As a corollary to any discussion of Sarah Palin, comes with it a discussion of the vicious elites out to get her and then what the hell elitism means.
Now personally, I’m a big fan of avoiding if possible but otherwise limiting our connotative use of -isms. With elitism, you get the sense that we’re talking about Richie McPlutocrat looking down on the little guy and enriching himself at our expense. A competing idea-relatively modern- is one articulated by Scott H. Payne,
Firstly, the analysis that liberals tend to be snotty elitists who look down on the common people of America is an argument that is not entirely without merit. I don’t have statistics or broad behavioural analysis to back the claim up, I have only my own anecdotal experience to offer in this regard. But traveling as I have over the past ten years in largely liberally minded circles, I can say from my own experience both in my own thinking and in interactions with others that there is a grain of truth to this charge.
But a single grain don’t make a whole field.
Conor Friedersdorf adds to that:
Our political discourse often seems to presume that “elite” and “liberal” are concepts that are inextricably bound to one another, but the fact is that Bill Kristol is a political elite, Fox News is every bit as much a part of the elite mainstream media as any other cable news outlet, and Rush Limbaugh is as much a coastal elite commentator as [Maureen] Dowd.
So if we’re using connotations, elite can be political, intellectual, wealth based, liberal, conservative, pro-business, and even anti-business. This is maddeningly unhelpful, so to make ourselves feel better we often resort to labelling elite whatever the hell makes us feel better about our own argument.
The OED defines elite as, “a group of people regarded as the best in a particular society or organization.” Elitism is, “the belief that a society or system should be run by an elite.”
The American Heritage dictionary adds, “The belief that certain persons or members of certain classes or groups deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority, as in intellect, social status, or financial resources.”
MW calls elite, “the choice part” and “the best of a class.”
Nowhere in there is one liberal or conservative, nod to Conor for making that point. However, now that we have a general sense of what elitism is, preferential treatment (including perhaps deference in opinion and leadership) of people regarded as the best as defined by a society or organization, we can then remark on whether that is a bad thing or not.
It is not.
The Los Angeles Lakers only have so many spots on their team. They give priority to people with the skills and temperament they want. Should they not prefer the best as they see it, they would get a dysfunctional, poorly performing team. The United States Military needs ship captains, pilots, submariners, and strategists (among other personnel requirements). Should such positions be chosen by lot and little to no regard to who is best suited for the position, we would be less safe as a result.
Now, on things like sports, the military, construction, etc… we can reasonably agree on what the best is. Other areas are murkier for example parenting, arts, politics, religion. We have broad ideas of good but few concrete shared ideas of what constitutes best. This is why elitism becomes a problem. Not because we have an inherent problem with choosing qualified exceptional people for the job at hand, but because we’re arguing objectively for or against people based on entirely subjective metrics.
It’s about time, 30 past high noon to be exact, we recognize that and stop building a culture that publicly and falsely demeans excellence. Elitism and valuing the contributions of our society’s most gifted and talented members isn’t mutually exclusive from a sense of respect and true valuing of all members of society. We can value Kobe Bryant as a great basketball player without thinking or feeling that as a person he’s more valuable than you or I. Similarly, we can value Paul Krugman’s opinions on economics more than mine, without consigning my opinions or my personhood to irrelevance.
I think when people complain about elitism, that’s what they’re responding to, the sense that the elites don’t care about more pedestrian opinions. I agree with Scott, that concern isn’t entirely without merit. I think it’s a challenge to college grads and successful people alongside other people, for we all live in some kind of bubble or echo chamber. Let us not accept our limited view as the entirety of our world.
It’s certainly a challenge for me, but I think my diverse life experiences have really ingrained in me a sense that my experiences aren’t typical, but they do exist. In fact, nobody knows everything. Therein lies the importance of dialogue. You have to listen and you have to understand to do the “best” work. You only see part of the puzzle, don’t begrudge someone else their point of view.The existence of other points of view, other experiences doesn’t diminish your own.
