The Restoration of the Elite

A few days ago, David Brooks published a column in the New York Times in which he decries the bashing of Sarah Palin by the liberal elite. He finished the article with this warning:

"Surely the response to the current crisis of authority is not to throw away standards of experience and prudence, but to select leaders who have those qualities but not the smug condescension that has so marked the reaction to the Palin nomination in the first place."

While I agree with much of what he says in the column about the necessity of our national leaders being people of wisdom, experience, and prudence, I object to his final objection. I have not observed, in the Sarah Palin backlash, any smug condescension. I have observed fury, fear, disbelief, astonishment, and a kind of outraged horror that McCain could have actually made what is clearly an utterly inappropriate decision, but I have not observed smug condescension.

The only thing that I have observed in the Post-Palin-Nomination Bruhaha that approaches the kind of petty snobbery that Mr. Brooks attributes to all liberals is the raging popularity of the Sarah Palin Baby Name Generator which first appeared, so far as I know, on September 14th. (Born to Sarah and Todd Palin, according to this site, I would have been named “Roop Hoover Palin.” My husband would have been “Jeep Pike Palin.”) I’m sure the name generator is purely random, and there is absolutely no logic or fact to support any contention that these names have any basis in reality. The sole function of the gimmick is to poke blatant fun of the unusual names that the Palins have given their children—Track, Trig, Bristol, Willow, and Piper—and while there is no denying that it relies on a little mean-spirited condescension and that, like any humor that relies on making fun of anyone, it can only be enjoyed by someone who doesn’t like the target to start with, it also functions as an ironic and particularly appropriate tit for tat for the bashing Barack Obama has taken over his name. While no one thinks Sarah Palin is unqualified to serve as VP because she gave her children unusual names, there actually are people who think Barack Hussain Obama should not be President because of his name. (And no, “tit for tat” is not some kind of sexist slur directed at Sarah Palin. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, it’s a variation of “tip for tap” that goes back five centuries and refers to one person striking out at another in retaliation for a blow received.)

In fact, some of Brooks’ argument is tit-for-tat for the kind of unfounded, biased, and narrow-minded attack of which he accuses others. Brooks does not, for instance, quote anyone in particular, nor does he provide even a general-but-unattributed quotation to support his contention. Instead, he simply claims broadly that the [whole] “liberal elite” is panicked by the appearance on the ticket of a small town girl:

"Palin is the ultimate small-town renegade rising from the frontier to do battle with the corrupt establishment. Her followers take pride in the way she has aroused fear, hatred and panic in the minds of the liberal elite. The feminists declare that she’s not a real woman because she doesn’t hew to their rigid categories. People who’ve never been in a Wal-Mart think she is parochial because she has never summered in Tuscany."

Though I do not usually associate David Brooks with the broad-swinging unfair attack (in general I find his writing to be clear-headed, rational, and low-key, even when I disagree, as I often do, with his positions), but without specific names, faces, quotations, citations, or attributions, the statements here necessarily apply generally to everyone who can in any way be described by the target nouns. As it stands, this paragraph suggests that all liberal thinkers are feminists and/or people who have never been in a Wal-Mart, and it implies that regardless of which of those categories a liberal thinker fits into, he or she is bound to be insensitive, self-absorbed, and rigidly intolerant. The paragraph itself, in fact, exhibits condescension toward all liberals, who have, as a result of the lack of specificity, been lumped together and portrayed as not only out of touch with common people (whoever they may be, presumably non-liberals!) but also plain snobby.

This attack by David Brooks, however, continues the trend that began at least as far back as last April, when John McCain branded Barack Obama an elitist for suggesting that American workers are embittered by their circumstances and suggests that the snobbery of the liberal thinker goes far beyond a blatantly foolish online gimmick that reflects a third-grade mentality. Brooks is not alone in leveling these attacks; on September 17th, Lady de Rothschild—a member of one of the most aristocratic families in America—denounced Obama as elitist. This is a strange trend. Apart from the fact that it’s a bizarre turnaround to portray liberals as people who are intolerant of others, who think of themselves as better than others who should, therefore, be disregarded, and who have no compassion for people with less money than they, it’s simply bizarre to think that the word “elite,” in all its forms and regardless of context, is a brand to be feared and avoided at all cost.

According to the OED, Elite” actually means “chosen,” with its 14th century roots in the idea of an election. Someone who can be described as “elite” is someone who is especially qualified for a particular role—someone who is, in fact, better than others at a given task. We do still use the word this way to express admiration and respect for people; we talk of Navy Seals, for example, as being an elite trained fighting force, and we talk about elite athletes or performers. The elite are actually the people best qualified for something, and not usually because of some raw, inborn talent, though we may perceive that raw talent was present at the beginning. Someone rises to the level of the elite through hard work and long experience. “Elitism” is the advocacy of the idea that the elite are those who should be in charge of a given enterprise, and an elitist is such an advocate. A snob, on the other hand, is “One who despises those who are considered inferior in rank, attainment, or taste.”

Though he uses the word “elite” in the sense in which it is commonly, though not accurately, used, what Brooks actually and unilaterally accuses all liberals of is snobbism. Snobbism is mean-spirited and petty. Snobbism is closed-minded and self-interested. Snobbism is NOT the same thing as elitism, or, at the very least, there are a great many more nuances to the latter than there are to the former, and snobbism has nothing whatever to do with political viewpoint; it is a function of personality, intelligence (or perhaps ignorance), and world view, and it transcends political party affiliation. There is PLENTY of snobbism to go around. It is not the elitist who thinks him or herself better than others and despises those he or she perceives to be in some way less; it is the snob. It would be possible for a snob to be a member of the elite, or not; it would be possible for a member of the elite to be a snob, or not. By conflating the two, David Brooks—and the McCain campaign and anyone else who has bought the lapse into indiscrimination—has turned what should be a positive into a negative.

The conflation of the idea of elitism with the idea of snobbism additionally carries with it a troubling implication. The association of elitism with money, social status, and with birthright, and the disassociation of elitism with achievement, intelligence, and personal accomplishment negates the possibility that true elitism is something accessible to everyone. The founding philosophical principle behind the constitution is the belief that there is no natural aristocracy, that neither birth nor wealth confers greater worth, and that what matters is that all people have the opportunity to work themselves up to whatever level of intellectual and financial achievement they are willing to commit to. The founding vision of the United States did not include the elimination of the elite; instead, it aimed to create a system in which elitism was always open to anyone who earned it. The denigration of elitism and the relegation of it to an undesirable quality is also the denigration of the original American dream. The social vision that underlies the use of the term “elitist” as an insult is the vision of a whole nation of low-achieving, powerless, self-satisfied mediocrity. I’m a teacher. I spend my life trying to help young people develop the skills, the values, and the outlook necessary for them to be able to create themselves as an elite member of some segment of society. Every parent surely dreams that his or her child will achieve that goal. I am disturbed by politicians who suggest that the dream is unworthy.

I would rather not have a snob as a president. It’s possible that a snob might be so self-absorbed that he or she would fail to interest himself or herself in the well-being of all the people of the country; it is possible that a snob could take his or her snobbism to such an extreme that he or she would interest himself or herself only in the well-being of those he or she considers to be like-minded. (In fact, so far as I can see, one of George Bush’s greatest failures has been that he epitomizes the problem of the overly charged ego: I do perceive him as a terrible snob, and it seems to me that we have reaped the disasters of his decision to concern himself only with amassing power to himself and his friends, all of whom consider themselves to be infinitely superior to the rest of us.) I do, however, want someone elite to be President—especially in the face of the current economic disaster, the war in Iraq, the potential for catastrophe in Pakistan or Korea, and imminent environmental collapse. I want the smartest, most experienced, most inventive, creative, skilled, and powerful people we can find. I want someone so truly elite that any tendency to feeling impressed with his or her own abilities will be negated by his or her need to do what the job actually requires. I do not want someone for President who, by virtue of being just like me is someone I can be comfortable around, share a beer with (if I drank beer, which I don’t) or relate to as my friendly next-door neighbor. I do not want someone for President who can’t intimidate me with his or her superior intellect. I do not want someone for President who, by his or her distinct lack of extraordinary qualities, makes me feel safely superior. I want people in office who are a lot better than I am at doing whatever it is that needs to be done.

Thomas Friedman, in today’s column in the New York Times, explained the need eloquently:

"George W. Bush never once — not one time — challenged Americans to do anything hard, let alone great. The next president is not going to have that luxury. He will have to ask everyone to do something hard — and I want to know now who is up to that task."

Only an elite politician, one supremely qualified to get things done by building a consensus and mobilizing the whole of American society to rise to a whole series of difficult occasions rather than a commonplace politician, capable only of pandering to the commonplace opinion, will be capable of making that sell. I might prefer it if that person were also humble, but in the end, humility is irrelevant. I would far rather have an elite snob, so long as the elitism is based in real ability to produce on the national and international stage, than a humble incompetent.



P.S. I’m clearly not offering the week’s most original idea; not only has Thomas Friedman weighed in today, but so has Maureen Dowd. And she’s right—I would have voted for Jed Bartlet in a heartbeat. I can only dream that I will one day get the chance.