Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In contemportary political discourse, what does it mean to be a member of the "elite"?
I ask this in all seriousness, because I don't beleive we have a common definition.
The trditiona definition, in my mind, is someone who has attained a level of higher education and a professional job and/or worked himself or herself into a powerful political and/or business position, regardless of educational achievement. It is being in the top X% of society, measured by social, economic and power indicators.
I'm just not sure that is what the term "elite" means in popular political discourse in the U.S. Trump is obviously the one that comes to mind here. He consistenyl criticies the "elite" and eparates himself from them. But by most trditi0onal measures, he would seem to be the deinition of "elite".
Most people characterize Warren as "elite", which I would agree with based on my traditional vie of the definition. She wasa professor at HArvard, has achieved a certain amount of personal wealth and has power as a member of Congress. However, she is from fairly humble beginnings. In my view, the beginnings aren't as imortant as where you are at a given time, but on balance you would think someone who was born into a wealthy and powerful family would be more "elite" than one who was not.
This is not intended as a partisan post. I would throw out the Kennedys as a prime example of elite. I just get the sense that the term has morphed into a term alluding to a political stance that people associate with higher education and less about the more traditional social-economic inidcators of the term.
IS it simply an evolution in meaning of the term? If it still means someone who is in the upper X% of society in terms of achievement, why is it consered a negiative thing?
I have always considered the "elite" someone who considers themselves "better" than others even if not deserved. For instance my parents were uneducated, basic high school graduates. One of my best friends parents were both Phds. and his father was an acclaimed engineer who was known world wide. Yet his parents for all their academic and professional achievement, world travelers who both spoke many language were always referred to by my parents as Good People. Who always spoke to everyone as equals. they shopped at the same stores everyone else did and hung out at with the "normal" people at things like BBQ's. They had all the trappings of what we would call the "elite" but no one would ever call them that nor did they think they were better than anyone else.
On the other hand I have a cousin who barely graduated High School, has never worked a day in his life, yet looks down on what he calls "little people". He also hangs out with a group of like minded people. He like they are all Trust Fund babies, who despite their economic fortunes have never done anything but feel somehow that they are better than everyone else and i have been ashamed when i was with them at times as they would often berate people doing their jobs and laugh about how "stupid" they were. They themselves consider themselves the "elite" yet in their 40's if their parents cut off their Trust Funds they wouldn't even be able to get a job cleaning toilets.
In contemportary political discourse, what does it mean to be a member of the "elite"?
I ask this in all seriousness, because I don't beleive we have a common definition.
The trditiona definition, in my mind, is someone who has attained a level of higher education and a professional job and/or worked himself or herself into a powerful political and/or business position, regardless of educational achievement. It is being in the top X% of society, measured by social, economic and power indicators.
I'm just not sure that is what the term "elite" means in popular political discourse in the U.S. Trump is obviously the one that comes to mind here. He consistenyl criticies the "elite" and eparates himself from them. But by most trditi0onal measures, he would seem to be the deinition of "elite".
Most people characterize Warren as "elite", which I would agree with based on my traditional vie of the definition. She wasa professor at HArvard, has achieved a certain amount of personal wealth and has power as a member of Congress. However, she is from fairly humble beginnings. In my view, the beginnings aren't as imortant as where you are at a given time, but on balance you would think someone who was born into a wealthy and powerful family would be more "elite" than one who was not.
This is not intended as a partisan post. I would throw out the Kennedys as a prime example of elite. I just get the sense that the term has morphed into a term alluding to a political stance that people associate with higher education and less about the more traditional social-economic inidcators of the term.
IS it simply an evolution in meaning of the term? If it still means someone who is in the upper X% of society in terms of achievement, why is it consered a negiative thing?
Warren is also an elite that has relied on fraud in claiming she was a Cherokee!
The playmakers. Those who have the power to influence a great number of things, yet live by a second set of rules we don't have afforded to us. They're above the law. Supported by fanboys and fangirls who parrot that their pols of choice are above reproach, thus allowing them to get away with more than we would.
I don't think Trump is in this category. You have to have a wide network globally in the political arena. He's chump change when it comes to influencing anything. Think Clinton's, Soros, Pelosi.
I have always considered the "elite" someone who considers themselves "better" than others even if not deserved. For instance my parents were uneducated, basic high school graduates. One of my best friends parents were both Phds. and his father was an acclaimed engineer who was known world wide. Yet his parents for all their academic and professional achievement, world travelers who both spoke many language were always referred to by my parents as Good People. Who always spoke to everyone as equals. they shopped at the same stores everyone else did and hung out at with the "normal" people at things like BBQ's. They had all the trappings of what we would call the "elite" but no one would ever call them that nor did they think they were better than anyone else.
On the other hand I have a cousin who barely graduated High School, has never worked a day in his life, yet looks down on what he calls "little people". He also hangs out with a group of like minded people. He like they are all Trust Fund babies, who despite their economic fortunes have never done anything but feel somehow that they are better than everyone else and i have been ashamed when i was with them at times as they would often berate people doing their jobs and laugh about how "stupid" they were. They themselves consider themselves the "elite" yet in their 40's if their parents cut off their Trust Funds they wouldn't even be able to get a job cleaning toilets.
Makes sense.....this is definitely consistent witht he related trm "elitist", which has definitely been perjorative for a long time.
The playmakers. Those who have the power to influence a great number of things, yet live by a second set of rules we don't have afforded to us. They're above the law. Supported by fanboys and fangirls who parrot that their pols of choice are above reproach, thus allowing them to get away with more than we would.
I don't think Trump is in this category. You have to have a wide network globally in the political arena. He's chump change when it comes to influencing anything. Think Clinton's, Soros, Pelosi.
You don't think Trump has influence? Or ever had it as a corporate mogul? Those guys don't just deal in real estate, you know.
Most elites don't even know they're part of it. That's how the elite rule the country so efficiently. They staff business executive boards, media reporting, and public office. They all agree on the same fundamentals (corporate investment good, imperialism good, private capital good), they just disagree on how to promote these ideals.
Most elites don't even know they're part of it. That's how the elite rule the country so efficiently. They staff business executive boards, media reporting, and public office. They all agree on the same fundamentals (corporate investment good, imperialism good, private capital good), they just disagree on how to promote these ideals.
They sure as hell do know they're part of it and they take advantage of it every chance they get.
In contemportary political discourse, what does it mean to be a member of the "elite"?
I ask this in all seriousness, because I don't beleive we have a common definition.
The trditiona definition, in my mind, is someone who has attained a level of higher education and a professional job and/or worked himself or herself into a powerful political and/or business position, regardless of educational achievement. It is being in the top X% of society, measured by social, economic and power indicators.
I'm just not sure that is what the term "elite" means in popular political discourse in the U.S. Trump is obviously the one that comes to mind here. He consistenyl criticies the "elite" and eparates himself from them. But by most trditi0onal measures, he would seem to be the deinition of "elite".
Most people characterize Warren as "elite", which I would agree with based on my traditional vie of the definition. She wasa professor at HArvard, has achieved a certain amount of personal wealth and has power as a member of Congress. However, she is from fairly humble beginnings. In my view, the beginnings aren't as imortant as where you are at a given time, but on balance you would think someone who was born into a wealthy and powerful family would be more "elite" than one who was not.
This is not intended as a partisan post. I would throw out the Kennedys as a prime example of elite. I just get the sense that the term has morphed into a term alluding to a political stance that people associate with higher education and less about the more traditional social-economic inidcators of the term.
IS it simply an evolution in meaning of the term? If it still means someone who is in the upper X% of society in terms of achievement, why is it consered a negiative thing?
'Elite' as a term of art was never intended to connote how observers felt about them, but rather about how the 'elite' actually view themselves. Their globalist media is so confident of this view of themselves that in early 2009, Newsweek Magazine published a cover entitled "The New Global Elite." (You can google: newsweek new global elite cover.)
As such the term is intrinsic to New World Order theory.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
