Educational level

[dbneeley]

Define elitist. Also, vision is often selective, as we see what we want to see and ignore all else.

Misha--how many definitions of "elitist" do you know? It seems a fairly well-understood term, surely. However, for your edification, the Cambridge Dictionary of American English says:

"elitist
adjective
OFTEN DISAPPROVING
characteristic of the elite, and esp. not caring about the interests or values of ordinary people
He denounced the plan as impracticable and elitist."

One characteristic of the American Left (which they seem to have in common with the left in many other countries) is that they believe it is their right to take money from the people for goals they believe are worthwhile, usually despite the wishes of the people themselves. Recent examples include Obamacare and appropriating several auto companies at the expense of shareholders to give much of the value to the unions.

By contrast, conservatives generally seek to keep power in the hands of the people or, at least, at the lowest possible level of government so as to be more easily responsive to the will of the people themselves. Also, most conservatives believe firmly in the Constitutional principles of limited government.

Typical examples of elitism that are often completely unwarranted include the assumption that liberals are mentally superior to others, and thus should be able to determine for everyone what is best for them despite what they may want. We have seen that in all its "glory" in this thread, for example.

David

[pitbull]

Really? My observation is, I could use that same description for the liberals I know and likely 2-1.  Both sides of that political spectrum have their fair share of "intellectual elite". Anyone that thinks either far right or far left can't be considered intellectual elite IMHO

Faux Pas,

Glad you have different examples. My experience with this matter has been very consistent over the 5.5 years in the US though. Also, intellectual elite (like for example professors at top tier universities) are not defined by their political affiliation but by their input in science in technology. It just happens for some reason that most of them are liberals, some being on the far left.

I was recently struck by the fact that a good number of Republicans in Congress do actually believe that the Earth is 5000 years old and was was created by God in 7 days. And a fair number do not BELIEVE in global warming (like, I do not BELIEVE in Santa Claus). No wonder China, ruled by techoncrats, is heading for the world leadership.

[SANDRO43]

By contrast, conservatives generally seek to keep power in the hands of the people or, at least, at the lowest possible level of government so as to be more easily responsive to the will of the people themselves. Also, most conservatives believe firmly in the Constitutional principles of limited government.

Must be a new breed of conservatives .

Since the times of Iulius Caesar, conservatives (the boni, in his case) "generally seek to keep power" in their own hands "or, at least, at the lowest possible level of government so as to be more easily responsive to the will of the people themselves" their own will. Not surprisingly, "most conservatives believe firmly in the Constitutional principles of limited government" to limit its interference .

Historically, conservatives have always been interested in conserving the status quo, as their names implies.

[Faux Pas]

Faux Pas,

Glad you have different examples. My experience with this matter has been very consistent over the 5.5 years in the US though. Also, intellectual elite (like for example professors at top tier universities) are not defined by their political affiliation but by their input in science in technology. It just happens for some reason that most of them are liberals, some being on the far left.

I was recently struck by the fact that a good number of Republicans in Congress do actually believe that the Earth is 5000 years old and was was created by God in 7 days. And a fair number do not BELIEVE in global warming (like, I do not BELIEVE in Santa Claus). No wonder China, ruled by techoncrats, is heading for the world leadership.

Pitbull
I have lived in the US all my life of near 50 years. I do not consider myself liberal or conservative but just slightly to the right of the middle. The middle is where, from my observation the majority of Americans relate even though most will identify to the right or the left. From my observations the intellectual elite are firmly planted throughout  the scale from far left to far right and everything in between. Academia in the US as well as all over the world relate to far left liberalism. In my experience, they only think they are smarter than the rest of us. 

Again, I could use your description here to describe a large number of liberal Democrats. You, it seems are attempting to stereotype political ideology and it is much more complex than that. Case in point, when you question whether they believe in Global Warming, the answers are highly influenced as to whether you ask in them in the summer or winter.
 
 

[Shostakovich]

What always amazes me is why anyone would identify as a conservative or liberal.  We know, it all goes back to Hegel and those who read his philosophy of governance in such a way as to emphasize secular control.  Those were the Hegelians of the left - Marx and that ilk came from that side, as I understand it.  The Hegelians of the right emphasized governance that is rooted in principals of moral conduct as revealed through the major religious figures.  That is how it was in Europe and so you see how the conservative movement became associated with religion.  But it's become far too political now - neither side talks a straight story.  Rights of the unborn would seem to go with the protection of the environment that would sustain them.  That's politics for you - it's far too emotional for any sense to come of it. 

[dbneeley]

Must be a new breed of conservatives .

Since the times of Iulius Caesar, conservatives (the boni, in his case) "generally seek to keep power" in their own hands "or, at least, at the lowest possible level of government so as to be more easily responsive to the will of the people themselves" their own will. Not surprisingly, "most conservatives believe firmly in the Constitutional principles of limited government" to limit its interference .

Historically, conservatives have always been interested in conserving the status quo, as their names implies.

You make a fairly common mistake to assume that historical conservatism and historical liberalism have not changed. That is completely untrue. Today's conservatives are in many ways the intellectual inheritors of what was considered the liberalism of the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. At that time, "conservatives" were those who were essentially fixed on the power of royalty at the expense of the people; during the French Revolution and the Age of Enlightenment a movement arose which stressed moving power to the people through elected representatives.

With time, a far more radical strain of politics arose--leading eventually to people such as Marx, in fact. This movement ranged from historical anarchism through and including those who wanted to seize property from the wealthy and allocate it according to the dictates of the radicals. This movement found expression in several movements but wound up in most Western nations under the rubric "liberal" while the classic liberals came to be considered "conservatives" over time.

Obviously, this is not the forum for any sort of definitive treatise on political or economic history--but it is rarely what many people assume it to be--as your comment has shown.

The original conservatives--the royalists for the most part--essentially no longer exist as a serious force. As you know, remaining monarchies are largely figureheads with little if any true power of their own.

The idea that the "progressives" understand what is best for society and should have the power to appropriate the resources for their vision--even though time is showing ever more clearly that government does a very poor job with most of these things--simply will not die.

Governments claim to be able to "create jobs" but they do little if any of this over the long term. They claim to be better at managing many economic issues better than the people themselves--but government after government faces fiscal ruin because they are so poor at doing any of this.

Meanwhile, though, it would be helpful to gain a somewhat accurate understanding of what the modern terms actually mean and how they came to be.

David

[Misha]

By contrast, conservatives generally seek to keep power in the hands of the people or, at least, at the lowest possible level of government so as to be more easily responsive to the will of the people themselves.

I prefer this definition of elitist:

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.
a. The sense of entitlement enjoyed by such a group or class.
b. Control, rule, or domination by such a group or class.

I would argue, that the very conservative and the very wealthy have no interest in truly giving power to the people and want to ensure that the right people govern, i.e. themselves. I would say that they are just as likely to see themselves as knowing better than the rabble and would also have a sense of entitlement and would see themselves as the best to lead.

In other words, the elitist is generally the label given to the one who does not share our point of view.   

[Daveman]

It's interesting how a discussion of education levels branches off into political ideology!  If one indeed wanted to pursue a PhD, dissertation potential abounds right here on the forum!  

Let's take a little different approach to the topic... MENSA members all have cooties!   :evil:

[SANDRO43]

the gravity theory is falsifiable, consistent with the scientific method.

Did you mean verifiable ?

[Misha]

Did you mean verifiable ?

No, falsifiable in the Popperian sense. 

[JohnDearGreen]

If I meet/see on TV a hopelessly brainless redneck, a proud owner of GED and a truck

pb:
How do you determine the redneck truck drivers from the non-redneck truck drivers?
(you got to quit chasing those trucks).

[SANDRO43]

No, falsifiable in the Popperian sense. 

I see:

The term "falsifiable" does not mean something is false; rather, that if it is false, then this can be shown by observation or experiment.

I think Popper's choice of this term was unfortunate, maybe an awkward adaptation of some German word?

[pitbull]

pb:
How do you determine the redneck truck drivers from the non-redneck truck drivers?
(you got to quit chasing those trucks).

I stay away from both, just in case (You got to quit driving one)

[SANDRO43]

Obviously, this is not the forum for any sort of definitive treatise on political or economic history--but it is rarely what many people assume it to be--as your comment has shown...The original conservatives--the royalists for the most part--essentially no longer exist as a serious force. As you know, remaining monarchies are largely figureheads with little if any true power of their own.

Conservatives need no monarchy to display their characteristic tenacity to keep things as they are, Caesar's fight dates to Rome's republican times and was waged against wealthy land-owning Senators who would not countenance any deviation from the way Rome had been governed in the previous 500 years, which of course benefited them, Rome's ruling class.

I don't see many examples of 'enlightened conservatives' in the European political scene, maybe the US situation is different .

[Lily]

I prefer this definition of elitist:

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.
a. The sense of entitlement enjoyed by such a group or class.
b. Control, rule, or domination by such a group or class.
  

Question: would someone of particular achievements, be it social or personal, consider himself or herself an elitist because he or she believes to deserve favored treatment by virtue of their achievements?

[Maxx2]

Sandro, did you see this?

Take a look at the faces of the other EU members. This was quite a change from the last time he gave them hell. Their arrogance is now missing from their faces. These are the elitists of Europe.

[Maxx2]

Question: would someone of particular achievements, be it social or personal, consider himself or herself an elitist because he or she believes to deserve favored treatment by virtue of their achievements?

It is the political class that this word elitist is referring to. Politicians generally have limited experience with the real world (other than the political world). Yet they feel they should rule over us and tell us how we should live, how we should spend our money and now how we should use the energy we use.

[Misha]

Question: would someone of particular achievements, be it social or personal, consider himself or herself an elitist because he or she believes to deserve favored treatment by virtue of their achievements?

They would if they believed that because of their achievements in one field be it science or business or anything else that they were innately better placed to make decisions than the masses on behalf of the masses.

[Boethius]

I've moved the global warming posts to the Global Warming thread.  I'll delete this message in the next few days.