If the elite is, pace Jefferson, a "natural aristocracy of virtue and talent" and if they hold the same values as the people they lead, then we may hope for a healthy democracy. In the daily world, I'll submit to the surgery of a doctor, or trust my car to a mechanic, if I believe them to be honest and competent. Even in areas where success is less assured, I might accept the policies of the political class if: 1) they clearly value a free and prosperous republic; 2) the odds of them achieving successful policies are greater than in any other group; 3) if they don't succeed, it's because they failed in good faith and the problem is one of the limitations of human knowledge than the defects of character; 4) they are able and willing to learn from their mistakes. I believe good leaders believe that "goodness, truth and beauty" are genuine transcendentals. We may not be able to grasp them entirely, different people may be sensitive to different aspects of them, but nevertheless, these transcendentals are objective realities.
Robert Fritz of "The Path of Least Resistance" fame pointed out that, to have the best chance of succeeding at making a positive change, you must: 1) be absolutely honest and clear about your current situation (and here the political realists are of great help); 2) absolutely honest and clear about the situation you's like to bring about, so that 3) you will feel a tremendous tension between the what-is and the what-should-be and 4) use this tension to spur you to the actions that will, to the humanly possible extent, bring the what-is in alignment with the what-should-be. Some psychological make-ups lend themselves to creating and using this tension; others do not.
If the elite is, pace Jefferson, a "natural aristocracy of virtue and talent" and if they hold the same values as the people they lead, then we may hope for a healthy democracy. In the daily world, I'll submit to the surgery of a doctor, or trust my car to a mechanic, if I believe them to be honest and competent. Even in areas where success is less assured, I might accept the policies of the political class if: 1) they clearly value a free and prosperous republic; 2) the odds of them achieving successful policies are greater than in any other group; 3) if they don't succeed, it's because they failed in good faith and the problem is one of the limitations of human knowledge than the defects of character; 4) they are able and willing to learn from their mistakes. I believe good leaders believe that "goodness, truth and beauty" are genuine transcendentals. We may not be able to grasp them entirely, different people may be sensitive to different aspects of them, but nevertheless, these transcendentals are objective realities.
Robert Fritz of "The Path of Least Resistance" fame pointed out that, to have the best chance of succeeding at making a positive change, you must: 1) be absolutely honest and clear about your current situation (and here the political realists are of great help); 2) absolutely honest and clear about the situation you's like to bring about, so that 3) you will feel a tremendous tension between the what-is and the what-should-be and 4) use this tension to spur you to the actions that will, to the humanly possible extent, bring the what-is in alignment with the what-should-be. Some psychological make-ups lend themselves to creating and using this tension; others do not.