Elitism Rushdoony Analysis

In America, our political system was just as greatly influenced by Caesar, which would create a place for democracy, where both classes of wealthy or poor, every citizen’s voices and opinions would be heard in our country. However the elites still resort to “gentlemen’s history” by arguing that whether the ignorant that believe that politics and history are only about power, the elitist still believed that living this way was the only way for them.

unique voices. While some philosophers have similar opinions on what it takes to be an effective leader, such as intelligence and worldliness, there are many that disagree on traits they find beneficial. The reasons for these disagreements are vast but one of the crucial factors are the societies and historical eras these authors were nurtured within. Through their own experiences with government and turmoil, philosophers are able to give their critiques on government and human nature as a whole. Socrates and Machiavelli, both philosophers in what it means to be a proper leader and the role of the people within a society, share contrasting views.

Elite rule is the form of rule we should strive for. The basis of elite rule is the concentration of power in the hands of the few, bringing with it stability of government and ‘protection-against-tyranny’ (Held, 1987). There are three main strands of elitism: classical, democratic and modern elitism. Democratic elitism is the most desirable form for government and is associated with Max Weber and Joseph Schumpeter. They argue for the constant competition between elite rulers and groups which results in the emergence of a competent ruling class. Constant elite competition is the central concept of Democratic elitism, as it is the reason for many of the benefits. These include producing the best leaders and ensuring a system of checks and balances between elites. This constant competition makes the process democratic and accountable, ensuring there are no abusive forces at play within the state. Elitism focuses on the distribution of power within the state, taking an arena based approach. In contrast, Democracy is associated with individual rights, liberties and freedoms, such as freedom of speech, and the ability to affect change. Although the initial aims of democratic elitism are not to provide the rights that democracy does it can still, and does, produce those rights. Therefore, I shall be arguing that the competitive nature of democratic elitism provides benefits but also produces the aspects of democracy that people value highly, without the chaos and instability of a

In Plato’s Republic a person duty is determined by their natural ability. Unlike Thomas Mores Utopia, Socrates believes that a person should focus on achieving the most for themselves rather than the community being primary purpose. Plato’s Republic greatly supports the idea of inequality, and shows that social stratification is essential for the movement of the economy. For a country to function, there must be some sort of hierarchy and inequality. In page 118 of the republic Socrates states that he “leaves it to each class to achieve the kind of happiness that nature confers it”(pg. 18). Citizens in each class must work hard to prosper in theirs own class. People in the Republic must have the mentality of working hard for themselves. What they don’t realize is the domino effect that is triggered. As they work more, the classes above them are also greatly impacted because they are able to benefit. Social Stratification is valued in Socrates to a certain extend. Socrates mentions the importance of each member in each class to be apart of neither wealth nor poverty. In Plato’s republic, the importance of not being rich and not being poor is greatly expressed. Socrates gives Adeimantus the example of the craftsman.

Alluding to the previous analogy, there is a benefit, however, to them being in a government position. The elite who have achieved their position because of their virtue and their dedication, rather than solely relying on their wealth, it is those individuals who, if indeed forming an ambition within that role, is instead influenced towards their duties of their public service, benefiting the public, rather than turning towards personal gain, in which case it is the public who benefits from the elite being in office, rather than the sole the elite individual in the position(1778). In addition, a larger group would breed more confusion than cooperation, leading to increased difficult and incompetence in properly representing the American people, whereas the few, the elite, a smaller group of representatives, would be easier to manage in terms of operations, leading to increased efficiency in terms of proper representation and interpretation of the desires and interests of the American public (Hamilton,

Glenn E. Hoover submits a slightly different approach, suggesting that Jefferson was not a supporter of elitism but instead “he recognized that there was among men, a natural aristocracy of ability. However, these differences…did not justify any unequal treatment”. Therefore, it can be seen that Jeffersonian democracy did not favour the privileged but recognised their existence within society, acknowledging the ability for people to transcend social classes through their own efforts.

Although citizens vote for their elected leaders in Canada, the United States, and other countries with electoral systems, Canada and none of these other countries are democracies. A democracy is a system in which the people decide government policy. In Canada and other countries that are mistakenly called democracies, the power of the people is limited to choosing their leaders. These leaders generally have more knowledge than the average citizens, who trust that this superior knowledge of their leaders will result in rational policies. Therefore, even the electoral system in Canada theoretically should meet Plato’s desires for who leads a government. Of course, the difference between Canada’s system and Plato’s ideal is the fact that there is no actual requirement for superior knowledge among the candidates that run for office. In addition, there is no actual requirement that the citizens who vote for these leaders have superior knowledge to make this determination. As a result, Canadian citizens are disappointed with their leaders because they reflect the ignorance of Canadian citizens, few of whom have superior knowledge as required by Plato. Nevertheless, this system is superior to what Plato desires because in reality a system of elitism in government never actually results in superior results. Rather, it leads to despotism.

Plato (427-347) was a prototypical eventual result of this culmination. Like Pericles he also came from an aristocratic family as is common of creative intellectuals to emerge from distinguished and professional families. When Solon and later Cleisthenes (both noblemen) battled for the lower class by instituting their reforms for the progression of democracy, they didn’t obliterate the aristocratic class completely, Solon even claims that he hadn’t “favored one party over anther,” but tread a line of compromise between the interests of the aristocracy and the proletariat. It is possible that this preservation of the aristocratic class, when paired with the opportunity of upward mobility was beneficial

In The Republic, Plato attempts to deconstruct and solve a central question of government: who should rule. In tackling the quandary of justice, he considers the ideal polis or kallipolis, a collective unit of self-government, and the relationship between the structure of the Republic and its attainment. Plato pontificates that philosopher-kings should be the ultimate authority, they possess special knowledge, which is required to rule the kallipolis successfully and optimise the happiness of its citizens. Plato argues that “there will be no end to the troubles of states… humanity itself, till philosophers become kings in the world… and political power and philosophy thus come into the same hands” (Plato, 212b-c). The kallipolis is a just city where political rule is predicated not on power, but knowledge. Nonetheless, Plato recognises that power plays an essential role in the function of the kallipolis and the modern state. Plato’s argument for the philosopher-kings’ rule is not realistic, however traces of the characteristics of his normative form of rule appear in the modern state. Nonetheless, it is necessary to highlight aspects of the modern state congruent to those of the kallipolis. The essay will conclude that, in terms of Plato’s argument, the philosopher-kings should govern; Plato advertises a republican political system, implemented through meritocracy.

The Greek philosopher, Aristotle once stated: “The character which wealth results is that of a prosperous fool.” Although Aristotle lived in a world that many would argue does not exist today, his statement still holds truth and is applicable to current events in modern era, specifically within the United States government. For years wealthier American citizens have soared above their less wealthier counterparts in politics, education, employment, and privilege. Those who are blinded by this privilege may contend that it does not exist, but there are various theories that support this ideology. For example, the elite and class theory states “societies are divided along class lines and that an upper-class elite will rule, regardless of the formal

Thus, for Plato, the concept of the harmonious soul is analogous to the harmonious state. When the three parts of the soul, the rational part, the desirous part and the passionate part, of individuals are harmonious then the soul is said to be just (Republic, 440c-441a). Likewise, the state is said to be just when its three analogous parts - the rulers, guardians and craftsmen - are in harmony with one another and do the duties for which they are best suited in doing (Republic, 434c). These embodiments of the virtues must be static for Plato. If the different classes were to change their roles then this would lead to degeneration (ibid). Hence, in Plato’s political theory, the nature and structure of the soul are analogous to the nature and structure of society.

Plato was a mentor of Aristotle lending ideas to his student about composition and operation of citizens, city state, and political regimes. Although Aristotle criticized Plato’s notion of ranking democracy at a fourth position out of five competing systems of government, he agreed with Plato that democracy is the corrupt form of government as it violates justice of proportionality. The concept of justice of proportionality is to answer who is the most deserving. This is explained in an analogy of whoever deserves the best flute. A rich or a handsome man have no business with the flute, but the best flute player does. Similarly, in political competition, according to Plato, the man most deserving to rule is the either a philosophers king or for Aristotle, the most educated man in the field of politics.

Conceived by Greek philosophers Aristotle and Plato, aristocracy means the rule of the few best(morally and intellectually superior) governing in the interest of the entire population.

Elitist theory is the oldest conception of power. It shows the power as a tool in the hands of a limited person or a group. We see the beginning of elitist theory and its justification in the thoughts of Plato, Aristotle, Machiavelli and Hobbes. It was the Plato who put forward the rule of ‘Philosopher King’ who has the wisdom over the mass who failed to control their appetite. Aristotle who was mostly concerned about the stability of the politics suggests the rule of the minority over the majority. “The Prince’ written by Machiavelli describes how the ruler control the forces of human nature as a part of his statecraft. For Hobbes the sovereign and omnipotent Leviathan is the synonym of the power. The elitist theory which emerged as a critique to Marxist notion questions the possibility of an egalitarian society. Unlike class theory they argue that people differ in their natural attributes and hence the social stratification is never negligible. While early theorists like Pareto and Mosca talk on the personal attributes of elites, later theorists focus on the institutional framework. The term ‘elite’ was used by Pareto to indicate superior social group 6. He proves that ‘the history of mankind is a graveyard of aristocracy. Mosca tried to conceptualize the

From a sociological point of view, elitism deals with class structures. Marx describes these class structures and what makes certain individuals "High Class" or "important". "The separation of ownership from the management and control of industry" (Penguin Books, 1994, p.58). Marxists see political élites as "bad guys" - theoretically, it is because they represent a small portion of the population and are believed to control most of the political power and money. However, Plato’s Republic offers a different standpoint. In his work, political élites are seen as "good guys" - wise, virtuous, and knowledgeable. It is difficult to define elitism, however. The above definition, first and foremost, deals with financial status. What’s more, Plato’s opinions and definitions of elites are blatantly out of date. Though political élites are predominately high-class and wealthy, it does not explain interest groups and lobbyists. The men and women in these groups are, on the whole, not particularly "rich" or "important". What makes them truly important or powerful is that they alter public opinion (The media works in the same way, however this will be discussed later). The idea that elites shape public opinion applies to all elites as well. Not to mention the fact that the majority of Canadians have negative attitudes toward political elites. As a common sense definition we see the actual people who are elites as "fat cats": Rich, privileged, with no concern for the