Today in the modern world elitists are still considered powerful enforces of government policy and changing the minds of voters through 'investment' to secure their own interests - whether they are from a business or political background (and in 'rare' cases both). So in that sense politics does offer 'business opportunities' no matter how secure and accountable the system in place is perceived, at least from the public point of view which we are led to believe. In this sense one can say (bureaucrats/politicians) that state secrets and security for the people is of upmost importance.
Alan Milburn who is a British (Labour) politician, also the Former Secretary
of State for Health (1993-2003) has stated in his statement
to the media, that the 'inequality of social mobility is due to entrenched
elitism' and has been 'for decades in the making'. This point is justified by
the historical aspects of the ages, it wasn't until the end of the second world
war that we saw increased economic prosperity and a sense of nationalism and
crippling empires. Naturally this led to political turmoil and demand from the
public in many nation states which led to even more instability where demands
are not taken in a serious tone. Thus giving root to military coup and
resistance outfits. (Honduras
- rising poverty and inequality).Milburn then argues that elitism cannot be blamed on one party due to limited time of party rule - 'that prevents them from addressing the deep-rooted causes of inequality and social immobility in the UK'. This in sense, shows that even if nationalistic views are enforced, they cannot be just 'regular' but take a more extremist view, as we see in US today (such as white-nationalism).
To combat elitism, the commonly known solution of reducing taxation from labour class and imposing higher taxation on corporations would mean more income for the working class thus reducing the gap. This we can experience at times of high demand which changes with every party in power, but the national interest of improving the economy rather than addressing issues of inequality of income remains unattended. Of course if politicians (in any country) of course not all, addressed the issue of inequality and rising wages and shifting the taxing system toward the so called elitists and businesses, it will benefit some groups or industries for some time without long-termism, but of course a core issue must be taken by the political parties to the people so that they may be voted in power, but if that solution is not implemented to the laying problem, it would mean a change in who gets to be the torchbearer.
A recent study by Princeton University Prof Martin Gilens and Northwestern University Prof Benjamin conducted data of oligarchism in US.
They conclude by saying that "Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organised groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on US government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence".
US probably has the highest number of lobbying firms and perhaps the most expensive, their job is exactly of the client, but they have what the client does not, persuasion, contacts and their Pandora’s box. Whether they agree with the client's view they must enforce the views of their client to the appropriate entity, this can be a national department or the white house when it comes to policy making.
https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/top.php?indexType=l
The research started with 1,779 survey question presented between 1981 and 2002 on public policy issues, these were analysed for income level and often certain income levels and organized groups had their policy preferences implemented or represented.
"A proposed policy change with low support among economically elite Americans (one-out-of-five in favour) is adopted only about 18% of the time," they write, "while a proposed change with high support (four-out-of-five in favour) is adopted about 45% of the time."
"When a majority of citizens disagrees with economic elites and/or with organised interests, they generally lose"
This goes to show that politicians in US often rely on the social and political environment for guidance of which issues they should carry to victory, even after assuming office, politicians supported by elitists and organized groups will be looking to lobby for their own interests. Its the question of actual implementation, as it not just involves one leader looking to win an election, but the environment after in which the policy is adapted which involves various groups and individuals.
Stanley Aronowitz discusses in the article series of The Power Elite. He mentions that the powerful elite and chief executives of corporations should be seen as distinct from each other. The elite are the original players and then come chief executives who are employees with high salaries - under the direction of a Board of Directors. Implying the tool of power and how often these two are associated within actual practice. And the nexus between corruption, politicians and elitism revolves around this theory, and answers the question why and how elitism and its legacy continues. "Chief executives are ostensibly high salaried employees under the direction of a Board of Directors which, in the largest corporations, often appears as a cross-section of the economic elite, not only of the particular firm."
"What is significant about the managerial reorganisation of the propertied class is that by means of it the narrow industrial and profit interests of specific firms and industries and families have been translated into the broader economic and political interests of a more genuinely class type. Now the corporate seats of the rich contain all the powers and privileges inherent in the institutions of private property."
The original theory of property ownership no longer defines economic power in the modern world (1932, Berle and Means) is theory of importance, the mind-set of that time and the growth of democracy, of 'equality for all'. The current modern world as we see, property ownership plays an important role of social perception and which had never changed, the original elites build reputation and form a chain of contacts in which they protect their interests, the same goes for all members, the continuance of the elitist legacy would be attributed with the continued social link of that which is the elite.
