Elite vs. Elitist
Some of Barack Obama’s detractors have accused him of being an elitist, and they are happy if voters continue to confuse being a member of the elite with being an elitist. Let’s be frank: You don’t get to be a serious candidate for president of the United States unless you are a member of the “elite,” someone with power, wealth, talent, and/or intelligence.
John McCain is a member of the elite, as is Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama.
There’s nothing wrong with being elite. But there is something wrong with being an elitist ” a person who believes that society should be dominated by the elite, and that government should function for the benefit of the elite. Who comes to mind?
Why, George Bush, of course! He rode the coattails of his rich and powerful family to become arguably the worst president in American history. In spite of an impressive list of failures, he has been astonishingly successful at furthering his elitist agenda, which is helping to build wealth and increase power for his real constituency ” the richest and most powerful people in the nation.
Instead of being inspired by the anti-elitist American ideal of the “public interest,” Mr. Bush has implemented an array of tax cut and deregulation policies designed solely to make the rich and powerful richer and more powerful while ignoring the needs of all other segments of American society. This is the very definition of elitism and elitist behavior.
Mr. Obama, on the other hand, is a member of the elite who believes that government should work for the public interest, for the benefit of all the people, not solely for the rich and powerful elite. Based on his comments during this election season, it appears that Mr. McCain would continue Mr. Bush’s elitist approach to governing, while Mr. Obama would move the country away from elitism and towards the egalitarianism that was envisioned when the country was founded.
Start a dialogue, stay on topic and be civil.
If you don't follow the rules, your comment may be deleted.