[Kjorteo]

If I'm interpreting typical campaign ad cycles correctly, "elitist" is basically a word for if you want to say "Democrat" like it's a profanity. It certainly doesn't mean what the dictionary would have you believe it means, or else people wouldn't have attached it to Barack Obama when his opponent was John McCain.

[Psudo]

CKASlacker wrote:

"electability" (I think I just invented a word)

Google has 219,000 results.

CKASlacker wrote:

Obama won despite being accused of being elitist -- which always struck me as ironic, since he was raised by a single mom, and certainly didn't have nearly the privelged upbringing that W. had -- and nobody would ever accusing W. as elitist!

Obama had a father in the same home during ages 0 to 2 and again from ages 6 to 11, and his mother encouraged him to be close to his fathers all his life. After that, he lived with his happily married grandparents. His mother was an anthropology Ph.D., his grandmother a vice president of the Bank of Hawaii. He himself graduated from Columbia University and Harvard Law. Neither he nor his mother ever held a job wherein goods were produced, distributed, or sold. His mother did such things but only as experiments in rural anthropology, not for work in the classic sense.

Not to criticize his resume. It's truly impressive. He has a Harvard doctorate in law, for cripes' sake! But he lives in the world that the workers of material goods made possible without ever being one of them. "Elitist" seems like a reasonable description of that trait.

Kjorteo, there's no reason they can't both be elitists. Though, in McCain's defense, he did take a vacation from the Ivory Tower to visit a Viet Nam POW camp.

[CKASlacker]

Psudo wrote:

CKASlacker wrote:

"electability" (I think I just invented a word)

Google has 219,000 results.

dictionary.com says it goes back to 1875 -- so I guess I didn't invent anything. It still doesn't sound like a real word to me.

Psudo wrote:

Not to criticize his resume. It's truly impressive. He has a Harvard doctorate in law, for cripes' sake! But he lives in the world that the workers of material goods made possible without ever being one of them. "Elitist" seems like a reasonable description of that trait.

I guess I should have mentioned that I didn't necessarily think that the accusations were wrong -- just that "elitist" could easily be levelled at pretty much every candidate from either major party, W., Clinton, all included -- which probably isn't exactly what Jefferson, Adams, Madison, etc. had in mind when they envisioned a meritocracy -- but that's another debate.

[KrytenKoro]

This is what I believe is the interpretation:

e·lit·ism or é·lit·ism (ĭ-lē'tĭz'əm, ā-lē'-) Pronunciation Key
n.

1. The belief that certain persons or members of certain classes or groups deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority, as in intellect, social status, or financial resources.


While, yes, McCain was no innocent when it comes to this, there's just some pretty galling stuff in the party that can easily and accurately be labeled elitist. Again, throwing parties on the public dime would count. The not really important but still pretty callous bit of telling the nation to lower the thermometer (while people were dying of the cold) while he himself spends the day in short-sleeves because the white house has the heat cranked up - that kind of stuff would count. Or Geithner's being able to be Treasury Secretary with massive tax fraud. Or even stuff like Gore and other GW celebrities jet-setting around the world to chide the public about being wasteful, when that one flight just made more of an impact than most families do in a year. That's the kind of galling hypocrisy which is what I view as elitist, and I'm pretty sure that's the kind of thing that was being criticized.

This is NOT AT ALL THE SAME as being elite (Jon Stewart already tried to distort the issue like this). Yes, our leaders should be the best of us - no one's really arguing that (as far as I know). But they shouldn't be lording it over us, or trying to exploit it for special treatment. That way leads to Sun Kings.

[Psudo]

CKASlacker wrote:

"elitist" could easily be levelled at pretty much every candidate from either major party, W.

W. did some work with the oil industry, in logging (I think), and personally kept up a ranch. While he has his elitist traits, he also has traits of the mechanical worker and the trades of physical goods.

I quick scan of Clinton's Wikipedia page shows no similar mechanical labor jobs or interests, unless you count music. (Aristotle did.)

CKASlacker wrote:

-- which probably isn't exactly what Jefferson, Adams, Madison, etc. had in mind when they envisioned a meritocracy

I've been reading a biography of Ben Franklin. He was a big proponent of the practical value of the leather apron tradesmen class, or as he called them "the middling people", as the engine that drove practical morality and prosperity. In the Pennsylvania Assembly, he was often at odds with the colonial proprietors, the Penn family, seeing them as a corrupt elite class that treated everyone else as their personal servants. He also opposed the rural folk and their anti-native prejudices and their use of mob violence. I suppose abandoning both extremes left him with what he claimed to love, the middle class.

[Amilam]

Yeah I don't buy that Psudo. I remember reading a poem from a fairly sheltered academic that used to enjoy doing physical labor over the summer (road construction I believe, I read the poem in Middle School). The thing was that since he knew his realm was never directly tied to the blue collars he was working with and that it was an indulgence of sorts and had no real impact on his career arc that it was impossible to step outside of his "elitist" upbringing.

At any rate, when the word is used by Conservative pundits it tends to have a hazier definition. Usually it means educated Liberals (thus I've always found it pretty ineffective) and really is just a new buzz word for snob, but at times I've seen it applied to educated Conservatives who criticize the intelligence of Republican candidates like Palin.

[Gelmax]

CKASlacker wrote:

The point of the presidency isn't to get RE-elected -- he's been elected, and been given a mandate based on his campaign and election promises over the next four years. That's his job - if what he's proposed and executed by 2012 looks like it's been a good thing, he'll have a good chance of being re-elected.

There's a reason the founding fathers set up the US as a republic with elected representatives, and not a true democracy. You don't want public policy to change with the whim of the people on a daily basis -- willy-nilly changes are no way to run a country.

Yes the president is a public servant, but he's not a windsock, changing his viewpoints to whatever's fashionable that day. Of course there's certainly a fine line to be balance between shifting your views based on public opinion, and taking criticism and factoring those into your overall plan -- but that's a matter for Obama to sort out case by case.

Being re-elected IS important to presidents, because even if the things you're doing are important and good for America as a whole, they're not going to work if you're unpopular enough that your opposition gets elected four years later and turns it all around. Additionally, there's currently a worldwide recession, and recessions tend to be bad news for elected leaders because they can take years to recover from and it's likely an election is going to come before the recession ends, at which point the public usually takes it out on that elected leader even if they inherited the recession. Obama's doing what he can, but he's not going to be able to make much of his promised change stick if he loses the next election to a Republican who might get to reap the benefits of Obama's economic plans while going down the list of Bush policies Obama did or will reverse and reversing them back, while doing a 180 on many other pieces of environmental, social, and foreign policy initiated by the current administration. In times of peace and prosperity, or when there's not all that much difference between the parties' desired policies, countries can get away with switching leaders every few years. But right now there's wars going on, there's a recession, and we just got out from under eight years of doing it wrong; it's unlikely all the damage of the Bush administration can be undone in eight years, let alone just four.

Psudo wrote:

I've got a complaint about the video now.

Obama wrote:

Young people, instead of a smart kid coming out of school and wanting to be an investment banker, we want them to decide they want to be an engineer, They want to be a scientist. They want to be a doctor or a teacher.

He lists no careers that actually produce physical goods. No harvesting of resources, no processing them into manufactured goods, no distribution or logistics or marketing. Doctors, scientists, engineers and teachers are great jobs, but they can't function without jobs in the field Karl Marx calls "the means of production". Material wealth must be overly abundant before they can be spared for scientific experiments and innovative plans. If the fundamentals are ignored, all these finer things of a culture are impossible. And Obama gives no sign he recognizes that fact.

Sure, it's a spontaneous list and I could be reading too much into a coincidence. But the habitual list I'd like to have heard would have included at least one of these: farmers, miners, loggers, manufacturers, construction jobs, or retailers. We depend on countless artificial objects, and those objects depend on those productive kinds of jobs. But maybe that breaks some politically correct rules on the environment or something.

The final four picks, though... that joke was hecka funny.

Psudo, the problem is that he didn't say that's what kids SHOULD be, he said it's what they should WANT to be. And that's very much a widespread societal perception in America and much of the first world, so if you have a problem with that, don't blame it on Obama. Sure, science and medicine get treated a bit more excitingly than they really are, but no one wants to be a construction worker doing very hard labor for very low pay, nor do they want to be a retail worker getting paid minimum wage to take abuse from customers. Those kinds of jobs have never been glamorous or attractive jobs, they're generally unskilled work as well, and that's why they're generally done by the underpaid, marginalized, desperate, exploitable worker of the time. We don't want kids to want to grow up to do those jobs, because they're terrible, poorly paid occupations that no one wants to do except the poor, uneducated underclass who have no better choice for whatever reason.

[GenericHito]

According to my knowledge, founding fathers like Madison and other Federalist feared the tyranny of the majority. They valued liberty, but feared that if too much power was given to the unwashed masses they would make short sighted decisions, and/or impose upon the liberty's of minorities.

Madison favored 'barriers' between the masses and the ruling Government. Electoral votes were not meant to be some archaic mathematics based on State populations that frequently allow the popular vote to go the loser, the people in the electoral college were actually supposed to choose the President.

Likewise Senators were appointed, not elected as they are today. I've read political theory that blames this for shortsighted behavior in our Government. People instinctively act on immediate gratification and ignore long term rewards, so Senators, now beholden to 'people', focus on getting reelected by selling short term goals, rather than being allowed to pursue less voter attractive long term goals. I consider this theory plausible, but certainly too hazy to be toted as fact.

On an unrelated note, I came to this forum for politics, but instead I get internet community lore. Awesome. Awesome.

[GenericHito]

Gelmax wrote:

Being re-elected IS important to presidents, because even if the things you're doing are important and good for America as a whole, they're not going to work if you're unpopular enough that your opposition gets elected four years later and turns it all around. Additionally, there's currently a worldwide recession, and recessions tend to be bad news for elected leaders because they can take years to recover from and it's likely an election is going to come before the recession ends, at which point the public usually takes it out on that elected leader even if they inherited the recession. Obama's doing what he can, but he's not going to be able to make much of his promised change stick if he loses the next election to a Republican who might get to reap the benefits of Obama's economic plans while going down the list of Bush policies Obama did or will reverse and reversing them back, while doing a 180 on many other pieces of environmental, social, and foreign policy initiated by the current administration. In times of peace and prosperity, or when there's not all that much difference between the parties' desired policies, countries can get away with switching leaders every few years. But right now there's wars going on, there's a recession, and we just got out from under eight years of doing it wrong; it's unlikely all the damage of the Bush administration can be undone in eight years, let alone just four.

The economy, which Obama "inherited" (implying the previous administration and its Congress counterpart were directly responsible for the situation) is worthy of mention.

But the debt, which Obama inherited and intends to do little for, is unworthy of mention.

[KrytenKoro]

Quote:

We don't want kids to want to grow up to do those jobs, because they're terrible, poorly paid occupations that no one wants to do except the poor, uneducated underclass who have no better choice for whatever reason.

That perception is kind of the problem Psudo was addressing, if I'm reading him correctly. Those jobs are ''literally'' the foundation of the economy, and yet we treat them as some kind of terrible punishment.

Quote:

But right now there's wars going on, there's a recession, and we just got out from under eight years of doing it wrong; it's unlikely all the damage of the Bush administration can be undone in eight years, let alone just four.

What terrible damage did Bush inflict, exactly, that Obama is actually working to reverse? So far I've seen him continue with the same basic policies, financially, while doing little about the wars besides giving it fancy new names. All the while, he is at his administration's own admission using the crisis to get the public to be more accepting of their own goals.

The only real reversal of policy that I've seen so far is the stem cell debacle, and that's just bad science - adult stem cells have far outstripped embryonic stem cells in terms of usefulness, and there was absolutely no need to engender moral outrage besides the desire to appease constituents with vendettas. If I'm wrong about this, please correct me, but last I checked adult stem cells can not only be used, but be used for pretty much most of the hypothetical wonder cures that it take us decades to find out if embryonic stem cells can even do.

[Psudo]

Amilam wrote:

Yeah I don't buy that Psudo. I remember reading a poem from a fairly sheltered academic that [stating] it was impossible to step outside of his "elitist" upbringing.

At any rate, when the word is used by Conservative pundits it tends to have a hazier definition. Usually it means educated Liberals (thus I've always found it pretty ineffective) and really is just a new buzz word for snob, but at times I've seen it applied to educated Conservatives who criticize the intelligence of Republican candidates like Palin.

Is it only the defense of W. that you don't buy? That's fine, it's not a conclusive defense. I think Bush fits the definition of elitist pretty well, too. Just not as well as Obama.

Carter built houses for Habitat for Humanity after being President of the USA. That would be an example of a non-elitist President.

Of course pundits use hazier definitions, I admit that. Most pundits generalize and blur most of their arguments in pursuit of some ideological point. That's largely the nature of punditry. I'm not arguing their points of view, I'm arguing mine.

And, perhaps most importantly, I'm not convinced that being elitist in the sense of having a purely university and government resume necessarily makes Obama bad at any particular skill that would be proper for a President to have. I'm not confidently opposed to Obama, just as I'm not confidently in support of Palin.

Gelmax wrote:

Psudo, the problem is that he didn't say that's what kids SHOULD be, he said it's what they should WANT to be.

I don't see any more dignity or virtue in teaching school than in building the school. Society usually does, and Obama has to pander to society. Fine. But I still disagree.

KrytenKoro nailed it on his interpretation of my point and on the stem cells issue. Kudos!

Gelmax wrote:

that's very much a widespread societal perception in America and much of the first world, so if you have a problem with that, don't blame it on Obama.

I didn't, really. I conceded that it was a necessary concession Obama made to mainstream perceptions. Twice, if you include this post.

Gelmax wrote:

no one wants to be a construction worker doing very hard labor for very low pay, nor do they want to be a retail worker getting paid minimum wage to take abuse from customers.

No one wants to empty bedpans either or go without sleep for four years in Med School, but that's path to becoming a doctor. The worst of any field is inherently a crap job. But there are good jobs in any field, too. I'd love to be the foreman on the WTC rebuild project and have already enjoyed watching residential houses form from my own labor. I'd love to run a distribution company that gets good food to people cheaper than anyone else, or a factory that makes some gadget that makes people's lives better, to say nothing of being a high executive in such a company. It's disingenuous to compare the worst of one field of employment against the best of another.

Incidentally, I've spent most of the last four of my years working for Wal-Mart. Are you willing to bet money on your claim that I'm uneducated, poor, underclass, or have no choice? Even if the claim were usually true (which I doubt), the mechanical worker can make enough money to get his children good educations or take night classes himself and thus gain upward class mobility. Jefferson praised this trait when he said "I am a revolutionary so my son can be a farmer, so his son can be a poet."

GenericHiro wrote:

According to my knowledge, founding fathers like Madison and other Federalist feared the tyranny of the majority. They valued liberty, but feared that if too much power was given to the unwashed masses they would make short sighted decisions, and/or impose upon the liberty's of minorities.

Agreed. Aristotle and Ben Franklin both warned against tyranny of majority as well as tyranny by elites or aristocracy and advocated the capability of the people in the middle to be good diplomats between the two extremes. It seems a hard point to dispute.

I somewhat support the pre-17th Amendment practice of electing Senators by votes of the state legislatures rather than the state populations at large on the basis of restoring some level of state government influence over federal government. It seems consistent with the concept of separation of powers as a protection against either form of tyranny and promotes a kind of federalism I'm hard pressed to criticize.

[Psudo]

I didn't notice Steen's post until now, sorry. I'm the redhead. The picture I showed JJ for reference is only the second time that I've ever showed my picture to someone online. In the future, if people what to know what I look like, I'll be pointing them to JJ's caricature. And, in case I didn't mention it before, I'm radically flattered to be portrayed by JJ.

[Murray_Smith]

KrytenKoro wrote:

The only real reversal of policy that I've seen so far is the stem cell debacle, and that's just bad science - adult stem cells have far outstripped embryonic stem cells in terms of usefulness, and there was absolutely no need to engender moral outrage besides the desire to appease constituents with vendettas. If I'm wrong about this, please correct me, but last I checked adult stem cells can not only be used, but be used for pretty much most of the hypothetical wonder cures that it take us decades to find out if embryonic stem cells can even do.

I've heard this argument before, and I do not believe it to be valid.

Unless I'm mistaken, the stem cells that are used for SCIENCE! come from embryos (which are still little more than tiny balls of cells) that would have been discarded, that is, left to rot. If this is the case, then why not get use out of them?

[Psudo]

Murray_Smith: Why would science only investigate the one type of stem cells it is impossible to get federal funding for? It seems like there would be incentive to research adult, placental, umbilical stem cells, since funding is more readily available. Thus, it makes no sense that science would exclusively focus on embryonic stem cells for their medical research.

You could dispel this perception if you could name a study (or studies) that belong in the embryonic stem cell treatments column. (Of course the site is biased. But is it wrong when it says "none"?)

[Kjorteo]

If embryonic stem sells truly are completely useless for everything, ever, then I'd rather objective, independent scientists who know what they're doing take a look and confirm and verify that so they can put the whole issue to rest and move on. If there's something to them, I'd like scientists to be able to investigate further. Also, if all the benefits of adult/umbilical/etc. stem cells are true, it's not like scientists are going to just toss those leads out the window and completely ignore them while they obsess over embryonic stem cells just to prove some sort of political point unless we ban embryonic stem cell research. Research is research. Research is good.

Besides, you can't ban studies/deny funding on embryonic stem cell research and then claim embryonic stem cells are useless because there haven't been studies that found uses for them. That's circular.