_{»crosslinked«}

I for one am absolutely in favor of having the 'elite' among us rise to the top of our leadership. Isn't that just common sense? You'd think it would be but our society somehow has decided that elite = bad.

I think the problem with the perception towards elite or elitism is mostly a result of some clever political marketing spin plus peoples built in dislike of arrogance. When I think of the word “elite” I think of the “best”. Thats good. When I think of the word “elitism” I think of “arrogant” or “snob”. Thats bad. If you are running a political campaign and your candidate isn't part of the establisment or isn't viewed as highly intellectual as compared to their opponent then its in your best interest to paint the other side as bad. You can use that “elitism” word to your advantage. This is how the “washington elite” has been marketed as a bad thing. Talking heads on TV and politicians will spit the phrase out in connection of everything that is bad with our government then tie it to the other political side. If they repeat the lie often enough then it can become truth. Over time “elite” becomes associated with bad things. Because people who are trying to get their guy elected said so and we heard it enough that we as a country start to buy into it.

Most often heard in politics and on wall street, by those who class themselves as populists, or “of the people”, as to say commoners. Yet the idea that they do not seek elitism itself is hypocritical. To suggest that they (the populists) do not want to become elite would suggest they never want to achieve the highest levels of education, intellect or wealth (the later something all people seem to desire).

These reasons alone tell me to think hard and long on political parties, one seems based upon a lie, where the other seems labeled an atrocity.

I for one am absolutely in favor of having the 'elite' among us rise to the top of our leadership. Isn't that just common sense? You'd think it would be but our society somehow has decided that elite = bad.

I think the problem with the perception towards elite or elitism is mostly a result of some clever political marketing spin plus peoples built in dislike of arrogance. When I think of the word “elite” I think of the “best”. Thats good. When I think of the word “elitism” I think of “arrogant” or “snob”. Thats bad. If you are running a political campaign and your candidate isn't part of the establisment or isn't viewed as highly intellectual as compared to their opponent then its in your best interest to paint the other side as bad. You can use that “elitism” word to your advantage. This is how the “washington elite” has been marketed as a bad thing. Talking heads on TV and politicians will spit the phrase out in connection of everything that is bad with our government then tie it to the other political side. If they repeat the lie often enough then it can become truth. Over time “elite” becomes associated with bad things. Because people who are trying to get their guy elected said so and we heard it enough that we as a country start to buy into it.

I for one am absolutely in favor of having the 'elite' among us rise to the top of our leadership. Isn't that just common sense? You'd think it would be but our society somehow has decided that elite = bad.

I think the problem with the perception towards elite or elitism is mostly a result of some clever political marketing spin plus peoples built in dislike of arrogance. When I think of the word “elite” I think of the “best”. Thats good. When I think of the word “elitism” I think of “arrogant” or “snob”. Thats bad. If you are running a political campaign and your candidate isn't part of the establisment or isn't viewed as highly intellectual as compared to their opponent then its in your best interest to paint the other side as bad. You can use that “elitism” word to your advantage. This is how the “washington elite” has been marketed as a bad thing. Talking heads on TV and politicians will spit the phrase out in connection of everything that is bad with our government then tie it to the other political side. If they repeat the lie often enough then it can become truth. Over time “elite” becomes associated with bad things. Because people who are trying to get their guy elected said so and we heard it enough that we as a country start to buy into it.

Most often heard in politics and on wall street, by those who class themselves as populists, or “of the people”, as to say commoners. Yet the idea that they do not seek elitism itself is hypocritical. To suggest that they (the populists) do not want to become elite would suggest they never want to achieve the highest levels of education, intellect or wealth (the later something all people seem to desire).

These reasons alone tell me to think hard and long on political parties, one seems based upon a lie, where the other seems labeled an atrocity.

As for voting tests – I know it's almost a cliche, but how but minimum standards to be a parent?? Hmmmm??

But actually, what I was getting at is that once there is -any- “definition” of what is an elite, the definition itself becomes a self-reinforcing enemy to progress. I think it's important to have a dialogue about what the definition -should be-, but beyond that, there needs to be room for the definition to evolve.

I think right now, we both agree that there needs to be change. What I'm saying, though, is that the change cannot be just another change in a static definition. The change needs to be a move from a static definition to a dynamic definition, if you will. Today we need people who are dedicated and intelligent. What if we have different needs in the future? In other words, I do not think 'elite' should be a word that is agreed upon, because it would indicate a sort of stagnation.

I think it's funny that I claim to be well educated, and yet failed to spell it correctly earler

And yes, I'm sure we've all seen what having an “old definition” elite President has done for us. Let's see what the “new definition” elite President will do for us now…