I guess the main question is whether the views listed under the above heading are preceded with the verb "is" or the clause "should be." If the former, I think it is a fairly accurate description of domestic and international politics, albeit a bit too general to my taste. We know that deception takes different forms, and sometimes "the masses" do get their day in court - so to speak. Therefore, a more useful approach is to identify conditions under which the elites can proceed as they please, and those under which they have to make concessions to "the masses." Moreover, the terms "elites" and "masses" are too broad and vague to be analytically useful - they do not convey various shades of grey usually found in everyday life. It may true, in a very general sense, that the elite prevails over non-elite in most situation, but for that statement to have an empirical (as opposed to tautological) meaning, we must have some criteria what defines an elite in a particular set of circumstances. In other words, today's "masses" may be tomorrow's elites (cf. Eastern Europe or South Africa), and vice versa, and what is "the measses" in one set of conditions may be 'elite' in another (cf. sweatshop operators hiring immigrants).
I suspect, however, that this vagueness is what makes such views attractive to th ecrowd named in the quoted piece - it allows for easy ex-post-facto rationalizations of their own actions.
On the other hand, if the views in question are preceded by the clasue "should be" - the question that immediately comes to mind is "under what circumstances?" Since for various reasons three quarters or so of the populace are fundamantally incapable of judging and deciding public policy questions (a half of these three quarters are also poorly equipped to make judgments and decisions about their own life) - some form of elitism is a desirable proposition and as such, it is no stranger to the left (cf. "vanguard party" concept - it is also intersting to observe how elitism played in the views of the Weimar emigres from the left side of the spectrum, such as Horkheimer, Adorno etc.). Opposing it is tantamount to leaving sick people without proper medical care on the grounds that such care is "too authoritarian." The real question is not whether elitism is desirbale here and now, but whether it is desirable as an eschatology or the 'end of history" if you will.
It is my hunch that its is the main difference that separates leftt wing elitists (such as myself) from their right wing counterparts. Left wing elitists are like doctors - they manage their patients now but the purpose of that management is to terminate its own raison d'etre (i.e. to cure the patient), whereas right wing elitists see elite domination as a natural and unavoidable state of affairs. The history tends to support the latter position, but as we all know, past perfomance does not necessarily predicts the future. If the humankind were bound by its past experiences, we would still live in caves. So the real question is: under what conditions elites behave like doctors rather than tyrants and work to "cure" the masses rather than perpetuate their disability, and what needs to be done to make "the masses" truly capable of understanding and deciding public policy issues?
Wojtek