Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: frankw1900 who wrote (86418)	11/16/2004 7:00:47 AM
From: unclewest	Respond to of 793707

Since the US election finished we've read and heard an awful lot of disrespectful stuff said about the supporters of both political parties. Not a good sign. Enough already! I agree with you there. Some don't seem to understand the last fight is over. GW won JK lost. It is time now to support the winner. 2 or 3 years from now will be time enough to prepare for the next fight.

To: frankw1900 who wrote (86418)	11/16/2004 12:57:11 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793707

The problem is with the application of the term "elite". Properly, an elite represents the highest standards in a field of endeavor. We speak of "the elite" when referring to those generally respected for achievement within society, or when we confuse it will social class. But the term is fairly restrictive. Elites are competent to judge within their own fields of endeavor, but have no special privileges outside of those fields, functioning merely as intelligent laymen. But the picture is more complicated due to specialization. Consider that the curriculum followed by two physics students, one aiming at a graduate degree in nuclear physics, the other aiming at plasma physics, might diverge sharply from their junior years, as they prepare for their grad school prerequisites. Then, of course, in graduate school their research might become more and more specialized, so that they have little in common with others even in their ostensible specialty, past a point. Thus, a physicist might be no better qualified to speak on an issue outside of his specialty than someone who had taken a few physics courses as an undergraduate. In other words, the elite is noted for its achievement, but narrowed by its specialization into ignorance of much of the field. That is one reason why someone can be noted for expertise in a field without having credentials, as when we talk about Senators who are particularly knowledgeable about tax policy or military procurement. They may have, that is, about as much expertise as a professional ever acquires in the course of his study without having been introduced fully to the arcana of the profession. So, on the particular question of the "wisdom of the elite": first, the real elite includes not only those with a graduate degree, but all those with substantial achievement in American society, including businessmen. If you include everyone who qualifies, the elite is not so liberal after all. Second, the elites which are comprised within "the elite" frequently have no special qualification to speak on questions of public policy. Indeed, most socialists are in the humanities department, teaching English. In the economics and business departments, the faculties are much more conservative. Sociology tends to be liberal, but is pretty squishy as a discipline. Poli sci is more balanced, politically. Finally, those with advanced degrees are not necessarily in a better position to judge the more general question of public policy than those with a solid foundation in college and a lively interest in public policy thereafter. Someone who specializes in capital formation in Third World countries does not necessarily have a better informed opinion on the utility of lowering marginal tax rates in the United States than your ordinary college educated voter who has followed the debate.