Posts Tagged elitism

Expert Fools

Michael Applebaum at American Thinker takes on the myth that Democrats are pushing that Americans are better off in the hands of “experts,” whom we should allow to run the country, as they can do it better than us. While we are told that we just don’t know what’s best for us, and that these experts do, and therefore should be put in the position of telling us what to do, Applebaum finds evidence that many of them aren’t as smart as they pretend to be: Read the rest of this entry »


, ,

Leave a comment

Leftist Academics Analyze the Tea Party

So a bunch of Leftist elitists academics held a “conference” in order to analyze the Tea Party movement in order to confirm their accusations of racism better understand the movement as a social phenomenon. Dave Weigel at Slate presented the happenings at this elitist echo chamber conference, and John Hawkings at Right Wing News promptly fisked it to death.

Of course, the “experts” deduced that the Tea Party is popular because it appeals to right-wing anger and racism. Read the rest of this entry »

, , ,

Leave a comment

The End of Socialism?

Steve McCann at American Thinker has a thought provoking piece on the downfall of socialism:

Socialism has failed everywhere it has been tried, and it will continue to do so despite the best efforts of the die-hard true believers in the Obama administration and the rest of the world. The most recent example of this failure: Euro-Socialism is presently bankrupting the countries that embraced it in Europe. This will result not only in more social and economic upheaval, but also the ultimate demise of the ill-conceived European Union.

The original and current proponents of socialism fail to take into account one very basic but immutable factor: the fundamental nature of the human race.
The most dominant trait mankind has, as do all living creatures, is an innate desire to survive and prosper. Read the rest of this entry »

, , , , , ,

Leave a comment

The New Aristocracy

Henry Oliner at the American Thinker takes a look at leftist policies and the results thereof, and notices something that I’ve been seeing for a while: they’re encouraging the formation of a new left-wing aristocratic class.

While the social engineers decry the hardening and widening of discrepancies in income, this is true only if you look at the categories as static groups. As Thomas Sowell notes, when you look beyond the groups at individuals you find a fluid and mobile society. Few in the bottom tier stay there, and many in the upper tier drop out of that category.
Focusing only on the income categories ignores the social mobility that characterizes America’s success. Unfortunately, the growth in government, taxes, and regulation damages that social mobility and hardens the social order. The wealthy will focus on retaining and protecting their wealth, reducing the capital that funds the opportunity for the poorer to acquire wealth. The efficient creation and allocation of capital that we call capitalism is the most effective, productive, unbiased, and sustainable instrument of redistribution in history. It was this new social order that toppled the aristocracy in Europe and made America the wealth creation engine that it is. It was this machine that attracted the poor from the rest of the work to create their own fortune.
It is harshly ironic that this president who so openly preached redistribution will more likely hinder it. It is the young who will pay more for health care and get less, who will have to pay the interest on this record debt, and who will be penalized the most for reaching to the next income bracket.
It is also noteworthy that this president’s policies will more likely help the large corporations that he demonizes than the small business that not only more effectively redistribute the wealth, but also create most of the new jobs we so desperately need. It is the large companies getting bailed out and the small businesses with higher variable costs that will suffer more from higher taxes and mandates. It is much easier to shut down a business with lower fixed costs, leaving less competition to the established companies.

Interesting historical note: the Republican Party was so named because its founders wanted to restore republican ideals, which the Democratic party was eroding in favor of creating a white, landed aristocracy. Oh, how history repeats …

Read the whole thing here.

, , ,

Leave a comment

The Great Condescending Nancy Pelosi

Nancy Pelosi is better than the rest of us. She knows what’s best, and we should defer to her wisdom. We don’t need to know the details of Obamacare, or the consequences or effects of it — we just need to trust that it’s good, because she said so.

Actually, that’s not what she said. This is:

”It’s like the back of the refrigerator. You see all these wires and the rest,” said Pelosi. “All you need to know is, you open the door. The light goes on. You open this door, you go through a whole different path, in terms of access to quality, affordable healthcare for all Americans.” Read the rest of this entry »

, , , , ,

Leave a comment

The Elitists vs the Rest of Us

The Washington Examiner presents a short op-ed on the elitism that is the hallmark of Washington DC in general and the Democratic Party in specific:

Former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards twice ran unsuccessfully for president on a platform based on his contention that there are “two Americas: the America of the privileged and the wealthy, and the America of those who live from paycheck to paycheck.” Edwards was right that there are two Americas, but he missed it completely on who resides where and why. One America is that of the liberal political elite that currently controls the White House and solid majorities in Congress, and dominates the traditional media, academia, and public intellectual ranks. The other America is the rest of us who are expected to shut up and do as we are told by the first America. Read the rest of this entry »

, , ,

Leave a comment

Post Modern Art and Artistic Elitism

Counterculture Conservative takes a look at a post-modern performance art exhibit, and sees only intellectual elitism:

Shock art doyenne, Marina Abramovic, claims she is “shocked” that people are shocked by her, ah, craft.  Which is odd because the sole purpose is to shock people.  Yet she feigns surprise that it’s, well, shocking!  But what she is really doing is not expressing real surprise, but rather pleasure and delight that people may be shocked.  It’s the highest compliment they can give her.  In fact, if people weren’t shocked, self-flattery would compel Ms. Abramovic to believe they were!  Which I suspect is precisely what she’s doing!  lol.  Personally, I’m not so much shocked as I am affirmed.  She rests my case.

This kind of “performance art” is the death of true art.  According to art historian Roselee Goldberg, “Performance has been a way of appealing directly to a large public, as well as shocking audiences into reassessing their own notions of art and its relation to culture.”   Are you reassessing yet, folks? Read the rest of this entry »

, , ,