Two Party Elites

[ClayBarham]

Liberals believe just a small elite should rule the many. As a result, they cannot understand an opposition party that does not have the same view, even when disagreeing on issues. They cannot believe their opponents do not recognize elites, just individuals who should rule themselves. Because they cannot comprehend it, they fight to convince their supporters they are against the other party’s elite, not the other party’s members. Democrat elites see themselves battling Republican elites. Democrat regular members accept that as true. Republican members do not, because they see themselves and others as equals who disagree on issues. As long as Democrats cannot see the difference, they will insist that their opposition elite are wrong on the issues and members of both parties’ should support the Democrat elite. They believe they are the only elites capable of planning and running our lives.

[crimzonsol]

The Democrats are not Liberals, and your arguement proves it, The Democrats are more to the right than the right Wing Party in Canada

[NortheastCynic]

This simply is not true. If you think anyone representing us in DC thinks they're "one of 'us'", you're mistaken. To a large extent our gov't was built on the idea of elitism to an extent and when used in its proper form it isn't a bad thing at all.

-NC

[micfranklin]

If anyone in D.C. is "representing" the people, which I wholeheartedly doubt, then they're doing a piss-poor job.

[potter]

Liberals believe just a small elite should rule the many.Â*Â*As a result, they cannot understand an opposition party that does not have the same view, even when disagreeing on issues.Â*Â*They cannot believe their opponents do not recognize elites, just individuals who should rule themselves.Â*Â*Because they cannot comprehend it, they fight to convince their supporters they are against the other party’s elite, not the other party’s members.Â*Â*Democrat elites see themselves battling Republican elites.Â*Â*Democrat regular members accept that as true.Â*Â*Republican members do not, because they see themselves and others as equals who disagree on issues. As long as Democrats cannot see the difference, they will insist that their opposition elite are wrong on the issues and members of both parties’ should support the Democrat elite.Â*Â*They believe they are the only elites capable of planning and running our lives.


There you go makin' shit up again....:D

[ClayBarham]

You are right. Jes makin' that stuff up as I go along so youze will have something to criticize without having to think upon the subject.

[NortheastCynic]

The subject being that liberals are elitists and conservatives are down-to-earth populist...C'mon Clay, the subject is an ideological attack.

-NC

[ClayBarham]

Do you mean everyone is an elitist or everyone is a populist? Can't have it both ways, can you?

[crimzonsol]

Well Everbody is person Lets Work from there.

[NortheastCynic]

No, I'm not saying everyone is an elitest or populist. What I'm saying is that claiming that "all liberals are elitists" is an ad hominem, that's all.

-NC

[ClayBarham]

I like the Transactional Analysis approach. The Conservatives are the "I'm OK, you're OK" bunch. The Liberals have two sides, the "I'm OK (elitist) and you are not OK" side, then the "I'm not OK, you, the elitists, are OK." Of course, that leaves the "I'm Not OK, You're Not OK" side, which is the only reason we even need government. So, you liberals fall into the Elite class, or the "I need elites" class.

[NortheastCynic]

"You liberals"?Â*Â*Unless you qualify that with the word "classical", then you're certaintly not talking to me.Â*Â*That said, "elitism" is, in fact, a pillar of American government to a certain degree.Â*Â*Think about it.Â*Â*Senators used to be elected by state legislatures, the President by the electoral college, etc, etc.Â*Â*These are all checks on unfettered democracy which would bring about the tyranny/stripping of minority rights by the majority.

As for modern day conservatives/Republicans being the "I'm OK you're OK bunch". That's a laugh. "I'm OK, you're OK as long as your not gay or disapprove of our moral outlook" would be more accurate [with obvious exceptions of course, some of whom post here].

-NC

[ClayBarham]

Well, if you bring morality into it, are you being critical of those folks who accept the Mosaic law and the Golden Rule as morality, or should those go in favor of anything I want to do I can do even if it hurts someone else? Are you broadening the Classical Liberal's position to include an anything goes morality? I do not understand. As for Gays, I could care less about them as long as they don't try to shove their lifestyle, the San Francisco kind, down my throat and into my home. I do discriminate, but it is always against bad behavior, not skin color, race, nationality or sexual preference. Is that being narrow-minded?

[ClayBarham]

Also.....when you talk about the checks and balances of states appointing US Senators, which is now gone, and the Electoral College, which is under serious attack, you are not implying that makes for elitist government, are you? Just think about that. If, e.g., the Electoral College would go, and the popular vote ruled, then it would be a simple matter of campaigning only in several heavily populated cities in order to win control. The result would leave the bulk of the Nation without representation, and those in office would reflect the damands of the masses in the cities who certainly want nothing more than to plunder the crap out of the rest of the country. I don't see it as established elitism, but protection against the few ruling the many.

[NortheastCynic]

Well, if you bring morality into it, are you being critical of those folks who accept the Mosaic law and the Golden Rule as morality, or should those go in favor of anything I want to do I can do even if it hurts someone else? Are you broadening the Classical Liberal's position to include an anything goes morality? I do not understand.
I'm not "going against" morality in the least. I'm not broadening classical liberalism's position either. What I'm saying is that modern conservatives tend to believe in legislating their morality. I have no problem with the Golden Rule whatsoever.

As for Gays, I could care less about them as long as they don't try to shove their lifestyle, the San Francisco kind, down my throat and into my home. I do discriminate, but it is always against bad behavior, not skin color, race, nationality or sexual preference. Is that being narrow-minded? I never claimed it was nor do I now.

Also.....when you talk about the checks and balances of states appointing US Senators, which is now gone, and the Electoral College, which is under serious attack, you are not implying that makes for elitist government, are you? No, I'm saying the electoral college is elitist. It impedes on true, unadulturated democracy [and I'm in favor of it].
Just think about that. If, e.g., the Electoral College would go, and the popular vote ruled, then it would be a simple matter of campaigning only in several heavily populated cities in order to win control. The result would leave the bulk of the Nation without representation, and those in office would reflect the damands of the masses in the cities who certainly want nothing more than to plunder the crap out of the rest of the country. I don't see it as established elitism, but protection against the few ruling the many. That wouldn't be elitism at all, it would be just the opposite. Alllowing 50 percent plus one to decide the Presidency would be populism, not elitism.

-NC

[Mayberry]

If anyone in D.C. is "representing" the people, which I wholeheartedly doubt, then they're doing a piss-poor job.
That's no lie. The only people that seem to be "represented" today are the rich, the dirt poor, and the illegal immigrants, which leaves the other 75% (ballpark figure) of us swinging in the breeze.

[ClayBarham]

And, by whose choice do they swing in the breeze? They won't vote. They won't participate in the process. So, they have no complaint.

As to elites running things because the electoral college makes it so, wrong! It is a protection against the plundering hoardes living in the core of the cities and subject to the influence of city-machine politicians, like Richard Daly the elder as well as the younger (a dynasty).

[Mayberry]

They won't vote. They won't participate in the process. So, they have no complaint.
Sad, but true.

[Buck Laser]

They won't vote. They won't participate in the process. So, they have no complaint.
Sad, but true.

I haven't failed to vote in any election since 1956. Nor have my children failed to vote since they reached majority. I suspect it'll be the same with the grandchildren. And they're all well-informed.

[Mayberry]

I haven't failed to vote in any election since 1956. Nor have my children failed to vote since they reached majority. I suspect it'll be the same with the grandchildren. And they're all well-informed.

Congratulations. One of the few and the proud.

[NortheastCynic]

As to elites running things because the electoral college makes it so, wrong! It is a protection against the plundering hoardes living in the core of the cities and subject to the influence of city-machine politicians, like Richard Daly the elder as well as the younger (a dynasty). I didn't say elites run things because the college made it that way. I said that the college is by no means populist. It oftentimes prevents a candidate receiving a majority of the popular vote from winning the presidency...That means it's not populist.

-NC

[Pookie]

Elites? I'm sorry, but back to the original topic, this just sounds to me like another po'ed Republican who lost their butt in the last election.
Might be an idea to work together.
Purrs,

[ClayBarham]

Can't say all liberals are elitists, as some believe their excrement doesn't stink and are elite in the own mind, while the camp followers expect to be well managed by their chosen elite, and all travel under the current label as liberals. Too bad, 'cause that was once a good word before the socialist elite and their followers grabbed it. As for me, I'm OK, You're OK, and if you are not, then you need to be a follower of those exclusively I'm OK, you're not OK people.