The Elitocracy
The United States of America was configured by its founders as a constitutional republic, not a democracy as is commonly misconstrued. A true democracy--from the Greek demos/people and kratos/ power--is a government literally by the people via direct action. It has proven impractical as discovered by the ancient Athenians much to their dismay.
Our constitutional republic intersperses autonomous elected representatives and an executive who can take independent action but are accountable to the populace via elections. They are generally supposed to represent their constituents' wishes. A Supreme Court is supposed to keep everyone honest. Legislative autonomy is further constrained in theory by a system of checks and balances in the form of the three independent branches of government and a selection process designed to incorporate philosophical diversity.
Aye, there's the rub.
Largely as the result of a media-complicit campaign of unprecedented and, in my opinion, largely unfair vilification of the previous Republican administration, combined with an incredible display of voter gullibility, practically any semblance of philosophical diversity presently has been lost in the two elected branches of government. This is a danger not sufficiently appreciated by our founders, who constitutionally protected the press which in those days was fiercely independent and mistrustful of government in general, regardless of who was in power. The prospect of a mainstream media overwhelmingly partisan to one political philosophy was not anticipated.
Although my personal political philosophy is essentially conservative in the belief that past is prologue, it really matters little which ideology--liberal or conservative--is ascendant. Having said that, liberal ideologues do tend more to be elitist. They often consider their ideas to be superior to others, to the exclusion and sometimes vehement suppression of dissent. There often is an "end justifies the means" mentality on the left, which is a truly dangerous concept.
A government where a single militant ideology is in control of all elements of the legislative process, which is presently the case, effectively negates a key element of the checks and balances our founders built into the system. The current incredibly manipulative and underhanded process by which government-run health care legislation is being uni-partisanly rammed down our throats is a classic case in point.
As Lord Acton observed well over a century ago, power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. What we are seeing in the political train wreck that is Washington today is nothing less than the legislative destruction of the very nature of our nation, which was forged through centuries of sometimes painful and costly trial and error, certainly not perfect but equally certainly not rotten to the core requiring Phoenixian destruction and re-creation. Incremental change, a cardinal principle built into our system from the beginning, is in the process of being discarded in favor of wholesale reconstruction in blind disregard of the blood, sweat and tears expended in the historical structuring of our society.
The extreme left-wing ideologues presently in control are not content with simply fixing and fine-tuning deficiencies--real or perceived--in a time-tested socio-economic system that is responsible for creating unprecedented prosperity and liberty in the most successful society on earth. Our present political regime is in the frantic pursuit of asserting unprecedented control over nearly every aspect of our lives. We are indeed in the grip of a true elitocracy--an autocratic government of elitist ideologues who consider their ideas superior to all others, especially to those of the unwashed masses--us.
Some have argued that our system is broken. Unlikely as that may be given the lot of the great majority of citizens and our status as the dominant world power, whatever defects may exist do not justify throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
In my view, from a historical perspective our way of life, incorporating at least some degree of personal freedom, and our national security and perhaps our very survival are in deep peril. Absolute power is indeed in the process of irretrievably corrupting this precious land of ours.
As the grateful son of desperately poor immigrants who came here searching for a better life and finding it, I fear greatly for this grand and noble experiment we call the U.S.A. It is to weep.
We encourage your comments but will strive to remove discussion that contains personal attacks, racial slurs, profanity or other inappropriate material as outlined in our guidelines. We post-moderate comments on most content, but may choose to pre-moderate some comments so please be patient if you don't see yours appear right way. We also ask for your help by reporting comments you think are inappropriate.






90 Comments
Victor Ponelis - Jan 15, 2010 8:54 AM
Al:
I think your philosophical base is coloring your judgement. First, the media cannot discharge its First Amendment responsibilities properly. In the past, papers relied on income from direct sales; today, this is impossible, and corporate ownership, and thus influence, is necessary for survival. Second, since scandal sells papers (or "hits" on the web), anything provocative moves to Page 1. Finally, the media likes to kick someone when they are down, either because the deserve it or not.
Unfair vilification of the Bush Administration? I do believe Bush did some good things (Africa policy; quick, practical response to the 2008 fiscal crisis; No-Child, while imperfect, begins us down the necessary road of national standards for education). That said, the invasion of Iraq, violation of the Geneva Conventions, and wiping out the budget surpluses during times of relative plenty are inexcusable and deserve condemnation. One could say that any voter that supported Bush in 2004, given these actions, were gullible.
Victor Ponelis - Jan 15, 2010 8:55 AM
I believe that your charge of elitism is hard to countenance. When the Republicans were ascendant, belittling Democratic ideas was just what was done. As one who witnessed Bush campaign stops being scrubbed clean of dissenters, even in public spaces where such activities are patently unconstitutional, I must simply say on this matter you are incorrect.
Your charge of "single militant ideology…negates…checks and balances" is how we Liberals felt during the Bush years. Remember, reconciliation was used by Bush in 2001 for his tax cuts for the rich. We Liberals felt that unfair…but it wasn't, and isn't, illegal. We swallowed it, because the voters put the Republicans in power. And now…?
Victor Ponelis - Jan 15, 2010 8:56 AM
Regarding the rest of your post: Obama is a centrist…which Republicans won't admit and which Liberal Democrats lament. The real corrupting influence in Washington comes not from the Left, or Right, but from corporate dominance of the political realm.
The Founding Fathers were probably aware of Hobbes' statements in "Leviathan" regarding the power of the State. This country is imbued with mistrust of "The State". Where we lack sufficient mistrust is of Capitalism, and the economies of scale, and power, constructed by large corporations. The largest company at the founding of the Republic was the East India Company…and their influence was felt in Asia, not America. So our FF left a huge loophole of influence…one filled by corporations that enjoy a group, not personal, morality. Capitalism should play handmaiden to Democracy…not the other way around. In such a world sound ideas from both the Left and Right could enjoy ascendance, and not be playthings for businesses only chasing the bottom line.
Carl Hicks - Jan 15, 2010 1:07 PM
Victor Ponelis - Jan 15, 2010 2:53 PM
As to your primary point, I agree. Individual citizenry should be the only ones wielding political influence. Corporate contributions are tainted by a group morality...thus profit is valued over everything else.
We are going afield of Al's point, with which I disagree, obviously. All politicians in D.C. are the "elitocracy"...and they behave according to their massive corporate contributions.
Carl Hicks - Jan 15, 2010 3:58 PM
"A government where a single militant ideology is in control of all elements of the legislative process, which is presently the case, effectively negates a key element of the checks and balances our founders built into the system."
As it was from 2001 to 2006 with the party in power also having an "end justifies the means" mentality.
Jacob Pickard - Jan 15, 2010 5:55 PM
When we had Bush for the last 8 years and his tax cuts that benefited the wealthiest amoung us, and the free bees giving to Iraq War profiteers to fleece taxpayers, he was considered by the left as a "extreme rightwing ideologue", bent on dictatorship.
But something happened, his Heir, John McCain and Republicans were overwheling rejected by the majority of voters.
We may be a Republic, but democracy, the ability to elect our representatives is the true power in this country.
Jacob Pickard - Jan 15, 2010 5:57 PM
jhayett - Jan 15, 2010 6:17 PM
aneuhauser - Jan 16, 2010 12:03 AM
2) To my recollection, the Republicans never had a super-majority in both houses which renders opposition powerless.
3)The main-stream press is self-admittedly overwhelmingly liberal, which greatly diminishes their constitutionally-intended role as a check on the present government.
aneuhauser - Jan 16, 2010 12:35 AM
He also said, "Don't give power to intellectuals ..."
Amen.
aneuhauser - Jan 16, 2010 1:35 AM
My primary concern is with the unstoppable power now concentrated with liberal Democrats. If the situation were reversed, I would also be concerned, but not so much. Liberals tend to be more ideologically aggressive than conservatives, which I believe greatly increases the danger of intemperate change and harm.
jhayett - Jan 16, 2010 7:41 AM
Victor Ponelis - Jan 16, 2010 9:46 AM
jhayett - Jan 16, 2010 10:01 AM
C-Span, no pork or ear marks, full transparency, 4 million new jobs, the most ethical house and senate ever (Pelosi and Reid), no tax increase under $250, than 200k, than 150k. You want more Victor? Those types of promises are what got so many idiots and very ignorant people to get suckered into believing in “hope and change." Now we are all seeing the results and are why American is rising. Fight the polls all you want but a huge majority no longer trust Obama and we all know what a pathological liar he and your liberals in Washington truly are.
Super majority through scruples, honesty, morals? Yes. Lies and corruption just to get a vote? NO!
Carl Hicks - Jan 16, 2010 1:47 PM
"My primary concern is with the unstoppable power now concentrated with liberal Democrats."
I was curious how this sentiment would change once power ended up in the other parties hands.
Conservatives rejoiced in increasing presidential powers under Bush. Guess they didn't have the foresight that soon the other party would be in control. And the people answered what they saw as mishandling of those powers with a vengance. My only hope is that one day this seesaw will be stopped by a viable 3rd party gaining influence in government. Then the big 2 will have to reform themselves into something trustworthy to earn votes.
Carl Hicks - Jan 16, 2010 1:49 PM
Please Jim entertain me with these.
Victor Ponelis - Jan 16, 2010 3:41 PM
Now...how about the unconstitutional use of the filibuster by both Republicans now and Democrats in the past?
Carl Hicks - Jan 16, 2010 7:28 PM
aneuhauser - Jan 16, 2010 11:23 PM