What's so wrong with being an elitist?

Let me say that I do believe Setanta has a soul, and that it is a good one - even if a bit prickly and argumentative.

Strangely enough, there have been many presidential elections in the past where the less-experienced candidate has won; and I think we will be seeing another here quite soon.

Cycloptichorn

As I said earlier here, I doubt anyone would disagree that we all seek out experts ourselves when we need one. But I don't think that's the issue either.

When your child needs abrain surgeon do you seek out a professional that has been identified by their peers as "the elite"? Or do you go to Craigslist and look through the "Services" section until you find the last post from someone who makes the claim for themselves?

I don't buy that most people have a beef with "the elite" in general. They have a beef with the elite when those people try to use their status for personal gain/advantage outside of their recognized area of expertise.

How many times have we seen the Cynthia McKinney/Patrick Kennedy/Bob Filner/Larry Craig/Joan Collins/Roberto Cavalli types pull the "Do you know who I am?" routine when they find that they are expected to go through airport security or answer to law enforcement just like the rest of us are?

Roberto Cavalli might very well be a well know fashion designer, I don't follow the fashion industry so I wouldn't know. But since when does that mean that he gets to travel the globe without a passport like everyone else?

People who are "elite" in their field and keep it there usually don't have to many problems. It's when their arrogance excceeds their expertise that they get into trouble. When enough of the elite demonstrate their arrogance the stereotype comes to life and gets applied to other elites as well.

There have indeed, and you may well be proved right about the coming election.

However, I believe you will also concede that it will be a much closer thing than anyone would have estimated a year ago.

We have 6+ months to go in a protracted campaign that has already reversed the expectations of many insiders in the process.

There is a kind of reverse snobbery in using a charge of elitism against someone, to the extent that it pre-supposes that there is such a thing as "the common man," and that this body of "common men" are sufficiently alike in all respects that one can distinguish these honest sons of the soil from the ivory tower crowd.

This theme has a long history in the United States. The Jacksonian era, roughly the late 1820s and the 1830s is also known to American historians as the era of the common man. Jackson first stood for the presidency in 1824, but failed to get a majority of the electoral votes, although he had the largest plurality. One of his opponents, and a man who hated him, was Henry Clay, who also happened to be the Speaker of the House of Representatives. Observing that he could not believe that killing 2500 Englishmen at New Orleans qualified him for the office, he threw his support behind John Quincy Adams, and Adams was chosen as President by the House. Jackson came back in 1828, and beat Adams by a respectable margin.

What qualified 1824 for the beginning of the "era of the common man" was that it was the first election in which a majority of the states allowed all adult, white males to vote, without reference to a property qualification--which was what passed for "universal suffrage" in those days. Seventeen of the 23 states allowed that expanded franchise in 1824, and most of those states produced ballots which named the candidates (Jackson and Adams) rather than listing electors, so it was also the first election in which a majority of voters voted for the candidates directly.

But to call the previous system "elitism" makes a joke of the meaning of the word. Any ignorant, illiterate hard-scrabble farmer with 40 acres had the franchise, while a highly-skilled, well-educated craftsman in a city who did not own his own home could not vote. It makes one wonder just what is meant by elitism.

Which brings us to Mr. Mountie's remarks, as well as Cyclo's comment. I agree with Cyclo that it is used these days as a pejorative (this has not always been the case, even in the United States). But a hard and fast definition of who constitute the elite might prove rather elusive. If i wanted to know the subtleties of the nature of the cosmos, i'd want to talk to Stephen Hawking. But it the commode were backing up, i don't think i'd want his help with that--better to find a competent and experienced plumber. And, in the grand scheme of things, clean water and efficient sewage removal are far more important to my life than is knowing the nature of the cosmos.

In the end, elitism is endemic. The master plumber expects to get, demands to get paid far more than the journeyman, and he will get that consideration, because of what he has to offer. In all trades, in all areas of social interaction, people don't simply recognize that there are those who have superior qualifications of knowledge and skill, they want to identify them, and if they intend to pursue the same profession or study, they hope to emulate them. The one area in which such "expertise" is dubious is politics. There is no particular qualification for a practical, professional political career which can be identified and acquired through study. David Crockett was one of the finest campaign orators on the stump in the history of the House of Representatives. He was hopeless as a member of the House, and the voters only made the mistake of re-electing him once. Men like Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, Jr. and Lyndon Johnson have shown what one might allege were a "natural talent" for the manipulation of people and opinions which is at the heart of the successful practice of politics. Someone like Woodrow Wilson, one of the most well-educated men ever to hold the office of President, was hopeless at practical politics, and when he wouldn't listen to his handlers, he was lost. The treaty which would establish the League of Nations could have been passed, if Wilson had gone down to the Senate and done a little horse-trading with the Republicans, who were willing to dicker. He stood on his principles, as he saw them, and went out on the stump in a hopeless attempt to convince a public which by 1919 had little interest in the productions of the Paris Peace Conference. It was childishly easy for the Republicans to portray the treaty as a device which would spill the blood of American boys in foreign lands to the benefit of corrupt foreign governments, and the Senate buried it. The Republicans and Democrats were soon caught up in the entirely new problem of learning how to appeal to women voters.

By contrast, Lyndon Johnson found it almost childishly easy to pass the Civil Rights, Voting Rights and Social Security Disability acts which Kennedy had failed to push through--because he was not only a great natural politician, but had been involved in the government for over 30 years, and knew where all the bodies were buried. Knowing that you need to know where all the bodies are buried is a part of that natural talent to which i have referred.

I understand what Thomas is on about here, but i can't think how anyone would identify the desirable traits of a political elite.

I resent this base slur, O'George . . . and i will make you pay and pay . . .

(It's not the "prickly and argumentative" part which offends me, it's the slanderous contention that i am possessed of a soul.)

There are two elitist structures in the original US Constitution that spring to mind. There may be several others but here goes:

Um (treading carefully so as not to explode anything) the writers of the US Constitution made it very clear that the common man (no ladies allowed) would not be electing any members of the US Senate.

Those statewide positions, (two per State) were filled through elections by members of the individual State Legislatures. How come? Because the US Senate was supposed to be (and pretty much has turned out to be so) a more staid, deliberative body than the US House of Representatives, you know, the one whose members are elected by the common folk.

Common folk in 1787 = white males with professions or property or both. Even being all that didn't get you a say in who sat in the US Senate. Hooray for democracy but what we got here is a Republic.

The Senate would provide what one of my teachers described as a "cooling saucer", (quoting somebody I think, he wasn't that poetic on his own.),a little elitist set of brakeman on the juggernaut of North American freedom.

Oh, and the other really killer set of elites? The frigging Electoral College.
No one has ever cast a vote for President in the USA unless they were a selected elector from one of the States. So when your daddy told you he voted for JFK or LBJ or Tricky Dick or any of the rest, he was wrong. He voted for a member of the Electoral College who then cast a vote for one of the esteemed gentlemen.

The idea, carefully described and inscribed, by the Founders was "one man, one vote, but not so fast there, citizen". A little letting the cream float to the top (I wonder how many mixed metaphors I can stick in here.?) They wanted to be sure that the best of this nation had a say in it's future. Good thing too, most of the time.

Joe(FDR, William F. Buckley, JFK, -- all modern elites)Nation

PS: Yes, we now vote directly for Senators. 17th Amendment around 1912-13 changed that.

Now you're just getting shrill.

I hope you've managed to fill a few of your empty hours, but I find you tedious.

There seems to be a fight between two plebeians in this thread. Luckily it doesn't concern elite people like myself.

Thomas
i wish not to identify with the so called elite.
Sorry.
Be a human not be an elite or super intellectual without any civil courage.

Not so tedious that you fail to maintain your shrillness.

My hours aren't empty, and at the worst, i have the company of two dogs . . . which is far superior to a "conversation" with you. If you don't like my tone, don't answer. If you don't want me to point out that you are a moron and a whiner, don't refer to me as a dolt.

Be assured, Ramafuchs, the elite feels the same way about you.

Wiki has this to say (and much more):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elitism

Not only tedious, but emminently predictable.

Chumly, thanks for the Wikipedia article. Interesting!

The two examples of "elitism" to which Joe refers are precisely those upon which people with a shallow (sorry, Joe) understanding of the process of the convention allege that the framers were elitist.

The government of the United States, such as it was, before the ratification of the Constitution was the Continental Congress, which has authority, such as that was, under the terms of the Articles of Confederation. There was no national judiciary, and there was no independent executive. The President was the President of the Congress, elected from among the members, by the members. It was a unicameral legislature, with equal representation of the states. A state could send as many or as few delegates as they chose, because each state had a single vote. The system was unworkable. There was an unstated principle of nullification in operation, and it was frequently resorted to. The most populous states were Virginia, Pennsylvania and Massachusetts. They were not willing to submit to levies for troops for the Continental Line and for supplies for the army and the government, because the burden would fall most heavily on them, while the states with small populations could club together to outvote them every time.

When the delegates met in Philadelphia in 1787, only Virginia came with a plan drafted in advance. The Virginia plan called for a unicameral legislature, but one based proportionally on population. As with the Continental Congress, almost all power was vested in this body, which was to appoint an executive committee. Many of the delegates from the states with small populations (New York and New Jersey, ironically, were the leaders among that group) were instructed not to voter for any plan other than equal representation, and some had even been given instructions from their legislatures to withdraw from the convention if proportional representation were mooted.

Well, these boys were experienced as jurists and legislators, and they got around the initial problem by resolving the convention into a committee of the whole, which got around the instructions of some of the delegates on the technicality that committees did not moot proposals for a vote. A few of the delegates went home anyway. Many others were thankful, because it gave them time to correspond with friends at home and their respective legislatures, in order to void their instructions.

The "big" states, lead by Virginia, did not intend to provide the lion's share of the revenue to see it disbursed at the pleasure of a coterie of "small" states whose combined populations (and therefore, generated revenue) did not mount to even a third of the country's population. The small states did not intend to be subsumed into the political agendas of three or four "big" states such as Virginia and Massachusetts (which were, i believe, respectively, the largest and second largest states in terms of population).

Two compromises were worked out which allowed both large and small states to agree on a legislature, and an executive. The legislature was to be bicameral, with a House of Representatives, chosen proportionally based on population, and which had the sole power to initiate money bills. The logic of this was straightforward, in that revenues would derive largely based on population, and therefore the control of the purse strings would reside in the hands of the majority of Representatives.

The second house would be a Senate, in which equal representation would prevail, two Senators from each state. Sovereignty would reside in the Senate--only the Senate may ratify treaties, and that by a two-thirds majority. The officers of the executive branch are also "ratified" by the Senate (the Constitution requires that the President seek the advice and consent of the Senate--in this case with a simple majority), which intends to insure that the "big" states don't pack the administrative offices of the government. As these are sovereignty issues, it was left to the states to determine how Senators would be chosen. Politics being what as they are, this usually meant that the political boss of the dominant party was rewarded with a Senate seat. Several states had already opened the selection of Senators to the popular vote, however, before the XVIIth Amendment was ratified in 1913.

The second compromise resulted in the electoral college. It is actually a rather elegant solution to the struggle between the few states with large populations and the many states with small populations. The Virginia plan calling for a plural executive committee was abandoned because the delegates already recognized that one of the greatest, if not the greatest, weakness of the Articles of Confederation was the lack of an independent and effective executive officer. Washington presided at the convention, and many scholars have argued that the delegates, seeing him there each day, and in no doubt as to who would first fill the office of President, gave the office great powers and a broad latitude because of their respect for the man and his undoubted probity. However that may be, they understood that the needed an independent chief magistrate, with the power to exercise genuine leadership. Small states did not want their voices drowned in the shout of mere numbers of voters, and the large states did not want to surrender their interests to mere numbers of states. So the electoral college was created with a surprisingly effective balance to the powers and interests of the several states.

It is only with the rise of the infamous "two party system" that measures have been adopted to create the present "winner take all" system. Initially, electors were chosen directly, rather than specific candidate. Electors were known to be (or thought to be) pledged to a certain candidate, but there is nothing in the constitution of the electoral college which binds their votes--it is only individual state legislation which does that today.

In the 1796 election, Washington declared that he would not stand for office, nor accept office if the electors ignored his wishes and voted for him anyway. In a field of 13 candidates, he nevertheless received two electoral votes for the office of President, and six electoral votes for the office of Vice President. The 12 candidates other than Washington were all members of only two parties.

In 1800, Jefferson and Burr ran together, but they each got the same number of electoral votes, and the Constitution did not then distinguish between presidential and vice presidential votes by electors, so the election was thrown into the House of Representatives. The House was a lame duck body, still controlled by the Federalists who had been trounced at the polls. They determined to vote by states (there were then 16) and attempted to elect Burr rather than Jefferson, and Burr fouled the nest by attempting to reach for the office which his party had not envisioned for him. It was not the first time this flaw in the Constitution had caused problems: Jefferson had been Vice President to John Adams, they were from different parties, and Jefferson worked against his President and his policies, setting himself up for the 1800 election. This may be the origin of the de facto ceremonial nature of the office of Vice President. An amendment to the Constitution was proposed to rectify this problem (XIIth Amendment) in 1797, but it had not been ratified in time for the 1800 election.

Throughout this early period, some states chose the electors in the legislature, some chose them by statewide popular vote, and some chose them by districts allocated within each state. It was common for more than one candidate to run for a single party, even after the Constitution had been amended to separate electoral votes by President and Vice President, and a single Presidential candidate could receive votes from electors who would vote for any one of several Vice Presidential candidates.

There have been examples of electors being chose who voted for no one, because no candidate had been fielded by their party. The Federalist Party was rather quickly moribund, and in the 1820 election, Federalist electors got 16% of the vote, even though there was no Federalist candidate (James Monroe was basically elected unopposed--John Quincy Adams got one electoral vote, even though no one voted for him in the popular vote).

Most people don't understand the electoral college and why it was formed. The "winner take all" system of allocating electoral votes was created by the Democratic and Republican parties after the Civil War, state by state, to enshrine their own power, and to exclude "renegade" candidates (as third party candidates were known to them then). The system largely worked as intended until the Civil War killed off all the competition to the Democrats and Republicans. The point was to give the states, as independent states, some measure of control over the chief magistrate (the executive, the President) without an undue emphasis on mere population, while still preserving for the "big" states some of the influence of a preponderance of voters.

Neither the creation of the Senate with the power to select Senators at the discretion of the several states, nor the elector college with the power to determine how electors would be chose reserved to the several states, was adopted as an elitist measure, nor for elitist reasons. In fact, it was practical politics at it's most obvious and "transparent." It was a shot-gun wedding of the "big" states and the "small" states, whose separate interests otherwise threatened to deadlock or sink the convention.

if- only if- elitist vegitate in USA the world has a peaceful life.
I use the word vegitate .

Here, i'll come down to your puerile level . . . nanny-nanny boo boo.

What's up with "aroint thee thou rump fed ronyon?"