RESPONSE - thank you for your reply!
A lot to unpack here - though not in a bad way. Your first two paragraphs seem to be a matter of personal taste and style, so I am going to focus instead on the 'some comments' section.
To your first point, I am talking about elites more generally than just conservatives (though I do think this article might have benefited from a definition). In this article I tried to discuss how those in power generally don't perceive the public as worthy of trust, and how that impacts politics, and voting specifically. It is a trend that is not constrained to one side of the political spectrum.
To your second point, I was not trying to talk about how Athenian and American slavery were the same. It was used to discuss how many of those that fear the majority, often are oppressing the majority through power structures. Plato, for example, feared the mob of the people, ignoring that he was an instrument in their oppression. The disparate examples across time were intended to bolster the fact that this is an ancient trend that still effects us today.
To your third point, I don't think establishing a hierarchy with education will encourage more education and create a win-win. As I tried to establish in this article, education is an arbitrary concept. There are many barriers to traditional education, and they are social and political, not meritocratic. The idea of a meritocracy is itself a concept that deserves more scrutiny, but that subject could be its own book.
All in and all, this article intersects with a lot of subjects because it's attempting to critique a popular conception of "human nature" and how that effects modern day politics and voting. Many of these points could be their own articles, or even their own books.
Yet because of the complexity of this subject matter, I do think those intersections are valid.
Could they be fine-tuned? Certainly!
Thank you for your thoughts, and have a good day. And please vote, if you have not already.