Elitism and Crony Capitalism
Abdul Majeed
PLCY 802
Professor: Dr. Bolek Kabala
June 23, 2021
BK,
I believe the mindset of “tell me what your goal is -- whatever that may be -- and we will
figure out a way to make it happen” limits the potential of the members in a society. It essentially
negates our innate qualities of hard work, creativity, determination, and so forth leaving us to
rely on the bigger government created because of us relying on them. This is somewhat
highlighted in the New Deal, which even though was well-intended arguably left many African
Americans reliant on the government for survival.
I believe it is important to have insights from experts but that should not be the only
deciding factor for governments. As stated by Rosangel Perez “Many of us are being led &
misled away from our own thinking power”. As a society, we can think for ourselves and are
equally capable of seeing our plans to fruition without relying on the government to spoon feed
us.
Thanks,
Abdul
I enjoyed reading your post. I agree with you on the fact a pluriform society is of
importance to only private organizations but faith organizations as well. Koyzis asserts that a
pluriform society differs from a liberalist one because the latter cannot “fully account for our
common experience of the obvious differences among them” (Koyzis 2019, 215). Many view a
pluriform society as one where “social, cultural and religious systems are internally
homogenous”. As explained by Ursula Gunther (2017), pluriform societies questions the role of
the church in dealing with the discussion of diversity now and in the future (Gunther 2017, 258).
For instance, many white supremacists call themselves Christians and either fail to appreciate
and accept all of God’s creation or the church seemed to turn a blind eye to such beliefs.
As Beeke (2014) explains diversity incidentally creates toleration which in turn allows
for greater diversity in our communities (Beeke 2014, 1039). Unfortunately, many ideologies
tend to view the diversities in our societies as fragmentations. According to Koyzis (2019),
communism at one point claimed to be “progressive and emancipatory” in an attempt to “reverse
history by re-enclosing the pluriform structures of society” (Koyzis 2019, 218). Diversity in our
communities is what makes us unique, and it provides a medium for us all to learn from each
other’s differences to enhance our abilities to become better citizens.
References
Beeke, Joel R. 2014. Calvinists and Catholics during Holland's Golden Age: Heretics and
Idolaters.
Günther, Ursula. 2017. Embracing diversity. In Interfaith education for all, 257-271Springer.
Koyzis, D. T. (2019). Political visions & illusions: A survey & christian critique of
contemporary ideologies. InterVarsity Press.
The concept of democracy appeared to present the opportunity to attain equality for the
oppressed groups in our societies. Through democracy, citizens were empowered to choose who
should lead them, the policies they support through voting, and enjoy equal protections under the
law. Unfortunately, the indisputable innate selfishness and greed in us humans have challenged
the ambition of democracy. Today, the government is more inclined to listen to experts and their
advice than the citizens whom they swore to protect and serve (Ryan 2018). Due to this, there is
a huge disconnect between the political elites of our societies, the average citizens, and
democracy itself. The desires of the average citizen to be in government is a daunting task which
has been structured by the elites to ensure they remain in power. Many believe that the voting
process is a fluke in the sense that, voters do not genuinely possess the power to choose their
representatives because “career politicians and assorted interlopers impose themselves on voters”
(Best & Higley 2010, p. 1). Politicians today are motivated by money and fame and will do
anything to exploit the poor to achieve those benefits.
As explained by Gilley (2017), the end of the Cold War intensified the discussion
between democracy and technocracy. The success of democracy in the political arena triggered
the heightened expectations on public policy and ultimately leading to the demand for “smart”
policies reliant on the statistical data associated with technocracy (Gilley 2017, p. 3). Kalb
(2015) opines that, we live in an era he classifies as the technocratic project which highlights the
“modern attempt to turn the social world into a universal machine for maximizing the
satisfaction of preferences” (Kalb 2015, p. 26).This theory is dependent on the new socially
acceptable standards generated by the small percentile of educationalists and theories who view
themselves as smarter than the average citizen and sometimes God Himself by openly
challenging natural and biological principles of male and female. According to Kalb (2015),
what counts as real in the world today is limited to “individual subjectivity and objects of the
kind studied by the hard sciences” (p. 26). Realness has replaced naturalness through our
constant desires for freedom and equality by seeing life solely under the modern telescope
without respect to history, nature, morality, and common sense. This new concept of reality is not
only present amongst the elites but transcends societal class distinctions and there seems to be a
new phenomenon every single day seeking to outsmart the previous one before it.
Technocracy was seen historically seen as superior and the solution to democracy. This is
because, technocratic theory is reliant on “evidence-based and executive-led public policy
leadership” which has been greatly supported by both the left and right wings as holding the key
to the shortcomings of democratic governments as seen for example in climate change and
economic policies (Gilley 2017, p. 6). The progressive movement rightfully believed the
industrial world’s problems were technical hence required well-trained experts to solve them.
Thomas Frank believes that technocracy has replaced the reign of professionalism which was
advocated by the progressives. He asserts that, under technocracy, “the people making the
decisions identified far more with society’s rulers than they did with the ruled, and their
decisions often completely ignored public concerns” (Frank 2016, p. 27).
It is beyond question that we live in a society that is diverse and the total understanding of a
society cannot be solely reliant on the state and free market operations representing the economy.
The success of any given society relies greatly on appreciating its diversity in addition to these
two elements. Bossman (1991) explains that the groups present in a pluriform society are often
“involuntary” and are comprised by permanent memberships based on family, ethnic, or religious
associations. These differ from a pluralistic society which relies on the presence of the freedom
to form, leave or join any group thereby highlighting its foundational value as personal integrity
rather than group loyalty (Bossman 1991, p. 672). Koyzis asserts that, “the roles played by
various individuals within these communities are inextricably related to their special communal
tasks” (Koyzis 2019, p. 213). Similarly, the distinct responsibilities and characteristics that we all
possess are related to the various groups of which we are members of and tend to overlap
(Koyzis 2019, p. 215). We benefit from pluriform societies because it helps us strengthen
nonstate institutions by not seeing them as restrictive to our freedom. This appears to be the view
of the individualistic American culture, which we have become accustomed to.
The church also provides a medium for a pluriform society as Martin Davie (2002)
opines. He believes that just as a combination of heredity and environment help to make each
human being unique, so does the diversity in each church for instance the diversity seen in each
Anglican province comes together to form a pluriform Anglican Communion (Davie 2002, 45).
According to Harkins (2006) “the interpretation of the Scriptures within a faith community can
take on a peculiar efficacy and become capable of creating and forming community in a
profound way” (p. 505). The Holy Bible tells us in Revelations 7:9-10 about the diversity in the
Christian family which brings together people from every nation, tribe, and background to
worship God and acknowledge that “Salvation belongs to our God who sits on the throne, and to
the Lamb” (ESV). The church throughout its existence has counselled us through the guidance of
the Holy Spirit in all aspects of life including loving our neighbors as ourselves and that we were
all created in God’s image.
References
Best, H., & Higley, J. (2010). Introduction: Democratic elitism reappraised. Democratic
elitism (pp. 1-22). Brill.
Bossman, D. M. (1991). Cross-cultural values for a pluralistic core curriculum. The Journal of
Higher Education, 62(6), 661-681.
Davie, M. (2002). Doing theology in a pluriform church. Bulletin Issue,
Frank, T. (2016). Listen, liberal: Or, what ever happened to the party of the people?. Macmillan.
Gilley, B. (2017). Technocracy and democracy as spheres of justice in public policy. Policy
Sciences, 50(1), 9-22.
Harkins, A. K. (2006). Theological attitudes toward the scriptural text: Lessons from the qumran
and syriac exegetical traditions. Theological Studies, 67(3), 498-516.
Higley, J., & Best, H. (2009). Democratic elitism reappraised. Comparative Sociology, 8(3), 323-
344.
Kalb, J. (2015). Technocracy now. First Things, (255), 25.
Koyzis, D. T. (2019). Political visions & illusions: A survey & christian critique of
contemporary ideologies. InterVarsity Press.
Ryan, P. (2018a). “Technocracy,” democracy … and corruption and trust. Policy Sciences, 51(1),
131-139. https://http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.liberty.edu/10.1007/s11077-017-9305-1
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
