ELITISM

Elitism

For a few days now I have heard the idea of “élite” thrown around by the democrats that show just how out of touch they are on many issues. In fact, if you watch the beginning of this Colbert Report interview of Michelle Obama, elitism is defined as how much money was involved in your upbringing.

Unfortunately, elitism would be a bit closer to this definition... although, this isn’t a proper definition either. Here is a good place to quickly discuss the percentages of whom is in Congress for a reference point:

...that since 1960, a total of only 25 physicians have served in either the U.S. House of Representatives or the Senate, just 1.1 percent of 2,196 members whose records were reviewed.... Records show that from 1789 to 1889, 4.6 percent of Congressional seats were held by physicians. Indeed, 10.7 percent of the signers of the Declaration of Independence were medical practitioners.... Nearly half the members reviewed were lawyers (44.6 percent). Individuals from the business sector (13.6 percent), public service (9.9 percent) and education (7.4 percent) represented the next largest groups in Congress. Physicians were tied for ninth place, behind professionals from military, banking/insurance, and media/entertainment backgrounds. A majority of the 25 physicians were Republican (60 percent), and all but two served in the House of Representatives.

(National Survey Shows Few Physicians Elected To Congress)

Now to a quick clip by Michelle Obama:

I want to give a definition of elitism that hits closer to home. Take note that a persons upbringing and wealth status does not necessarily matter.

(1) The belief: that government ought in principle, always and everywhere, to be confined to elites. Rarely a worked-out doctrine on its own right, more often a piece of unexamined value judgment, or a view which follows from some more general argument in political philosophy, as for example in Plato’s Republic.

(2) The belief: that government is in practice confined to elites; that, following a maxim of Hume, “ought implies can” (in other words, that there is no point in saying that government ought to be controlled by the people if in practice it cannot); and that we might just as well accept what we are bound to have anyhow. These views are especially associated with Mosca and with Pareto in the early twentieth century, and with Schumpeter in the mid-century. All three writers shade into elitism in sense 1 because they go on to produce normative justifications of rule by elites in a Democracy. However, their earlier arguments do not in themselves imply that if democratic control of government were somehow achievable it would be undesirable.

(3) The belief: that government is in practice confined to elites; that this has often been justified by arguments from Plato or Schumpeter; but that this is undesirable because elite rule is in practice rule on behalf of the vested interests of (usually economic) elites.

(Oxford Concise Dictionary of Politics)

Now, I will say that since the McCain Feingold law passed, a richer segment of society can only run for office, which is a form of elitism. But so is the fact that lawyers are over represented in Congress, a form of elitism. The Oxford Companion to Philosophy concisely defines elitism as “[t]he belief that in any society there exists of ought to exist groups of those pre-eminent in any given field, including the political.” This same book goes on to say that the term,

“‘élitist’ has lately become a term of abuse, the existence of élites in various areas of life is inevitable consequence of the unequal distribution of human powers combined with a degree of social mobility and division of labor, which enables some of those who excel in a valued field to devote themselves to the development of their talent.”

Some people have natural talents that make them rise above others can often times lead to an elite type of people at times in positions of power or influence. This isn’t always negative. It is almost comical that if these democrats consider themselves feminists or friendly to feminists, that “elitism” is defined in the Feminist Dictionary as the “label used by feminists, from 1969 to 1971, to denounce other feminists who acquired public notoriety. Since feminists had rejected overt structure and hierarchy...”. You see, radical feminism that exists within the Democratic Party ultimately have a radical (some would say elitist) view of political science and man/womyn relations (I spelled woman like feminists do, womyn).

Feminist author Ti-Grace Atkinson shows her true autonomy when stating, “the institution of sexual intercourse is anti-feminist.” Marilyn French, feminist author calls all men rapists: “All men are rapists and that's all they are. They rape us with their eyes, their laws, and their codes.” Gloria Steinen, feminist extraordinaire, wrote the following about Andrea Dwarkin, a contemporary, “Every century, there are a handful of writers who help the human race to evolve. Andrea is one of them.” Wow, such high accolades from one of the most well-known activists in the feminist movement, so what does this Andrea Dworkin have to say about us men? “Heterosexual intercourse is the pure, formalized expression of contempt for women's bodies.”

This from the Feminist Dictionary, whose definitions are self-explanatory:

• Male: “... represents a variant of or deviation from the category of female. The first males were mutants... the male sex represents a degeneration and deformity of the female.”
• Man: “... an obsolete life form... an ordinary creature who needs to be watched ... a contradictory baby-man.”
• Testosterone Poisoning: “Until now it has been thought that the level of testosterone in men is normal simply because they have it. But if you consider how abnormal their behavior is, then you are led to the hypothesis that almost all men are suffering from ‘testosterone poisoning.’”

Some more quotes for clarity:

"In a patriarchal society all heterosexual intercourse is rape because women, as a group, are not strong enough to give meaningful consent." Catherine MacKinnon in Professing Feminism: Cautionary Tales from the Strange World of Women's Studies, p. 129.

"I claim that rape exists any time sexual intercourse occurs when it has not been initiated by the woman, out of her own genuine affection and desire." From Robin Morgan, "Theory and Practice: Pornography and Rape" in "Going too Far," 1974.

"When a woman reaches orgasm with a man she is only collaborating with the patriarchal system, eroticizing her own oppression..." Sheila Jeffrys.

"Heterosexual intercourse is the pure, formalized expression of contempt for women's bodies." Andrea Dworkin

"Sex is the cross on which women are crucified ... Sex can only be adequately defined as universal rape." Hodee Edwards, ‘Rape defines Sex’

This type of feminist philosophy can be considered elitist. I consider elitist ideas a bit differently. I would say that within the division of the pure modern liberalism versus conservatism, that liberalism is more elitist than conservatism. But that is neither here nor there. The scope of this post is merely to show that the Party of “egalitarianism” separates people by race, gender, and how much money they make, which skews how they interpret “elitism.”