Posts Tagged elitism
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 »
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 »
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 …
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 »
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 »