While this is a coherent thought, it does not have anything to do with being 'elite' or not being 'elite'. Words mean things. If you actually look up the definition of the word, 'elite' (which I would post here, if I weren't typing this post on a game console) it means something akin to 'the best of the best' or 'people of the highest class'. When people talk about the social elite, they're basically talking about uppity rich folk, and ussually with a negative connotation.
When it comes to politics, right-wingers like to call Democrats out as 'elites', and I ussually get the feeling that it's either meant to imply that the Democratic party is mostly full of college-educated liberals--as opposed to rural conservatives, or meant to imply that Democrats are the bigger corporate shills. Neither implications is true; both parties cobble together various groups of people from different backgrounds and classes, and both parties are almost neck and neck when it comes to their subservience to the donor/rich/elite class.
I'm harping on the whole 'elite' thing, because I have been seeing it used more and more in a way that makes no sense, and it's pretty clear to me that people are simply parroting that which gets their own base fired up, but this sort of meaningless rhetoric does nothing but confuse everyone involved.
---
As for libertarianism, well, yes, I'm familiar with the libertarian view of small government and can even respect the idealogy, given that I sympathize with anarchist ideals, but I don't hold to it, myself, being someone who would tackle minimizing the wealth and income gap through any means neccessary; you can say that I'm someone who distrusts government power, but who also distrusts government power by equal measure. I would, however, would much rather acheive such a goal through higher wages and unionization, rather than relying on the welfare system to attempt to pick up the slack.
I'm not a libertarian or a conservative, obviously, and have no inherent issue with welfare, myself, but I strongly feel that it should only be relegated to being a safty-net, and to tackling extenuating circumstances. Wages must be competitive enough across the board as to reduce the incentive towards abusing or gaming the system.
