What is wrong with being elite?

Donal

Philosopher
Donal
Joined
Sep 8, 2006
Messages
8,916
When exactly did it become wrong to excel at something? I've heard from both sides of the political spectrum about the evil "elite". As in, the anger shouldn't be directed on their actions or their politicies, but rahter by their success.

Right wingers refer to Obama and the Clintons as part of the "Ivy League elite" even though none of them were old money or legacy cases (unlike the Bush and Kerry families) and got there on their merit. In fact, Obama and Bill started off at some pretty low points to get there. Is the fact that they are going to some of the most prestigeous higher education institutions in the world supposed to reflect poorly on them?

Left wingers use it to refer to rich people in the old European way. As if we have some class of idle rich that act as landed gentry with a collection of surfs. This ignores the fact that many rich people, including some of the richest and most powerful in the country's history, started out as poor (or at least, certainly not in the upper class). A lot of of what they accomplished is a result of their talent and dedication.

This isn't meant to excuse misbehavior by any of the people in these groups or pass them off as better than anyone else. I'm just wondering why success is demonized.
 
I think people should led credentials speak for themselves, and not use them as an argument, and I think things like Ivy League elite are often used in that way.

"He's an Ivy League elite, you know!"
 
I suppose it depends on who is describing whom: if the "elite" are self defined then I am not inclined to accept the perception: if they are described by others with reference to some particular talent or expertise, then so long as those who so describe them are competent to judge then I see nothing wrong with it: so long as it is not overgeneralised to imply that great footballers are an "elite" with respect to art or politics or anything else.

The word is not neutral: carries baggage. I prefer to recognise experts in their fields and limit it in that way: because that does not imply more than anyone can deliver
 
Donal said:
When exactly did it become wrong to excel at something? I've heard from both sides of the political spectrum about the evil "elite". As in, the anger shouldn't be directed on their actions or their politicies, but rahter by their success.

Right wingers refer to Obama and the Clintons as part of the "Ivy League elite" even though none of them were old money or legacy cases (unlike the Bush and Kerry families) and got there on their merit. In fact, Obama and Bill started off at some pretty low points to get there. Is the fact that they are going to some of the most prestigeous higher education institutions in the world supposed to reflect poorly on them?

Left wingers use it to refer to rich people in the old European way. As if we have some class of idle rich that act as landed gentry with a collection of surfs. This ignores the fact that many rich people, including some of the richest and most powerful in the country's history, started out as poor (or at least, certainly not in the upper class). A lot of of what they accomplished is a result of their talent and dedication.

This isn't meant to excuse misbehavior by any of the people in these groups or pass them off as better than anyone else. I'm just wondering why success is demonized.
Click to expand...

I think this is an excellent question.
It's not just the one side or another that does this but everyone in between as well.
Obama talks about the rich as if they need to be punished or held accountable in some way for being rich.
I don't have any explanations for it but I agree with your point of view and am left scratching my head along with you.
 
Right, when the economy is good, the rich should be allowed to hoard. But to pay up when the economy is poor? That's absurd!
 
I think charges of elitism refer to the political distance between members of the elite and the average Joe. The implication is the that elite cannot understand the day to day problems of the average person because they are not faced with them, and thus the sorts of policies that they recommend will tend not to take into consideration those sorts of problems and their effects on the political-economic system. There is even the suggestion that such elites simply don't care about the impact on such average people.

I don't take much stock in those arguments because they simply don't appear to be true, but that seems to me to be the basis of it.
 
Here's the thing I never understood about the elite argument. When it comes to leftists it makes more sense, because more leftists are anti capitalist (which certainly isn't to say they all are).

But the right wing highly values capitalism and the pursuit of wealth. So when right wingers (which again, does not include all of them) both demean the avenues one uses to get wealthy (such as being very well educated) and people actually acting upper class, it makes no sense to me. Do they want people to be wealthy, but only if they earned it without an education, which is very unlikely and would lead to far, far less rich people? And then they're only allowed to use said funds only to decorate their homes in signed, authentic NASCAR memorabilia?

Actually, it's not even acting upper class that gets you branded upper class. Pretty much having any interests or tastes which differ from the person making the argument can get you branded an elitist, like when Obama was blasted as elitist by right wing the media for using dijon mustard. That's just insane. I remember finding that story hilarious because I saw it on Fox news while at my husband's family farm in rural Alabama, and they had dijon mustard out when they had hamburgers and hot dogs that night.
 
Last edited:
I think the increased prevalence of 'elite' as an attack or insult is due to a rise of populism on both sides of the aisle

The word is simply used to describe someone you want others to believe is not supporting of populist ideals.
 
People confuse "elitism" with "snobbery". They aren't one and the same. "Elite" means that, by any objective standards, you are good at what you do.

"Snob" means that you think you are good at what you do and are disproportionately proud, vain and mean about it.

Of course, one can be elite and be an insufferable snob. Like my judge aunt, who is basically a decent person (and can actually be kind and generous to those who are less fortunate than she is) but who can be a real piece of work, too. Can be and often is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom