In Defense of the Elite
By Dyre42 | Related entries in General PoliticsI’ve been seeing a lot of criticism of “elites” lately. And it seems to me like there is some sort of concerted effort to redefine the word. Its current definition is this…
| 1. | (often used with a plural verb ) the choice or best of anything considered collectively, as of a group or class of persons. |
| 2. | (used with a plural verb) persons of the highest class: Only the elite were there. |
| 3. | a group of persons exercising the major share of authority or influence within a larger group: the power elite of a major political party. |
| 4. | a type, approximately 10-point in printing-type size, widely used in typewriters and having 12 characters to the inch. Compare pica1. |
–adjective
| 5. | representing the most choice or select; best: an elite group of authors. |
So by definition Green Berets, Navy Seals, Pulitzer prize winners, and Nobel Prize winners are all elite in that they are the best in their field. By definition two the Rockerfellers, the Kennedys, and the Vanderbilts are elite due to their wealth and social class. By definition three Howard Dean and Mike Duncan are elite. We’ll skip four. By definition five The Travelling Wilbury’s, The Union of Concerned Scientists, MENSA members, and all of Denise Richards’ current and ex boyfriends and husbands are elite.
At first I thought there was some confusion between the word elites and the term elitist
But over the course of time the current working definition of elites in newspapers, magazines, blogs, and political sound bytes seems to be:
A person that has access to a public forum who has a either a title or an uncommon job, possesses four or more years of education, who wrote or did something that I don’t like, and happens to be of a different political persuasion than I.
This definition is meant to be slur to infer that the person accused is disconnected the American public and thus foolish. But here is the rub, the vast majority of those who truly excel in their field are disconnected from the general public either by their talent, skill, vision, or dedication. In fact without the true elite this country would have never gotten off of the ground. Washington, Madison, Jefferson, and Monroe were far from being Joe Schmoe. They were highly educated, wealthy, and influential. Most of the original signers of the Declaration of Independence were the colonial cream of the crop. Conversely most of those being branded as elite today seem to be the chaff in the process of seperating themselves from the wheat.
In my opinion the current anti-elite screed seems to have more to do with partisanship and a resentment of those who were fortunate enough to be afforded better educations than most than it has to do with any rational and objective view of their overall contribution to society. And if the many continue to villainize those who exceed how can we hope to compete in an increasingly competitive global market in which our competitors strive to produce as many true elites as possible?
This entry was posted on Tuesday, May 6th, 2008 and is filed under General Politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
May 6th, 2008 at 5:24 am
the “elitism argument” has been an effective tool bandied about by the GOP for years, but it clearly reached its peak under the Bush administration–not without a great deal of irony. We have never had a more elitist government than the Bush administration, which believes it is entitled to an imperial presidency and rules by fiat and–when you consider that this group’s most hated rival is the Clinton’s and that is one of their greatest insults that they level at them, it’s almost hilarious.
The GOP has been very effective in painting the left as elitist, to some extent because it’s chief face (Bush) appears so commonplace. The man can barely string a group of words together into a sentence, has failed at almost everything he has ever ,,, but that facade stands in stark contrast to the reality in which he has been handed everything his entire life and has received incredible special treatment.
He has surrounded himself with like-minded people who believe they are better than the common man–a belief that has resulted in outright hostility toward the middle and lower classes–but that same lower and middle class has continued to support these people because of a remarkable PR campaign.
In a sad sick way, you almost have to tip your hat to them.
May 6th, 2008 at 7:10 am
Regarding Obamas “bitter” comments: An elitist is someone who claims to know what motivates someone else to action, because the elitist believes his superior education and intellect has granted him the ability to study the plebians from an anthropological perspective.
A plebian might claim that he believes in his heart-of-hearts that Christ is the redeemer of the world, and that religion is intrinsically valuable to him, but the elitist will claim that the plebian, as an object of social study, is really clinging to a “false consciousness” out of dispair from material want.
Despite what you think is important to you, I know what you really need, and you should follow me because I am smarter than you and have a world-class education and all my friends are social scientists and aristocrats. Allow me to engineer society for your betterment.
May 6th, 2008 at 7:40 am
When someone is termed an “elitist,” the implication is usually that they intend to apply their elite view in prescriptive ways. In other words, the meaning is really that an elitist is in fact a paternalist, one who “knows best” and who intends to act on that knowledge.
The vast majority of folks understand this. One can deconstruct the term and point out that “elite is supposed to be good,” but that ignores the point. usually, folks believe that if you take any good to let’s say a fetishistic level by turning it into an “-ism,” then you’re starting to go too far. For example, we all think that fatherhood is good, right? But we tend to look askance at something that feels overly paternalistic.
It’s a matter of balance. The anti-”-ism” argument is effective in part because it focuses attention away from whatever valid insights may come from the viewpoint, and onto the invasive prescriptiveness. In reality, both aspects (the insight and the invasive prescriptiveness) are worthy of notice.
May 6th, 2008 at 8:02 am
“Allow me to engineer society for your betterment.”
Kind of like occupying Iraq to force them into a government that we approve of, huh? Not surprisingly, the brainless neoecon parrot has no concept of irony.
May 6th, 2008 at 9:33 am
Wow DJ. When people dip their fingers in purple ink to vote on issues, when the public decides on who will be their leaders, when individuals consent to the principles upon which they are governed - that is social engineering?
When a fascist dictator rules by an iron fist for 20 years, according to his will and his will alone, I suppose that is “liberation.”
It is amazing how the left will outright rally against the principles of democracy and support fascism instead, just because a Republican took the lead. How Orwellian.
May 6th, 2008 at 9:41 am
The most notable difference between the elite of 1776 and the elite of today is who’s best interest they had at heart: the former being the population of a fledgling nation (excluding slaves) and the latter being themselves and screw everyone else.
Elitism wouldn’t be a dirty word if the actions of the majority of the elite weren’t born out at the expense of the rest.
May 6th, 2008 at 11:39 am
Click here for a perspective on environmental elitism.
May 6th, 2008 at 12:54 pm
Elitists are often people who think they are better than most/all other people. Sort of like John “vote for me because I’m better than you” Kerry. I love the comment about the “imperial presidency” of GWB. Emperor Bush mush be pretty weak because he can’t get many of his judicial appointees into office. A strong emperor Bush would simply do away with congress and elections…and the Democratic party, for that matter.
May 6th, 2008 at 3:09 pm
I think the key here is that while it’s proper to condemn elitists, we don’t want to do it with such fervor that we condmen the elite by association. We need our elite in all fields. What we don’t need are elitists who believe they are superior to those they are governing.
May 6th, 2008 at 3:41 pm
Oh geez, here’s comes that lame right wing argument about judicial appointments again…what, did you just get the GOP talking points for today after McCain’s speech?
This has nothing to do with elitism–it has to do with competence and cronyism.
Bush has appointed nearly 300 federal judges (including two supreme court justices).
Other presidents have been more successful because they aim for more competent judges; Bush picks friends who lack judicial merit. Did you really want Gonzales or Meiers on the Supreme Court?
Looking at his track record for any kind of appointment, seriously, haven’t you had enough of his appointments?
Now, go back to ignoring the truth about which party truly believes itself to be better than everyone else
And Jimmy, do you even believe half the stuff you write? All that Democracy in Iraq only matters when the people’s vote counts for something. If the election really mattered, the country would be a fundamentalist Muslim state and the US would have left the country by now. That isn’t the case, though, because elitist like yourself think you know what is best for them–or actually, to be fair, you think you know what is best for yourselves, because really you don’t care about anyone else.
May 6th, 2008 at 5:04 pm
If you all would just listen to me, you would be much better off. Really. That is all I want to add to this thread.
May 6th, 2008 at 5:10 pm
Conspiracy theories are exercises in narcissism. If reality doesn’t fit the paradigm constructed in your mind, then reality cannot be true - so you have to project your historical narrative onto reality.
I guess when the Shiite party of Ayatolla Sistani defeated the American-backed Allawi party in the Parliamentary elections, or when the Iraqi government voted to nationalize the oil industry, much to the chagrin of neocons like Paul Wolfowitz, it was because Bush’s appointed puppet regime of Iraq orchestrated those policies as an attempt to fool critics like you into believing the democracy was genuine. Boy, you showed them! They underestimated how smart you are!
If the election really mattered, the country would be a fundamentalist Muslim state and the US would have left the country by now.
How revealing in this discussion about elitism that you would openly cater to the stereotype that all Arabs are terrorists. I suppose you feel you must be morally superior to them then.
Refreshing that an war critic admits that Iraq has not collapsed, or that the government appears to be functioning to persecute extremism successfully; however, that is apparently because the elitist Bush regime’s tentacles have infiltrated and engineered Iraqi society in secret, subtle ways. I guess its because the Bush administration must agree with you - those damn Arabs can’t be trusted!
Or perhaps its because the democracy in Iraq is genuine, and that the majority of Arabs are rational, tolerant people who reject a fundamentalist interpretation of Islam. I know, this characterization of the Arab race might be going out on a limb for someone like you.
May 7th, 2008 at 7:45 am
In the event you actually come back and read this, first, I would like to apologize for my tone yesterday. It was uncalled for andhad nothing to do with you. I was rude.
Now–where do did I ever equate TERRORISM with Muslim fundamentalism?
That is a right-wing fear; a fundamentalist Muslim state is no more a terrorist state than a fundamentalist Christian state. I think you may have revealed more about your self than you wanted.
Now, as for
[quote]Iraqi government voted to nationalize the oil industry[/quote]
Seriously, have you been paying any attention, or do you just read the cliffnotes?
Who owns the oil industry means nothing when it is in name only and US and British petrolium giants control it. You may own the car we are driving in, but if I am at the wheel, we go where I want to go.
And, as we’ve seen the oil companies and oil infrastructure companies are cutting themselves some sweetheart deals. The “nationalized” oil industry is nothing more than a save face move for the Iraqi government. When Oil is running at $120 per barrel even though there are no shortages and everyone is making money hand over fist, there’s more than enough for even greedy big oil to share with Iraq.
To suggest this means anything is disingenuous
As for the non-collapse of Iraq—it costs me nothing to say that the Iraq government has not collapsed. What’s your point? I don’t even understand the relevence here. The fact it has not collapsed when propped up against the country constantly teetering on the brink civil war somehow proves what point about conservative or progressive elitism?
For someone who seems intelligent, you don’t make sense about half the time.
This is yet another example of you arguing about other things to take the discussion off point because you’ve already lost the debate. You pretend to rebut other people with completely different discussions and walk off as if you’ve proved something.
May 7th, 2008 at 11:56 am
Thank you for this piece. It raised some interesting issues. Namely your comment about the role played by the colonial elite, got me thinking the following:
Part of the genius of the colonial elite was their wisdom and/or humility to recognize what an imperfect creature a human is. They knew first hand how elevating just one of these imperfect creatures above all others, as in a monarchy, could wreak havoc upon the lives of many. They set out to devise a system that would limit the power of any one person, or group of persons, over the others, and thus limit the damage an incompetent could do.
Many of today’s elite come across as if their “pedigree” in one area affords them expertise in all. Thus we see the wealthy Hollywood “elite”, having read an article or two in the Foreign Affairs journal, lecturing us on foreign policy. Or a linguistic genius pronouncing that the economic system of America is flawed and evil.
The attitude of the political elite, whether they be a Mrs. Clinton telling us she will take from us for the “common good”, or a Mrs. Obama telling us that her husband will save our souls, or a John McCain willing to sacrifice first amendment rights for a clean government, reflects what our founding fathers wanted to protect us from; the know-it-all megalomaniac, and the people who don’t just back them, but worship them.
It is true that all Presidential candidates are elite, by their definition; they are the select few. And all need to have a strong ego and sense of entitlement to get through the election process. Thus the above examples are not meant to suggest that any of the three are not worthy of the job in light of the examples given. It should be fairly obvious that the “I know what’s best” attitude would define all political candidates, or they wouldn’t be running for office. The examples serve to point out why a system that limits their power is a good thing, since some of them will be just plain wrong on some issues.
I believe many Americans sense that the elite status of a candidate doesn’t make them perfect or all knowing, and therefore they bristle when a candidate gives off the “do you know who I am” vibe. A little humility, a sense of “I am, deep down, one of you” goes a long way. If I may be so bold as to generalize, Americans tend to want someone who most closely reflects their point of view and their concerns, willingly compromising some issues in the process. Most reasonable Americans do not expect to elect a “god”, and rightly (in my opinion) look with scorn upon those that do.
May 7th, 2008 at 1:46 pm
Really? To quote the left-wing homosexual activist bruce Bawer: “Falwell was an unsavory creep, but he didn’t issue fatwas, James Dobson’s parenting advice was appalling, but it didn’t tell people to murder their daughters. Pat Robertson just wanted to deny me gay marriage; the imams wanted to drop a wall on me.”
I suppose it reveals that I am more well versed in the fundamentals of Islamic theology than you are, or that I am more willing to overcome multi-culti politically correct fantasies of the moral equality of all religious or philosophical dogma.
I suppose one could argue that many Muslim fundamentalists do not support terrorism against civilians as a way to spread Islam until it dominates the world’s entire political sphere, well, whatever. Islamic law still sucks and is backward and barbaric, and does justify violence. That’s an indictment on a philosophy, a book, a prophet, a religious tradition - but not on an entire race of people.
I don’t cater to the stereotype that all Arabs are Muslim fundamentalists, as you do, so I have different opinions as to why Iraq has not collapsed into medieval barbarity, typical of fundamentalist Islamic societies.
You support this conspiracy theory of a rigged vote, a puppet government, and the Bush regime secretly pulling the strings on all of Iraq’s political affairs until the Muslim fundamentalist majority is utterly oppressed. Otherwise, how else could Arabs act so enlightened with a democratic parliamentary system, reaching out to minorities and persecuting terrorists and all?
This is the key distinction in this argument. Which reality is actually real? Considering your low expectations of the Arab race, and your narcissistic projection of imaginary events onto a world that doesn’t fit with your own pre-conceived notions on how people are supposed to behave, I would have to say that you are more elitist than I.