3 ms·

Elites the world over are losing in democracies because they presupposed, from afar, that they knew what their constituents wanted. ... or perhaps because you'

Elites the world over are losing in democracies because they presupposed, from afar, that they knew what their constituents wanted. ... or perhaps because you've misidentified the "elites." Voters' interests are complex, and they can't be so easily bought. No need to buy cattle you already own. You just herd them.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> perhaps because you've misidentified the "elites." If the elites are constantly changing then the 'elites' being in power is about as threatening as the 'people' holding it.
- CamperBob2 2y ago
  If the elites are constantly changing Honestly I don't think there's a rivalry among equals in play. I think the previous "elites" slacked off on the job. What's happening now looks less like a transfer of power than a vacuum being filled. Regardless, it is the height of absurdity to argue that the "elites" aren't in charge now. A New York billionaire teamed up with the world's wealthiest man and the country's most influential cable news network to buy the Presidency, and the rest are now lining up to pay tribute. The other "elites," to the extent there are any, are short on ambition, short on cash, and short on media reach.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > the previous "elites" slacked off on the job. What's happening now looks less like a transfer of power than a vacuum being filled True. But this is how all depositions go. When that process is blocked is when the process stops being peaceful. > it is the height of absurdity to argue that the "elites" aren't in charge now Some elites are always going to be in charge. That's almost tautology. The point is there is no the elites who were in charge and are now. > other "elites," to the extent there are any, are short on ambition, short on cash, and short on media reach And/or. Plenty have some of those but not all, or at too stupid to know how to wield it. Point remains: we have an amorphous elite with contrasting interests who are constantly fighting because power is fractured among them.
    - CamperBob2 2y ago
      Some elites are always going to be in charge. That's almost tautology. Sure, but pro-Trump voters will tell you that they were striking a blow against the "elites." Apparently rule by elites is OK, though, as long as they believe the elites in question are on their side. It's only those other elites that are the problem. Which goes back to my earlier point: why spend money buying votes the old-fashioned way, when a personality cult can actually be profitable?

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> perhaps because you've misidentified the "elites." If the elites are constantly changing then the 'elites' being in power is about as threatening as the 'people' holding it.

CamperBob2 2y ago
If the elites are constantly changing Honestly I don't think there's a rivalry among equals in play. I think the previous "elites" slacked off on the job. What's happening now looks less like a transfer of power than a vacuum being filled. Regardless, it is the height of absurdity to argue that the "elites" aren't in charge now. A New York billionaire teamed up with the world's wealthiest man and the country's most influential cable news network to buy the Presidency, and the rest are now lining up to pay tribute. The other "elites," to the extent there are any, are short on ambition, short on cash, and short on media reach.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > the previous "elites" slacked off on the job. What's happening now looks less like a transfer of power than a vacuum being filled True. But this is how all depositions go. When that process is blocked is when the process stops being peaceful. > it is the height of absurdity to argue that the "elites" aren't in charge now Some elites are always going to be in charge. That's almost tautology. The point is there is no the elites who were in charge and are now. > other "elites," to the extent there are any, are short on ambition, short on cash, and short on media reach And/or. Plenty have some of those but not all, or at too stupid to know how to wield it. Point remains: we have an amorphous elite with contrasting interests who are constantly fighting because power is fractured among them.
  - CamperBob2 2y ago
    Some elites are always going to be in charge. That's almost tautology. Sure, but pro-Trump voters will tell you that they were striking a blow against the "elites." Apparently rule by elites is OK, though, as long as they believe the elites in question are on their side. It's only those other elites that are the problem. Which goes back to my earlier point: why spend money buying votes the old-fashioned way, when a personality cult can actually be profitable?