you reading a political blog? Did you expect it to be about needle point?
So sue me, I think that politics CAN be more complicated then sitting around bitching about what idiots the other side is. As for why I'm reading a political blog, because some people DO have more interesting things to say and I was impressed with an earlier post he'd written having to do with video games and DRM.
How bout instead of us suing you, you just put something up here that you think is the better way in politics and show us how it can be done?
Those who constantly criticize elitism are elitist themselves by postulating that we are all elitists and can think for themselves and need no direction. Try telling that to the Founding Fathers.
You shouldn't need charities/volunteerism. The government's duty should IMO be to ensure that if someone is doing everything they can to survive and is still not able to, then the government will be there to help them out and ensure they don't die. So for example if you are working full time at a nearby store but that is providing insufficient income to obtain the basic necessities (food, shelter, health, clothing etc.) then the government should help that person out (for example by not taxing them at all, and if that's not enough then by providing them with benefits). If someone is giving all they can, it is IMO a poor society that shrugs its shoulders and hopes that person will be sustained by others charity. This specific issue isn't about the government making choices for people - that would be if for example the government decided that instead of giving $20 a week to this person (to allow them to survive) they gave $20 of "bread" vouchers - vouchers that could only be used to purchase bread, since that is the government deciding for the person that buying $20 of bread is the best use of their money.
Now as to that issue, I would agree that the government should as a general rule leave it up to individuals to lead their lives as they wish. However there are still strong cases for government intervention - for example if people weren't aware that fruit is much more healthier than chocolate, then there would be a case for the government to intervene to correct the asymmetric information failure and make people aware of the issue. Similarly if people eating fruit not only benefitted those people (via better health) but in turn benefitted society (reduced healthcare costs, maybe reduced crime if there were psychological effects of a fruit diet compared to a high sugar one, and more generally net benefits to society above that enjoyed by the individual) then the government should look to intervene by subsidising the cost of the fruit to encourage it's uptake.
In terms of ordering us to do/not do certain things, again the government is justified in some instances, where those actions would be to the detriment of at least one person (for a few simple examples, you should be banned from killing your boss because he annoys you, or from detonating a huge bomb in the middle of a city because you think it'll look pretty), and basically any activity where the next best alternative such as taxation/subsidising would result in a less optimal outcome. This area raises some considerable problems though in terms of what is (economically) efficient and what is ethical - to give one quick example, let's say that you have 2 people, one of whom is a racist and hates the second person. It may be that the first person gains enjoyment from beating up the second person that they would pay ~$10 to obtain, while the second person would be prepared to receive the beating in return for $5. However the government might feel that this is abhorrent and so outlaw it. The problem with this though is that it is then reliant on subjective views as to what is moral/right+wrong, and the enforcement of those on others. Equally there's the obvious problem arising from doing nothing in that situation!
Overall though I tend to believe more power should be given to people compared to the current situation (and oppose the majority of proposals for the government to force people to do something), and hence would likely be classed as a conservative and not a liberal.
Oh, and as a final note:
It depends, most significantly on what the 'right' thing is - are we talking about what is right for society as a whole, or what would be best for that individual, or what would be best for that individual if other people similarly did the right thing, etc.? Or by the right thing is it simply what that individual thinks would be the best course of action for them to pursue (even if it isn't)? Regardless the answer can be yes, which causes a number of problems for a democracy when deciding how much power to give to the people.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
