Sunday, August 21, 2011
Blog #1: Founders: Educational and Economic Elites
The delegates to the Constitutional Convention constituted an educational and economic elite, not the "common man". Consider whether an elite can be representative of people from other strata in society. Please also consider other contemporary issues such as race and religion in terms of being able to represent differing people groups.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
To be honest, I don't think that only the elite can represent people of other strata in society, because, more often than not, they have not gone through what the "common man" has gone through, therefore they may not know what problems to fix in our society to make it better for people as a whole. For instance, a devout Christian in Congress may not see an issue with it being illegal to wear head coverings in certain places, but a Muslim woman would. (I apologize Noel, I had to say it :D.) Also, a man claiming to have been discriminated against in a situation where he was trying to find a job may have difficulty finding someone that understands his point of view because, unfortunately, minorities are not represented in Congress and government as well as they could be, often because they are not a part of the so-called "elite" in society. Therefore, maybe the elite could better represent everyone in society better if they actually took time to realize who everyone is and to try and find out the common problems of the "common man". :D.
ReplyDeleteAsha, as wonderful and vivid a point as you have, I have to disagree with you. Our government was built upon the foundation that a 'common man' as you call them, could rise and lead other 'common men.'
ReplyDeleteThe elite come from two different walks of life. There are those like you have stated, that were given everything in their lives and never had to work for any of their wealth and power. Those are the people that cannot see from the common man's place of standing.
However, there are also those members of the elite that have risen from the so called 'common man.' Those people have struggled through exactly what the other common men have, but they have honestly gotten their wealth and have learned great lessons from it. They use what they have learned to change their lives and to help others.
I believe the actual issue here is how society has changed it's view to believe that there is NO ONE that can understand another person, which is wrong. If we actually took the time to look at what a politician believes instead of looking for a catchy slogan...maybe we would end up with more equip leaders.
Asha, as wonderful and vivid a point as you have, I have to disagree with you. Our government was built upon the foundation that a 'common man' as you call them, could rise and lead other 'common men.'
ReplyDeleteThe elite come from two different walks of life. There are those like you have stated, that were given everything in their lives and never had to work for any of their wealth and power. Those are the people that cannot see from the common man's place of standing.
However, there are also those members of the elite that have risen from the so called 'common man.' Those people have struggled through exactly what the other common men have, but they have honestly gotten their wealth and have learned great lessons from it. They use what they have learned to change their lives and to help others.
I believe the actual issue here is how society has changed it's view to believe that there is NO ONE that can understand another person, which is wrong. If we actually took the time to look at what a politician believes instead of looking for a catchy slogan...maybe we would end up with more equip leaders.
To an extent an elite can represent the "common man". However, the elite has to know the needs of the "common man". The elite may not be able to understand what the common person goes through; therefore, they cannot know how to fix our society, since the majority of the society is the “common man”. The elite would not know what would benefit and or harm the common man. When it comes to the idea of religion and race, a majority group will not be able to represent a minority group, as a minority leader would be able to. One may not be informed with the culture of the minority, which could cause tension and issues within governing a minority. An example of this could be a very conservative person trying to help a more liberal group, in this case there would be a feud between the groups. An issue that could happen with an elite running government is that one could focus on their own needs and not the needs of all, or one could not consider everyone including the minority. This could lead to the minority not being fairly represented when all should be equal.
ReplyDeleteFor an elite to represent the common man, he needs to be either a common man, or get in touch and understand them. If he doesn't, then he can't accurately solve the common man problems. The same goes for minority groups, they also need to be accurately represented so someone knows the problems that need to be fixed. If this could happen, having the common man and the minorities accounted and represented, there would be fewer conflicts and disagreements.
ReplyDeleteI think the elite should be able to represent people of different strata. People vote for their Senators and Representatives so they can create laws on their behalf and address the issues they feel are important. The common man doesn’t know enough about lawmaking to make the laws that they want. So the educated elite make the laws for them. The elite of the Constitutional Convention were more educated than the farmers and were better at creating a new government that worked the way they wanted it to. But they didn’t ignore the lower classes. They wrote political papers that were discussed in public. When the public and Anti-Federalists were scared that the Constitution would hurt the rights of the common man they added the Bill of Rights.While the elite could just ignore the common man, to make sure the right issues are getting addressed they need to talk to them. A rich senator doesn’t know all of the problems faced by an unemployed guy in New York. So the elite need to talk to the people they are representing and make sure they work to make laws that benefit them and not just themselves. So the elite can represent other strata if they take the time and put in the effort to learn about them and how the government can work better for them. But information gathered firsthand is better than that heard secondhand, so having minority representation and representation from lower strata is also important. But as long as the members of Congress care about their constituents and listen to them they should represent them well. It’s not like all elites are going about saying, “Who cares about the poor, I want more money to buy a golden swimming pool for my dog.” If they didn’t know anything about the common man the common man wouldn’t vote for them.
ReplyDeleteAn “elite” has a skewed view of life, maybe not on purpose, but the way they were brought up would be different than that of the “common man.” In order for a government to be truly fair to all walks of life there must be a representative from every race, religion, social background, etc. In reality, every man cannot be perfectly represented in the government, but if there is enough diversity then there is a wider spectrum and a larger chance of each opinion being voiced.
ReplyDeleteBut ignoring that, one can consider the fact that the above model is an impossible thing. So, as things are, having the people represented by mostly well-educated people will be the best thing possible for the government. People with the most education will have a higher chance of more accurately representing the wishes the founders of our government had. With a group of “elites” in power, it is a perfect mix of the strong authoritarian of Hobbes and the complete trust in the people that Locke showed. Many of the people in America are too uneducated to even know how exactly the constitution works.
Though still, there should be some diversity in the “elite.” There should be people from rich families, people that have risen from the “bottom,” and those few smart lucky middle class men. There should also be people from more religions, which is something the government now lacks, or people more aware of others religions. Still, the majority should be Christian, considering the majority of America belongs to some sort of Christian denomination.
Finally, people from all different strata choose who will represent them in the government. If a person from a poorer class seemed well educated enough to run the government, the people would most likely notice him and if they wanted to have him in a government position, he would be there.
I believe that it is possible for representatives from other social, financial, racial, and religious backgrounds to represent the people. After all we, the people who take the time to go out and vote, choose whom we think would best represent us. However there are exceptions to that. Some people may be racist or discriminate against people who are not of the same religion or financial status. Therefore it is possible for a representative of different social strata to represent the general society as long as they do not discriminate against certain groups.
ReplyDeleteWhat defines one as an elite? For the now I will define it as the upper class of society, the well educated and rich members of society. I think that in most cases these elites do fine representing every strata as you said, after all everyone has the right to vote therefore the "elite" member is chosen by all based on what he says he will do for everyone. It would impractical to have an uneducated person in the Constitutional Convention because, even though he might try to fight for the rights of the more common man, he would have no idea how to make laws and pass bills.
ReplyDeleteAt this point I don't really see why the race or religion of the man would matter. Our society has become more accepting. We don't fight over tolerance anymore, we are more of a whole now than ever. The only goal we have set is to better the economy.
Overall I will stick to my original statement. I am positive that a well educated and possibly rich member of the "elite" society can represent all of us, even if he doesn't want to he needs the votes and the only way to get votes is by doing what the common people ask.
The Elite can represent the people from other strata in society to an extent. Obviously, the common man elects the elite representative because he or she feels that they have the same political views and ideas as they have. This elected representative should then talk to the people he represents and help accomplish the ideas that they have. If this idea was foolproof, then the elite could represent correctly.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, the idea is not as easy as it seems. The elite must take into consideration that the people he represents differ from each other, and him/herself. They will not always have the same problems. There are many different religions and races in the country that all must have some sort of representation, as each should be able to have a say in the way the country they live in runs. The elite must consider ideas and laws that benefit everybody, to some extent. Of course he/she won’t always make everybody happy all the time, but as long as they consider the common-man, and their wants and how laws could benefit them and put it to use, he should be able to represent the people in a good way.
Anyone who is voted in to serve as a leader should understand all the different types of strata to be a successful leader, no matter if the leader is a “common man” or an elite. In my opinion, a leader should set aside the prejudice, racism, and bias while in the leader role, as well as the citizens should, for voting for the person to take on that role. As far as the education of a leader goes, the elected leader should know what they are doing. A leader does not have to be an expert on the grounds of law-making, but if the leader has no knowledge of law-making what so ever, then serious conflicts could come from that. In conclusion, if all different types of strata are understood and taken in consideration when ruling, then the leader, elite or “common man,” can successfully be an representative for ALL people.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, I think that certain elite members of society can indeed represent the people of other strata. I want to refrain myself from saying all of them can represent the people because there are always some exceptions. An elite might not be able to completely relate to that of the “common man” but I do believe that some of them take into consideration what the common man has to say. However, many elite members in society may view themselves as being higher on the totem pole so to speak or put themselves on a pedestal making it seem as if they are better than everybody else. Some may look past what’s good for the common man and instead base their views upon their own desires. It is those members of the elite society that would not represent the common man in a well-fashioned manner.
ReplyDeleteThe common man on the other hand, can do just as good of a job, if not better, representing society as the elite. The two might come from opposing backgrounds, but just because one is labeled as a “common man” does not deem them as uneducated. A common man may be very well educated and can understand firsthand what others around him or her are going through and would be able to relate to the needs of people in the community.
I think that both the elite members and common man could be good candidates to represent anyone from other strata depending on what he or she stands for. Overall, it is up to the people to decide who they feel would best represent what they believe.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn the time of the Constitutional Convention, the elite class consisted of the educated. Those who ruled society were the scholars, philosophers, politicians, and historians. Therefore, if the above question pertain sot the period of time involving the Constitutional Convention itself, then an elite class can and must be representative of the community as a whole. The general populous in such a society was comprised mainly of uneducated builders, workers, and farmers, all unfit to make the decisions necessary to run and maintain a government.
ReplyDeleteIf, however, the question is one which pertains to our modern and recent society, then an elite is necessary only to compile and execute issues of the common, educated man. With the large population of our nation, and the extent to which we receive our tutelage, an elite class cannot and must not represent the whole. In our society, the virtues of responsibility, fiscal restraint, and basic care for others are seriously lacking. The only way to move foreward as our population and communities expand is to rule ourselves with both the knowledge and fear of the consequences, should we not act correctly. Otherwise, like the Roman Empire, history will repeat itself.
"Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!"
-A Man For All Seasons (1966)
Pertaining to what Carlyn said, I agree that some of the "elite members" of society make take decisions based solely on himself or of the upper class he is derived from. However, I feel that the chances of him doing so are greatly reduced in today's society due to the fact that he would more than likely want to be reelected. Going of that I would also like to comment about what Michael Lu said. He said that in today's society we have to sort of govern ourselves because the upper class and the government in general cannot do it for us. I totally disagree with that, our modern society has based itself on the social contract theory created by Rousseau. We give to the government and it provides us with protection and the basic needs. Having said this I believe that even today we can rely on an elite to rule the government, but not only an elite, I believe that at this point we only need an mascot basically to carry out our, the societies, wishes in the government.
ReplyDelete