Elitism – USA Gov Policy

Americans have a long and unique spirit of anti-elitism, but leading Democrats reject that tradition.

Recently, presidential candidate Mike Bloomberg proclaimed that “We just can’t let the average American have guns in a crowded place…gun control saves lives…” Rather ironically, he was responding to a statement about how armed church attendees protected themselves from an assailant, saving, according to some estimates, up to 200 lives. Similar to other anti-Second Amendment activists, he has failed to explain how keeping guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens will make them safer, considering that those who seek to rob, rape, or kill have no compunction in defying gun control laws, and have no difficulty in obtaining weapons.

While seeking to deprive New Yorkers of their Second Amendment rights, Bloomberg cut the size of his city’s police force. The elites have their own protection, in guarded buildings and offices. Who cares about the average citizen? It wasn’t a surprising remark from the former NYC mayor. During his tenure in office, he sought to regulate the diets of his constituents.

In terms of defining elitism, even Bloomberg’s comments pale in comparison with Joe Biden, who, as Vice President, served in an administration that had no compunction about using the IRS and the Department of Justice to harass and intimidate those who disagreed with its policies. Biden, whose son flew with him on Air Force Two to China and returned with a billion dollar deal in pocket in a business area he had no expertise in, and whom, quite notoriously, gained another highly lucrative deal in Ukraine which his father was dealing with, wants to put blue-collar workers, specifically miners, out of work, telling them to just learn coding instead.

Bloomberg and Biden are continuing the elitist inclination of Hillary Clinton, who described her opponents as “A basket of deplorables” and Barack Obama, who referred to small town residents as people who “cling to guns or religion.”

It’s not just politicians. Hollywood’s elites travel from their mansions on private planes, yachts, and limos to conferences where they chastise those who live in a small homes and travel in their cars, buses, and trains to work in the morning for not being environmentally conscious.

These are, of course, merely a few examples in a much larger move towards elitism, not just on actions but on thought as well.

These all forms come with different http://davidfraymusic.com/project/david-fray-the-german-symphony-orchestra-at-the-dso-berlin/ purchase levitra dosages, amount, and price. The National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute have recommended that diets that are high in fiber, plant foods, omega-3 fatty acids and low in saturated fat, trans fat and saturated fat constrict the arteries, but monounsaturated fat available in olive oil aid keep them working smoothly. order cheap cialis Read Full Article Despite the fact that it is promptly accessible and one can get it from the online store likewise, one ought to meet a spebuy viagra for cheap t to choose the measurements of cialis. The pills for ladies come in pink colour and for men it is available in blue colour.Kamagra in jelly is also ready for all those who feel shy to buy Kamagra jelly to tackle the hard-on issue is an effective solution. buy levitra viagra

In 2018, National Review described one example: “At Evergreen State College, left-wing students formed an impromptu, baseball-bat-wielding militia to hunt down suspected wrongthinkers. The college administration delicately referred to them as a ‘community patrol’dedicated to protecting the Evergreen campus from ‘external entities as well as those community members they distrust’…George Bridges, the president of Evergreen State, repeatedly told the campus police to stand down as left-wing protesters disrupted university events and menaced dissenters. The campus police chief told dissenting faculty member Bret Weinstein to stay away from the campus because her department could not guarantee his physical safety. As one administrator put it, under George Bridges, ‘reedom of speech is only for speech with which you agree and aggressively silencing those with whom you disagree is fair game.’

It is logical that elitism rises simultaneous with the growth of support for socialism. The very concept of that approach to governance is based on the idea that a selected group can somehow make better decisions about how to run your family, your business, indeed, your life, than you.

Socialism, the bedrock of elitism, is portrayed by much of academia and the media as a bit avant-garde, something appealing to the younger crowd. In reality, its an ancient and anti-freedom model.

The assertion of individual rights doesn’t have a particularly lengthy record in a history mainly filled with monarchs, dictators, oligarchs, and other elites. The age of gilded kings, queens, emperors and empresses isn’t as dead as it seems; only the names and excuses to stay in power keep changing. Russia lost its czar, but gained Communist Party rulers who held even greater control. Similar non-substantive changes have occurred in many locales.

Indeed, in Russia, the transition happened again. When the Communist regime collapsed, essentially the same group rather quickly reclaimed power. Putin, an old KGB hand, has, after only an unfortunately brief period, restored the same absolute power to his leadership that czars and commissars once held.

For centuries, Europe’s intermarried royal families controlled the lives of the continent’s residents. That began to diminish as nationalism, often maligned but in reality a necessary step in European democratization, took hold. But as socialism gained acceptance, the concept of an elite class of self-defined intellectuals and leftist politicians took hold.

In the United States, there is a mistaken tendency to link elitism with specific causes. That is a mistake. In practice, elitism is a wholescale rejection of the individualism that is the very essence of the American tradition.

Illustration: Pixabay

Quick Analysis

Ukraine’s Frozen Conflict

As we approach winter in the northern hemisphere, the war in Ukraine is beginning to resemble a “frozen conflict” from many perspectives. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky recently told the media he hopes the war will end faster once President-elect Trump takes over in January. Opinions in Moscow, however, differ from that of the Ukrainian leader. Russian President Vladimir Putin argues that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) needs to exclude Ukraine from joining in “exchange” for peace. If it does not, he says, then no end to the war is in sight. So far there is no Christmas solution. Several NATO countries, according to Vladimir Socor of the Jamestown Foundation, are tentatively considering “coalitions-of-the-willing” to provide security for Ukraine outside of the formal NATO framework. There is, however, no collective mechanism today under which such an arrangement is viable. According to the NATO Charter, while Ukraine is a NATO partner country, it may not join as a full member since it has not fulfilled the requirements for membership. That has not stopped NATO and allies from continuing “to provide Ukraine with unprecedented levels of support, helping to uphold its fundamental right to self-defence,” according to the organization. Socor says that keeping Ukraine out of NATO will not advance peace with Russia. Waiting for a peace settlement, he suggests, would only serve to encourage Moscow to continue the war indefinitely. Although the Biden Administration officially withdrew its support for Ukrainian membership in 2021, NATO maintains an “open door” policy toward membership-seeking countries. The current White House position led the way for European states to oppose Ukraine’s membership saying that a decision should be delayed until “conditions are met.” Biden pushed for changing “open door” to a “bridge” metaphor. It is not intended as an across-the-board NATO policy and has been implemented in the past on a case-by-case basis, says Socor. “The alliance’s open-door policy was not fully insulated from Russia’s non-statutory blocking power, and NATO-aspirant countries’ path toward membership was not always irreversible.” Russia has successfully blocked states like Georgia from joining, first in 2008 and again after the war in Ukraine began in 2014. Russia recognizes the value add of Ukraine to NATO is enormous and that Kyiv has a better case than some other nations. Putin’s invasion was, in part, intended to foreclose that option. By 2021, Moscow was pushing hard to maximize its war objectives, which included further annexations of Ukrainian territory. A main goal for Putin was, and is, to ensure there is no Ukraine left to join NATO. As President-elect Trump prepares to assume office in January, he is faced with the historical challenges presented by the war. Post-conflict security guarantees were the center of several proposals made during the 2023 military stalemate. The incoming Trump Administration has yet to outline how it intends to handle the Russia-Ukraine war. Analysts in Washington believe that the new Administration will expect its European allies to guarantee the majority of Ukraine’s security needs. As we approach 2025, several European nations have acknowledged that they do not view Ukraine as eligible for NATO membership as it would draw the organization into the middle of the conflict. Others want to wait until the war is over or pending a “peace” settlement before considering Ukrainian membership. Socor reports that some “influential voices” are suggesting that “Kyiv should join NATO after “freezing” the war along a stable armistice line, de facto accepting Ukraine’s partition, with NATO security guarantees applying de jure to the government-controlled territory only.” This would mean starting accession talks soon with the actual talks to commence only after a ceasefire is in place. Trump arrives in Washington at a time when Putin’s hybrid strategies of war in Ukraine have eviscerated commonly-held differences between war and peace. “Absent a political consensus in NATO over Ukrainian membership, certain European allies, including France’s President Emmanuel Macron, are holding informal consultations about post-conflict security guarantees to Kyiv by NATO members outside of NATO’s framework,” according to the Jamestown Foundation. The Biden Administration downplayed the discussions on possible forms of military assistance and defense industry cooperation by sending only an Assistant Secretary of State. For a European peace to hold the Trump Administration would need to formally extend the United States’ nuclear deterrence to Ukraine. Options under discussion in Europe include a “coalition of the resolute” to deploy forces to Ukraine as part of a possible armistice package, deterring further Russian attacks, says Secor. European officials are also debating, without any agreement, whether its military forces could perform non-combat logistical roles to free Ukrainian forces to fight. None of the possible courses of action has moved forward as all eyes are waiting on the incoming Trump Administration for clues about its intended level of support for a NATO framework and other non-NATO proposals. Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.