Do you think the average person is too stupid to do the right thing?
That's a misleading question, the average person does do the right thing, but there's a big difference between believing the average person will do what's right and the average person will be able to run a country which involves understanding of several very complicated problems, balancing them all at once while balancing the books (which Bush has failed in doing, meaning the next Pres will need to make an effective profit or else the interest payments will really become hurtful).
Elitism is a sense that the hoi polloi are simply incapable of governing themselves, let alone a nation, and that a small group of “experts” have to take control of everything they do.
Well, realistically, nearly every successful leader of a major country has been an 'elite' as you put it. Not part of an ultra Jünker style elite, but part of the educated elite. The Founding Fathers were mostly part of the educated elite too, it's not as if American peasants lead the rising against the evil elitist British (which is an alarming misconception amongst some Americans), they were educated people who, amongst other things, had the reasonable grievance that they should not be paying taxes without a say in what goes on in their country. The leaders weren't Joe Normal, from Kentucky either. Even the 'communists' of this world (though true communism has never existed and never will because communism as we are familiar with it is contradictory of itself) such as Lenin (who grew up in a very middle-class family), Marx (an economist and philosopher) and Engels (a socio-economist and political-philosopher) were not uncultured and poorly educated. Most communists were intelligent, but didn't get along with the authorities of the time.
I don't think there have ever been none-elites in charge of large successful movements or countries, the Russian communist revolutions were headed by rebellious men of fairly equal intelligence to the American Foudning Fathers, even the Bauernkrieg of 1524, which was hailed as the roots of the German states rising against the elites, were headed by educated men and professionals such as monks, priests, and smithys.
The popular belief in an elite class leading is now becoming more futile in some ways, since education has rocketed in the Western World over the past century, but economics, business philosophy, and welfare demands are now so complex that specialists are essential to the effective running of a country. Sure an average joe could learn this (as Obama seems to portray himself as) but they need education and a few years experience at the very least (very good education is something Obama has received, but experience in the actual issues have come out in his confused views which seem to change as he becomes more enlightened into the actual situations, causes and effects of problems in the world, as opposed to the mass' ideas which are spoonfed to them by the media and their fellow peer-groups).
Does that make me a conservative-elitist? Well I loved the idea of a black-man who had risen up (a la the American Dream) to lead the country, so in one respect no. But then his lack of credentials which only come from the elite class of politicians and businessmen really began to show and pushed me towards preferring a McCain or Giuliani figure. The idea of an elite class where people are born to elite parents and become elite themselves, is alarming though. This is where inequality will become rife. The important thing in my opinion is an elite-class which is ever-shifting which is accomplished by giving good education prospects to all and the chance of a top-university education to anybody who is intelligent enough, regardless of their background and wealth. People like Obama really do make a difference to the elites, as do people like Palin. They are two entirely different people though. Obama has essentially joined their ranks, bringing some of his own ideology to their pool, while Palin hasn't (yet) and so her rocketing to the peripheries forces a shakeup, both of which are good. The worst possible candidates to lead the country are people like the Clintons, the Kennedys, Romney, and the Bush's, since they are all established elites who begin to be so far removed from the average American because of their vast wealth and 'upper-class' 19th century style status.
Elitists see people getting more obese and believe that government has to intervene to remove food choices from individuals, as one rather timely example, as in New York City. They believe that removing personal choices will keep people from making bad decisions, because they — in all their wisdom — will make the right choices for them.
No, what they usually support is the clamping down on foods which, in one portion, give over 100% of the recommended calories for a day. This is widespread throughout America and the UK and isn't a matter of being authoritarian on what people eat, but outlawing the most ridiculously dangerous foods. The government bans drinking under the age of 21, why? Because alcohol is dangerous and would be used without responsibility by people under 21 (which I personally disagree with) and the idea is the same with food, by allowing people to eat nothing but chocolate cake and fat-soaked meat all day and taking away the dangerously fatty foods, which would kill you pretty if you had what is designed as one-portion per day on top of a balanced diet, they aren't saying 'you must eat X, Y, Z' they're saying 'you may eat anything but 'A, B, C.' If a foodgroup gave you cancer, you'd expect them to retract it. Some of the products out there will kill you about half as quickly simply in themselves, yet you believe they should be allowed to stay?
Forest de Rothschild notes that McCain has at least one event in his life when he rejected his own privilege in favor of his nation. He could have accepted the North Vietnamese offer of early release, based on his status as an admiral’s son. At the risk of his life and certainly at the risk of more torture, he refused. She believes that’s why McCain can make the elitist argument against Obama, and perhaps that’s true in terms of credibility. However, the real reason it sticks is because Obama and his allies want to govern us as though we were idiots, and McCain and Palin appear more likely to treat us as adults.
I think you've raised brilliant points, but again I disagree with an element of this. I don't believe that Obama wants to rule as if the American people are idiots, he wants to rule them like idiots on X, Y and Z, yet on things like Abortion, infanticide, probably drugs, he would preach that the American people are clever enough to make up their own minds. That's not wanting to rule people like idiots, that's simply two-faced double standards, or idiocracy and inconsistence on his part.