Why does America hate "intellectual elitist" politicians?

Yes, but when speaking about Washington, one always consider the fact that he was a drunk. He had teeth made out of hippopotamus bone because his wooden ones kept turning brown from all the liquor. He spent something like the modern equivalent of $100,000/year on alcohol.

Originally Posted by Sage of Earth

I think you've fallen into the trap of thinking that here, "elitism" means "to think oneself part of an elite group superior to others", as opposed to "expects better from people". The way I understand it, an "intellectual elitist" would be someone who promotes learning, thinks that knowledge is something important to be treasured and something to strive for, not something that is insignificant and should be ignored. As opposed to someone who thinks of themselves as intellectual, and therefore superior. As such, someone who opposes "intellectual elitism", the way I understand it, is someone who is opposed to learning.

No, Intellectualism is a belief that learning is good and should be strived for and that they bring benefits to the world. Intellectual elitism is the belief that if a person does not possess intellectualism and the above beliefs he is in fact on a lower scale of humanity and does not deserve to be considered or have his opinions heard.

See the difference? You can think that chocolate ice cream is better than vanilla without actively scorning people who think chocolate is gross.

Also George Washington turning down the position of King has nothing to do with a lack of elitism. He could easily think that a republican ideology is better than a monarchic one, and so being a republican ideologist, he would think following an idea he supports is better than following one he doesn't.

Of course it does - if he was an elitist, he would assume (as many do) that he would be far more capable of putting in the best reforms for the people if he had absolute power over the government. Everyone thinks this sometimes, but only an elitist would actually go so far as to give himself that sort of power. King George I would have been able to quickly make and enforce the taxation laws whose congressional and court delays led to Shay's Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion, and the country would have been far more better off if they had. But obviously, the Congress thought one way, the Court thought another, and George Washington was only able to do so much with the situation he was put into.

Also, George Washington and pretty much *every* member of every Continental Congress had serious issues with every document put before them. It took almost seven years and hundreds of drafts to write the Constitution, and it took three more years to get every single state to actually sign the stupid document!

I feel I have to comment on this. "From each according to their ability, to each according to their need" is not "from each according to their ability, to each according to their laziness". That slogan says "from each according to their ability" - those who are able should work. "To each according to their need" - if you are in need, what you can't make up for in ability will be given to you by those who have plenty of ability to spare. If you have that ability, and don't work, this ideology theoretically doesn't cover you.

You seem to be in the mindset that everyone who doesn't have a job, or who receives benefits, is in fact lazy and has made bad decisions in life. Plenty of people make mistakes, and plenty of people, especially in the modern day, genuinely cannot find a job. Some people actually need the help due to an inability to work, such as illness or serious injury. Should you be persecuted because you decided to quit school twenty years ago because you wanted to work to help support your poor family, and now realise it wasn't a very good choice, but can't turn back time and rectify it? Should you be unable to function in life because there's no job available for you, as plenty in today's society have to? Should you have to suffer if you are unable to WALK, let alone work?

Yes, there are some who abuse the system, and there are some who genuinely are too lazy to go out and get a job, but there are more people who genuinely NEED the support. We can't throw the whole box away just because of a few bad eggs.

And who says that people *have* to give things to other people, or even how much? The socialist governments say "this person needs x, y, and z to live and you have to give it to them", without seriously considering the specifics of a case. By definition, since a large government has to deal with so many people, it is impossible for it to consider things "on an individual basis". The person who doesn't have a legal job and is selling drugs out of their new BMW gets the same amount of money from the government as the poor laid-off mill worker who supports half a dozen kids through school and is caring for four sick grandparents on the side. The same thing happens for charities - as soon as a government comes in and says "you must donate $xx.xx in tax money to this system, it becomes an elitist system. It doesn't matter whether you support the person or their cause or not - you still HAVE to give the money or face such things as audits and jail time. There are some things that compulsory government payments make sense for, but welfare donations do not make sense in this context. Private charities had been handling these situations just fine for years before Social Security, Medical Aid, and other such things came along.

If a person thinks that another person needs help, they will often do everything they can to do it themselves - if they don't do it, it's either because they don't think another person needs/deserves aid or because they don't have the money on hand because their taxes are so high. :3

A private group of volunteers, even without any public money, can almost always handle distributing aid far better than private institutions ever can. The people who volunteer and run such groups are more personally concerned with the welfare of those around them, whereas the people distributing welfare checks and benefits are, in the end, stuck there if they have any hope of making their own living.

Originally Posted by hypno_toad

Yes, but when speaking about Washington, one always consider the fact that he was a drunk. He had teeth made out of hippopotamus bone because his wooden ones kept turning brown from all the liquor. He spent something like the modern equivalent of $100,000/year on alcohol.

That's what happens when you run one of the largest whiskey distilleries in the entire country.

Two giant walls of text that were ignited by one measly sentence.....

Originally Posted by cpu0

3b. It's mainly a belief in 'survival of the fittest' as a moral. Most of them think that since they are elite by their standards, they are the fittest to deal with the rest. Nazism and Communism are two examples of this philosophy.

*Jumps over the great wall of ZU*

ok....*whew*

"I think you've fallen into the trap of thinking that here, "elitism" means "to think oneself part of an elite group superior to others", as opposed to "expects better from people". The way I understand it, an "intellectual elitist" would be someone who promotes learning, thinks that knowledge is something important to be treasured and something to strive for, not something that is insignificant and should be ignored."--S.O.E

I see truth in both aspects. this>> "elitism" means "to think oneself part of an elite group superior to others" << is how the person in questioned if viewed by others. for example the "general public"

this>> an "intellectual elitist" would be someone who promotes learning, thinks that knowledge is something important to be treasured and something to strive for<< is how the person actually is, or is at least that's how they perceive themselves to be.

make sense?

Well, let's put this into the context of electing people to official positions in government, including the presidency. Do I want someone in there who thinks s/he's better than I am? I don't think that's the point. I'm sure that George W. Bush thinks he's better than I am. You don't have to be majorly intellectual to think that you're better than other people. So if I'm going to elect someone who thinks s/he's better than I am, at least that person should be intelligent.

The topic of this discussion isn't whether or not being an intellectual person means you're smart or what have you. It's why American voters seem to be so highly critical of those who are considered intellectually elite. It's about why Gore lost in 2000 (saddest day of my life, kids). It's about why Obama is being slammed for being "too intellectual."

Guy's there is something you need to understand. So far, there has been no such thing as a politician who truely wants to help the people. There are only politicians who A. don't care about the people's problems, or B. will only be willing to contribute a little bit so then they can say they will solve them next term.

Most people tend to not like "intellectual elitists".

That's why we have to support the champion of the common man, Barack Obama. He truly is the Jesus Christ of our times.

except Jesus wasn't a political savior, he was a spiritual savior.

Originally Posted by andi

No, Intellectualism is a belief that learning is good and should be strived for and that they bring benefits to the world. Intellectual elitism is the belief that if a person does not possess intellectualism and the above beliefs he is in fact on a lower scale of humanity and does not deserve to be considered or have his opinions heard.

See the difference? You can think that chocolate ice cream is better than vanilla without actively scorning people who think chocolate is gross.

Plus as Morval pointed out, I'm clearly wrong. Oh well.

But in response to Morval, I simply thought "intellectual elitism" was a case of "intellect is elite" rather than "those who are intellectual are elite", but yeah.

Of course it does - if he was an elitist, he would assume (as many do) that he would be far more capable of putting in the best reforms for the people if he had absolute power over the government. Everyone thinks this sometimes, but only an elitist would actually go so far as to give himself that sort of power. King George I would have been able to quickly make and enforce the taxation laws whose congressional and court delays led to Shay's Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion, and the country would have been far more better off if they had. But obviously, the Congress thought one way, the Court thought another, and George Washington was only able to do so much with the situation he was put into.

Also, George Washington and pretty much *every* member of every Continental Congress had serious issues with every document put before them. It took almost seven years and hundreds of drafts to write the Constitution, and it took three more years to get every single state to actually sign the stupid document!

If you were an intellectual elitist, you wouldn't form a monarchy, because that means your possibly stupid son gets to rule in your stead once you're gone.

And who says that people *have* to give things to other people, or even how much? The socialist governments say "this person needs x, y, and z to live and you have to give it to them", without seriously considering the specifics of a case. By definition, since a large government has to deal with so many people, it is impossible for it to consider things "on an individual basis". The person who doesn't have a legal job and is selling drugs out of their new BMW gets the same amount of money from the government as the poor laid-off mill worker who supports half a dozen kids through school and is caring for four sick grandparents on the side. The same thing happens for charities - as soon as a government comes in and says "you must donate $xx.xx in tax money to this system, it becomes an elitist system. It doesn't matter whether you support the person or their cause or not - you still HAVE to give the money or face such things as audits and jail time. There are some things that compulsory government payments make sense for, but welfare donations do not make sense in this context. Private charities had been handling these situations just fine for years before Social Security, Medical Aid, and other such things came along.

Yes, the drug dealer gets as much as the mill worker because if the government knew that the drug dealer was dishonest, they would have arrested him. Benefit fraud is a crime, and people have been prosecuted for it. At no point was it ever part of the plan that people who don't deserve the money should get it. And the people who DO need the help shouldn't be refused it just because there are a few people who DON'T conning the system a bit.

Also I'm sure here the mill worker gets more per child, but if that isn't the case in America, that's a case of America's system being buggered, quite frankly.

If a person thinks that another person needs help, they will often do everything they can to do it themselves - if they don't do it, it's either because they don't think another person needs/deserves aid or because they don't have the money on hand because their taxes are so high. :3

No they won't. People won't help anyone unless A) there's something in it for them, B) they're actually helpful people at heart (which you seem to be under the impression that there are many people like this, when in fact there are very little, and they won't be able to cover all of those in need, in fact they'd be lucky if they could cover even a fraction), or C) the government tells them to.

Plus, their taxes are so high because they're paying towards that help through the taxes.

A private group of volunteers, even without any public money, can almost always handle distributing aid far better than private institutions ever can. The people who volunteer and run such groups are more personally concerned with the welfare of those around them, whereas the people distributing welfare checks and benefits are, in the end, stuck there if they have any hope of making their own living.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Volunteers can help poor people even without money better than the government can?

Originally Posted by Sapphira

Well, you want to elect someone who thinks like you do, who you think will have your best interests in mind.

I'm certainly not saying that I wouldn't want Obama in office, and I wish with all my heart that Gore had been elected eight years ago. I think the backlash against the intellectual politician might be because many people think that then government won't be doing what they want government to be doing, or that people think that intellectual politicians will ignore the every-person, or even look down on the general populace.

Of course, the funny thing is that I don't understand why a less intellectual politician in office is better. I want someone in office who understands foreign policy beyond "America pwnz all; bomb the infidel." I want someone who doesn't let religion get in the way of general reason (because we are not a theocracy, folks). I want someone who can find a way to eliminate our debt (legally) and rebuild a surplus. I want someone who can figure out a way to get gas prices down so I can stop paying $55 to fill the tank of my SEDAN.

And you know what? I don't think an every-person can solve all these problems.

I dont vote democratic because they think abortion is okay and abortion is murder

Well, your not a fetus/zygote so you shouldn't be butting your nose into other peoples' business. and here's the abortion thread. Abortion.

*edit*

and I'm fairly sure that there are pro-choice republicans out there as well as pro-life democrats.

Originally Posted by DrZaius1

Most people tend to not like "intellectual elitists".

That's why we have to support the champion of the common man, Barack Obama. He truly is the Jesus Christ of our times.

I may be athiest but I'm going to say that's far from the truth and that I don't like Obama.

Well, your arguement is good, but you made one flaw. You said America, meaning the entire country and ignored most of billions of people that have there own opinions and went of a group of people or an improper statistic. All I'm saying is: check your **** and see it's legit before you speak. No I'm not trying to be mean, I'm just tired of people saying stupid stuff.

Originally Posted by Tatle

I dont vote democratic because they think abortion is okay and abortion is murder

I think voting over abortion is a silly issue to be voting on. Especially since I doubt Roe v Wade would ever be overturned.

Also: YouTube - I'm Voting Republican

Originally Posted by Dr_Doak

I may be athiest but I'm going to say that's far from the truth and that I don't like Obama.

But, Obama is the best thing since sliced bread!

Originally Posted by Tatle

I dont vote democratic because they think abortion is okay and abortion is murder

Right, because that's EXACTLY what we're talking about, and every Democrat has the exact same views.

Originally Posted by Dr_Doak

I may be athiest but I'm going to say that's far from the truth and that I don't like Obama.

There were people who said that Jesus Christ being the Jesus Christ of his time was far from the truth, and they didn't like him either.

Originally Posted by Eternal Paradox

But, Obama is the best thing since sliced bread!

No, he's not.

Originally Posted by DrZaius1

There were people who said that Jesus Christ being the Jesus Christ of his time was far from the truth, and they didn't like him either.

well, that's because they didn't want a spiritual savior, they wanted a political savior. They were expecting one thing and got another, so it was sour grapes all around.

I wouldn't go so far as to say obama is the "JC" of our time, however I would venture to say he has the potential to be the next Kennedy. He seems to have that aura about him, and I think the magic of it will only increase if he's voted into office. Like Kennedy he's youthful and has less experience in the political ring, and that will be both a blessing and a curse during the first year. After he gets the hang of it during the 1st year he'll have great potential I think.

Obama is a combination of Abraham Lincoln and John F. Kennedy. If you want to talk about saviors, the former is the greatest savior in the history of this country, with only Roosevelt being anywhere near ballpark.

Originally Posted by DrZaius1

Obama is a combination of Abraham Lincoln and John F. Kennedy. If you want to talk about saviors, the former is the greatest savior in the history of this country, with only Roosevelt being anywhere near ballpark.

Hmm, what is the connection of Obama and Abe Lincoln? I agree that Abe and JKF are two big ones, but what's the connection between Obama and Abe?

Maybe like Kennedy and Lincoln he'll be assassinated too. I see that as a great possibility. Even in our day and age.