Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Wave Goodbye to Hillary Clinton
I said it almost three months ago: After Barack Obama's delegate-hogging blowouts through the month of February, there was no way Hillary Clinton could still become president. Sure, she's performed better than I expected in the post-February states. I always thought (as the Obama campaign thought) that she would lose Indiana. But her win there was ephemeral and will net her one (1) extra delegate, and it came after public and internal polls showed her winning another clear, thank-you-white-working-class-of-which-I-am-a-part victory of 5 to 10 points. Expectations ran away from the Clinton campaign. Today the pundits are discounting the squeaker win and saying, louder, what they've known since February.
Andrew Sullivan quotes the New York Times, assessing Obama's resilience under a monthlong scandal/negative storyline cloud, and jumps for joy.
Wright is a grenade that will fizzle. The right will try other gambits - the Ayers crap and if that doesn't work, look for them to take aim at Obama's wife. But Obama's survival - or rather the voters' refusal to make this election about the Freak Show - suggests that Newt is right. This will not work this year.
The Wright stuff, and a few other developments in the campaign, had me openly rooting against Clinton last night. There was a time at the start of the primaries when I credited Clinton for a more substantive campaign than Obama. When I saw Obama on the trail (I never caught a town hall, though West Virginia's not too far away...) his campaign would fabricate a rally that felt like the concert portion of an auto show. Hours early, voters would stream into the venue. They'd chatter and wave signs as the event got off to a late start. Obama would arrive and give a soaring, but warmed-over, speech of crescendos and promises and Mick Jagger moments. Then he'd leave. Clinton, on the other hand, would hustle in to a less-crowded event, give a short speech very long on policy, and start taking audience questions. Sometimes she'd get an odd one and answer it with a howler. But she was never uninformed.
This, we were
told, was why Obama was winning and Clinton was losing. I thought
that was unfair. Clinton's microtrendy town halls, her dull, wonky
events, and her long debate answers seemed like the sort of stuff a
candidate should do, and Obama's events and answers seemed like the
stage-managed crap that lulls the electorate into electing a
cypher.
That changed sometime after the February blowouts. Clinton's people looked at the numbers and saw which voters were sticking with them--which voters had moved to Obama, but could be snagged back. They saw whites with less income and less education. So they made a virtue out of that support. They retooled the campaign to go after them and to argue, implicitly, that to not do so, and to not win them, was rank elitism. This is what Noemie Emery found so appetizing about Clinton over the last leg of the campaign.
She is becoming a social conservative, a feminist form of George Bush. Against an opponent who shops for arugula, hangs out with ex-Weathermen, and says rural residents cling to guns and to God in unenlightened despair at their circumstances, she has rushed to the defense of religion and firearms, while knocking back shots of Crown Royal and beer. Her harsh, football-playing Republican father (the villain of the piece, against whom she rebelled in earlier takes on her story) has become a role model, a working class hero, whose name she evokes with great reverence. Any day now, she'll start talking Texan, and cutting the brush out in Chappaqua or at her posh mansion on Embassy Row.
Cultural feints like that were part of the strategy. The other part was dumb policy, like the "gas tax holiday" that Clinton spent the final week of Indiana/North Carolina pushing at events and on TV. I'm flabbergasted that it didn't work, but it didn't deserve to work. Coronation, 30-point-lead-era Clinton was comfortable enough to talk to voters like grown-ups.
|5.7.08 @ 9:43AM|#
Where does the arugula thing come from? I thought Neil made that up, but I guess not.
Episiarch|5.7.08 @ 9:47AM|#
Dave, step back, have a smoke, and get away from the campaign trail for a few minutes. It's not healthy--you're starting to sound like the average reporter, claiming, that you were right all along, etc.
T|5.7.08 @ 9:49AM|#
I don't think she'll quit. She'll drag it out to the convention in an attempt to make Obama lose the general so she can try again in 2012. She doesn't really care what happens to the D brand if it isn't benefiting her personally.
|5.7.08 @ 9:51AM|#
I'm still not seeing an overwhelming reason she should drop out;
that is, if the superdelegates continue to stay on the fence.
All her dirt is out there and has been hashed over a thousand
times...Obama can easily tarnish (even further).
Is the Wonky Wisdom still against a joint ticket? I know that it
was CW that this would be a disaster ticket...anybody think that's
still true?
|5.7.08 @ 9:52AM|#
I had Froot Loops for breakfast but that wasn't too important.
The toast was meaningful but eggs would have been pandering. Orange
juice made me think of my republican father, milk is much more
working class. Then I peed sitting down to really understand where
Hillary is coming from.
What a meaningless article.
Elitismcentric Voter|5.7.08 @ 9:53AM|#
Arugula?!? That's it, I'm off the Obama bandwagon.
Fancy cheese, I can tolerate. Lobster bisque? Hell, even I've
experimented with that stuff. But bitter salad greens? It just
goes too far. Any president of mine must confine himself
to only sweet lettuces!
Ali|5.7.08 @ 9:55AM|#
Dave, step back, have a smoke, and get away from the
campaign trail for a few minutes. It's not healthy--you're starting
to sound like the average reporter, claiming, that you were right
all along, etc.
Actually, he reminded me of Dondero.
Episiarch|5.7.08 @ 9:56AM|#
But bitter salad greens? It just goes too far.
Arugula isn't bitter, philistine--it's nutty. You're thinking of
radicchio or endive. Get your garnishes and salad components
straight, douchebag.
|5.7.08 @ 9:56AM|#
The black racism in the North Carolina win cannot triumph over the nomination process. The Indiana win of a mere 9 counties by Obama out of more than 100 counties cannot triumph over the nomination process. Florida and Michigan must be counted; the remaining states must vote; and the superdelegates must use their independent judgment to select the best qualified candidate for the presidency and that is Hillary Clinton. The fight for the future of America continues.
Episiarch|5.7.08 @ 9:58AM|#
Actually, he reminded me of Dondero.
That's just uncalled for, dude. Show a little respect.
|5.7.08 @ 9:58AM|#
I particularly like the story line that Hillary's big mis-step
was the gas tax pander. That put in a new story line in play,
displacing the Obama's-friends-are-idiots story, and let Obama play
to his new-kind-of-politician/politics fantasy
myth persona.
Mad Max|5.7.08 @ 10:01AM|#
Since we have an Imperial Presidency, I want the candidate to have a Caesar salad.
|5.7.08 @ 10:01AM|#
When they showed a map of the areas Obama won vs. the ones that
Clinton one, was I the only one thinking, "If you make Obama blue
and Hillary red, it looks like a standard electoral map." Clinton
won the rural areas that Dems lose and Obama won the urban areas
and college towns that the Dems win.
Am I the only one that thinks Hillary doing a shot of Crown is more
elitist than Obama eating arugula? If you're going to do a shot of
whiskey and be working class, make it Jack or Jim. Crown is what
elitists think regular people drink.
Obama fanboy|5.7.08 @ 10:02AM|#
Leaf Obama alone. He's salad - a growing lad - and he needs his Greens.
|5.7.08 @ 10:03AM|#
AR,
I think it's because the superdelegates are less in play now.
Obama's blowout in NC and tight race in IN probably convinced
enough of them that he can take a lickin' and keep on tickin'.
|5.7.08 @ 10:04AM|#
I was very happily wrong about IN and NC. I though the media
dumping all over Obama and Rev. Wrights little psychodramatic
performances would sink him.
I am VERY glad that the Bush/Clinton era is over, and even happier
that the MSM shit the bed with their culture war bull.
Somebody tell me, what was the expression on Joe Scarborough's face
this morning?
Colin Clout|5.7.08 @ 10:06AM|#
Mo,
Yeah, a lot will depend on what happens with the supers between now
and say this weekend. Anyone see any news of supers declaring since
last night?
|5.7.08 @ 10:07AM|#
Ayn Randian, what Obama pulled out of his ass last night was
pretty damned impressive. A blow out in a state where the polls had
supposedly tightened, AND nearly beating Clinton in a state she was
favored in all despite being dragged through awful news cycle after
awful news cycle.
I think the only reason the supers haven't endorsed him yet is
because they want to give Billary a chance to bow out gracefully
(ha!).
Hillary|5.7.08 @ 10:08AM|#
I want to be with the regular people and share with them the beer necessities of life.
Ali|5.7.08 @ 10:08AM|#
Epi,
That's just uncalled for, dude. Show a little
respect.
Just the first sentence did. May be the chide would make Dave get
back on track with his excellence in journalism.
but seriously, doesn't this remind you of Dondero-type posts:
I said it almost three months ago: After
Barack Obama's delegate-hogging...
McCain|5.7.08 @ 10:09AM|#
When I was in a Commie prison in Vietnam, the only beer they let me drink was Miller Lite - and that was only because the pigs wouldn't touch it.
|5.7.08 @ 10:13AM|#
Colin,
Donna Brazille, who was pretty neutral prior and has said she won't
decide until June, sounded like she was going to Obama and that he
had, in essence, won it all.
|5.7.08 @ 10:15AM|#
As one observer noted sometime back, " There is no quit in the
Clintons." They have come back so many times that they will simply
never believe the writing on the wall. After all, last November it
was "inevitable" that she would be the nominee. Then Obama looked
like a lock, the Clinton came back, now Obama is ahead again.
I think the upper class democrats sneer at working class democrats
at their peril. Up until the 1960s the Democrats were the socially
conservative party in America. They created a simply narrative of
the rich versus the poor. Now they've created a narrative of an
intellectual elite managing quarreling identity groups. Not a
recipe for unity and electoral success.
Since the 60's Democrat leaders have thought of themselves not as
representatives i.e proxies of the people but as a natural
aristocracy whose inherent right to rule is merely confirmed by
democracy. They don't see job as one of reflecting the beliefs of
the people who elect them but rather as using the power of the
state to elevate the "masses" to their own exalted state. That
viewpoint inevitably comes through in their speaking and writing.
That is why they cannot escape the "elitist" label.
Colin Clout|5.7.08 @ 10:16AM|#
Mo,
It'll be interesting to see how many (if any) go for Obama today or
tomorrow. I mean, if he picks up ten or fiteen supers in a day or
so then that'll be significant (obviously).
jkp|5.7.08 @ 10:17AM|#
David,
You don't get any points for citing to Andrew Sullivan,
unfortunately. Half the stuff he links to doesn't directly support
his own contentions. better to link to the original source in all
cases.
kinnath|5.7.08 @ 10:19AM|#
Following the Arugula link above:
George H. W. Bush tried positioning himself as "working class,"
telling Americans along the 1992 campaign trail that pork rinds
were his favourite snack food. But during a speech at the National
Grocers Association in Washington, D. C., his true colours were in
bloom.
He was marvelling at the electric scanners at the grocery store, a
technology that had already been around for years," says Kamp,
using that as an example of a grocery store meltdown far larger
than Obama's penchant for arugula to show how a politician can come
off as aloof.
I read a in-depth analysis after Bush I lost that re-examined this
event. It turns out the store was showing of some new technology,
so the manager/clerk tore a bar-code into many pieces then taped
them back together. The "ooh" factor was that the scanner read the
crappily taped together bar code without problems. Every reporter
present missed the point and declared the Bush I had never seen a
scanner.
David Weigel|5.7.08 @ 10:23AM|#
but seriously, doesn't this remind you of Dondero-type
posts
No... if I was writing a Dondero post, I'd do something like
this.
What a victory for mainstream libertarians! Hillary Clinton
lost by running against the war and ignoring the libertarian base
of the Democratic party. With Barack Obama, Democrats have a real
chance to win libertarian voters who care about national
security.
Also, the victory of two Ron Paul-endorsed candidates in North
Carolina proves that Ron Paul will lose his seat when I run against
him in 2010.
|5.7.08 @ 10:25AM|#
Clinton's microtrendy town halls, her dull, wonky events,
and her long debate answers seemed like the sort of stuff a
candidate should do, and Obama's events and answers seemed like the
stage-managed crap that lulls the electorate into electing a
cypher.
Setting aside the particular candidates involved, is this really
what you think campaign stops should be like? After all, in the end
didn't Clinton's stage show turn out to be just as calculated as
Obama's? A political campaign is always a show -- pretending that
candidate wonkery is not another pose is a foolish mistake usually
made by wonks. I support free-wheeling, carnivalesque campaigns
because there's greater possibility for strange breaches that
reveal something interesting about the candidates.
Anon
B|5.7.08 @ 10:27AM|#
I think Shannon is absolutely correct that the Dems are elitist. But between "elitists" and "warmongers", there is no contest.
|5.7.08 @ 10:30AM|#
Shannon, by definition anyone holding office in the federal government is an "elite". Republicans aren't exactly the party of the people, either. Your last two Presidents were blue bloods with Ivy League degrees, so give me a break.
Episiarch|5.7.08 @ 10:30AM|#
Well done, Ali. I wasn't sure if poking Dave with a Dondero
comparison would get a response, but it did. There is little like
the taint* of Dondero.
* double entendre? Or triple? URKOBOLD ruling please
Jennifer|5.7.08 @ 10:34AM|#
No... if I was writing a Dondero post, I'd do something like
this [blah blah crazy shit]
You'd also brag incessantly about the pamphlets you've handed out
and the hookers you've fucked, and somewhere around the thread's
150-comment mark would veer off on tangents like "REAL libertarians
vote for Clinton because they know that support for socialized
medicine is what separates the libertarians from the
Republicans!"
And you'd pretend that those months you'd spent predicting Gravel
in a landslide never happened. Nor did the months you spent arguing
in favor of Edwards. Or Kucinich. You supported Clinton all
along.
|5.7.08 @ 10:34AM|#
Up until the 1960s the Democrats were the socially conservative party of racists
in America.
Fixed.
And in the 60s, the Republicans were the party of African
Americans. Coalitions shift, Nixon implemented the Southern
strategy and the Dixiecrats went to the Republicans. What's your
point? Socially liberal Northeast and California Republicans
largely defected. Between WWII and Clinton, California electors
only went to a Dem in 1948 and 1964.
Jennifer|5.7.08 @ 10:35AM|#
Since the 60's Democrat leaders have thought of themselves
not as representatives i.e proxies of the people but as a natural
aristocracy whose inherent right to rule is merely confirmed by
democracy.
As opposed to earthy cowboy man-of-the-people types like Yale grad
George W. Bush, you mean? Nothing says "non-elitist" like an Ivy
League trust fund kid whose daddy used to be the president.
Episiarch|5.7.08 @ 10:39AM|#
Epi, I do not think that was Dave.
Why not? Dave comments from time to time. You certainly gave him a
reason.
Colin Clout|5.7.08 @ 10:44AM|#
Mo,
"Socially conservative" has often gone hand in hand with racism,
xenophobia, etc. though.
|5.7.08 @ 11:03AM|#
Jennifer et al,
Elitism has nothing to do with money or station. It has to do with
the belief that oneself or one's ego-identity group is superior to
others.
Bush may come from money and privilege but he evinces a fundamental
respect for ordinary people lacking in
most leftist. For example, he believes that people own guns because
they have thought about it an think it the right thing to do. He
doesn't believe they "cling" to them because they're marxist
economic robots. He doesn't believe that people are stupid for
being religious. He respects peoples individual judgments on these
matters regardless of their innate characteristics, income or
education.
Leftist by contrast, confuse compassion with respect. They think
because the honest want what they think is
best for other people that they respect those peoples
decision making abilities. They want to take guns away from people
because they think the ordinary law abiding person is to stupid to
safely own and use a gun. Read "What's the matter with Kansas" or
any of dozens of other similar works for an insight into this mind
set.
|5.7.08 @ 11:06AM|#
Bush may come from money and privilege but he evinces a fundamental respect for ordinary people lacking in most leftist.
Thanks, I needed a laugh this morning.
Joe Scarborough, is that you?
Episiarch|5.7.08 @ 11:06AM|#
For example, he believes that people own guns because they
have thought about it an think it the right thing to do.
Right, that's why he said he would re-sign the AWB if it "crossed
his desk".
Does it hurt having your nose implanted firmly up George's ass?
Colin Clout|5.7.08 @ 11:07AM|#
Shannon Love,
Pretty clearly many social conservatives don't seem to have a
"fundamental respect" for the decisionmaking skills of some groups
of people. In other words, elitism comes in a lot of different
forms.
|5.7.08 @ 11:07AM|#
Since the 60's Democrat leaders have thought of themselves
not as representatives i.e proxies of the people but as a natural
aristocracy whose inherent right to rule is merely confirmed by
democracy. They don't see job as one of reflecting the beliefs of
the people who elect them but rather as using the power of the
state to elevate the "masses" to their own exalted state. That
viewpoint inevitably comes through in their speaking and writing.
That is why they cannot escape the "elitist" label.
Social Security. Universal health care. Environmental regulation.
Minimum wage. Who, exactly, doesn't reflect the views of the
voters, thinks they know better than them, and seeks to elevate the
masses to their enlightened state?
|5.7.08 @ 11:09AM|#
FWIW if someone said I was an "elite" I'd take it as a compliment. Since when did that become a dirty word?
|5.7.08 @ 11:11AM|#
Mo,
The Republicans were not the party of African Americans in the 60s.
They were the party of African Americans in the 20s. The New Deal
coaltion split the African American vote (largely between north and
south).
Leftist by contrast, confuse compassion with respect. They
think because the honest want what they think is best for other
people that they respect those peoples decision making
abilities. Sigh. You people need to take Econ 101. No, you
know what? Just don't worry about it. Let's just talk about
something else. We'll take care of everything.
|5.7.08 @ 11:12AM|#
Cesar,
My favorite is when people use the term "intellectual elite" as an
insult.
|5.7.08 @ 11:18AM|#
the victory of two Ron Paul-endorsed candidates in North
Carolina
Yea! Were there any other noteworthy races where Ron Paul endorsed
candidates-libertarian -libertarian/conservative-antiwar and
pro-capitalism folks ran in either MC or Indiana?
|5.7.08 @ 11:18AM|#
Sort of related to this thread, this parody of Hardball is the funniest damn thing I've read in the last month.
|5.7.08 @ 11:22AM|#
I'm an intellectual elite, subtly manipulating all of you from
my high tower, which is, coincidentally, made entirely of
ill-gotten ivory.
I suppose the insult intended by snide remarks about elites isn't
that they are smart, but that (1) they aren't "one of us" and (2)
they're not smart in any useful sense but are simply our version of
Laputians.
However, I remain your intellectual superior, crushing each of you
through my cryptic machinations.
Simon|5.7.08 @ 11:26AM|#
Check out the CNN delegate counter. At this point, Clinton would
have to win ridiculous landslides in every remaining primary to
pull ahead of Obama:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/29/delegate.counter/index.html?iref=mpstoryview
|5.7.08 @ 11:26AM|#
Bush may come from money and privilege but he evinces a
fundamental respect for ordinary people
yeah, right.
|5.7.08 @ 11:28AM|#
Wave Goodbye to Hillary Clinton
And good riddance as well!
Scandal- "Goodbye To You"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SAKyHhuw1HA
Mad Max|5.7.08 @ 11:31AM|#
CANDIDATE: Vote for me - the other guy looks down on you.
VOTER: Any you don't?
CANDIDATE: I look down on you, sure, but in a more liberating,
helpful way.
|5.7.08 @ 11:34AM|#
Eric Dondero:
Weigel...GET OUT OF MY HEAAAADDD!!!
Kudos to Dondero for being a good sport!
(credit whereever and whenever it's due-always)
|5.7.08 @ 11:37AM|#
Math is hard! Especially to the Media Elite.
CNN keeps putting up NC: 56-42, Obama +14 and IN: 51-49, Clinton
+2.
If you do the math on the vote totals, it's actually:
NC: 56.7-41.9, Obama +14.8 and IN: 50.7-49.3, Clinton +1.4.
Get a brain, morans!
joe, member of the math elite.
|5.7.08 @ 11:41AM|#
Joe decimals are for coastal elites.
Out here in the Real America, we're simple folks who just round off
our numbers.
Jennifer|5.7.08 @ 11:47AM|#
Bush may come from money and privilege but he evinces a
fundamental respect for ordinary people
Wow. Just, wow.
How do you define "respect for ordinary people" here? Seriously,
what are the criteria? "He never says anything which might make an
ordinary person think 'Hey, I'm unfamiliar with that word or
concept, and this makes me feel bad?'"
Kudos to Dondero for being a good sport!
I don't think that was actually him. Check the e-mail.
|5.7.08 @ 11:48AM|#
Joe,
Social Security. Universal health care. Environmental
regulation. Minimum wage.
And in every one of these you list the contemporary left
supports centralized technocratic elite decision making while the
right supports decentralized, individualistic, decision making. To
that we could add politically managed schools versus voucher
schools.
Again, the left confuses taking from peter to do what the leftist
think is best for paul as respecting the decisions that paul makes.
If the left did respect paul they would take from peter and then
just cut paul a check. They don't. At every turn, they grant
benefits but only if they have final control on how those benefits
are used.
This was not always so. Prior to the Europeanization of the left
during the 60's the Democrats had a fundamental respect for the
ordinary person thought and believed. Now they do not. Now they
think of themselves as an aristocracy with nobel obligations.
|5.7.08 @ 11:56AM|#
"Leftist by contrast, confuse compassion with respect. They
think because the honest want what they think is best for other
people that they respect those peoples decision making
abilities."
Yeah, and when I think of the right the first thing that comes to
mind is how willing they are to let individuals trust their own
decision-making abilities. Especially the religious right - they're
just awesome at that.
|5.7.08 @ 12:03PM|#
I don't think that was actually him. Check the
e-mail.
Oh, perhaps I shouldn't be surprised...
|5.7.08 @ 12:09PM|#
Sparky,
Especially the religious right - they're just awesome at
that.
I agree that in matters pertaining to sex, drugs or general
hedonism the left is more an advocate of personal choice than the
right. However, even in this case I would point out that right
considers self restraint an obligation placed on everyone equally.
They don't consider it the obligation of an minority to herd the
majority. They consider it the obligation of the herd to shepherd
the individual strays. It's oppressive but not elitist.
During most of the 20th century, sexual license was sold as the
mark of intellectual superiority. Screwing around made you part of
an elite. Stupid, plodding people worried about disease and family
structure while the truly brilliant realized you could screw like
weasels.
|5.7.08 @ 12:11PM|#
Shannon,
And in every one of these you list the contemporary left
supports centralized technocratic elite decision making while the
right supports decentralized, individualistic, decision
making.
And in every single one of them, the American public sides with the
left in overwhelming numbers, and the Republicans think they know
better.
Yeah, yeah, I get it - it can't be elitism on your part, because
you really DO know better than the common folk, who just aren't
educated enough to realize that society functions betters without
the things they believe in.
It really doesn't matter that you have a nice line of bullshit to
explain why you're actually right to substitute your own judgement
for that of the common folk. It's still, by the definition you
provide, elitism.
I could just as well turn around and proclaim that the left
supports individual decision-making about who to have sex with,
marry, or read, while the right supports Big Brother making that
decision for you. I didn't, because that has nothing to do with the
subject of elitism.
Oh, btw, Social Security, the minimum wage, environmental laws,
worker safety laws, and universal health care all date back to the
1900s-1900s. So much for your theory.
|5.7.08 @ 12:46PM|#
joe:
and the Republicans think they know better.
But certainly centralized, coercive, decision making is far more
elitist by its nature. It's elitism with teeth. It's the force that
the left advocates that's the point here.
|5.7.08 @ 12:58PM|#
SS can't go on the way it has, the demographics don't support
the continuation of the current government social security
system.
Minimum wage laws can be cruel, keeping folks who have received
terrible educations at the government schools from getting their
feet on the first rung of the economic ladder.
|5.7.08 @ 1:01PM|#
But certainly centralized, coercive, decision making is far
more elitist by its nature.
Not if it's what people choose.
It is not elitist to support collective solutions, nor to oppose
them. That's not what the word means.
If I live in a three decker, and my neighbors and I settle on a set
of rules for who gets to park in the driveway when, it is in no way
elitist for us to hold each other to those rules.
While it would be incredibly elitist for someone to come along,
berate us for setting up that system, and insist that the only
right way to use the driveway is first-come-first-serve. We can
decide how parking works in the driveway just fine, thank you very
much, even if your big, giant brain tells you that cooperating
isn't the best way to do it.
|5.7.08 @ 1:07PM|#
Episiarch:
Shannon, thanks for the comedy.
Oh, you're serious? Get fucking real.
Insults are vacuous. Try a real critique.
|5.7.08 @ 1:09PM|#
One problem with "elites", too, is whether they're actually elite in any real sense or whether they're simply superior through self-proclamation. My feeling is that a lot of our supposed elite classes are more the latter than the former. It's not like we're living in the Enlightenment or anything. More like the Disenlightenment.
|5.7.08 @ 1:13PM|#
( Comments don't work in my Firefox for some reason).
What has always puzzled me is that the same people who claim to be
morally and racially "superior" are also apparently poor and
illiterate. AND that said poor ( yet somehow "superior") people
need "leaders" that "resemble" them ( and by resemble I mean Ivy
education, rich, yet happen to be white). It's funny in the same
way that some inbred redneck trash claim racial superiority to all
blacks or Hispanics.
Oh that's right, I forgot. Of course every poor white "working
class" person is a superior individual that is oppressed by
immigration and affirmative action.
I have also seen some criticism of "black racists" for voting
overwhlemingly for Obama. Yet the same people don't see anything
interesting in the fact that the only people who vote for Hillary
are white, over 65, and working class/uneducated.
Hillary is running the Ron Paul Newsletter strategy!
|5.7.08 @ 1:15PM|#
My God, shes staying in. Shes actually trying to go on the
attack.
Is she insane?
|5.7.08 @ 1:15PM|#
And by white, uneducated, and over 65, of course I mean they are (more likely to be, at least) racist.
|5.7.08 @ 1:18PM|#
Rick,
To follow up, if someone new moved into the three deckah, and
didn't want to be part of the system, and wanted to use the
driveway on a first-come-first-serve basis, and he coerced him into
respecting the system that had been set up, it still wouldn't be
elitist.
It could be coercive. It could be centralized. And it could be
unwise.
But it still wouldn't be elitist.
Episiarch|5.7.08 @ 1:23PM|#
Insults are vacuous. Try a real critique.
Blow me, Rick. If you want to lecture someone go find some hapless
children to harass; I'm sure they'll appreciate your old maid
shtick more than me.
|5.7.08 @ 1:24PM|#
But certainly centralized, coercive, decision making is far
more elitist by its nature.
Not if it's what people choose.
I think you're falling into a fallacy here, joe.
Just because an authoritarian thug is elected doesn't mean he isn't
an authoritarian thug.
Just because policies that are centralized and coercive are passed
by politicians who win elections doesn't mean they aren't
centralized and coercive.
We have a Master Class of full-time politicians and bureaucrats who
view themselves as the Anointed, an elite group uniquely qualified
to "run the country". Any policy that is centralized and coercive
is inherently elitist, because it strips power from teh peepul and
lodges it in the Master Class. Just because the Master Class is
expert at gulling teh peepul doesn't mean they aren't an elite.
Guy Montag|5.7.08 @ 1:26PM|#
Cesar | May 7, 2008, 1:15pm | #
My God, shes staying in. Shes actually trying to go on the
attack.
Is she insane?
I heart you for this fantastic news!
Guy Montag|5.7.08 @ 1:28PM|#
PL,
One problem with "elites", too, is whether they're actually
elite in any real sense or whether they're simply superior through
self-proclamation. My feeling is that a lot of our supposed elite
classes are more the latter than the former.
Yep, and you will find a whole bunch of them in that "independant
thinkers" self-identified group, easily spotted as a hurd of snooty
Leftists reciting exactly the same words and "ideas".
|5.7.08 @ 1:36PM|#
R C Dean,
You raise a good point. I do hate me some danged technocrats. To
me, it's so blindingly obvious that power should devolve downward,
not upward, that I can't figure out why anyone would want it any
differently. From both a utilitarian and moral perspective, I think
a more libertarian/decentralized system would be vastly superior to
what we have now. Or what we may have tomorrow in "The Village." I
know joe's going to chastise me for this, but I don't think many
problems are really solved by government, although
government will come in with actions after problems begin to be
solved within society to claim credit.
I will say one thing about the left that just irks the hell out of
me, even as a nonconservative libertarian--"reality based"? Give me
a break. The right has its delusions, but so does the left. In
spades.
|5.7.08 @ 1:48PM|#
RC Dean,
This discussion isn't about authoritarianism.
It's about elitism.
Two different things.
There can be elitist authoritarianism (Kurt Vennegut's Player
Piano), and elitist anarchism (eliminating the NLRA to allow
the "natural aristocracy" of businessowners to ignore the opinions
of the people below them). There can be egalitarian
authoritarianism (Marxist-Lenninism in theory) and egalitarian
anarchism (early Marxism in theory).
They're simply not the same thing, and asserting that my point is
wrong, without being able to offer any argument about my reasoning
or assumptions, doesn't refute them.
|5.7.08 @ 1:49PM|#
To me, it's so blindingly obvious that power should devolve
downward, not upward...
You want employees to have a greater say into their working
conditions? Cool, me too!
Oh, wait, no you don't.
|5.7.08 @ 1:51PM|#
Now the response will be, "but putting power over how a company
runs into a elite is RIGHT," blah blah blah laissez-faire
dogma.
Even granting that this is so, it's still elitist - that is, it
still assumes that power belongs rightfullly in the hands of an
elite.
|5.7.08 @ 1:55PM|#
Government power, joe. If corporations start forcing me to work
for them and imprisoning me when I show up late, then I'll join
you. I think there can be checks on any kind of power, but checks
and over-regulation/de facto control are two entirely different
things.
One big problem with comparing businesses and government is that
the former have more quantifiable goals. What's government's goal?
Maximizing happiness? And the difference in power between the two
institutions is gigantic. Frankly, corporate power today is more
than it would be if government (all levels) didn't do so much to
support it.
|5.7.08 @ 1:56PM|#
So, you're elitist in one sphere, and not another.
That's nice.
It still tells us nothing about your opinion about elitism, just
how you want the elite chosen.
|5.7.08 @ 2:00PM|#
And don't bother "explaining" your theory about how totally
natural and right it is for that particular elite to have that
particular power.
I already know the argument.
All elitists point to their natural right to lead. Changing the
criteria for determining membership in an elite doesn't change the
fact that you want there to be an elite.
Plutocracy is elitist. Having ranks in the military is elitist.
Even meritocracy is elitist.
Even if you are right about this particular elite having the right
to their power, or this particular method of gaining entry to the
elite being wise and just, it's still elitism to proclaim that one
groups should rightfully hold power over another.
Episiarch|5.7.08 @ 2:04PM|#
Once again, joe utterly fails to understand the difference
between force and working for someone.
Sigh.
|5.7.08 @ 2:18PM|#
joe,
I have to agree with Episiarch on this one. Where's the real
similarity between what I have to contend with as an employee
versus what I have to contend with as a citizen? Not to mention
that management and executives tend to have gotten their jobs based
on merit (of some kind), not on their ability to win popularity
contests. There is no perfect system, certainly not today but not
even in Libertopia, but I don't get this equating of corporate
power with government power. The latter is an order of magnitude
greater, with a far greater downside if it gets out of
control.
Incidentally, as an in-house counsel, I don't accept the idea that
the elites are calling the shots. The elites tend to be the
educated professionals, but they only sometimes run things.
|5.7.08 @ 2:19PM|#
Yes, "explain it" again. I just can't follow the argument.
That's exactly it. It isn't that I disagree with it, have a
different set of priorities or values, or anything.
Nope, I just can't follow the argument, because I'm not
smart.
Condescending prick.
|5.7.08 @ 2:23PM|#
Now, now, no oppression in this thread, at least.
joe, I think your axioms are misplaced, then ☺
|5.7.08 @ 2:24PM|#
It doesn't matter if the power by which the elite gets its way
is different, or less imposing.
That makes no difference at all to the question of whether they
are, or are not, an elite; nor to the question of whether it is
right for them to be an elite.
Not to mention that management and executives tend to have
gotten their jobs based on merit (of some kind), not on their
ability to win popularity contests. The method of choosing who
gets to be in the elite doesn't make it less of an elite.
The belief that we've found the "right way" to admit people into
the elite doesn't make belief in their rightful authority less
elitist.
There is no perfect system This isn't a discussion of the
efficacy of different policies. This is a discussion of
elitism.
Incidentally, as an in-house counsel, I don't accept the idea
that the elites are calling the shots. If you get to call the
shots for other people, you are by definition the elite.
|5.7.08 @ 2:25PM|#
Incidentally, as an in-house counsel, I don't accept the
idea that the elites are calling the shots.
You are simply arguing here that the wrong people are allowed to be
the elites.
|5.7.08 @ 2:26PM|#
Once again, Episiarch fails to understand that there is more than one fucking subject for people to discuss.
|5.7.08 @ 2:28PM|#
Lawrence O'Donnell in the Huffington Post said he was just told by a Clinton senior staffer that Hillary will withdraw on June 15. He said she will make one last push for superdelagates the week after the last primary.
|5.7.08 @ 2:33PM|#
Technically, the people calling the shots at corporations are
the shareholders. Which, these days, is a class increasingly
composed of individual investors (ultimately, if not
directly).
I'm not sure I'm willing to equate "elites" with "those calling the
shots". For instance, academic elites don't run the country.
Anyway, my conversation at this point is more focused on the
different threats posed by government and businesses respectively.
If you're suggesting that we can destroy classes in society and
eliminate any type of elite. . .no, I know you're not arguing that.
So what are you arguing? I've never suggested that some animals
aren't more equal than others--of course they are.
|5.7.08 @ 2:40PM|#
Technically, the people calling the shots at corporations
are the shareholders.
This doesn't actually have anything to do with how the workplace is
run.
So what are you arguing?
That any system which postulates that some rightfully have power
over others, that those people SHOULD have their ideas triumph over
those of others by virtue of their rightfully having control over
which ideas triumph, can be described as elitist.
That's all.
|5.7.08 @ 2:41PM|#
Anyway, my conversation at this point is more focused on the
different threats posed by government and businesses
respectively.
The question of how the elite's power should rightfully be wielded
or expressed, or how they come by it, is immaterial to the question
of whether they are, or are not, an elite.
|5.7.08 @ 2:53PM|#
Bush may come from money and privilege but he evinces a
fundamental respect for ordinary people lacking in
most leftist.
Heh, heh, heh, heh, heh, heh, heh.
Heh.
|5.7.08 @ 2:57PM|#
Which, these days, is a class increasingly composed of
individual investors (ultimately, if not directly).
No they aren't. Most individual investors are invested in mutual
funds, pensions or ETFs. The majority of them state that you do not
get the vote, the fund manager does. So elites still call the shots
at most corporations. If you aggregate individual, non-fund
holdings of individuals of any major corporation (S&P 500
size), you'll find it doesn't add up to much.
|5.7.08 @ 3:04PM|#
You want employees to have a greater say into their working
conditions?
Ab
so
fekkin
lutely
Don't like yer job? Start looking for a new one. You're not
enslaved, y'know.
|5.7.08 @ 3:06PM|#
I don't much care whether a system can be called elitist or not.
Just whether it involves me getting oppressed.
Mo,
Actually, all of the funds I'm part of allow me to vote my shares.
I'm not suggesting that the common man is actually running
corporations. I just meant that it's not so simple as pointing to
the CEO.
Guy Montag|5.7.08 @ 3:12PM|#
PL,
You just can't tell certain Leftists anything. Unless you form a
government "collective" they will insist that it is "unfair",
especially if they are not put in charge.
|5.7.08 @ 3:19PM|#
When your toilet is backed up, and there's shit all over the floor, your definition of "elites" might include plumbers.
Guy Montag|5.7.08 @ 3:26PM|#
When your toilet is backed up, and there's shit all over the
floor, your definition of "elites" might include
plumbers.
Well, maybe, if they show up, take my money, talk about how stupid
everybody using water based waste disposal and expect me to do the
work myself while they drink my Scotch, smoke my cigars and try to
have sex with the bearskin rug.
|5.7.08 @ 3:26PM|#
Guy,
I know Chattanooga well. I used to spend summers there with my
grandmother, and my mom's family is from thereabouts. And yes, I've
visited Rock City several times :)
|5.7.08 @ 3:31PM|#
Yes, "my way or the highway" is so empowering.
Your answer, P Brooks, is "no." You don't want workers to have any
say over their workplaces. You want them to do as they are told or
leave.
Guy Montag|5.7.08 @ 3:31PM|#
I know Chattanooga well. I used to spend summers there with
my grandmother, and my mom's family is from thereabouts. And yes,
I've visited Rock City several times :)
I grew up in Knoxville, but did not get familiar with Chat. until I
was in my 20s/30s. Only spent the night there a couple of times.
Was interesting. I wonder if that huge electronics/electrical
supply store is still there?
Oh, at my AV Advanced Course we did a 2 or 3 day battlefield walk
of Chickamauga.
|5.7.08 @ 3:37PM|#
Guy,
My dad's family is from Knoxville and from middle TN. There's a
house on the Chickamauga battlefield that belonged to my family
during the battle. We get pictures there every decade or so.
Episiarch|5.7.08 @ 3:40PM|#
You don't want workers to have any say over their
workplaces. You want them to do as they are told or
leave.
How can you be this dense? Do you bend light as it passes you?
|5.7.08 @ 3:43PM|#
joe,
Before you compose your scathing response to Episiarch, might I
suggest you reply in the same vein? Physics insults are fun.
Guy Montag|5.7.08 @ 3:44PM|#
Episiarch,
Oh, now you have done it! 'He' is going to whip out his file of
someone who has called you stupid, then attach a dozen unrelated
posts to it for "evidence" of your dimness!
Of course, everybody gives him the highest of praise for his
insight, logic, intellect and 'fairness'!
ROFLMAO!!!!!
Guy Montag|5.7.08 @ 3:46PM|#
PL,
Do you remember the band See Seven States? They used to play the
strip in Knoxville in the late 80s or so.
|5.7.08 @ 3:52PM|#
Hillary's next pandering move will be to make a big show of eating salad with thousand island dressing.
|5.7.08 @ 3:54PM|#
Guy,
I don't think so. Of course, I'm forbidden from visiting Knoxville
since the University of Florida incident. I like the name,
anyway.
I liked Episiarch's gravity insult and am having trouble coming up
with one as good. Hopefully, joe or someone else hereabouts will
pick up the baton. Make like a supernova and blow? Nah.
Guy Montag|5.7.08 @ 3:59PM|#
PL,
I thought of something, but not giving the 'fellow' any hints.
Guessing 'he' is pestering all of 'his' Art Bell listening buddies
for som sort of comeback.
If you are thinking of something good to stab him with, try some of
that math humour. Geometry can be a real killer, especially with
that tool set.
|5.7.08 @ 4:02PM|#
"Your answer, P Brooks, is "no." You don't want workers to have
any say over their workplaces. You want them to do as they are told
or leave."
It's easier to leave a company than it is to leave a country.
Guy Montag|5.7.08 @ 4:05PM|#
It's easier to leave a company than it is to leave a
country.
Especially those utopias that build walls to keep their happy
throngs from leaving.
|5.7.08 @ 4:09PM|#
Now, now, my request for a physics insult war was in earnest,
not an attempt to pick on joe. I'm not actually sure where he lands
on the physics knowledge spectrum. About the only science we've
talked about is GW, and that, of course, ends up also being an
argument over immovable axioms. I'm guilty of having those as well,
of course.
Art Bell? Really? That can't be true. Dave W., maybe, but joe? He
lacks the love of conspiracy theories.
Guy Montag|5.7.08 @ 4:12PM|#
PL,
Okay, only in the interest of assisting you and not to pick on E,
but there should be something in the planetary system of Sol that
even 'he' could form a joke from, or rip off an old tired
one.
Orbital physics counts right?
|5.7.08 @ 4:14PM|#
You don't want workers to have any say over their
workplaces. You want them to do as they are told or
leave.
An employer who adopts such a policy for all but the most unskilled
jobs is shooting himself in the foot. The hire-train-quit cycle is
seriously taxing on the employer as well as employees.
Something tells me joe's never been on the other side of the
management-labor divide.
Guy Montag|5.7.08 @ 4:16PM|#
Something tells me joe's never been on the other side of the
management-labor divide.
Or the fast food counter.
|5.7.08 @ 4:17PM|#
Your answer, P Brooks, is "no." You don't want workers to
have any say over their workplaces. You want them to do as they are
told or leave.
It amuses me that you believe yourself clairvoyant.
|5.7.08 @ 4:23PM|#
What could I possibly write that could be more insulting than having Guy Montag agree with you?
|5.7.08 @ 4:29PM|#
An employer who adopts such a policy for all but the most
unskilled jobs is shooting himself in the foot. The hire-train-quit
cycle is seriously taxing on the employer as well as
employees.
That's a fine answer from a pragmatic point of view - except for
its reality-challenged nature - but since this is a discussion
about principles, it doesn't really provide much
enlightenment.
You're making this much more complicated than it needs to be (which
is usually what smart people do when they find themselves cornered
in an argument).
If you are arguing that management should be able to dictate
workplace conditions, and the decision about how they do so and
whether they will take into account their workers opinions lies
entirely with them, than you are arguing for an elitist system. I
could just as well argue that kings would be wise to take their
subjects' wishes into account. Yes, they should, but I certainly
don't have to explain to a group of libertarians who has the power
over whom in that setup.
An enlightened elite is still an elite.
|5.7.08 @ 4:30PM|#
Guy,
Was it scary for you and your buddies when they filmed Gigli at
your school?
|5.7.08 @ 4:30PM|#
joe:
I said:
"But certainly centralized, coercive, decision making is far more
elitist by its nature."
And you responded:
Not if it's what people choose.
But it's the way of government that, at best, only a majority of
the people choose what is forced by the government. So centralized,
coercive, decision making must be more elitist than voluntary,
capitalistic decision-making. The least we may say is that
government centralized, decision-making engenders elitism.
It is not elitist to support collective solutions, nor to
oppose them. That's not what the word means.
You say that, joe, and your working definition of elitism on this
thread seems to say that it is an attitude. But I don't think that
that's consistent your response above: Not (elitism) if it's
what people choose.
What about this:
This discussion isn't about authoritarianism.
It's about elitism.
Two different things.
But do you deny that, at least, the former engenders the
latter.
Episiarch|5.7.08 @ 4:33PM|#
What could I possibly write that could be more insulting
than having Guy Montag agree with you?
ZING! Took you a while, though. Were you taking your nap? The
nurses at the rest home are pretty militant about that, I hear.
|5.7.08 @ 4:35PM|#
Rick,
Majoritarianism certainly has its faults, but elitism is not among
them.
A system based on the idea that every person's opinion should be
treated as the equal of every other person's is exactly the
opposite of elitism. Elitism is the concept that there are certain
people who, for whatever reason, have the right and are more
qualified than those around them to wield power.
|5.7.08 @ 4:36PM|#
But it's good to see you're keeping your contributions to the threads as valuable as ever.
|5.7.08 @ 4:37PM|#
joe:
All elitists point to their natural right to lead. Changing the
criteria for determining membership in an elite doesn't change the
fact that you want there to be an elite.
So some elites use the results and machinations of the democratic
process to justify their elitism.
|5.7.08 @ 4:40PM|#
That's a fine answer from a pragmatic point of view - except
for its reality-challenged nature - but since this is a discussion
about principles, it doesn't really provide much
enlightenment.
Ah. So, when I argue that freedom of association should go both
ways, you tell me I'm naive; when I argue on a pragmatic basis, you
say I should argue based on principle.
Episiarch|5.7.08 @ 4:41PM|#
Actually, I have a job.
Somebody pays you to drink boilermakers and post on the internet
all day?
|5.7.08 @ 4:41PM|#
Hey! joe! No references to Gigli! Jesus, I'd finally
purged my mind of that, ahem, "film".
joe, is that your point? Does it matter if the majority acts in
oppressive ways rather than some aristocratic class? I just don't
get that line of reasoning--dictatorship by the majority or by
General Zod has largely the same result. In practice, too, the
people who claim to be acting for the people seem to have an agenda
that doesn't jibe much with the majority's wishes. Otherwise, how
come Americans despise their government--all of it, regardless of
the party in control--to such a great extent? They may not be
libertarians, but they don't like most of the people calling the
shots.
|5.7.08 @ 4:44PM|#
If you are arguing that management should be able to dictate
workplace conditions, and the decision about how they do so and
whether they will take into account their workers opinions lies
entirely with them, than you are arguing for an elitist
system.
So if I pay a plumber to come to my house and tell him he can't
park on my lawn and he can't take breaks lying in my bed, that
makes me an elitist?
I mean, you can define the word any way you want, but if you define
it that broadly you're pretty much destroying its usefulness as a
word.
|5.7.08 @ 4:52PM|#
So what are you arguing?
That any system which postulates that some rightfully have power over others, that those people SHOULD have their ideas triumph over those of others by virtue of their rightfully having control over which ideas triumph, can be described as elitist.
That's all.
That pretty much covers it.
Every system, everywhere, public or private, may be construed to be
"elitist." What a useful contribution to the discourse.
|5.7.08 @ 4:56PM|#
That any system which postulates that some rightfully have
power over others, that those people SHOULD have their ideas
triumph over those of others by virtue of their rightfully having
control over which ideas triumph, can be described as
elitist.
By this criterion, the Roe v Wade abortion on demand
regime is elitist as well. A fetus is far more dependent on
continued residence in the mother's body than any employee is on
their job.
|5.7.08 @ 5:05PM|#
Episiarch,
I said that, "Insults are vacuous"
So you said:
Blow me
Kinda funny, huh? More physics?
I hit your insult cuz I dug most of what Shannon said, but now your
subsequent comments have made me wonder what part of what she said
you didn't agree with.
I gotta admit that your general relativity insult was quite good.
It shows that insults can have a separate entertainment value even
when they detract from, or ignore, the argument at hand.
And no hard feelings. Here, enjoy this vid. It kinda fits:
"Hit Me With Your Best Shot"-Pat Benatar
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g4rPIjWqMRc
Episiarch|5.7.08 @ 5:09PM|#
I gotta admit that your general relativity insult was quite
good. It shows that insults can have a separate entertainment value
even when they detract from, or ignore, the argument at
hand.
Thanks, entertainment was the point.
And no hard feelings.
OK. Hugs?
#|5.7.08 @ 5:16PM|#
"A system based on the idea that every person's opinion should
be treated as the equal of every other person's is exactly the
opposite of elitism"
Which would lead to every radio station playing oldies, every TV
station showing American Idol, and every night we'd all have pizza
for dinner.
I think we need a better definition.
DW|5.7.08 @ 5:26PM|#
"If you are arguing that management should be able to dictate
workplace conditions, and the decision about how they do so and
whether they will take into account their workers opinions lies
entirely with them, than you are arguing for an elitist
system."
??? This pretty much describes the meaning of "management". Workers
are always free to not accept those conditions and look elsewhere.
Come to think of it, workers are always free to leave and find
employement elsewhere anyway,at any time, and for any reason and
there's nothing that management can do about it.
Episiarch|5.7.08 @ 5:28PM|#
Did you dig the vid?
Can't, I'm at work. But I've seen it before anyway.
joe|5.7.08 @ 5:38PM|#
e·lit·ism or é·lit·ism
n.
1. The belief that certain persons or members of certain classes or
groups deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived
superiority, as in intellect, social status, or financial
resources.
2. The sense of entitlement enjoyed by such a group or class.
3. Control, rule, or domination by such a group or class.
Let's note what this definition contains, and does not
contain.
First, there is nothing in there about the scope of the power or
privilege to be enjoyed by the elite. In any system, regardless of
how broad or limited the power and privilege are, one can have an
elitist belief about how they should be distributed, or an
egalitarian belief.
Second, there is nothing in there about the type of "treatment,"
"rule," "domination," or "control." One can have an elitist opinion
about government power, about workplace power, about deciding on
activities for the Cub Scout group, anything.
Third, there is nothing in there about the ease with which one may
remove one's self from being subject to that power. If little
Johnny and Bobby decide that they get to decide which games the
kids should play because their daddies are the richest, they are
elitists, even if every other kid in the neighborhood can just not
go into their yard to play.
joe|5.7.08 @ 5:40PM|#
Chris Potter,
So, when I argue that freedom of association should go both
ways, you tell me I'm naive; when I argue on a pragmatic basis, you
say I should argue based on principle.
Actually, what I'm telling you is that your observation is
irrelevant to this discussion, which, to remind everyone, is about
the nature of elitism.
joe|5.7.08 @ 5:41PM|#
Pro Libertate,
joe, is that your point? Does it matter if the majority acts in
oppressive ways rather than some aristocratic class?
No. I have not written a single word about what is good, or bad. I
am simply discussion the meaning of the term "elitism."
I have stated numerous times already that there are problems that
non-elitist systems have.
I don't know why so many of you are having so much trouble with
this.
|5.7.08 @ 5:54PM|#
joe,
I'm less interested in the "elitism" discussion and more concerned
about your unwillingness to insult Episiarch using physics as your
oeuvre.
|5.7.08 @ 6:08PM|#
This discussion isn't about authoritarianism.
It's about elitism.
joe, my argument was that, in this country, they are one and the
same, because we have evolved a fairly insular and
self-perpetuating Master Class, such that those who exercise
authority are an elite. This fits your definition quite well,
thanks.
I suspect the same is true nearly everywhere. I can't think of a
counter-example off the top of my head.
Theoretically, I'll grant that democracy can provide a bulwark
against rule by elites by giving teh peepul the ability to turn out
the bastards and put sturdy yeomen in their place. It just doesn't
work that way here in the US anymore.
|5.7.08 @ 6:09PM|#
Let's try that with competent HTML:
This discussion isn't about authoritarianism.
It's about elitism.
joe, my argument was that, in this country, they are one and the
same, because we have evolved a fairly insular and
self-perpetuating Master Class, such that those who exercise
authority are an elite. This fits your definition quite well,
thanks.
I suspect the same is true nearly everywhere. I can't think of a
counter-example off the top of my head.
Theoretically, I'll grant that democracy can provide a bulwark
against rule by elites by giving teh peepul the ability to turn out
the bastards and put sturdy yeomen in their place. It just doesn't
work that way here in the US anymore.
Captain Irony|5.7.08 @ 6:23PM|#
"I don't know why so many of you are having so much trouble with
this."
What was that about someone being a condescending prick?
joe|5.7.08 @ 7:31PM|#
There's one other item that is nowhere to be found in the
definition of elitism: a reference to collectivism vs.
individualism.
Someone who believes that each member of the elite should have his
own little empire to lord over all by himself, and someone who
believes that all of the elitists should get together and lord it
over the economy or society as a whole, would both fit the
definition of an elitist.
joe|5.7.08 @ 7:35PM|#
RC,
You write about we have evolved a fairly insular and
self-perpetuating Master Class and It just doesn't work
that way here in the US anymore
Our first president was the richest man in English North America.
Our second president came from a family that already had a town
named for them. Our third president, and several that followed him,
were wealthy slaveowners. The first son of a president to rise to
the presidency did so while veterans of the revolution were still
alive. They were all elected by a voting public that excluded
people as unfit to have a say in the government if they were black,
or female, or not rich enough.
If you've got a complaint about something that "evolved," something
that "doesn't work that way here anymore," than your complaint is
about something else, not elitism.
|5.7.08 @ 8:17PM|#
Pro Libertate:
I'm less interested in the "elitism" discussion and more
concerned about your unwillingness to insult Episiarch using
physics as your oeuvre.
I'll profer a few:
Episiarch's comments are so ugly that Schroedinger's cat was dead
just knowing they
existed.
Episiarch's ego swelled head is so fat he contradicts a
heliocentric solar system.
Episiarch's commemts are so mean spirited and ugly, stuff running
from them accounts for the acceleration of the expansion of the
universe
Episiarch is so fat his waistline is called the event horizon.
Guy Montag|5.7.08 @ 9:36PM|#
RB,
That is nt as good as I expected. Droppimg the hammer to check the
cat.
Guy Montag|5.7.08 @ 9:45PM|#
joe | May 7, 2008, 4:30pm | #
Guy,
Was it scary for you and your buddies when they filmed Gigli at
your school?
Yet another gem! Keep it up joe and you will have a complete pearl
neclace decroating your Winger t-shirt.
Guy Montag|5.7.08 @ 10:07PM|#
Our first president was the richest man in English North
America.
The Lord Fairfax never was appointed or elected to the Presidency
of the United States of America.
|5.7.08 @ 10:55PM|#
Well. I googled "physics insults" and only came up with some mildly amusing "yo mama" style statements. A surprisingly unexplored genre. That, or they're called something else.
Guy Montag|5.7.08 @ 11:01PM|#
PL,
That makes you the star of the greatest magnitude ;) In the
astronomical sense, of course.
|5.7.08 @ 11:41PM|#
I used this math one on a PE teacher in HS once:
Show us how to find the slope of this bat when it's tangent to your
head.
Guy Montag|5.7.08 @ 11:51PM|#
Come on, geometry has lots of funnies, like the angle side side triangle.
|5.7.08 @ 11:52PM|#
The Boötes void?
I'm a boomer so I'm used to pronouncing that constellation like the
cat's name as you'd guess instead of BOWOTAZE.
|5.8.08 @ 12:05AM|#
A mathematical/sexual lamentation of fat girls:
The angle of the dangle is proportional to the mass of the
ass.
(Full discloser: I kinda embarrassed to post this cuz I don't
usually do this kinda humor.)
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245