The left does support a hereditary ruling class, just like Europe. Union contracts for some American dock workers, and Mexican teachers, for example, allow children of union workers to inherit the position of their parents.
Good observations all. This explains some of what we see as irrationality on the left. They are just following the logic of their faulty assumptions right over the cliff. This probably suggests an apologetics that challenges those assumptions, much as one would do with a religious cult, because functionally that’s what we are dealing with.
And lest we delude ourselves into thinking rationality will kick in at the last moment and save us all from their self-endangering behavior, it is worth remembering what Jim Jones was able to accomplish with his little cult. Saying no to the koolaid has never been more important.
The elites within the Left believe that the only legitimate means of attaining economic success is via the media, politics [and law] or the entertainment industry. In all of those cases, people are vetted by the crème of the elite. Being accepted only coincidentally is the result of hard work. What is more important is that they LIKE you.To quote myself, an old tag line:
The idea around which “liberalism” coheres is that
NOTHING ACTUALLY MATTERS EXCEPT PR.
Ping
Interesting essay. As this is an area of particular interest to you I might suggest a few books dealing with these issues.
First, the definitive recent study of this is in Thomas Sowell’s “Vision” series. These are “The Vision of the Anointed (Self Congratulations as a Basis for Social Policy)”, “A Conflict of Visions (Ideological Origins of Political Struggles)” and “The Quest for Cosmic Justice.” This wonderful series of books deals with the roots of the mindsets and why the cross all boundaries of thinking.
Gertrude Himmelfarb in “The Roads to Modernity: The British, French and American Enlightenments” shows quite clearly how the French Enlightenment icons were monarchists despite our wanting to associate them with the supposed anti-monarchy of the French Revolution.
The insight provided by the three books of Thomas Sowell is probably some of the best time investment in reading anyone can make who is thinking about and understanding the leftist mindset.
“...if it doesn’t assume corruption or manipulation, then it assumes that it is inherently immoral for some to earn a great deal more than others. That is, in fact, what many of the leftist community organizers believe, but it is out of phase with the American idea — not to mention morally wrong to demonize the successful, or else God wouldn’t have prohibited covetousness.”
Those who attain economic success, w/o being vetted by the existing ruling class used to be contemptuously referred to as Noveau Riche. This is particularly so if the person created a business, invented something or otherwise bypassed the accepted means of rising up through the ranks. Leftists’ means of success often entails climbing over bodies in sociopathic, political blood-sport; they certainly don’t believe in sharing or redistributing hard-won political influence. So, in enriching himself, an industrialist had to have been dishonest or criminal in some way in their eyes. Obviously, he climbed over the bodies of his workers.
The elites within the Left believe that the only legitimate means of attaining economic success is via the media, politics [and law] or the entertainment industry. In all of those cases, they are playing a game that is an entirely human invention — and potential members are vetted by the crème of the elite. Being accepted only coincidentally is the result of hard work. What is more important is that they LIKE you.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/3199679/posts