Thomas wrote:blatham wrote: And you are prepared to speak derogations about "elitism"?
Whether George is prepared or not, I never understood what's wrong with "elitism". After all, everybody who wants to can become part of the elite by studying, or starting up a successful business, or working their way up a corporate or government hierarchy. To the extent that we need leaders in society, why shouldn't the leading be done by those who succeed at these endeavors? When the elite is selected by meritocracy, what's the problem with elitism?
thomas
Of course, the key there is "merit". Whether in a hospital, a business or the military or government or any sphere where competence, knowledge and expertise are required, I'm pleased to have the best in charge. And I certainly have no disagreement with appropriate awards and perks to flow along to them (other factors fit in there too though such as work load, danger, years of study, etc).
But it is very commonly the case that folks who gain elite positions do not merit those positions but have gained them through other factors entirely. There has been a fair bit written, for example, on who has received senior positions working in the Green Zone and merit falls far behind partisan contribution as the fundamental hiring criterion. Or, of course, there is the rather obvious example of George Bush himself.
And there is the very human tendency to seek positions of power and priviledge and then afterwards to set about with the honey and anthill thing for anyone who might move up to challenge the position and priviledge gained.
