Posted on 06/09/2002 10:34:35 PM PDT by GalvestonBeachcomber
Most Americans are so steeped in egalitarian thinking that they like to delude themselves that they share in running the country. We ordinary folks, in fact, don't run the country and have a slim-to-none chance of even influencing its direction.
Thomas R. Dye, a professor at Florida State University, has made a study of power. Since power in our country resides in institutions, he defines individuals with power as those who occupy the top positions in the government and in corporate, legal, educational, civic and cultural institutions.
He found that there are only about 7,000 of these positions in the entire United States, and some individuals occupy more than one of them. It might sound unbelievable at first, but if you think about it, you will see that it is true.
In a newspaper, for example, there is one position of power: the publisher. Now, he delegates some of his power to other people, but everyone knows that all decisions are ultimately his and his alone.
In the federal government there are only 546 positions of power. These include the president, the vice president, members of the House and Senate and the nine members of the Supreme Court. One hundred percent of the power of the federal government resides in these individuals who occupy the 546 positions. Everybody below them operates with delegated power. That is so because all power of the federal government comes from the Constitution, and these are the only constitutional offices. I don't include federal-, district- and appellate-court judges because any decision they make can be overturned by the Supreme Court.
So the individuals who occupy these 7,000 positions of power are the elite who run the country. Therefore, it is the character of these members of the elite that will determine the character of the country. What you see in government policies, in cultural products and in education policies are the direct result of the decisions made by this relatively small elite.
History affirms this. The reason America did not follow the usual path of revolution to dictatorship was solely the result of the character of one man, George Washington. Washington could have easily made himself dictator, and many of the officers in his army wanted him to do just that. But Washington's character would not allow it.
When the elite who run a country have good morals and high standards, then you have a good country. If the elite become corrupt, you have a corrupt country. The vulgarity, profanity and violence you see in entertainment are there only because those individuals occupying the positions of power in the entertainment industry said "Yes." If they said "No," those things would disappear from the screens and the magazine racks.
Our problem is that most of our elite have become corrupted. Many are nihilistic and hedonistic. The leadership of a country always leads the masses, and they can lead them to high ground or into the swamps. And there's not much I can see that ordinary people can do about it.
I have to confess that I have lost my Jeffersonian faith in the people. All I have ever seen them do, save for a few individuals, is follow like dogs whoever happened to be in leadership positions at the time.
Given the moral and intellectual climate at most of the elite universities our future leaders will attend, I don't have an optimistic outlook for the future of the country.
The rich elite become more and more able to do whatever they please,and get away with it.
The average man/woman gets more likely to go to prison for something thats supposed to be legal.
"It's time we asked ourselves if we still know the freedoms intended for us by the Founding Fathers. James Madison said, "We base all our experiments on the capacity of mankind for self government."
This idea? that government was beholden to the people, that it had no other source of power is still the newest, most unique idea in all the long history of man's relation to man. This is the issue of this election: Whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American Revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capital can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves."
President Ronald Reagan - A Time for Choosing, aka The Speech. Source
I can play your little game all night.
Just to be certain that we understand each other, whom do you consider to be " elite " ?
"From time to time, we have been tempted to believe that society has become too complex to be managed by self-rule, that government by an elite group is superior to government for, by, and of the people. But if no one among us is capable of governing himself, then who among us has the capacity to govern someone else? All of us together, in and out of government, must bear the burden. The solutions we seek must be equitable, with no one group singled out to pay a higher price."
President Ronald Reagan - Tuesday, January 20th, 1981. President Reagan's First Inaugural Address. Source
I`m related to Erskin Caldwell, but that doesn`t make me part of his family.
Whom do I consider to(consider themselves to) be elite?
Clintons, Bushes,Foxes,Greenspans,Fords,Rothschilds,Morgans and the list goes on.
No, I`m not wrong.
You missed the author's main point. The term is not necessarily pejorative.
When the elite who run a country have good morals and high standards, then you have a good country. If the elite become corrupt, you have a corrupt country.
We , as a nation, have been governed by " elites ", of one form or another. The FFs were no exception. Washington was " annointed "; to use mercy's terminology.
Jefferson was a hypocrite , a wasterl, and personally irresponsible.
Burr was Clintonian .
Franklin was a womanizer , as well as having other not so nice traits and habits.
That's just for starters. It's an unnecessary waste of bandwidth, to continue ... but fact is prefferable to myth.
Alan Greenspan wasn't anyone much ( as far as your deffinition of " elite " appears to be ) prior to his being made head of the Fed.
FOX ? As in Vincente ? He isn't an American and neither are the Rothchilds. What ... no Windsors ?
Okay, deny your family; it doesn't matter at all to me. Besides, did Caldwell have political and / or that much monetary clout ? NO !
You still haven't fully elained ( you just threw out a few names ) whom you think are the " elite ", nor why you think that they are.
There are far more wealthy , important, and yes, influencial people, than you know the names of. Neither are they " out to get you ", nor to destroy this country.
I hate to help you , but you aren't even bright enouh, to have thrown in the usual Rockefeller ( used as a slur ) name. I could supply you with many others ( since you desperately need all the help you can get ) , but shan't bother. LOL
I do understand though, that anybody who doesn't agree with you, is a MARXIST.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.