The Problem with Elitism

Interesting video.

I tend to agree that career politicians are problematic and I certainly favor term limits, but I also tend to get confused by the term “elitism”. It seems to be more of just a pejorative expression aimed at someone we disagree with rather than any real principle. For instance, the video identifies Charlie Crist as an elitist because he’s a career politician and because he left the Republican party. Crist has served in public office since 1992. However, would Jim DeMint be considered an elitist? He has the support of the Tea Party Express and he’s held public office since 1998. Pat Toomey is another candidate with Tea Party support that has held office since 98. Is it the 6 extra years that makes Crist elite? Or is it the fact that Crist is running as independent? Crist was never a social conservative and has always run into problems with the Republican party in Florida. His decision to run as an independent shouldn’t be that shocking, but rather a logical progression. The Republican party in Florida has a candidate they can actually truly get behind and support now, and Crist is running as an independent which seems appropriate based on his politics. However, elite? I don’t understand how that conclusion was reached.

The story also mentions Murkowski, of Alaska ‘write-in’ fame, as a member of the elite and principally mentions her fathers appointment of her to office as the reason for her designation as ‘elite’. This seems a bit clearer and logical to me. When the article later mentions the Kennedy dynasty as sharing the ‘elite’ designation, it seems that dynasty may be a key component of elitism. But in this vein, would Rand Paul be an elitist? Most of us would agree that Rand gets quite a bit of a boost by being the son of Ron Paul. One might argue that his rise is based largely on his fathers reputation and popularity. His father actively campaigns and raises money for him. So clearly dynasty and family aren’t it alone.

At the end of the day, I find the elite moniker to be lacking any real substance and to really be just a pejorative to toss around. In fact, I fail t see why that video was made or what they are really trying to make us aware of? If we want to talk about term limits, lets do it! If we want to talk about election reform, I would love that dialog. But what is this elite discussion buying anyone? What are we really learning? How are we becoming smarter, more well informed? It seems like we all get from this discussion is a new word to call people we don’t like. Another way to polarize and isolate people, while ignoring their actual positions and the issues at stake.

But the video did force me to think about a term that is being used with increasing frequency and for this I am grateful. Fostering discussion is always a good thing, so thanks for the post!