The Case for Elite Theory

Maybe what sets the United States apart is that anybody can enter the ranks of the elite. The elite few have great sway over our political system, but because we encourage capitalism and embrace freedom, the America Dream lives, and it is still possible to come here, work hard and be whatever you want to be. To enter the elite you don't have to be from a certain family (unless you are a Kennedy, and even that is just a leg up, you still have to prove yourself) or have the right bloodline. Money is most all the defines it.
The trick is continue to instill the values of freedom, equality, courage, and honor, and to beat back the encroaching attitudes of victimology, entitlement and the handout that welfare seems to encourage. The idea of giving back.
This is one thing that makes John McCain so attractive. He is a real believer in volunteerism.

I like your libertarian assertion that the government has too much control over our lives but I disagree that they (whoever the hell “they” are) care too little about what we think about that. “They” care not at all. “They” are above caring. “They” got theirs. If you want get yours, get a mitt and get in the game.
Q. Corporations of the size and scope that have the potential to actually effect outcomes are owned by whom?
A. The shareholders. The shareholders demand corporate earnings as a return on investment or they invest elsewhere. Earnings are maximized through cooperation or competition with the government to avoid taxation, exploit opportunities, serve foreign and domestic markets and preserve every possible dollar to improve share value, provide for future growth and ensure dividend payments.
No one complains about the cooperation of business and government as long as their own 401k is on the rise. No investor gripes that they have no voice in either while he is getting rich. So who objects? Those who choose not to participate. Those who think their idealistic view of the world superior. Those who lack the will or the fortitude to assume the risks that provide the opportunity to reap the rewards. Those who decry inequality while simultaneously refusing to engage.
So I ask you, who are the real elitists?

I can't disagree with anything you have said here...Although corporations are owned by shareholders, they are run by members of the board of directors. The point is, is that people who sit on the boards of directors sit on many boards and by doing so make the scope of conflict smaller, and ensure that any true competition that occurs isn't so competitive it hurts any one corporation. That is not a free market, its a fixed market.

You're right, this was a hard essay to get my head around but I agree with most of the points put forth. You suggested in a previous comment that some groups were bearing an unfair burden in the implementation of America's policies. Since the divide between the very rich and the middle class is growing, how do you see class as a determining factor in our daily lives and how have the candidates addressed your concerns?

Anutie D, you sure know how to ask 'em.
To shoot straight, a global market with lenient policies surrounding big business has resulted in good, middle class jobs being shipped overseas. The result? China and India have taken those jobs, run with them, grown their middle class, are on their way out of the third world and are using resources like a first world nation. Hence the food crisis and the rise in oil prices. And most Americans aren't getting any richer, rather they are getting poorer. THey have less money to buy more expensive commodoties.

"how have the candidates addressed your concerns?" Well, Hillary has gone on a rant about health care and then quickly diverted media attention from the economy to her inablity to tell the truth with the whole "i dodged bullets in Bosnia" business. Apparently what she has to say about the economy is MORE damaging to her campaign than her pathalogical tendencies...Obama has taken a similar tactic, except he has wisely chosen to foist the spotlight onto another party, namely the Rev. Wright. He just won't denounce him and get it over with, which would be smart but would possibly leave us with nothing else to talk about other than those pesky little policy issues, like the economy and the fading middle class. Meanwhile, McCain, who has the nomination in the bag and doesn't think he needs any of those late primary votes, mumbles something about making tax cuts permenant and then quickly denounces North Caralina voters and their mean, nasty, campaign adds. Apparently, highlighting all the reasons why swing voters (aka 70% of the population) shouldn't support you, and alienating your base is a trendy way to keep from having to answer any real, subtantive questions.

hwalker, you're not getting just a little jaded this campaign season, are you? Unfortunatelyl, I think you are right on the mark. Candidates avoid speaking on the issues so that whatever they say can't come back and bite them when they are in office and find their ideas completely impractical. Perhaps this is why an honest third party couldn't get elected. Someone who is honest and really deals with the issues gets slammed by the other candidates and ends up spending his time and money defending himself rather than his stand on issues. Also, the candidates can't speak too loudly to their personal stand on issues, as it is the party that tells them what stand to take. I never understood before this campaign how true it is that we don't really vote for a candidate, but for a party, and their platform. It's been a very educational year.

I'm not jaded. I am a realist. How can we be affective if we are not willing to be honest about what we are dealing with here?

I disagree 100% that the candidates don't speak on the issues because it's the party that tells them what stand to take. Definitely the party has some influence, but only in so far as campaign finance goes. They hold a little power of the purse. But that's it. Rather, i would be willing to assert that if our parties had stronger control, (A) there would be more room for a third party voice and (B) candidates would be accountable to a party platform, to a set of ideas. We would loose candidate accountability to the constituent, but honestly, do we really have that anyway?

No, the result of our democracy, designed to discourage parties and enhance democracy by giving everyone a vote and every elected official the freedom to act in accordance with their constituents, combined with a majority rules system is this: Two weak, relatively indistinguishable parties and candidate centered elections. This, in combination with the corporate media results in shifting "the emphasis of conflict from relatively costly (policy) issues...to other highly emotive but less costly issues, such as moral behavior, patriotism and religion." (John Gaventa, 1949). We do not vote for a party and their platform. We vote for a candidate and their personality, based on flawed distorted information delivered to us by a media that is "a significant anti-democratic force" (Robert McChesney 2004).

-"it doesn't matter that im the most capable candidate who could actually do the job- they don't want to go to the mall with me, therefore i will never get elected!" Paris Gellar, Gilmore Girls