By Douglas V. Gibbs @ Political Pistachio: Depends on what your definition of Elitist is. . .
The Democrats have done all they can to convince you that Republicans are plutocrats - people who believe in a government run by the wealthy.
A handful of times, I have heard the liberal left call Mitt Romney an elitist, a term used often by conservatives regarding the democrat office holders that somehow believe they are a part of a ruling elite.
In a Free Market System the producers of society become wealthy. The opportunity to become a producer that becomes wealthy is available across the board, but it does not come easy. Sacrifices are made, risks are taken, and after the dust settles products are produced, and jobs are created. The wealthy are the cogs in our economic engine, making sure the gears turn and the society advances. Not all people achieve this status, and therefore they are not entitled to the fruits of the labors of the successful.
For the Democrats to push a soak the rich with high taxes policy, and to demonize these people with vicious political rhetoric, is nothing short of staggering. During a time when our financial system teeters upon collapse, the last thing you should want to do is attack those who are most likely to succeed. The wealthy are the investors, the beneficiaries of successful new businesses (because they took the risks that others wouldn't), the job creators and larger than average consumers. In a time of economic difficulties, it is those people we need most to succeed, and to overtax them, or over-regulate them, is to ensure that our economy does not grow.
President Obama has been pushing for over a trillion dollars in tax hikes against the rich, including what they can get from expiring the current rates at the end of the year (Bush Tax Cuts as they like to call them).
They've got to pay their fair share, we are told, though the wealthy already pays the vast majority of taxes (the top one percent pays 40 percent of all income taxes). Most millionaires pay a 35 percent current tax rate on personal income from salaries, bonuses, and small-business income. What the democrats are trying to do is penalize investment, risk-taking, and job creation even further.
Historically, soaking the rich lowers tax revenue because less people want to be rich, and the wealthy find ways to protect their assets, be it by backing off on how much they bring in, using various tax shelters, or taking their money off-shore.
The strategy by the Democrats is political, not economic. Obama, and the liberal democrats, are engaging in class warfare where they wish to demonize the wealthy (or at least the wealth of people who aren't governmental power brokers like themselves), and they only cut the rich a break when they are willing to work with the democrats in power (a tactic as old as this country, and it was called "mercantilism" back in the day).
Which brings us back to the Democrats calling Mitt Romney an elitist.
As with most of the games the liberal left plays, they are working to control the conversation by setting the parameters, and changing definitions if necessary. Since Republicans have been calling the liberal left elitists because of the Democrat Party's affinity for embracing the characteristics of a ruling elite, the leftists have determined that the way to neutralize the term "elitist" is to adopt it for themselves, and change its definition.
To the progressives an elitist is a plutocrat.
It is one thing to be an elite in the sense of intellect, or wealth. In the sense of success, Mitt Romney definitely fits the definition of "elite." But that does not make him an elitist.
To trace the meaning of the term "elitist," one needs to go all the way back to the ruling classes in Europe during the time period of the founding of this nation.
A number of the Founding Fathers could have been referred to as being among the elite. They were learned men. Many of them knew Latin, and French, in addition to English. In Ameirca, however, to be in government, and be among the elite, was expected to also be accompanied by these people remaining virtuous. Human Nature can lead the talented elite to desire more power, to crave controlling others through institutions such as governmental systems. This is why checks and balances were put into place. Though the talented elite ought to be the ones chosen to run government, if they were to become "elitists", there must be a mechanism in place to stop the growth of government in the hands of such elitists.
The Constitution was designed to enable the talented elite, who often, thanks to their talents, are wealthy, to become leaders in the government, while so constraining them that their authorities are limited to only those powers necessary to protect, preserve, and promote the union. The way to ensure the elite did not become elitists was to ensure that no person was trusted with the powers of government independently of the oversight by the people.
However, too much power in the hands of the people can be dangerous, too. That is why we are not a democracy, we are a republic. As much as there was a mistrust of a ruling class, there was also a mistrust of the masses.
Therein lies the difficulty in how to fashion our government. How could they ensure the power of government remained in the hands of the people, while ensuring the political savvy of the elite ran the government.
Limiting principles, as expressly enumerated in the Constitution, tells the government its limits.
The frame of reference the Founding Fathers had was Europe. The Monarchs and nobles of Europe considered themselves to be elites, not because of talent, education, or wealth, but because they were in power, and those people believed it was their destiny to be in power. It was as if they believed they were ordained to be leaders, and if you didn't like it, tough.
As elitists they believed they knew better about the common good than did the people. The average citizen is not able to know what is best for themselves, or society, according to these elitists, and therefore the day to day lives, if necessary, must be controlled by the ruling elite.
So, is Romney an elite? Sure. He's smart, he's successful, and he's wealthy because of his hard work.
It is that kind of elite that folks like Thomas Jefferson wanted to be leaders in our nation.
Is Romney an elitist? No. He does not believe he has some divine right to the Office of President. He does not believe that it is government's job to control all facets over our lives. He realizes the federal government is limited to only the powers of the union - protecting, promoting, and preserving the union. All other issues belong to the States, and the people.
The elitists are those who think they should be a superior ruling class ruling over the people, and those people inhabit the Democrat Party.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
The Democrats have done all they can to convince you that Republicans are plutocrats - people who believe in a government run by the wealthy.
A handful of times, I have heard the liberal left call Mitt Romney an elitist, a term used often by conservatives regarding the democrat office holders that somehow believe they are a part of a ruling elite.
In a Free Market System the producers of society become wealthy. The opportunity to become a producer that becomes wealthy is available across the board, but it does not come easy. Sacrifices are made, risks are taken, and after the dust settles products are produced, and jobs are created. The wealthy are the cogs in our economic engine, making sure the gears turn and the society advances. Not all people achieve this status, and therefore they are not entitled to the fruits of the labors of the successful.
For the Democrats to push a soak the rich with high taxes policy, and to demonize these people with vicious political rhetoric, is nothing short of staggering. During a time when our financial system teeters upon collapse, the last thing you should want to do is attack those who are most likely to succeed. The wealthy are the investors, the beneficiaries of successful new businesses (because they took the risks that others wouldn't), the job creators and larger than average consumers. In a time of economic difficulties, it is those people we need most to succeed, and to overtax them, or over-regulate them, is to ensure that our economy does not grow.
President Obama has been pushing for over a trillion dollars in tax hikes against the rich, including what they can get from expiring the current rates at the end of the year (Bush Tax Cuts as they like to call them).
They've got to pay their fair share, we are told, though the wealthy already pays the vast majority of taxes (the top one percent pays 40 percent of all income taxes). Most millionaires pay a 35 percent current tax rate on personal income from salaries, bonuses, and small-business income. What the democrats are trying to do is penalize investment, risk-taking, and job creation even further.
Historically, soaking the rich lowers tax revenue because less people want to be rich, and the wealthy find ways to protect their assets, be it by backing off on how much they bring in, using various tax shelters, or taking their money off-shore.
The strategy by the Democrats is political, not economic. Obama, and the liberal democrats, are engaging in class warfare where they wish to demonize the wealthy (or at least the wealth of people who aren't governmental power brokers like themselves), and they only cut the rich a break when they are willing to work with the democrats in power (a tactic as old as this country, and it was called "mercantilism" back in the day).
Which brings us back to the Democrats calling Mitt Romney an elitist.
As with most of the games the liberal left plays, they are working to control the conversation by setting the parameters, and changing definitions if necessary. Since Republicans have been calling the liberal left elitists because of the Democrat Party's affinity for embracing the characteristics of a ruling elite, the leftists have determined that the way to neutralize the term "elitist" is to adopt it for themselves, and change its definition.
To the progressives an elitist is a plutocrat.
It is one thing to be an elite in the sense of intellect, or wealth. In the sense of success, Mitt Romney definitely fits the definition of "elite." But that does not make him an elitist.
To trace the meaning of the term "elitist," one needs to go all the way back to the ruling classes in Europe during the time period of the founding of this nation.
A number of the Founding Fathers could have been referred to as being among the elite. They were learned men. Many of them knew Latin, and French, in addition to English. In Ameirca, however, to be in government, and be among the elite, was expected to also be accompanied by these people remaining virtuous. Human Nature can lead the talented elite to desire more power, to crave controlling others through institutions such as governmental systems. This is why checks and balances were put into place. Though the talented elite ought to be the ones chosen to run government, if they were to become "elitists", there must be a mechanism in place to stop the growth of government in the hands of such elitists.
The Constitution was designed to enable the talented elite, who often, thanks to their talents, are wealthy, to become leaders in the government, while so constraining them that their authorities are limited to only those powers necessary to protect, preserve, and promote the union. The way to ensure the elite did not become elitists was to ensure that no person was trusted with the powers of government independently of the oversight by the people.
However, too much power in the hands of the people can be dangerous, too. That is why we are not a democracy, we are a republic. As much as there was a mistrust of a ruling class, there was also a mistrust of the masses.
Therein lies the difficulty in how to fashion our government. How could they ensure the power of government remained in the hands of the people, while ensuring the political savvy of the elite ran the government.
Limiting principles, as expressly enumerated in the Constitution, tells the government its limits.
The frame of reference the Founding Fathers had was Europe. The Monarchs and nobles of Europe considered themselves to be elites, not because of talent, education, or wealth, but because they were in power, and those people believed it was their destiny to be in power. It was as if they believed they were ordained to be leaders, and if you didn't like it, tough.
As elitists they believed they knew better about the common good than did the people. The average citizen is not able to know what is best for themselves, or society, according to these elitists, and therefore the day to day lives, if necessary, must be controlled by the ruling elite.
So, is Romney an elite? Sure. He's smart, he's successful, and he's wealthy because of his hard work.
It is that kind of elite that folks like Thomas Jefferson wanted to be leaders in our nation.
Is Romney an elitist? No. He does not believe he has some divine right to the Office of President. He does not believe that it is government's job to control all facets over our lives. He realizes the federal government is limited to only the powers of the union - protecting, promoting, and preserving the union. All other issues belong to the States, and the people.
The elitists are those who think they should be a superior ruling class ruling over the people, and those people inhabit the Democrat Party.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
