• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should Only Elites Participate in Politics?

Should only elites participate in politics?

  • Yes, art is important.

    Votes: 1 7.7%

  • Yes, but for economics, not art.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • No, the masses have style too.

    Votes: 3 23.1%

  • No, equality is everything.

    Votes: 9 69.2%
  • Total voters
    13
Daktoria

Daktoria

Banned
Joined
Oct 27, 2011
Messages
3,245
Reaction score
397
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Private
I don't remember who said it whether it was Socrates, Aristotle, or Plato, but one of them said that only elites are sophisticated enough to grasp the big picture of society, so only they should be involved despite the plurality of Athenian Democracy. When unsophisticates participate, it makes politics boring, and disregards the finer things of life which society is supposed to aspire for. These finer things are fundamentally crafted by the populace anyway, so if the populace participates in politics when it's supposed to be crafting the foundations of art, then the populace is wasting its time.

The argument can be analogized to the avant garde-pop culture divide as well. Pop culture is designed to hypnotize the masses, so if the hypnotized are allowed to participate in culture, it corrupts the system. Just because someone enjoys listening to music doesn't mean someone knows how to compose music.

Therefore, should only elites participate in politics such that politics remains an artistic, sociable endeavor?
 
Short answer: probably not, because it is most likely that the elites would look out for their own interests first, the interests of "their kind" second, and everyone else a distant third at best.


Longer answer:

First we have to define "Elites". Do we mean the academic elite (those with doctorates from reputable universities who have published in peer-reviewed journals)?

Do we mean the artistic elite?

Do we mean the economic elite? Those who have risen from mediocrity to billionaire status?

Do we mean the politicial elite? Well one could argue that they're already running the show, for the most part.

Perhaps we mean the blue-bloods... the old-money families who have maintained a condition of wealth and status for several generations, whose children invariably graduate from Hahvahd or other Ivy League colleges... well actually they're pretty well-represented in DC too, by the Kennedys, the Bush's, the Hines-Kerry's, etc.

Plato (IIRC) wrote in his tretise Republic that the rulers should be a small group of elite philosopher-kings, highly educated and the only ones told the truth about how the world really works, while the general populace was educated only as much as needed and indoctrinated in beliefs that would theoretically cause them to be productive, orderly citizens who respected and obeyed the ruling class. In return the philosopher-kings would regard the common citizenry much like children and look after them via their greater wisdom.

All utopias begin with the premise "if only people would behave themselves like they OUGHT to..."

Plato was one of the few who had a notion of how you achieve this, but I don't care for his vision much to be honest. I'm not overly fond of being told what to do period... being told what to do by a government in which I have no input would likely cause me to raise the Gadsden flag and go to war.
 
Last edited:
Daktoria said:
I don't remember who said it whether it was Socrates, Aristotle, or Plato, but one of them said that only elites are sophisticated enough to grasp the big picture of society, so only they should be involved despite the plurality of Athenian Democracy. When unsophisticates participate, it makes politics boring, and disregards the finer things of life which society is supposed to aspire for. These finer things are fundamentally crafted by the populace anyway, so if the populace participates in politics when it's supposed to be crafting the foundations of art, then the populace is wasting its time.

The argument can be analogized to the avant garde-pop culture divide as well. Pop culture is designed to hypnotize the masses, so if the hypnotized are allowed to participate in culture, it corrupts the system. Just because someone enjoys listening to music doesn't mean someone knows how to compose music.

Therefore, should only elites participate in politics such that politics remains an artistic, sociable endeavor?
Click to expand...

I could almost be on board with this idea if not for the fact that even highly educated people do stupid things every day, and even the highly informed promote legislation that only serves their own selfish interests. "Unsophisticates" (I assume this refers to poor, lesser educated people) are just as capable of doing good deeds, and are capable of understanding policies that directly affect them (or at least capable in the same percentages that "sophisticates" are).

No, anyone interested enough in politics should be able to participate in them.
 
Just because one could be a considered an "elite" doesn't mean they know a thing about politics.
 
zstep18 said:
Just because one could be a considered an "elite" doesn't mean they know a thing about politics.
Click to expand...


Nor does it mean they have benevolent intentions toward "the common herd".
 
zstep18 said:
Just because one could be a considered an "elite" doesn't mean they know a thing about politics.
Click to expand...

...let alone how to run a country. Ivy League educated candidates have pretty much been the rule of the land for God knows how long. As Dr. Phil might say, how's that working for us?

Not saying that high school dropouts should be elected president, but a man's character is determined by more than the degree on his wall and the money in his account.

Also, not saying I watch Dr. Phil.
 
Oh, by the way, Bernie Madoff would have been considered a "sophisticate." Let that one sink in for a few minutes.
 
Cardinal said:
...let alone how to run a country. Ivy League educated candidates have pretty much been the rule of the land for God knows how long. As Dr. Phil might say, how's that working for us?

Not saying that high school dropouts should be elected president, but a man's character is determined by more than the degree on his wall and the money in his account.

Also, not saying I watch Dr. Phil.
Click to expand...


Exactly.

There's an old joke... a man catches a young thief stealing from his truck. Instead of calling the police, he takes the young man in and sends him to college to be educated. When the young man has completed his education, he concocts a scam lawsuit and steals his benefactors entire business. Moral: educate a thief and what do you get: an educated thief.

I could also add, educate a fool and you get an educated fool.
 
Goshin said:
Short answer: probably not, because it is most likely that the elites would look out for their own interests first, the interests of "their kind" second, and everyone else a distant third at best.
Click to expand...

This wasn't exactly what I was talking about. I was talking about whether or not people are wasting their own time getting involved in politics before self-evaluating themselves as elite.

Longer answer:

First we have to define "Elites". Do we mean the academic elite (those with doctorates from reputable universities who have published in peer-reviewed journals)?

Do we mean the artistic elite?

Do we mean the economic elite? Those who have risen from mediocrity to billionaire status?

Do we mean the politicial elite? Well one could argue that they're already running the show, for the most part.

Perhaps we mean the blue-bloods... the old-money families who have maintained a condition of wealth and status for several generations, whose children invariably graduate from Hahvahd or other Ivy League colleges... well actually they're pretty well-represented in DC too, by the Kennedys, the Bush's, the Hines-Kerry's, etc.

Plato (IIRC) wrote in his tretise Republic that the rulers should be a small group of elite philosopher-kings, highly educated and the only ones told the truth about how the world really works, while the general populace was educated only as much as needed and indoctrinated in beliefs that would theoretically cause them to be productive, orderly citizens who respected and obeyed the ruling class. In return the philosopher-kings would regard the common citizenry much like children and look after them via their greater wisdom.

All utopias begin with the premise "if only people would behave themselves like they OUGHT to..."

Plato was one of the few who had a notion of how you achieve this, but I don't care for his vision much to be honest. I'm not overly fond of being told what to do period... being told what to do by a government in which I have no input would likely cause me to raise the Gadsden flag and go to war.
Click to expand...

Like I described in the OP, artistic elite.

Should people participate in politics before getting to know their own self-interests (and expressing them exquisitely [to their own satisfaction])?
 
Daktoria said:
This wasn't exactly what I was talking about. I was talking about whether or not people are wasting their own time getting involved in politics before self-evaluating themselves as elite.



Like I described in the OP, artistic elite.

Should people participate in politics before getting to know their own self-interests (and expressing them exquisitely [to their own satisfaction])?
Click to expand...


Express yourself more precisely then.
 
Who gets to decide who is elite enough???

This just goes to show how much libertarians actually care about real liberty.
 
RGacky3 said:
Who gets to decide who is elite enough???

This just goes to show how much libertarians actually care about real liberty.
Click to expand...

I am not sure that Dak is a libertarian as much as a rhetorican.
 
If the elites were the only ones to vote...it wouldnt last long...the peasants would storm the castle...there would be no more elites :)
 
We are in the Global Warming goldfish bowl together. We share the same nuclear contamination fears. We share the "Energy" good/bad paradigm. We share an economy that thrives on War. We share good and bad weather. We should all have the same input on these matters. Has voting actually had any input on these matters? If not, is the democracy of which we discuss actually an illusion? It looks to me that the Financial "Elites" are effectively the rulers. Heavens to Murgatroid, have we been snookered?
 
I can only quote one of the elites:

"I would rather trust the first 500 names in the Boston Phone Directory to run the Government than the Harvard Faculty".
 
I think the idea that "Elites" should run society has pretty much been refuted for the past couple of decades. It is the Elites that have sent us to a sham war in Iraq, bankrupted banks and financial institutions, and conducted the rash of accounting fraud cases at large corporations.
 
iliveonramen said:
I think the idea that "Elites" should run society has pretty much been refuted for the past couple of decades. It is the Elites that have sent us to a sham war in Iraq, bankrupted banks and financial institutions, and conducted the rash of accounting fraud cases at large corporations.
Click to expand...

The Iraq war was not a sham. Financial institutions bankrupted themselves. And you cannot hold the entirety of the "elite" responsible for what a few people did at the level of corporate fraud. That would be like calling all poor druggies or the likes. Get off your high horse.
 
Reserve the ability to participate in politics to the elite? That's just a civil uprising waiting to happen.
 
muciti said:
The Iraq war was not a sham. Financial institutions bankrupted themselves. And you cannot hold the entirety of the "elite" responsible for what a few people did at the level of corporate fraud. That would be like calling all poor druggies or the likes. Get off your high horse.
Click to expand...

The war in Iraq was pushed by think tanks, foreign policy experts, and Neo-Cons that believed some visions of spreading Democracy by the use of the US military and overthrowing Saddam. The truth is that a vendor in Tunisia had more to do with spreading Democracy in the Middle East and now those that origionally advocated Democracy in the middle east aren't really happy with what those Democracies look like.

Who exactly runs Financial institutions? The people? It's a small sector of elites that make salaries exponentially higher than most Americans.

Also you can hold elites responsible. It was widespread through various industries and it comes with a culture of lack of accountability and greed. Your worth is dictated by your stock price and bank account not by any other measure.
 
Artistic elite? You mean the people who've become rich off of artistic ability?

Justin_Bieber.jpg
 
iliveonramen said:
The war in Iraq was pushed by think tanks, foreign policy experts, and Neo-Cons that believed some visions of spreading Democracy by the use of the US military and overthrowing Saddam. The truth is that a vendor in Tunisia had more to do with spreading Democracy in the Middle East and now those that origionally advocated Democracy in the middle east aren't really happy with what those Democracies look like.

Who exactly runs Financial institutions? The people? It's a small sector of elites that make salaries exponentially higher than most Americans.

Also you can hold elites responsible. It was widespread through various industries and it comes with a culture of lack of accountability and greed. Your worth is dictated by your stock price and bank account not by any other measure.
Click to expand...

You are still grouping an entire group of people based on the actions of a few. Are all poor people drug addicts? Do all gays have aids? Where do you draw the line on where you justify these pathetic stereotypes?

Let me guess, it's ok to stereotype people if you are jealous of their wealth or if they do not agree with the liberal agenda. Does that about sum it up?
 
Let me guess, it's ok to stereotype people if you are jealous of their wealth or if they do not agree with the liberal agenda. Does that about sum it up?
Click to expand...

*yawn* so you're going to just regurgitate dumb talking points. Thanks but no thanks not interested in that sort of discussion.
 
Goshin said:
Short answer: probably not, because it is most likely that the elites would look out for their own interests first, the interests of "their kind" second, and everyone else a distant third at best.


Longer answer:

First we have to define "Elites". Do we mean the academic elite (those with doctorates from reputable universities who have published in peer-reviewed journals)?

Do we mean the artistic elite?

Do we mean the economic elite? Those who have risen from mediocrity to billionaire status?

Do we mean the politicial elite? Well one could argue that they're already running the show, for the most part.

Perhaps we mean the blue-bloods... the old-money families who have maintained a condition of wealth and status for several generations, whose children invariably graduate from Hahvahd or other Ivy League colleges... well actually they're pretty well-represented in DC too, by the Kennedys, the Bush's, the Hines-Kerry's, etc.

Plato (IIRC) wrote in his tretise Republic that the rulers should be a small group of elite philosopher-kings, highly educated and the only ones told the truth about how the world really works, while the general populace was educated only as much as needed and indoctrinated in beliefs that would theoretically cause them to be productive, orderly citizens who respected and obeyed the ruling class. In return the philosopher-kings would regard the common citizenry much like children and look after them via their greater wisdom.

All utopias begin with the premise "if only people would behave themselves like they OUGHT to..."

Plato was one of the few who had a notion of how you achieve this, but I don't care for his vision much to be honest. I'm not overly fond of being told what to do period... being told what to do by a government in which I have no input would likely cause me to raise the Gadsden flag and go to war.
Click to expand...

You tell it, brother. Success by my definition is being a honorable tribute to your fellow man or woman. Many "elites" are miserable failures at being human. Show me a person that is a good friend to many, a good parent, a good neighbor, someone who contributes to the betterment of their community, who respects other people and works hard at being humble and compassionate. They have my greatest respect. They are the America I love and the people I want involved in my government.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom