The Idea Realm Looks at Romney's 47 Percent

I mentioned in an earlier post how I prefer inhabiting an idea realm than a people realm or event realm. In discussing philosophical differences between liberals and conservatives I suggested conservatives don't feel the masses can be educated to think for themselves and must be told what to do. Liberals believe with the proper education and training the masses can be trained to think for themselves.
Democracy from this perspective is a liberal idea. The U.S.A. is not a democracy, however. It is a representative republic. A representative republic has democratic features but distrusts the masses to the extent that governance is left to an elected or appointed few. Regarding presidential elections, it can be argued that the Electoral College is a conservative idea and the popular vote is a liberal idea. Please note which perspective is entrusted with selecting the president.
It is from the perspective of an idea realm that Governor Romney's statements on 47 percent of the electorate interest me. It is noteworthy that Romney denigrates a section of the voting public, choosing to talk in the people realm, claiming that people who pay no income tax are 'victims' who feel 'entitled' to receive benefits from the government.
Leaving aside that the tone is condescending, patronizing and self-righteous (a pattern of behavior exhibited by graduates of Ivy League schools) his analysis is deeply flawed.
Romney's analysis that a large segment of the population can not be taught to take care of themselves is a conservative idea. In this respect, President Obama has a liberal perspective when he states that he believes people can be trained and educated to take care of themselves and work themselves off of government support programs.
The flaws in Romney's analysis do not flow from this philosophical difference, which is why I believe Congressman Ryan stated that Romney was 'inarticulate.' The flaw is in not understanding the demographics of the segment of the population he is disparaging.
This is worrisome, because it may mean Romney has a deeply flawed view of the demographics of the country as a whole. If so, then it is doubtful that any policy derived from this perspective can be effective or efficient.
What's worse is that if Romney does understand the demographics and does not care about huge segments of the population. This is behavior typical of someone educated with an MBA. It is behavior totally unsuited to an elected official, which Obama has pointed out.
In a representative republic, elected officials represent EVERYONE. Romney's idea of government is plutocratic, not democratic. In this sense, he is the kind of fiscal conservative that has dominated Republican politics since the populism of Teddy Roosevelt was deemed subversive.

In the idea realm, it is Romney's undemocratic view of governing that is most disturbing. If the Democrats have any competence, which is always a concern, they should be able to exploit this to their advantage.
It is noteworthy that Republican candidates farther down the ballot are distancing themselves from Romney's statements. That is more significant than Democrats manipulated outrage with their talking heads.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out. The ramifications are immense. For me, it provides further evidence that Ronald Reagan was a puppet of plutocrats whose goal is to destroy the prosperity of the middle class and working class. Romney was talking to fellow plutocrats when he made his 'secret' remarks. Only plutocrats can afford $50,000 lunches. I'm a McDonald's dollar menu guy myself.

Standard Deviations and The Philosophical Difference Between Liberals and Conservatives

When people talk they can exist in one of three realms. The 'idea realm', the 'event realm' and the 'people realm.' I am most comfortable in the 'idea realm', less comfortable in the 'event realm' and not at all comfortable in the 'people realm.'
In short, I would rather talk about ideas than people, especially myself. Standard deviations fascinate me. Here's a diagram:

There are many different kind of intelligences, let's wrap them all into one for clarity and argument sake and say the mean represents average intelligence and that 64.2% of the population is of average intelligence. Another 27.2 percent is within two standard deviations of the mean, meaning more than 91% of the population is of average intelligence, or slightly above or slightly below. That's most of us.
When I ask people what percentage of people could read or write in ancient times, they usually don't know. That's because nobody knows. Scholars argue that it was between 5 and 10 percent. The point is that not many people could read or write.
Those that could wrote the books and wrote the laws. Most of the 91 percent group in ancient times were slaves.
Fast forward to the U.S.A. in 2012 and the literacy rate is about 99 percent. Slavery was abolished about 140 years ago. The philosophical question today is the same one in ancient times: what is the attitude of  those who write the laws toward the 91 percent?
The conservative approach is that the majority of people can not think for themselves and need to be told what to do.
The liberal approach is that the majority of people can think for themselves if they are properly educated.
We do not know the answer to this question, which is why it is a philosophical question. But it determines the framework that liberal and conservative ideas operate in. There is evidence to support both conclusions. In the long run, high levels of literacy and abolition of slavery are relatively recent events.
In the short run, we need to understand that our decisions are based upon which model we favor.
During this presidential campaign, while people are talking about Romney and Obama (people realm) and others are talking about events (debates, polls) I find myself wondering about ideas. Mainly, whether democracy (which is a liberal idea) can work in a country that prefers to think people need to be told what to do (which is a conservative idea).