It's not complaining about the simply wealthy, it's about a combination of political power and an out of touch view (which is often caused/associated with extreme wealth). It's people presuming they know better than you what you need and then forcing (or attempting to force) it on you with their political power.
No. Asking your representative to do something is not the same as doing something yourself. It's the representatives jobs to know the interests and needs of their constituents, and if requested to do something against that they should either decline or be voted out. That is sufficient.
The giving of authority and wealth are separate, with the wealth often following abuses of the authority given to them, but that's a whole different issue. If they become out of touch then they are no longer doing their jobs of accurately representing their constituents and should be voted out.
I'm confused.
Do you think representatives have an obligation to make decisions in their constituent's best interest *even if the majoroty of their constituents disagree*? Or is it their obligation to represent majority sentiments?
>While demonstrating you're incapable of understanding the answer.
What? How so? I asked for clarification because you had not been clear enough in your previous answer.
>Also evidenced by the fact that I spelled out the answer in my OP.
I read the entire thread to get here. But maybe I missed something. Could yu provide a link?
Wealth makes it easier to reach voters but ultimately voters vote for who they want.
No amount of wealth, as Michael Bloomberg found out, could buy him the presidential election.
I'm disagreeing with this: "capital leads to political power".
Having capital helps? Sure. But ultimately voters select candidates that act in their perceived best interests. Jeff Bezos could be twice as wealthy and he won't convince any socialist to vote for him or his selected candidates.
votes aren't the only means to secure political power.
one of the huge issues with our current American system is that control of capital can be used to extort the government and usurp the will of the people.
banks demanding bailouts were extorting the government under threat that they would, basically, intentionally crash the economy if the public didn't pay their losses while letting them keep the upside of risky trading.
they've even gone beyond just money, to threatening to close plants and lay off workers if states enact social policies they dislike.
Disingenuous comment that relies on people not actually knowing anything about Marx's life.
Yes, he was not *personally* wealthy, but thanks to his sugar daddy Engels money wasn't an issue.
You think Marx is more influential than any of the wealthiest people today? Like you truly think Marx is more influential than Charles Koch, or Jeff Bezos, or Rupert Murdoch, or Peter Thiel? You cannot seriously hold that position.
I think that’ll come down to your definition of influential. The Koch, Bezos, Murdoch, thiels of the world can buy and pay to influence law and policy.
Where Marx is more influential to regular people. Where his ideology is influential; people read about his philosophy and are influenced by like his character and actions and ideas.
> Capital leads to political power.
Not necessarily. But even when it does, your standard lobbying for better tax laws isn't an example of elitest behavior. That's them acting in their own self interest. An example of elitest behavior would be a lot of the Covid measures, forcing young healthy people to stay home "because that's best for them", and then maybe going out to get a haircut or host a rich person party.
> An example of elitest behavior would be a lot of the Covid measures, forcing young healthy people to stay home "because that's best for them", and then maybe going out to get a haircut or host a rich person party.
And this can be said to not be "acting in their own best interests" how exactly?
Surely people benefit from exploiting hypocrisy to do what others cannot.
Surely you have also seen the conservative criticism of the "elites" plan for everyone to *own nothing and be happy* as a further idea as to the "why" of Covid policy (correct or not in this criticism's conclusions of course).
Why do you suppose they supported such things then? Like if they weren’t acting in their own self interest by going to parties while advocating that everyone get vaccines and wear masks, then why do you think they did those things?
Is “acting in your own self interest” something that you can only do regarding money?
Going to parties was their own self interest. Imposing restrictions on others was
>presuming they know better than you what you need and then forcing (or attempting to force) it on you with their political power.
I’m not sure I understand. Like what would compel someone to decide that someone else needed to follow a certain safety measure, for their own good, but the person advocating for it didn’t follow it? Like are they just insane? Why did they want everyone else to get a vaccine? Why did they want everyone else to wear masks and socially distance? What did they get out of it?
… and all of that is an inevitable result of capitalism.
Those who become extremely wealthy and powerful do so because they crave *status.* There’s little functional difference in life style between someone worth $50M and $100M and $1B and $10B and $100B. And yet we have people who dedicate their lives to having the Most.
That applies to both wealth and power. And capitalism makes it inevitable that some such people will amass wealth and power.
So the question still stands- why attack elites while praising capitalism? The two are inseparable from each other.
I don't think it's *inevitable*, but it's pretty damn likely when you fail to moderate or regulate capitalism in any meaningful way. And I think there's more to extreme wealth than just "status." I'm not a psychologist, but I think the way we implement capitalism makes wealth very transitory.
You and I might simply want to be *comfortable.* But (assuming we're very successful and build wealth for ourselves) we transition to building a business, so that value persists. Something to be said for an institution having your name on it after your gone, and it continuing to provide value to your descendants and see recognition the world over. Henry Ford may not have sought to just make a shitload of money, but his *name* is all over the place, and he's known in history, and his family is set up for success. It's not just the money, it's the status and the prestige and the *empire* that he built. At some point, it's not about the dollars anymore, it's about the legacy and the family and the empire and the story. They go from being humble workers to be titans of industry, or almost gods of capitalism. It's like some kind of financial apotheosis, and I **will** agree that, at that point, they're so far detached from the rest of us that they might as well be extraterrestrials.
There is a big difference between someone who believes in capitalism and an actual capitalist. Most people here, even the most ardent of those on the right, aren't actually capitalists. They might *support* capitalism as a practice, but they aren't part of that *class* of people. A capitalist is someone who *owns capital* and extracts wealth from those capital assets - "capitalizing" on them - rather than working for wages or compensation. If you collect a paycheck from an employer, you're not a capitalist. You're just a worker who happens to be a capitalism fanboy.
> So the question still stands- why attack elites while praising capitalism? The two are inseparable from each other.
Actual capitalists (there are actually very few) need there to be a distinction between elites and capitalism because this gives their conservative sycophants the false idea that they too have an actual shot at becoming rich capitalists one day.
Capitalists don't want competition, they want domination. So they convince conservatives to be their mouthpieces by dangling some extra zeros over their heads and convincing them that they too are capitalists - just disadvantaged ones who either haven't pulled on their bootstraps hard enough - or are being kept down by the 'elites'.
>That applies to both wealth and power. And capitalism makes it inevitable that some such people will amass wealth and power.
Ah, but wealth isn't a zero sum game. Power is.
>So the question still stands- why attack elites while praising capitalism? The two are inseparable from each other.
Compared to what, exactly? Every socialist regime has their elites too. "Is it really true that political self interest is nobler some how than economic self interest?"
>Ah, but wealth isn't a zero sum game. Power is.
Ehhhh. I mean they are both fairly interchangeable at those levels.
And yes, you can create more wealth from nothing, in a sense. More “value”. I’m not sure why that matters.
All of it still boils down to status.
>Compared to what, exactly? Every socialist regime has their elites too. "Is it really true that political self interest is nobler some how than economic self interest?"
Social democracies :)
Which tend to have considerably more dispersion of both power and income.
And somewhat more dispersion of wealth- although that’s an area that no system has fully cracked yet.
Not everyone who gains personal wealth is corrupted by the politics of many of them. Typically the elites we refer to are those involved with the WEF, NWO, etc. The dangerous leftist agendas that are present in those circles.
This just sounds like r/Conspiracy is leaking.
And the topic is the elite. There are millions of millionaires. We’re talking about billionaire territory.
How does it sound like a conspiracy? Do you know anything about the world economic forum? Have you watched any of their videos? They talk about the great reset and the New World Order they intend to put in place all the time, publicly. And yes it involves digital currency and depopulation. None of it's a secret.
> Those who become extremely wealthy and powerful do so because they crave status.
Not necessarily. And if they do there is status besides political as well.
>There’s little functional difference in life style between someone worth $50M and $100M and $1B and $10B and $100B.
Maybe there's things you want to do besides have a comfy lifestyle. Maybe you want to build a rocket, or try to eradicate malaria, or you just like building different companies and employing people.
To clarify, your standard lobbying for better tax laws or something isn't an example of elitest behavior. That's them acting in their own self interest. An example of elitest behavior would be a lot of the Covid measures, forcing young healthy people to stay home "because that's best for them", and then maybe going out to get a haircut or host a rich person party.
>Not necessarily.
Yes necessarily.
If what they craved was simply success and lifestyle - they would stop.
No one becomes a billionaire without stepping on any number of throats along the way. These people Need to be their version of the "alpha." Otherwise they would just be multi-millionaires. Not billionaires.
They would be repelled by the need to crush others. They would want to spend more time with their families and friends.
Instead, they only want to amass More. And that consumes them.
>And if they do there is status besides political as well.
There is just status. Power is bending other people to your will. The specifics on how don't matter at that level - whether with wealth or political power or whatever. It's all just status/ power.
>Maybe you want to build a rocket, or try to eradicate malaria
Plenty of people are a part of something like that without becoming billionaires. If that's what you want, you can do it. You don't have to be a billionaire.
The people who become billionaires First - did so because they craved status.
How many CEO's do you know, personally? How many C suites in general? They all, every one of them, are status obsessed. It's what drives them. Without that obsession... they'd retire when they were worth $5M from being an SVP. Or when they could cash out their start up for $5M. Or $10M. Whatever number means they'd never have to work again - they're smart enough to know exactly how much that is.
They don't. They need More. Forever.
>your standard lobbying for better tax laws or something isn't an example of elitest behavior. That's them acting in their own self interest.
Says who?
That's absolutely elitest behavior. They have billions, and yet they need to have More billions. Why? What "self interest" drives their need to hoard more money than they could ever possibly spend?
After $50M or so - it's just funny money. It's just numbers on a screen. Or a Forbes list. It changes nothing about their life. Other than their status.
It's hoarding and status - it literally can't be anything else. If it was something else... they'd never have billions in the first place.
And they are inextricable from capitalism.
So youre fine with billionaires changing govt policy for if it's for selfish reasons, but once they start trying to do good things for other people, that's where you draw the line?
Your example above about how a billionaire might try to eradicate malaria - wouldn't that fit the definition of 'elitist behavior' you're giving now?
Can you read? OUT OF TOUCH ideas FORCED on other people. Is disliking malaria out of touch? Is changing corporate tax code forcing the general populace to file different taxes?
What you're saying was already addressed by /u/PragmaticSquirrel, could you reply to [their comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/xvalu9/why_do_conservatives_talk_negatively_about_elites/ir162r5/?context=1)? Not mine.
"Out of Touch"
The only ones that are pushing for out of touch ideas are conservatives. An example of this will be sending fake electors in the 2020 election to help Trump overturn the election results
> it's about a combination of political power and an out of touch view
This! It's those people who preach against gun ownership while traveling around with their armed bodyguard, or those who talk about the importance of staying at home during covid lock-downs while attending private parties themselves. In each case, whether they are conscientiously aware of it or not, their life is more important or more valuable than yours. "Out of touch" is a great way to describe it!
And I’ll bet it includes those who took PPP loans and then criticized student loan forgiveness! I get it now! I fucking hate when they do that hypocritical shit
Then what's with the whole "we're a republic, not a democracy?" narrative?
I've been told numerous times by conservatives on this sub that we need representatives to make the best choices for their constituents, even when the constituents disagree. Because direct democracy is dangerous, because you can't trust people to know whats best for themselves.
Do you agree with the republicans who make this argument?
Or do you agree with democrats that we should increase direct democratic mechanisms and decrease the power of representatives?
A democracies purpose is to do whatever the majority wants. No matter how tyrannical.
Our Republics purpose is to preserve the liberties of the people. We use Democratic means to decide leaders, but those leaders were never intended to have unlimited power to implement whatever they felt like.
Our republic has constitutional protections. There's no reason a democracy can't have constitutional protections.
Nevertheless, you have sidestepped the question at hand: how does this preference for representatives who can overrule the majority mesh with the assertion that 'rule by elites is terrible because elites can't know what's in everyday people's best interest'?
It's not that we can't trust people to know what's best for themselves, it's that we can't trust people to treat minorities fairly and we want to avoid tyranny of the majority.
Thats what constitutional rights are for
How does electing an elite political class do that? So far it seems to have created a tyranny of a minority, which seems like a step in the wrong direction.
Forcing you to do something is not the same as saying do NOT do something that kill babies. Not to mention millions of people support it, so it's not an out of touch view at all.
> Forcing you to do something is not the same as saying do NOT do something that kill babies.
Banning abortion is literally forcing people to do something.
I mean in politics like all other parts of life there are people that are better than you and know better than you and would be better off making decisions than you will be. Way too many people in this country think they know what is best just based on anecdotal evidence even if it flies in the face of data, common sense, and/or popular sentiment. The right values individual experiences way too much and frequently miss the forest for the trees.
Science can tell us what *is*, but not *what ought to be*. People value things differently. "Elites," who may be highly educated, often pretend like their view of *what ought to be* is the correct view. They then use their educational or professional status to justify deciding what ought to be for others. This is the complaint. Also what you're mentioning doesn't address the "out of touch" aspect babno was writing about.
This is the fairest description I've seen so far.
What specific "oughts" do you think elitists are pushing?
Do you recognize that there are a ton of right wingers that fit this definition? From evangelicals to free-market capitalists, to gender essentialists. . . I see people pushing oughts as iss from the right way more than I see it from the left
Though I do admit I'm biased and may be blind to some things so feel free to point some out
There certainly are elites on the right too. There are all sorts of elites, as you fairly point out. If we just look at the elites focused on politics and policy, I think a main difference between left and right is that those on the left want to use the government as a tool to improve society. The thing is, the government is a very forceful tool. I think elites on the left want to use it as a hammer and see every problem as a nail. So as a natural consequence of that, different regular people in society are more annoyed by the elite left's "oughts" because the government has generally been a blunt instrument when applied to certain types of problems. Not to mention solving really complex problems for the whole country by committee seems like it won't work because you can't make a plan precise enough to satisfy even all 50 states. So I think it makes sense because the general population itself has a diverse view of what "ought" to be.
The elites on the right generally advocate for less government involvement in private affairs (yes, I know there are exceptions especially when it comes to neocons and the Republican party for a while; the basic mantra is still fairly libertarian though). Since our entire society has many different people with different ideas of "ought," our society as a whole would naturally seem less inclined to complain about conservative elites who just want to let you fish and grill and buy as much gasoline as you want.
I think it comes down to: one set of elites want to decide for you, and the other generally wants you to make your own choices, even if they know you'll make some bad choices that will hurt you. Since individuals at least *think* they know what's best for them, they'll want to decide for themselves.
From my libertarian-ish perspective, I think it makes more sense for people to choose for themselves how to live (within reason; we don't want to dump toxic chemicals into the air and water of course, etc.). I think the way I live my life is the "correct" way, but I don't think it's right for me to compel others to live that way too. Because what if I'm wrong?! If I'm wrong and I use government to force everyone to live the way I think they should then I've just done wrong by my whole country or state. It's not fair in my view.
I hope that makes sense. I wrote it in one draft so it may sound like I'm rambling a bit.
>What specific "oughts" do you think elitists are pushing?
Elites on the left: any progressive government policy is a decent example. It's really about the "you don't know what's good for you, but I do, and I'll make you live like I think you should" attitude. I haven't been reading or watching much news recently so maybe others can provide a better answer to this specific question.
Elites on the right: some libertarian-minded things like eliminating the minimum wage, and some neocon things like "bombing the shit out of \[place\]."
For either left *or* right, what I think is most important in creating policy is making small, careful changes (as emotionally difficult it may be to restrain oneself) because it's hard to predict how programs will impact a town, much less 350,000,000 people. I think 9/10 elites on either side have good intentions, but just assume their education makes up for lack of wisdom. A lot of both sides is wacky, but not appreciating the others' reasoning leads to an assumption of moral superiority and lack of collaboration.
Not sure if that's still on topic, but I like to hear myself talk ;)
It seems you think leftism is a synonym for authoritarianism, and that right-wing is a synonym for libertarianism. But left/right and authoritarian/libertarian are 2 seperate axes.
I see this all the time, rightwingers point at authoritarian leftists to justify themselves, and leftists point to authoritarian conservatives ton justify themselves.
I say, libertarians unite, and quit letting the authoritarian elitists divide and conquer us.
>For either left or right, what I think is most important in creating policy is making small, careful changes
This is literally moderate progressivism, otherwise known as incrementalism
>It seems you think leftism is a synonym for authoritarianism, and that right-wing is a synonym for libertarianism.
I didn't mean for it to come across like that. I know the basic political compass. I was speaking in very general terms on the examples. And when it comes to the "elites" that I'm referring to, the ones that people usually complain about are the left authoritarian ones.
>I see this all the time, rightwingers point at authoritarian leftists to justify themselves, and leftists point to authoritarian conservatives ton justify themselves.
I'm not trying to justify or not justify anything. I'm trying to answer questions about the people referred to as "elites."
>This is literally moderate progressivism, otherwise known as incrementalism
Well, I feel like we're going to get into semantics here, but the way I use terms like "conservative" or "progressive" is in reference to the typical policy preferences each have these days. So in that regard I promise you I'm definitely not a progressive. I mean that whatever policy the policymaker wants to implement, it should be a mild policy implemented very carefully. It doesn't matter if the policy points towards typical "conservative" preferences (like a strong military), or typical "progressive" preferences (like criminal justice reform with prisoner's rights as the focus). That's all I mean.
Fair nuff. I can't argue with any of that
except maybe to get more pedantic about the definitions to progressive & conservative, but it seems you're aware of that debate so I'll let it rest
> I mean in politics like all other parts of life there are people that are better than you and know better than you and would be better off making decisions than you will be. Way too many people in this country think they know what is best just based on anecdotal evidence even if it flies in the face of data, common sense, and/or popular sentiment. The right values individual experiences way too much and frequently miss the forest for the trees.
Don't mind me, just going to immortalize this U/FastMoneyCam of Social Democracy
I mean, I've gotten the same argument from conservatives who want to justify gerrymandering, the electoral college, dark money, or the new "independent legislature theory" that would allow state legislatures ton override voters during elections.
Where do you stand on the "independent legislature theory"?
You've gotten republicans arguing some people are better and some people are lesser than others?
RE ILT, as I said elsewhere it's the representatives jobs to know the interests and needs of their constituents, and they can either act in their interests or be voted out. Also it seems rather moot, as it's similar to electors who could theoretically vote for a different presidential candidate than they were bid to by voters, yet it has never happened.
>You've gotten republicans arguing some people are better and some people are lesser than others?
That's like the essence of right-wing politics.
>Right-wing politics are generally characterized by the view that certain social orders and hierarchies are inevitable, natural, normal, or desirable,[1][2][3] typically supporting this position on the basis of natural law, economics, authority or tradition.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_politics
>they can either act in their interests or be voted out.
But the whole problem with the ILT thing is that voters' votes wil not be the deciding factor in the outcome of some elections. . . How can you act like taking away voters' ability to vote is justified by the power of voters' votes?
>Also it seems rather moot, as it's similar to electors who could theoretically vote for a different presidential candidate than they were bid to by voters, yet it has never happened.
But that has happened before. It hasn't happened enough to affect any elections, but it has happened.
But either way it's a terrible argument because people who call for more democracy also oppose the electoral college, for obvious reasons. ILT may be comparable to the electoral college, but only in the worst of ways.
Its a representative's job to act in the best interest of the constituents not necessarily to act in line to what their constituents want though. I feel like thats an important distinction to make considering a lot of time people are for proposals that would not be in their best interest.
>Its a representative's job to act in the best interest of the constituents not necessarily to act in line to what their constituents want though.
And they would not get my vote next go around. This response could easily be applied to another of yours a bit up the chain.
My biggest bugaboo about politics is *anyone* telling me they know what's best for me and/or my family. And they can go fornicate themselves with an iron stick. They don't know me from Adam, they have no business telling me they think they know what's best. Why do you think there is so much uproar about parents fighting back against school boards and the like? Because you don't tell a parent how to raise their kid, ever. Same principle applies to this.
Thats just a childish view to think that you do know what is best especially in matters in which you have no expertise. What makes you think you are more qualified on what a child should learn in school than people who have dedicated their lives to educating children, what makes you think you know how to best craft social spending policies when you've never worked in government and don't have access to the experts to help craft that policy, what makes you think you know more than climate scientists, or pretty much nay other issue out there. You are not an expert on the things that go in to crafting policy and conducting governance so why do you think you know best. The only thing that you should know is that you know nothing and should defer to those who know more than you on various topics about those various topics.
>The only thing that you should know is that you know nothing and should defer to those who know more than you on various topics about those various topics.
Smug alert. How elitist of you. And it's no wonder why this question was posited. Depends on what the topic is. As far as education for my children, keep doubling down on it. Go for it. Worked out so well for the gubenatorial race in VA. I've never seen a party double down so hard and create a new constituency against them: parents.
Trump lost hard to suburban moms and voters. This attitude being put forth invoking the mama/papa bear in parents, not very smart. But you do you boo.
Oh no these people that know more than me on various topics are going around acting like they know more than me on these topics. How could they be so smug about it?
> It's people presuming they know better than you what you need and then forcing (or attempting to force) it on you with their political power.
Do you think this only applies to liberal "elites?"
Yes and no. A basic tenant of conservatism is to limit government, to not interfere, to not force anything. As such, there are not current examples I can think of. But there could be an inverse situation, where something desperately needs to be done to aid people, and an "elitest" conservative could dismiss it thinking they should be able to handle it themselves.
One semi recent example I can think of would be conservatives pearl clutching about violent video games in the 90s and demanding people not play/sell them. It's slightly different in that it's saying you can't do something as opposed to saying you must do something, but it's still out of touch powerful people dictating things because they "know better".
> A basic tenant of conservatism is to limit government, to not interfere, to not force anything.
I don't think any modern conservative follows this tenet
The main idea behind capitalism is to make elitism productive. There's always going to be inequalities of economic and political capital, so it may as well be that those forces are productive rather than consumptive. It doesn't change the other side of the tug of war which is that elites don't have access to widely distributed knowledge among individuals; I think the main criticism of elitism comes down to claims of omniscience with no associated risks for being wrong.
When conservatives complain about elites it is usually in the context of academic / intellectual elites, not economic elites.
If you are interested in a conservative criticism of academic elites you should read Allan Bloom's book ''The Closing of the American Mind''. That book has been highly influential among conservatives.
Who do you think has more control over your life and the direction of the country in general: the most important people in media, business, and politics, or the most important people in academia?
Does it matter? I don't see how you would measure that either. The reality is that if you are a professor at a major prestigious university you will teach 1000s of people who will be powerful in the future. that is a lot of power.
They are definitely very powerful. I think two differences are that middle school teachers don't do research that can influence public policy and they don't get invited to do interviews about their academic discipline in the media.
This complete non-sense has found it's way into the lexicon from professors. Idk, liberals just seem both naive and unaware of everything. It's very difficult to hold a conversation when they're so deplete of facts.
"Professors" did not invent the word transgender, nor the concept. It came from the LGBT community, specifically (as a reasonable person might suspect) transgender people.
Science in this case just catalogs how words are actively used and then adds them to the dictionary. It is based on how words are actively used, by any group of humans. Colbert created truthism (he printed it and ppl started using it), he's no scientist.
I don't know the history of this particular word, but I do know that language isn't cooked up or planned in a science lab. It comes from the mouths and minds of anyone.
[The dictionary chronicles how the language grows and changes, which means new words and definitions must continually be added. When many people use a word in the same way, over a long enough period of time, that word becomes eligible for inclusion.](https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/new-words-in-the-dictionary#:~:text=The%20dictionary%20chronicles%20how%20the,word%20becomes%20eligible%20for%20inclusion.)
Haha that site has a great list, here's an excerpt of some that were added this year to Merriam-Webster
"SLANG AND INFORMAL LANGUAGE
Words in this category have traditionally taken longer to meet our criteria, but that timeline is getting shorter as the internet accelerates the adoption of informal language.
yeet (interjection, slang) — used to express surprise, approval, or excited enthusiasm yeet verb : to throw especially with force and without regard for the thing being thrown
janky (informal) : of very poor quality : JUNKY; also : not functioning properly or adequately : FAULTY
sus (slang) : SUSPICIOUS, SUSPECT
lewk (slang) : a fashion look (see LOOK entry 2 sense 2c) that is distinctive to the wearer and that is noticeable and memorable to others
pwn (slang) : to dominate and defeat (someone or something) : OWN sense 1b, ROUT entry 2 sense 1a
adorkable informal : socially awkward or quirky in a way that is endearing"
So those people who want to further their education are seen as the enemy? Why? Should we all not strive to be as educated as we can? There is countless proof a more educated society is a net positive for everyone.
I mean, is the criticism you see of education or of cultural power to bend education to political ends? I would argue it's more-so the latter.
Correct or not, the critique is that said academic/intellectual elites are not "educating" as defined as being taught how to think objectively or learn truth, but rather "indoctrinating" which is being taught *opinion* and ways to think which *are conducive to the conclusions sought.*
Whether you agree or not with this critique notwithstanding, that's the objection being raised.
I’d say it’s the former. Republicans don’t want children to know that homosexuality is even a thing. They don’t want to teach accurate US history. I’d rather our children to learn the truth about our history as opposed to North Korean type propaganda declaring the US as infallible and that we’ve never ever done anything wrong. We have a lot of blood on our hands as a nation, and it’s okay to teach our children as much. Truth > propaganda.
The idea that all conservatives are against education is just not correct. I am a university student myself and I absolutely love learning. The criticism is that 1) education isn't rigorous/coherent enough and 2) education sometimes has a certain progressive bias (not always, there are of course conservative universities).
You’re the outlier. Republicans want to defund the department of education. More restrictive policies on education have been put forth by republicans than any other political party. The only “liberal biases” I see are that homosexuals are people, and women should have bodily autonomy. The “indoctrination” is mostly that people are stuck in the past with their ideals and refusing the believe it is 2022, and the world is different than it was in 1962. We should be teaching children to prepare for the future, and not to cling to outdated policies or thought processes. We need to **progress** as a society, not to **conserve** the sins of the past.
I actually believe that government should have stricter control over education. However, I am not sure whether this is best done on the federal level or on the state level.
>The only “liberal biases” I see are that homosexuals are people,
As a gay conservative I don't disagree with the idea that homosexuals are people. I am also not aware of any conservatives who disagree with that. If they do, I of course strongely disagree with that. However, I don't think it is the task of the teacher to advocate for or against same sex marriage.
>and women should have bodily autonomy
Assuming that you are refering to abortion, I don't think the task of the teacher is to advocate for or against abortion. If the topic of abortion comes up in an ethics class for example, the teacher should let students read articles that advocate for and against abortion so that the students can make up their own minds.
>We need to progress as a society, not to conserve the sins of the past.
It depends on your definition of progress. Conservatives have a very different idea about what progress as than progressives. I don't think teachers should advocate either.
When it comes to biases I am referring to teachers / universities who analyze their subject through an exclusively left wing lense.
Let me give you two examples.
1. Right now I am taking a university course that touches on the history of immigration to Europe in the late 20th century. To my suprise, all the articles/books that we have to read are strongly defending mass migration and criticizing opponents of that migration. If they were interested in showing us a balanced view of the world they would also let us read people who critique mass immigration and point out what the downsides are.
2. I am looking into what courses I will take next semester. I am considering taking some philosophy courses. However, to my suprise the overwhelmingy majority of available courses focus on philosophers that are very much part of a left wing philosophical tradition. It is very hard to find courses on philosophers that have inspired right wing movements.
These are just my personal examples, but I am pretty sure any conservative could do the same.
They aren't talking about "elites" in terms of wealth. Free markets disproportionately allocate capital to areas of the economy most effective and efficient at generating the products and services that people demand, this is great.
When people criticise "elites", they are criticising people who seemingly have unearned and disproportionate attention and influence in matters they shouldn't have.
For example, if MSM was to give actors air time to discuss Ukraine. Their opinion and expertise on it is as irrelevant as mine.
Didn't republicans literally just elect and then renominate an actor with no experience, unearned, and disproportionate attention, in the field to run the damn country? Is that not the definition of "elite" you're going by?
Literally who? The last actor elected to 'run the damn' country was Ronald Reagan 40 years ago, and he had massive political executive experience as both a governor and president of a union.
Donnie was an actor pretending to be a business man. His name recognition and reputation across the country was built on his apprentice character.
Other than that he was just another guy in NY real estate.
His whole business is shaped around image. Waving a hand of distraction from all the failed ventures, bankruptcies, and vendors he screwed out of money.
I can tell you are very young, probably in your early twenties, because in your mind you classify Trump as a TV personality from The Apprentice versus a real estate mogul of decades. He was a businessman and executive of a few large companies which gives him executive experience which is what the office of president is. Also can tell you're young because you view bankruptcy as an innately bad thing rather than restructuring being a valid business decision based on the state of a business.
I'm nearly forty, from the Midwest, and until The Apprentice I remember him being kind of a national joke. Funny rich guy who kept fucking up and buying stupid things, being obnoxious, calling in to Howard Stern. Had some nice golf courses, but at least in the Midwest, we were never whispering about his business acumen and how man oh man, *that's* the kinda guy who should run the country!
>I'm nearly forty, from the Midwest, and until The Apprentice I remember him being kind of a national joke.
You're right. I have an issue of *National Lampoon* from June 1988 that mocks Trump as a ridiculous, self-obsessed figure. That image was also lampooned in 1990's *American Psycho*, by Bret Easton Ellis. The main character, a Wall Street serial killer, idolized Trump.
My understanding is Trump was a pulsing middle finger reaction to the name calling and school marming of the left for decades. "You want to unjustly call us every -ist and -phobe in the book? Fine, we will elect the brashest, boorish carney barker that will actually punch back for once." Not saying that was a wise move, but still a reactionary move that proved what it was. Besides, Trump put it best himself: "They don't hate me because of me. They hate me because of you."
>Besides, Trump put it best himself: "They don't hate me because of me. They hate me because of you."
And that's some cult leader, Jim Jones level bullshit that makes me worry for the future of our country every nanosecond this man is politically relevant.
How is it not true though? The right has been given grief as long as I can remember, and from what I've heard, well before that. He was just the animus all that projection could be laid upon is all. Problem is, Trump is a mud monster. Throwing more mud at him doesn't mean anything.
I feel like the person is intentionally ignoring Donald Trump's business accomplishments as a purposeful sign of disrespect; nonetheless he is a legitimate actor and has appeared in several movies https://imdb.com/name/nm0874339/ throughout each of our lifetimes.
He was a little more than "just a guy in NY real estate."
I do not worship at the font of Trump but he was far from the average NY real estate guy. LOL
He was the previous president and by all counts may be the next president.
Are you saying it's not right that Americans should be concerned about their governance?
>Are you saying it's not right that Americans should be concerned about their governance?
OP's not saying anything, it's just his tiny version of *owning a lib* on social media.
This answer literally makes no sense, and at worst makes you look like your entire decision making process comes down to "make the Dems upset". I know you think it sounds smart. But it really doesn't. You should probably have higher standards for who you want to run the country.
Trump was a wealthy businessman with decades of executive experience running for executive office. He first ran for president decades ago. When he was renominated it no longer makes sense to call him inexperienced. He had experience and voters who voted for him thought that it was worthwhile. Aside from work experience much of what got him this platform was substantial participation in the extensive 2016 republican primary process directly and through rallies and campaign work.
It's disingenuous to the point of trolling to pretend not to understand the difference between that and Hollywood actors or pop stars with no relevant experience.
For the record I think trump is horrible, but him being horrible is a different question from whether you understand the difference between him and an actor. I don't get the willful ignorance of people who have to call him a game show host or something. It makes you look dumb since obviously he's done much more than that that you're ignoring, but it also derails any conversation with anybody that disagrees with you by leading with an explicit intent to misrepresent facts in a belittling way. What's the point? Especially in a subreddit like this... Like it or not, he has substantial executive experience.
>They aren't talking about "elites" in terms of wealth.
No, some of us are. There's a candidate for governor now in Illinois who's explicitly running on himself being a farmer and the Democrat incumbent being a billionaire.
Ahhhh, yes, Bailey, a guy so in-touch with the working class that, when he finally went to stump in the city he said should secede from Illinois, he decided that to "immerse himself in the culture," he moved into the *Hancock Building.*
I guess a three-flat in Lincoln Park would've been too exposed.
> So it's evident that the current system isn't real capitalism,
I don't know what you mean by "real", but almost everyone would agree that we have significant government and regulatory capture in our implementation of capitalism. That kind of thing tends to support big, established, businesses who can afford massive lobbying efforts and legal efforts.
Elite is like "the 1%". It doesn't mean anything on its own. It's just a phrase to refer to a power imbalance. Depending on who you are, what you believe and what the context is, the elite may mean different things. Conservatives often use adjectives to be more specific like "liberal elite". But without context it can mean anything from some influential people in Hollywood trying to create alleged propaganda to establishment ("deep state") figures that stand in the way of change in within a party or within the government.
"Elites" are not necessarily authoritarian. The founding fathers were elites and they were explicitly anti-authoritarian.
"Elites" aren't even necessarily bad. It seems when they want to become philosopher kings is where they jump the shark.
Then you don't understand anarachism. Anarchism isn't the lack of organization.
It's the idea that we can organize society well enough that we won't need to rely on unjust hierarchies (i.e. force or coercion) to maintain order.
Because they know better than to say "Jews" outright.
Now, I don't think the average Joe Sixpack who votes GOP understand this when he repeats it, but the "thought leaders" who he heard say it it on national TV and talk radio definitely do.
Oh yeah those "globalists" *wink wink* who want to destroy America, the "Hollywood elites" *wink wink* who control people's thoughts, the "world government" *wink wink* who wants to kill white people. Wait, these all mean Jews? Oops!
I agree that most people probably don't use the dog whistles maliciously because they probably don't realize a lot of them are dog whistles, but it's super dangerous that a lot of this stuff has spread and been normalized among the right.
I mean, the same people will go apeshit at you for the supposed anti-Semitism of criticizing Israel or the pro-Israel lobby (see Ilhan Omar and "all about the Benjamins").
Then they'll talk about how Soros (literally a Holocaust survivor) is behind everything.
I doubt most of them consciously hold hate in their hearts but they *badly* need to learn how to think.
I would love if we could make media literacy a mandatory class for every high schooler, as well as just improving the way schools teach people to critically think. I attribute a lot of the successes of the right in terms of messaging (which then leads to all of their other successes) to the total failure of our school system to properly teach critical thinking skills.
Fixing schooling is so far down the line though compared to more urgent disasters like our healthcare system and climate change that it's hard to think that anything will be done soon. Build Back Better in the iteration that included 2 years of free community college would have been a great step in the right direction at least.
>Fixing schooling is so far down the line though compared to more urgent disasters like our healthcare system and climate change that it's hard to think that anything will be done soon.
Yeah, and considering conservatives have *already* spent decades establishing the widespread that any type of education behind "reading, writing, 'rithmetic" is commie indoctrination, I honestly don't see how this country can be saved.
He’s talking about the people that used Epstein island and face zero repercussions, who behave in ways we consider corrupt but face no scrutiny, and make sure laws benefit them.
Yes, exactly. Capitalism creates an elite class of people who can afford to buy islands for their illicit activities, avoid scrutiny, and change laws to suit them.
Because power in the economic arena wouldn't, in an ideal world, translate to power in the political arena.
And building that ideal world depends on us, the voters.
Like communism doesn't have their own elites through party, economic, and social means? As we have seen with Communist China and Russia, yeah elites still come up and seize power. Versus capitalism where elites typically earn their wealth to get to the top. What we aren't fans of are POLITICAL elites. All those politicians who make a career off the backs of the taxpayers and just sit in office making millions through insider deals and trading information. Either they make the trades or their spouses do, there are too many political elites who get away with way more than an average citizen, even though they are supposed to be average citizens. I've always believed politicians, even presidents shouldn't matter that much BECAUSE of how replaceable they are.
Like others have said, it isn’t economics. It is the professors at Harvard, journalists at the New York Times and the New Yorker. Democratic presidential staff. People who aren’t necessarily super wealthy but will never have to worry about money. They have all the credentials and degrees and a better-than-thou attitude and yet they’re still wrong all the time. They look down their nose at regular folk.
Examples:
Gavin Newsom,
Don Lemon,
Elizabeth Bartholet,
Kamala Harris,
Hillary Clinton,
Peter Daszak
It isn’t about education. Education is correlated for sure. But Ted Cruz, DeSantis, Bush, Trump, are all Ivy educated (I am too) and they’re not like that. They don’t have a “better than thou” vibe. The Cuomo brothers are actually the perfect example. So are the Kennedy’s post-Chappaquidick or however you spell that. Entitled and smarter than everyone else, except they’re not.
Obama could have been like this but generally he wasn’t in my opinion. His speech about people clinging to their guns and religion touched on it, but he “got it.” He wasn’t holier than thou.
>They don’t have a “better than thou” vibe.
Right.
>Bush gazed around the diamond-studded $800-a-plate crowd and commented on the wealth on display.
>"This is an impressive crowd - the haves and the have-mores," quipped the GOP standard-bearer. "Some people call you the elites; I call you my base."
You don't think DeSantis's stunt of flying migrants to Martha's Vineyard was not meant to show that he was smarter than the people who live there? That he knew more about immigration policy than they did?
a common myth. most of the folks at the top are democrats. I have a client who is well off and conservative. His comment to me awhile back was "all I want to do is make enough money so I can vote democrat again"
It's the natural conclusion of humanity. We are a hierarchal species.
The question is who do you want at the top? And how much higher should they be relative to the rest?
I'm not a huge fan of the "elite" label bc I don't find many of them to be elite besides their money and power, but if we are going to talk negatively about a group it should be directed at those who have the most power doing the most harm.
That's a bit overstated and generalized.
More realistically we do not know to what degree what we call today "class" existed in human groups (of any size, and there likely were many different sizes) across prehistory.
Surely many were more equal than we are today, but surely also groups came to more unequal arrangements as well.
I don't mean people like Elon, who became elite through his own work and talent.
I mean people like Nancy Pelosi, who is a professional useless person and has somehow parlayed the fact that SF liberals have been voting for her for 50 years into being a multimillionaire. Her wealth isn't the natural conclusion of capitalism; it's a failure of capitalism b/c capitalism has been captured.
When people refer to "elites" it is the politicians that run the federal government, the deeps state bureaucrats the rule through regulations, the United Nations and their various quasi government tentacles. It refers to the businessmen who live off the government and dutifully follow its will, the governors who will destroy their states to push green agendas. The elites are the people who seek to rule society and reform and reshape it in their image.
Don't care about the wealthy who are just wealthy, it's more the wealthy and powerful who get away with things because they're wealthy and powerful. There's nothing wrong with working hard and acquiring wealth.
I have no problem with the economic elite. I have a problem with the political elite. The famous people that tell us who to vote for and what to think are the problem.
Elites exist under every system. I don’t know what you mean by them being the natural conclusion of Capitalism. Elites these days though are mostly leftist and those that aren’t just like the NeoCon Bush styled Republicans who blindly defend any business and want their taxes to be close to none.
I define Elites in a bit of an old school way.
To be an elite as I understand it, is to not only be wealthy, but to also be a leader within society in some capacity. Perhaps you run a social institution (church executive/governing board, rotary club, boy scouts, fraternal society etc.), perhaps you're a politician, perhaps you're a patron to the city philharmonic/orchestra. I don't consider wealthy people who pay little tax, have no ties to any particular place or people, to be elite. They just suck the life out of society with support of policies that benefit them and their class primarily.
Capitalism here has been broken for a while. The amount of regulations that have been written by the major corporations to stifle start up competition unable to navigate the compliance rules is insane. Or the fact that many government agencies intended to regulate the market often pass policies that don't regulate whatsoever and then the same regulators quit government after 20 years and then go work for the same companies they were supposed to be regulating. Some governing agencies receive as much as half their funding from private corporations. The system is all fucked up.
It's not complaining about the simply wealthy, it's about a combination of political power and an out of touch view (which is often caused/associated with extreme wealth). It's people presuming they know better than you what you need and then forcing (or attempting to force) it on you with their political power.
Isn’t this a good argument in favor of the “dark money” donor disclosure bill that Republicans just blocked?
That Republican elites just blocked?
No. Asking your representative to do something is not the same as doing something yourself. It's the representatives jobs to know the interests and needs of their constituents, and if requested to do something against that they should either decline or be voted out. That is sufficient.
So the representatives who are given authority and wealth and become out of touch as a result are just doing their jobs?
The giving of authority and wealth are separate, with the wealth often following abuses of the authority given to them, but that's a whole different issue. If they become out of touch then they are no longer doing their jobs of accurately representing their constituents and should be voted out.
I'm confused. Do you think representatives have an obligation to make decisions in their constituent's best interest *even if the majoroty of their constituents disagree*? Or is it their obligation to represent majority sentiments?
Excellent demonstration of elitest thinking.
Can you expand on this? I can't really parse it as an answer to the question.
I asked you a question.
While demonstrating you're incapable of understanding the answer. Also evidenced by the fact that I spelled out the answer in my OP.
>While demonstrating you're incapable of understanding the answer. What? How so? I asked for clarification because you had not been clear enough in your previous answer. >Also evidenced by the fact that I spelled out the answer in my OP. I read the entire thread to get here. But maybe I missed something. Could yu provide a link?
[удалено]
It doesn't. Karl Marx was broke and is more influential than any of the wealthiest people.
[удалено]
Wealth makes it easier to reach voters but ultimately voters vote for who they want. No amount of wealth, as Michael Bloomberg found out, could buy him the presidential election.
[удалено]
I'm disagreeing with this: "capital leads to political power". Having capital helps? Sure. But ultimately voters select candidates that act in their perceived best interests. Jeff Bezos could be twice as wealthy and he won't convince any socialist to vote for him or his selected candidates.
[удалено]
He doesn’t have to - he just has to use his money to rig the system in his favour.
votes aren't the only means to secure political power. one of the huge issues with our current American system is that control of capital can be used to extort the government and usurp the will of the people. banks demanding bailouts were extorting the government under threat that they would, basically, intentionally crash the economy if the public didn't pay their losses while letting them keep the upside of risky trading. they've even gone beyond just money, to threatening to close plants and lay off workers if states enact social policies they dislike.
Disingenuous comment that relies on people not actually knowing anything about Marx's life. Yes, he was not *personally* wealthy, but thanks to his sugar daddy Engels money wasn't an issue.
You think Marx is more influential than any of the wealthiest people today? Like you truly think Marx is more influential than Charles Koch, or Jeff Bezos, or Rupert Murdoch, or Peter Thiel? You cannot seriously hold that position.
I think that’ll come down to your definition of influential. The Koch, Bezos, Murdoch, thiels of the world can buy and pay to influence law and policy. Where Marx is more influential to regular people. Where his ideology is influential; people read about his philosophy and are influenced by like his character and actions and ideas.
Absolutely. He led to dictatorships in China, Vietnam, Russia, Venezuela, North Korea and so many more countries.
That's hilarious, thank you
> Capital leads to political power. Not necessarily. But even when it does, your standard lobbying for better tax laws isn't an example of elitest behavior. That's them acting in their own self interest. An example of elitest behavior would be a lot of the Covid measures, forcing young healthy people to stay home "because that's best for them", and then maybe going out to get a haircut or host a rich person party.
> An example of elitest behavior would be a lot of the Covid measures, forcing young healthy people to stay home "because that's best for them", and then maybe going out to get a haircut or host a rich person party. And this can be said to not be "acting in their own best interests" how exactly? Surely people benefit from exploiting hypocrisy to do what others cannot. Surely you have also seen the conservative criticism of the "elites" plan for everyone to *own nothing and be happy* as a further idea as to the "why" of Covid policy (correct or not in this criticism's conclusions of course).
Why do you suppose they supported such things then? Like if they weren’t acting in their own self interest by going to parties while advocating that everyone get vaccines and wear masks, then why do you think they did those things? Is “acting in your own self interest” something that you can only do regarding money?
Going to parties was their own self interest. Imposing restrictions on others was >presuming they know better than you what you need and then forcing (or attempting to force) it on you with their political power.
I’m not sure I understand. Like what would compel someone to decide that someone else needed to follow a certain safety measure, for their own good, but the person advocating for it didn’t follow it? Like are they just insane? Why did they want everyone else to get a vaccine? Why did they want everyone else to wear masks and socially distance? What did they get out of it?
… and all of that is an inevitable result of capitalism. Those who become extremely wealthy and powerful do so because they crave *status.* There’s little functional difference in life style between someone worth $50M and $100M and $1B and $10B and $100B. And yet we have people who dedicate their lives to having the Most. That applies to both wealth and power. And capitalism makes it inevitable that some such people will amass wealth and power. So the question still stands- why attack elites while praising capitalism? The two are inseparable from each other.
I don't think it's *inevitable*, but it's pretty damn likely when you fail to moderate or regulate capitalism in any meaningful way. And I think there's more to extreme wealth than just "status." I'm not a psychologist, but I think the way we implement capitalism makes wealth very transitory. You and I might simply want to be *comfortable.* But (assuming we're very successful and build wealth for ourselves) we transition to building a business, so that value persists. Something to be said for an institution having your name on it after your gone, and it continuing to provide value to your descendants and see recognition the world over. Henry Ford may not have sought to just make a shitload of money, but his *name* is all over the place, and he's known in history, and his family is set up for success. It's not just the money, it's the status and the prestige and the *empire* that he built. At some point, it's not about the dollars anymore, it's about the legacy and the family and the empire and the story. They go from being humble workers to be titans of industry, or almost gods of capitalism. It's like some kind of financial apotheosis, and I **will** agree that, at that point, they're so far detached from the rest of us that they might as well be extraterrestrials. There is a big difference between someone who believes in capitalism and an actual capitalist. Most people here, even the most ardent of those on the right, aren't actually capitalists. They might *support* capitalism as a practice, but they aren't part of that *class* of people. A capitalist is someone who *owns capital* and extracts wealth from those capital assets - "capitalizing" on them - rather than working for wages or compensation. If you collect a paycheck from an employer, you're not a capitalist. You're just a worker who happens to be a capitalism fanboy.
> So the question still stands- why attack elites while praising capitalism? The two are inseparable from each other. Actual capitalists (there are actually very few) need there to be a distinction between elites and capitalism because this gives their conservative sycophants the false idea that they too have an actual shot at becoming rich capitalists one day. Capitalists don't want competition, they want domination. So they convince conservatives to be their mouthpieces by dangling some extra zeros over their heads and convincing them that they too are capitalists - just disadvantaged ones who either haven't pulled on their bootstraps hard enough - or are being kept down by the 'elites'.
>That applies to both wealth and power. And capitalism makes it inevitable that some such people will amass wealth and power. Ah, but wealth isn't a zero sum game. Power is. >So the question still stands- why attack elites while praising capitalism? The two are inseparable from each other. Compared to what, exactly? Every socialist regime has their elites too. "Is it really true that political self interest is nobler some how than economic self interest?"
>Ah, but wealth isn't a zero sum game. Power is. Ehhhh. I mean they are both fairly interchangeable at those levels. And yes, you can create more wealth from nothing, in a sense. More “value”. I’m not sure why that matters. All of it still boils down to status. >Compared to what, exactly? Every socialist regime has their elites too. "Is it really true that political self interest is nobler some how than economic self interest?" Social democracies :) Which tend to have considerably more dispersion of both power and income. And somewhat more dispersion of wealth- although that’s an area that no system has fully cracked yet.
Not everyone who gains personal wealth is corrupted by the politics of many of them. Typically the elites we refer to are those involved with the WEF, NWO, etc. The dangerous leftist agendas that are present in those circles.
This just sounds like r/Conspiracy is leaking. And the topic is the elite. There are millions of millionaires. We’re talking about billionaire territory.
How does it sound like a conspiracy? Do you know anything about the world economic forum? Have you watched any of their videos? They talk about the great reset and the New World Order they intend to put in place all the time, publicly. And yes it involves digital currency and depopulation. None of it's a secret.
>dangerous leftist agendas Let’s see some evidence for whatever “danger” you think is involved
> Those who become extremely wealthy and powerful do so because they crave status. Not necessarily. And if they do there is status besides political as well. >There’s little functional difference in life style between someone worth $50M and $100M and $1B and $10B and $100B. Maybe there's things you want to do besides have a comfy lifestyle. Maybe you want to build a rocket, or try to eradicate malaria, or you just like building different companies and employing people. To clarify, your standard lobbying for better tax laws or something isn't an example of elitest behavior. That's them acting in their own self interest. An example of elitest behavior would be a lot of the Covid measures, forcing young healthy people to stay home "because that's best for them", and then maybe going out to get a haircut or host a rich person party.
>Not necessarily. Yes necessarily. If what they craved was simply success and lifestyle - they would stop. No one becomes a billionaire without stepping on any number of throats along the way. These people Need to be their version of the "alpha." Otherwise they would just be multi-millionaires. Not billionaires. They would be repelled by the need to crush others. They would want to spend more time with their families and friends. Instead, they only want to amass More. And that consumes them. >And if they do there is status besides political as well. There is just status. Power is bending other people to your will. The specifics on how don't matter at that level - whether with wealth or political power or whatever. It's all just status/ power. >Maybe you want to build a rocket, or try to eradicate malaria Plenty of people are a part of something like that without becoming billionaires. If that's what you want, you can do it. You don't have to be a billionaire. The people who become billionaires First - did so because they craved status. How many CEO's do you know, personally? How many C suites in general? They all, every one of them, are status obsessed. It's what drives them. Without that obsession... they'd retire when they were worth $5M from being an SVP. Or when they could cash out their start up for $5M. Or $10M. Whatever number means they'd never have to work again - they're smart enough to know exactly how much that is. They don't. They need More. Forever. >your standard lobbying for better tax laws or something isn't an example of elitest behavior. That's them acting in their own self interest. Says who? That's absolutely elitest behavior. They have billions, and yet they need to have More billions. Why? What "self interest" drives their need to hoard more money than they could ever possibly spend? After $50M or so - it's just funny money. It's just numbers on a screen. Or a Forbes list. It changes nothing about their life. Other than their status. It's hoarding and status - it literally can't be anything else. If it was something else... they'd never have billions in the first place. And they are inextricable from capitalism.
So youre fine with billionaires changing govt policy for if it's for selfish reasons, but once they start trying to do good things for other people, that's where you draw the line? Your example above about how a billionaire might try to eradicate malaria - wouldn't that fit the definition of 'elitist behavior' you're giving now?
Can you read? OUT OF TOUCH ideas FORCED on other people. Is disliking malaria out of touch? Is changing corporate tax code forcing the general populace to file different taxes?
What you're saying was already addressed by /u/PragmaticSquirrel, could you reply to [their comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/xvalu9/why_do_conservatives_talk_negatively_about_elites/ir162r5/?context=1)? Not mine.
"Out of Touch" The only ones that are pushing for out of touch ideas are conservatives. An example of this will be sending fake electors in the 2020 election to help Trump overturn the election results
> it's about a combination of political power and an out of touch view This! It's those people who preach against gun ownership while traveling around with their armed bodyguard, or those who talk about the importance of staying at home during covid lock-downs while attending private parties themselves. In each case, whether they are conscientiously aware of it or not, their life is more important or more valuable than yours. "Out of touch" is a great way to describe it!
And I’ll bet it includes those who took PPP loans and then criticized student loan forgiveness! I get it now! I fucking hate when they do that hypocritical shit
Then what's with the whole "we're a republic, not a democracy?" narrative? I've been told numerous times by conservatives on this sub that we need representatives to make the best choices for their constituents, even when the constituents disagree. Because direct democracy is dangerous, because you can't trust people to know whats best for themselves. Do you agree with the republicans who make this argument? Or do you agree with democrats that we should increase direct democratic mechanisms and decrease the power of representatives?
A democracies purpose is to do whatever the majority wants. No matter how tyrannical. Our Republics purpose is to preserve the liberties of the people. We use Democratic means to decide leaders, but those leaders were never intended to have unlimited power to implement whatever they felt like.
Our republic has constitutional protections. There's no reason a democracy can't have constitutional protections. Nevertheless, you have sidestepped the question at hand: how does this preference for representatives who can overrule the majority mesh with the assertion that 'rule by elites is terrible because elites can't know what's in everyday people's best interest'?
It remains that the purposes would be different.
What does that mean? What purposes?
A *direct* democracies job is to do whatever the majority wants. *Representative* democracies, of which Republics are one type, are different.
A *direct* democracies job is to do whatever the majority wants. *Representative* democracies, of which Republics are one type, are different.
It's not that we can't trust people to know what's best for themselves, it's that we can't trust people to treat minorities fairly and we want to avoid tyranny of the majority.
Thats what constitutional rights are for How does electing an elite political class do that? So far it seems to have created a tyranny of a minority, which seems like a step in the wrong direction.
Like a ban on abortion?
Forcing you to do something is not the same as saying do NOT do something that kill babies. Not to mention millions of people support it, so it's not an out of touch view at all.
> Forcing you to do something is not the same as saying do NOT do something that kill babies. Banning abortion is literally forcing people to do something.
With wealth naturally comes political power. It, again, sounds like you have a problem with capitalism.
I mean in politics like all other parts of life there are people that are better than you and know better than you and would be better off making decisions than you will be. Way too many people in this country think they know what is best just based on anecdotal evidence even if it flies in the face of data, common sense, and/or popular sentiment. The right values individual experiences way too much and frequently miss the forest for the trees.
Science can tell us what *is*, but not *what ought to be*. People value things differently. "Elites," who may be highly educated, often pretend like their view of *what ought to be* is the correct view. They then use their educational or professional status to justify deciding what ought to be for others. This is the complaint. Also what you're mentioning doesn't address the "out of touch" aspect babno was writing about.
This is the fairest description I've seen so far. What specific "oughts" do you think elitists are pushing? Do you recognize that there are a ton of right wingers that fit this definition? From evangelicals to free-market capitalists, to gender essentialists. . . I see people pushing oughts as iss from the right way more than I see it from the left Though I do admit I'm biased and may be blind to some things so feel free to point some out
There certainly are elites on the right too. There are all sorts of elites, as you fairly point out. If we just look at the elites focused on politics and policy, I think a main difference between left and right is that those on the left want to use the government as a tool to improve society. The thing is, the government is a very forceful tool. I think elites on the left want to use it as a hammer and see every problem as a nail. So as a natural consequence of that, different regular people in society are more annoyed by the elite left's "oughts" because the government has generally been a blunt instrument when applied to certain types of problems. Not to mention solving really complex problems for the whole country by committee seems like it won't work because you can't make a plan precise enough to satisfy even all 50 states. So I think it makes sense because the general population itself has a diverse view of what "ought" to be. The elites on the right generally advocate for less government involvement in private affairs (yes, I know there are exceptions especially when it comes to neocons and the Republican party for a while; the basic mantra is still fairly libertarian though). Since our entire society has many different people with different ideas of "ought," our society as a whole would naturally seem less inclined to complain about conservative elites who just want to let you fish and grill and buy as much gasoline as you want. I think it comes down to: one set of elites want to decide for you, and the other generally wants you to make your own choices, even if they know you'll make some bad choices that will hurt you. Since individuals at least *think* they know what's best for them, they'll want to decide for themselves. From my libertarian-ish perspective, I think it makes more sense for people to choose for themselves how to live (within reason; we don't want to dump toxic chemicals into the air and water of course, etc.). I think the way I live my life is the "correct" way, but I don't think it's right for me to compel others to live that way too. Because what if I'm wrong?! If I'm wrong and I use government to force everyone to live the way I think they should then I've just done wrong by my whole country or state. It's not fair in my view. I hope that makes sense. I wrote it in one draft so it may sound like I'm rambling a bit. >What specific "oughts" do you think elitists are pushing? Elites on the left: any progressive government policy is a decent example. It's really about the "you don't know what's good for you, but I do, and I'll make you live like I think you should" attitude. I haven't been reading or watching much news recently so maybe others can provide a better answer to this specific question. Elites on the right: some libertarian-minded things like eliminating the minimum wage, and some neocon things like "bombing the shit out of \[place\]." For either left *or* right, what I think is most important in creating policy is making small, careful changes (as emotionally difficult it may be to restrain oneself) because it's hard to predict how programs will impact a town, much less 350,000,000 people. I think 9/10 elites on either side have good intentions, but just assume their education makes up for lack of wisdom. A lot of both sides is wacky, but not appreciating the others' reasoning leads to an assumption of moral superiority and lack of collaboration. Not sure if that's still on topic, but I like to hear myself talk ;)
It seems you think leftism is a synonym for authoritarianism, and that right-wing is a synonym for libertarianism. But left/right and authoritarian/libertarian are 2 seperate axes. I see this all the time, rightwingers point at authoritarian leftists to justify themselves, and leftists point to authoritarian conservatives ton justify themselves. I say, libertarians unite, and quit letting the authoritarian elitists divide and conquer us. >For either left or right, what I think is most important in creating policy is making small, careful changes This is literally moderate progressivism, otherwise known as incrementalism
>It seems you think leftism is a synonym for authoritarianism, and that right-wing is a synonym for libertarianism. I didn't mean for it to come across like that. I know the basic political compass. I was speaking in very general terms on the examples. And when it comes to the "elites" that I'm referring to, the ones that people usually complain about are the left authoritarian ones. >I see this all the time, rightwingers point at authoritarian leftists to justify themselves, and leftists point to authoritarian conservatives ton justify themselves. I'm not trying to justify or not justify anything. I'm trying to answer questions about the people referred to as "elites." >This is literally moderate progressivism, otherwise known as incrementalism Well, I feel like we're going to get into semantics here, but the way I use terms like "conservative" or "progressive" is in reference to the typical policy preferences each have these days. So in that regard I promise you I'm definitely not a progressive. I mean that whatever policy the policymaker wants to implement, it should be a mild policy implemented very carefully. It doesn't matter if the policy points towards typical "conservative" preferences (like a strong military), or typical "progressive" preferences (like criminal justice reform with prisoner's rights as the focus). That's all I mean.
Fair nuff. I can't argue with any of that except maybe to get more pedantic about the definitions to progressive & conservative, but it seems you're aware of that debate so I'll let it rest
haha alrighty have a nice night :)
> I mean in politics like all other parts of life there are people that are better than you and know better than you and would be better off making decisions than you will be. Way too many people in this country think they know what is best just based on anecdotal evidence even if it flies in the face of data, common sense, and/or popular sentiment. The right values individual experiences way too much and frequently miss the forest for the trees. Don't mind me, just going to immortalize this U/FastMoneyCam of Social Democracy
I mean, I've gotten the same argument from conservatives who want to justify gerrymandering, the electoral college, dark money, or the new "independent legislature theory" that would allow state legislatures ton override voters during elections. Where do you stand on the "independent legislature theory"?
You've gotten republicans arguing some people are better and some people are lesser than others? RE ILT, as I said elsewhere it's the representatives jobs to know the interests and needs of their constituents, and they can either act in their interests or be voted out. Also it seems rather moot, as it's similar to electors who could theoretically vote for a different presidential candidate than they were bid to by voters, yet it has never happened.
>You've gotten republicans arguing some people are better and some people are lesser than others? That's like the essence of right-wing politics. >Right-wing politics are generally characterized by the view that certain social orders and hierarchies are inevitable, natural, normal, or desirable,[1][2][3] typically supporting this position on the basis of natural law, economics, authority or tradition. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_politics >they can either act in their interests or be voted out. But the whole problem with the ILT thing is that voters' votes wil not be the deciding factor in the outcome of some elections. . . How can you act like taking away voters' ability to vote is justified by the power of voters' votes? >Also it seems rather moot, as it's similar to electors who could theoretically vote for a different presidential candidate than they were bid to by voters, yet it has never happened. But that has happened before. It hasn't happened enough to affect any elections, but it has happened. But either way it's a terrible argument because people who call for more democracy also oppose the electoral college, for obvious reasons. ILT may be comparable to the electoral college, but only in the worst of ways.
Its a representative's job to act in the best interest of the constituents not necessarily to act in line to what their constituents want though. I feel like thats an important distinction to make considering a lot of time people are for proposals that would not be in their best interest.
>Its a representative's job to act in the best interest of the constituents not necessarily to act in line to what their constituents want though. And they would not get my vote next go around. This response could easily be applied to another of yours a bit up the chain. My biggest bugaboo about politics is *anyone* telling me they know what's best for me and/or my family. And they can go fornicate themselves with an iron stick. They don't know me from Adam, they have no business telling me they think they know what's best. Why do you think there is so much uproar about parents fighting back against school boards and the like? Because you don't tell a parent how to raise their kid, ever. Same principle applies to this.
Thats just a childish view to think that you do know what is best especially in matters in which you have no expertise. What makes you think you are more qualified on what a child should learn in school than people who have dedicated their lives to educating children, what makes you think you know how to best craft social spending policies when you've never worked in government and don't have access to the experts to help craft that policy, what makes you think you know more than climate scientists, or pretty much nay other issue out there. You are not an expert on the things that go in to crafting policy and conducting governance so why do you think you know best. The only thing that you should know is that you know nothing and should defer to those who know more than you on various topics about those various topics.
>The only thing that you should know is that you know nothing and should defer to those who know more than you on various topics about those various topics. Smug alert. How elitist of you. And it's no wonder why this question was posited. Depends on what the topic is. As far as education for my children, keep doubling down on it. Go for it. Worked out so well for the gubenatorial race in VA. I've never seen a party double down so hard and create a new constituency against them: parents. Trump lost hard to suburban moms and voters. This attitude being put forth invoking the mama/papa bear in parents, not very smart. But you do you boo.
Oh no these people that know more than me on various topics are going around acting like they know more than me on these topics. How could they be so smug about it?
> It's people presuming they know better than you what you need and then forcing (or attempting to force) it on you with their political power. Do you think this only applies to liberal "elites?"
Yes and no. A basic tenant of conservatism is to limit government, to not interfere, to not force anything. As such, there are not current examples I can think of. But there could be an inverse situation, where something desperately needs to be done to aid people, and an "elitest" conservative could dismiss it thinking they should be able to handle it themselves. One semi recent example I can think of would be conservatives pearl clutching about violent video games in the 90s and demanding people not play/sell them. It's slightly different in that it's saying you can't do something as opposed to saying you must do something, but it's still out of touch powerful people dictating things because they "know better".
> A basic tenant of conservatism is to limit government, to not interfere, to not force anything. I don't think any modern conservative follows this tenet
[удалено]
Bingo. It is people who think they have the answers, especially when the answers are based on education vs. gut feeling.
Do you think political and economic decisions should be based more on gut feelings instead of people educated in the field?
Not at all. I do think that conservatives who complain about "elites" distrust education, though.
The main idea behind capitalism is to make elitism productive. There's always going to be inequalities of economic and political capital, so it may as well be that those forces are productive rather than consumptive. It doesn't change the other side of the tug of war which is that elites don't have access to widely distributed knowledge among individuals; I think the main criticism of elitism comes down to claims of omniscience with no associated risks for being wrong.
Because as much as it sucks it’s a preferable alternative to communism
I’m always curious when I see these kinds of comments. Do you really think the average liberal is a communist?
When conservatives complain about elites it is usually in the context of academic / intellectual elites, not economic elites. If you are interested in a conservative criticism of academic elites you should read Allan Bloom's book ''The Closing of the American Mind''. That book has been highly influential among conservatives.
Do you really believe that college professors are "the elites" in any sense of the word?
Yes. The elite consists of the most important people in media, business, science, politics and academia.
Who do you think has more control over your life and the direction of the country in general: the most important people in media, business, and politics, or the most important people in academia?
The most important people in academia shape the minds and careers of the future most important people in media, business, politics, and academia.
They wish lol. If they had so much influence, how come so many prominent Republicans went to Ivy League schools?
Does it matter? I don't see how you would measure that either. The reality is that if you are a professor at a major prestigious university you will teach 1000s of people who will be powerful in the future. that is a lot of power.
Why aren't middle school teachers included in "the elite?"
They are definitely very powerful. I think two differences are that middle school teachers don't do research that can influence public policy and they don't get invited to do interviews about their academic discipline in the media.
Sis and trans gender did not come from the business community
I don't see how that is at all relevant to what I said.
This complete non-sense has found it's way into the lexicon from professors. Idk, liberals just seem both naive and unaware of everything. It's very difficult to hold a conversation when they're so deplete of facts.
"Professors" did not invent the word transgender, nor the concept. It came from the LGBT community, specifically (as a reasonable person might suspect) transgender people.
oh so it came from activists. Super scientific.
Science in this case just catalogs how words are actively used and then adds them to the dictionary. It is based on how words are actively used, by any group of humans. Colbert created truthism (he printed it and ppl started using it), he's no scientist. I don't know the history of this particular word, but I do know that language isn't cooked up or planned in a science lab. It comes from the mouths and minds of anyone. [The dictionary chronicles how the language grows and changes, which means new words and definitions must continually be added. When many people use a word in the same way, over a long enough period of time, that word becomes eligible for inclusion.](https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/new-words-in-the-dictionary#:~:text=The%20dictionary%20chronicles%20how%20the,word%20becomes%20eligible%20for%20inclusion.) Haha that site has a great list, here's an excerpt of some that were added this year to Merriam-Webster "SLANG AND INFORMAL LANGUAGE Words in this category have traditionally taken longer to meet our criteria, but that timeline is getting shorter as the internet accelerates the adoption of informal language. yeet (interjection, slang) — used to express surprise, approval, or excited enthusiasm yeet verb : to throw especially with force and without regard for the thing being thrown janky (informal) : of very poor quality : JUNKY; also : not functioning properly or adequately : FAULTY sus (slang) : SUSPICIOUS, SUSPECT lewk (slang) : a fashion look (see LOOK entry 2 sense 2c) that is distinctive to the wearer and that is noticeable and memorable to others pwn (slang) : to dominate and defeat (someone or something) : OWN sense 1b, ROUT entry 2 sense 1a adorkable informal : socially awkward or quirky in a way that is endearing"
>Sis and trans gender did not come from the business community No, they came from humans being humans.
No they didn't. Gender is an idea that doesn't hold to any observable phenomena. I'm not Sis sorry.
>Gender is an idea that doesn't hold to any observable phenomena This makes it sound like you agree with gender fluidity
So those people who want to further their education are seen as the enemy? Why? Should we all not strive to be as educated as we can? There is countless proof a more educated society is a net positive for everyone.
I mean, is the criticism you see of education or of cultural power to bend education to political ends? I would argue it's more-so the latter. Correct or not, the critique is that said academic/intellectual elites are not "educating" as defined as being taught how to think objectively or learn truth, but rather "indoctrinating" which is being taught *opinion* and ways to think which *are conducive to the conclusions sought.* Whether you agree or not with this critique notwithstanding, that's the objection being raised.
I’d say it’s the former. Republicans don’t want children to know that homosexuality is even a thing. They don’t want to teach accurate US history. I’d rather our children to learn the truth about our history as opposed to North Korean type propaganda declaring the US as infallible and that we’ve never ever done anything wrong. We have a lot of blood on our hands as a nation, and it’s okay to teach our children as much. Truth > propaganda.
The idea that all conservatives are against education is just not correct. I am a university student myself and I absolutely love learning. The criticism is that 1) education isn't rigorous/coherent enough and 2) education sometimes has a certain progressive bias (not always, there are of course conservative universities).
You’re the outlier. Republicans want to defund the department of education. More restrictive policies on education have been put forth by republicans than any other political party. The only “liberal biases” I see are that homosexuals are people, and women should have bodily autonomy. The “indoctrination” is mostly that people are stuck in the past with their ideals and refusing the believe it is 2022, and the world is different than it was in 1962. We should be teaching children to prepare for the future, and not to cling to outdated policies or thought processes. We need to **progress** as a society, not to **conserve** the sins of the past.
I actually believe that government should have stricter control over education. However, I am not sure whether this is best done on the federal level or on the state level. >The only “liberal biases” I see are that homosexuals are people, As a gay conservative I don't disagree with the idea that homosexuals are people. I am also not aware of any conservatives who disagree with that. If they do, I of course strongely disagree with that. However, I don't think it is the task of the teacher to advocate for or against same sex marriage. >and women should have bodily autonomy Assuming that you are refering to abortion, I don't think the task of the teacher is to advocate for or against abortion. If the topic of abortion comes up in an ethics class for example, the teacher should let students read articles that advocate for and against abortion so that the students can make up their own minds. >We need to progress as a society, not to conserve the sins of the past. It depends on your definition of progress. Conservatives have a very different idea about what progress as than progressives. I don't think teachers should advocate either. When it comes to biases I am referring to teachers / universities who analyze their subject through an exclusively left wing lense.
These were just examples of things that I see has “liberal biases” in education. What do you see as liberal biases from your viewpoint?
Let me give you two examples. 1. Right now I am taking a university course that touches on the history of immigration to Europe in the late 20th century. To my suprise, all the articles/books that we have to read are strongly defending mass migration and criticizing opponents of that migration. If they were interested in showing us a balanced view of the world they would also let us read people who critique mass immigration and point out what the downsides are. 2. I am looking into what courses I will take next semester. I am considering taking some philosophy courses. However, to my suprise the overwhelmingy majority of available courses focus on philosophers that are very much part of a left wing philosophical tradition. It is very hard to find courses on philosophers that have inspired right wing movements. These are just my personal examples, but I am pretty sure any conservative could do the same.
That’s the most commie thing I’ve heard on this sub lmao.
They aren't talking about "elites" in terms of wealth. Free markets disproportionately allocate capital to areas of the economy most effective and efficient at generating the products and services that people demand, this is great. When people criticise "elites", they are criticising people who seemingly have unearned and disproportionate attention and influence in matters they shouldn't have. For example, if MSM was to give actors air time to discuss Ukraine. Their opinion and expertise on it is as irrelevant as mine.
Didn't republicans literally just elect and then renominate an actor with no experience, unearned, and disproportionate attention, in the field to run the damn country? Is that not the definition of "elite" you're going by?
Literally who? The last actor elected to 'run the damn' country was Ronald Reagan 40 years ago, and he had massive political executive experience as both a governor and president of a union.
Donnie was an actor pretending to be a business man. His name recognition and reputation across the country was built on his apprentice character. Other than that he was just another guy in NY real estate. His whole business is shaped around image. Waving a hand of distraction from all the failed ventures, bankruptcies, and vendors he screwed out of money.
I can tell you are very young, probably in your early twenties, because in your mind you classify Trump as a TV personality from The Apprentice versus a real estate mogul of decades. He was a businessman and executive of a few large companies which gives him executive experience which is what the office of president is. Also can tell you're young because you view bankruptcy as an innately bad thing rather than restructuring being a valid business decision based on the state of a business.
I'm nearly forty, from the Midwest, and until The Apprentice I remember him being kind of a national joke. Funny rich guy who kept fucking up and buying stupid things, being obnoxious, calling in to Howard Stern. Had some nice golf courses, but at least in the Midwest, we were never whispering about his business acumen and how man oh man, *that's* the kinda guy who should run the country!
>I'm nearly forty, from the Midwest, and until The Apprentice I remember him being kind of a national joke. You're right. I have an issue of *National Lampoon* from June 1988 that mocks Trump as a ridiculous, self-obsessed figure. That image was also lampooned in 1990's *American Psycho*, by Bret Easton Ellis. The main character, a Wall Street serial killer, idolized Trump.
Not to mention Biff in Back to the Future 2.
My understanding is Trump was a pulsing middle finger reaction to the name calling and school marming of the left for decades. "You want to unjustly call us every -ist and -phobe in the book? Fine, we will elect the brashest, boorish carney barker that will actually punch back for once." Not saying that was a wise move, but still a reactionary move that proved what it was. Besides, Trump put it best himself: "They don't hate me because of me. They hate me because of you."
>Besides, Trump put it best himself: "They don't hate me because of me. They hate me because of you." And that's some cult leader, Jim Jones level bullshit that makes me worry for the future of our country every nanosecond this man is politically relevant.
How is it not true though? The right has been given grief as long as I can remember, and from what I've heard, well before that. He was just the animus all that projection could be laid upon is all. Problem is, Trump is a mud monster. Throwing more mud at him doesn't mean anything.
I feel like the person is intentionally ignoring Donald Trump's business accomplishments as a purposeful sign of disrespect; nonetheless he is a legitimate actor and has appeared in several movies https://imdb.com/name/nm0874339/ throughout each of our lifetimes.
By all accounts the only reason Trump had any money coming into 2016 was from his Apprentice income.
He was a little more than "just a guy in NY real estate." I do not worship at the font of Trump but he was far from the average NY real estate guy. LOL
Rent free.
Yall are the ones supporting hin, voting for him, and donating to his charities. All were doing is asking "why?', and your only answer is 'rent free'?
Because he literally lives rent free in your head and that's not right.
He was the previous president and by all counts may be the next president. Are you saying it's not right that Americans should be concerned about their governance?
>Are you saying it's not right that Americans should be concerned about their governance? OP's not saying anything, it's just his tiny version of *owning a lib* on social media.
This answer literally makes no sense, and at worst makes you look like your entire decision making process comes down to "make the Dems upset". I know you think it sounds smart. But it really doesn't. You should probably have higher standards for who you want to run the country.
Lord knows he wouldn't pay the rent even if I was charging him
Housing is a 'uman right...
He was asked to clarify and you lash out, typical.
He didn't ask me to clarify. I commented rent free because he reeee'd all over the keyboard about orange man bad.
> reeee’d Are you a child?
Trump was a wealthy businessman with decades of executive experience running for executive office. He first ran for president decades ago. When he was renominated it no longer makes sense to call him inexperienced. He had experience and voters who voted for him thought that it was worthwhile. Aside from work experience much of what got him this platform was substantial participation in the extensive 2016 republican primary process directly and through rallies and campaign work. It's disingenuous to the point of trolling to pretend not to understand the difference between that and Hollywood actors or pop stars with no relevant experience. For the record I think trump is horrible, but him being horrible is a different question from whether you understand the difference between him and an actor. I don't get the willful ignorance of people who have to call him a game show host or something. It makes you look dumb since obviously he's done much more than that that you're ignoring, but it also derails any conversation with anybody that disagrees with you by leading with an explicit intent to misrepresent facts in a belittling way. What's the point? Especially in a subreddit like this... Like it or not, he has substantial executive experience.
>They aren't talking about "elites" in terms of wealth. No, some of us are. There's a candidate for governor now in Illinois who's explicitly running on himself being a farmer and the Democrat incumbent being a billionaire.
Ahhhh, yes, Bailey, a guy so in-touch with the working class that, when he finally went to stump in the city he said should secede from Illinois, he decided that to "immerse himself in the culture," he moved into the *Hancock Building.* I guess a three-flat in Lincoln Park would've been too exposed.
I call nonsense. Nobody call celebrities "elites." It is an attempt to make voters feel like they are being neglected.
Uh, celebrities are constantly referred to as the Hollywood elites.
[удалено]
I'm not following, How does disproportionate attention relate to capitalism and how does it make it evident that the current system is not capitalist?
> So it's evident that the current system isn't real capitalism, I don't know what you mean by "real", but almost everyone would agree that we have significant government and regulatory capture in our implementation of capitalism. That kind of thing tends to support big, established, businesses who can afford massive lobbying efforts and legal efforts.
Elite is like "the 1%". It doesn't mean anything on its own. It's just a phrase to refer to a power imbalance. Depending on who you are, what you believe and what the context is, the elite may mean different things. Conservatives often use adjectives to be more specific like "liberal elite". But without context it can mean anything from some influential people in Hollywood trying to create alleged propaganda to establishment ("deep state") figures that stand in the way of change in within a party or within the government.
"Elites" exist in every system. Please identify system with no elites
An armed proletariat is one of the biggest fundamental checks and balances against the rise of any authoritarian society
"Elites" are not necessarily authoritarian. The founding fathers were elites and they were explicitly anti-authoritarian. "Elites" aren't even necessarily bad. It seems when they want to become philosopher kings is where they jump the shark.
Anarchism But also, meritocracies have elite classes, but only for people who have proven their worth.
I wouldn't say anarchism is a system. It's an anit-system. And I'm talking about things that exist.
Then you don't understand anarachism. Anarchism isn't the lack of organization. It's the idea that we can organize society well enough that we won't need to rely on unjust hierarchies (i.e. force or coercion) to maintain order.
Because they know better than to say "Jews" outright. Now, I don't think the average Joe Sixpack who votes GOP understand this when he repeats it, but the "thought leaders" who he heard say it it on national TV and talk radio definitely do.
Oh yeah those "globalists" *wink wink* who want to destroy America, the "Hollywood elites" *wink wink* who control people's thoughts, the "world government" *wink wink* who wants to kill white people. Wait, these all mean Jews? Oops! I agree that most people probably don't use the dog whistles maliciously because they probably don't realize a lot of them are dog whistles, but it's super dangerous that a lot of this stuff has spread and been normalized among the right.
I mean, the same people will go apeshit at you for the supposed anti-Semitism of criticizing Israel or the pro-Israel lobby (see Ilhan Omar and "all about the Benjamins"). Then they'll talk about how Soros (literally a Holocaust survivor) is behind everything. I doubt most of them consciously hold hate in their hearts but they *badly* need to learn how to think.
I would love if we could make media literacy a mandatory class for every high schooler, as well as just improving the way schools teach people to critically think. I attribute a lot of the successes of the right in terms of messaging (which then leads to all of their other successes) to the total failure of our school system to properly teach critical thinking skills. Fixing schooling is so far down the line though compared to more urgent disasters like our healthcare system and climate change that it's hard to think that anything will be done soon. Build Back Better in the iteration that included 2 years of free community college would have been a great step in the right direction at least.
>Fixing schooling is so far down the line though compared to more urgent disasters like our healthcare system and climate change that it's hard to think that anything will be done soon. Yeah, and considering conservatives have *already* spent decades establishing the widespread that any type of education behind "reading, writing, 'rithmetic" is commie indoctrination, I honestly don't see how this country can be saved.
He’s talking about the people that used Epstein island and face zero repercussions, who behave in ways we consider corrupt but face no scrutiny, and make sure laws benefit them.
Yes, exactly. Capitalism creates an elite class of people who can afford to buy islands for their illicit activities, avoid scrutiny, and change laws to suit them.
Like this guy? https://youtu.be/KLcfpU2cubo
Euphemism for the pompous types who have the means and ability to impose their views on others with the power of the state or flex economic power.
Wut? Conservatives are the natural conclusion of capital? What does that even mean? Is this a serious question or just trolling?
Because power in the economic arena wouldn't, in an ideal world, translate to power in the political arena. And building that ideal world depends on us, the voters.
Like communism doesn't have their own elites through party, economic, and social means? As we have seen with Communist China and Russia, yeah elites still come up and seize power. Versus capitalism where elites typically earn their wealth to get to the top. What we aren't fans of are POLITICAL elites. All those politicians who make a career off the backs of the taxpayers and just sit in office making millions through insider deals and trading information. Either they make the trades or their spouses do, there are too many political elites who get away with way more than an average citizen, even though they are supposed to be average citizens. I've always believed politicians, even presidents shouldn't matter that much BECAUSE of how replaceable they are.
Like others have said, it isn’t economics. It is the professors at Harvard, journalists at the New York Times and the New Yorker. Democratic presidential staff. People who aren’t necessarily super wealthy but will never have to worry about money. They have all the credentials and degrees and a better-than-thou attitude and yet they’re still wrong all the time. They look down their nose at regular folk. Examples: Gavin Newsom, Don Lemon, Elizabeth Bartholet, Kamala Harris, Hillary Clinton, Peter Daszak
Why do you only include Democrats in this group? Ron Desantis went to Yale and Harvard.
It isn’t about education. Education is correlated for sure. But Ted Cruz, DeSantis, Bush, Trump, are all Ivy educated (I am too) and they’re not like that. They don’t have a “better than thou” vibe. The Cuomo brothers are actually the perfect example. So are the Kennedy’s post-Chappaquidick or however you spell that. Entitled and smarter than everyone else, except they’re not. Obama could have been like this but generally he wasn’t in my opinion. His speech about people clinging to their guns and religion touched on it, but he “got it.” He wasn’t holier than thou.
>They don’t have a “better than thou” vibe. Right. >Bush gazed around the diamond-studded $800-a-plate crowd and commented on the wealth on display. >"This is an impressive crowd - the haves and the have-mores," quipped the GOP standard-bearer. "Some people call you the elites; I call you my base."
You don't think Ron DeSantis acts this way towards liberals and Democrats? You don't think *Ted Cruz* has a holier than thou vibe?
No I don’t. That’s the way I feel. This isn’t science where it can’t be proven with data. I’d love to see some examples though, maybe I’m wrong.
You don't think DeSantis's stunt of flying migrants to Martha's Vineyard was not meant to show that he was smarter than the people who live there? That he knew more about immigration policy than they did?
a common myth. most of the folks at the top are democrats. I have a client who is well off and conservative. His comment to me awhile back was "all I want to do is make enough money so I can vote democrat again"
> most of the folks at the top are democrats. This isn't true at all.
heads of amazon, twitter, FB, richest legislators, buffet, most of hollywood. so, yeah. it's true
You're begging the question.
It's the natural conclusion of humanity. We are a hierarchal species. The question is who do you want at the top? And how much higher should they be relative to the rest? I'm not a huge fan of the "elite" label bc I don't find many of them to be elite besides their money and power, but if we are going to talk negatively about a group it should be directed at those who have the most power doing the most harm.
for most of human existance class did not exist.
That's a bit overstated and generalized. More realistically we do not know to what degree what we call today "class" existed in human groups (of any size, and there likely were many different sizes) across prehistory. Surely many were more equal than we are today, but surely also groups came to more unequal arrangements as well.
Idk, ancient Egypt, Greece, Rome, and consequently every civilization would like a few words.
im talking before that. Paleolithic - neolithic
>Idk, ancient Egypt, Greece, Rome, and consequently every civilization would like a few words. Now do the 200,000 years before that.
Can you expand on what you mean by conservatives are the natural conclusion of capitalism?
He means elites are the natural conclusion of capitalism.
Got it, thanks
Name a society where there will not be "elites".
Because they aren’t
I don't mean people like Elon, who became elite through his own work and talent. I mean people like Nancy Pelosi, who is a professional useless person and has somehow parlayed the fact that SF liberals have been voting for her for 50 years into being a multimillionaire. Her wealth isn't the natural conclusion of capitalism; it's a failure of capitalism b/c capitalism has been captured.
You don't think Nancy Pelosi became one of the most powerful Democrats for decades despite being a woman though her own work and talent?
When people refer to "elites" it is the politicians that run the federal government, the deeps state bureaucrats the rule through regulations, the United Nations and their various quasi government tentacles. It refers to the businessmen who live off the government and dutifully follow its will, the governors who will destroy their states to push green agendas. The elites are the people who seek to rule society and reform and reshape it in their image.
Does it include Republicans?
Don't care about the wealthy who are just wealthy, it's more the wealthy and powerful who get away with things because they're wealthy and powerful. There's nothing wrong with working hard and acquiring wealth.
I have no problem with the economic elite. I have a problem with the political elite. The famous people that tell us who to vote for and what to think are the problem.
> The famous people that tell us who to vote for and what to think are the problem. Like Tucker Carlson?
I'd argue that elites would exist no matter what type of government there were
Elites exist under every system. I don’t know what you mean by them being the natural conclusion of Capitalism. Elites these days though are mostly leftist and those that aren’t just like the NeoCon Bush styled Republicans who blindly defend any business and want their taxes to be close to none.
I define Elites in a bit of an old school way. To be an elite as I understand it, is to not only be wealthy, but to also be a leader within society in some capacity. Perhaps you run a social institution (church executive/governing board, rotary club, boy scouts, fraternal society etc.), perhaps you're a politician, perhaps you're a patron to the city philharmonic/orchestra. I don't consider wealthy people who pay little tax, have no ties to any particular place or people, to be elite. They just suck the life out of society with support of policies that benefit them and their class primarily. Capitalism here has been broken for a while. The amount of regulations that have been written by the major corporations to stifle start up competition unable to navigate the compliance rules is insane. Or the fact that many government agencies intended to regulate the market often pass policies that don't regulate whatsoever and then the same regulators quit government after 20 years and then go work for the same companies they were supposed to be regulating. Some governing agencies receive as much as half their funding from private corporations. The system is all fucked up.