Elite and "The People
Elite and “The People”
The most difficult middle ground defense is against attacks from the elitists on one side and “the people”
on the other. This, incidentally, was one of the heaviest considerations shared by the founders of our
republic, and it was ultimately determined through difficult compromise that included Federalism, population
representation in the House of Representatives and equal state representation in the Senate, checks and
balances, and a strong constitution and Bill of Rights that permitted the Constitution to be changed by state
ratification. Compromises and lack thereof are, as one would expect, both urged and deprecated by
intellectual elitists at one end of the spectrum and democrats on the other.
The problem, in a nutshell, is that the people lack the ability to rule themselves due to ignorance,
excessive self interest and susceptibility to propaganda. The elites, on the other hand, are far too susceptible
to hubris and the lure of power. The founders understood the former but feared the latter more, due to their
experience with European aristocratic tyranny. In fact the rule “of the people” had really never been tried, so
that might have led to favoring the lure of the unknown to the surety of the known. Of course it is evident that
this struggle was a subset of the more general poles of order versus rights, order presumably lying with elite
leadership and rights with people’s desires.
Interestingly, elitism is a sticky wicket and depends on how elitist is defined, how elitist leaders are
selected, and the power they wield, as well as the power they are denied. So who are the elitists? We
apparently have two criteria: education and money. And the people? Both Hitler and Mussolini were
socialists, meaning adherents of “the people,” who became dictatorial tyrants. Mugabe, Lenin, Stalin and
Chavez are of the same ilk. This would suggest that many use democratic support from the people as a
mere screen for assuming power, then either revert to form once they have secured it, or are lulled by the
temptation of power. That’s probably too simple and discounts the possibility that such leaders actually
believe in their message, but then revert because they find it necessary or expedient to do so. As personal
motives are often difficult to assess, one really never knows what is in the mind of a seeker of elitist power.
I think the bottom line of it all is that, regardless of motivation, populists who want to promise the people
everything they want, find they can’t deliver. The people want too much – and too often without expending any
effort – or responsibility – in the process. So the elitist leadership challenge becomes how to share limited
resources without destroying the engine that creates them. There are many models. The European current
model is socialistic leaning, with high taxation – income redistribution. The Asian model is more
paternalistic. The Latin American model is somewhere in between, and the US model is more geared to
individual effort, a model that is moving inexorably toward the European model. Unfortunately there is too
much pressure from “the people” to do what they (the voters) think needs to be done – whatever that is –
either in electing incompetents that don’t know how to govern, or in pushing for self serving policies. Struggle
for power and resources is the history of man; republics have just widened the scope of those who can
participate. James Madison, in Federalist Number 10 put it succinctly when he said that factionalism can’t be
eliminated without eliminating liberty itself; but even without liberty there was still factionalism; it is the nature
of man.
Factionalism, does that not take us back to motives? What do the politicians – our elected elite leaders –
really believe, and how far can they go in doing what really needs to be done before they get voted out of
office? And of course politicians are human and susceptible to temptation, as are all the rest of those that
make up our complex elite structure. So let’s face it, the system – whatever system – is loaded with greed
and self interest, and how could it be otherwise, considering the nature of man? Which is why either/or
polarization is ultimately toxic, and balance between what could be and what is is more realistic. This, of
course, is the middle ground to which I think, and our system preaches, we must aspire. The people have
trouble with it in action; the politicians publicly feel they have to champion whatever they
think the people will support to get elected; and the media exploits whatever they find to exploit. While in the
meantime everyone out there is doing his or her best for themselves and the position that favors them.
Welcome to the real world; and beware, whoever achieves too much power is going to be tempted to exploit it
to the detriment of the rest of us, or at least those that don’t agree with them.
That, however, doesn’t really address elitism, or intellectualism, or the common man. What are they? I
have wrestled with the concepts with different results and I believe that is illuminating and educational. We
throw the terms around with quite some abandon.
In times past there was little ambiguity; one was born to elitism. Ah, you might say, but it had to start
somewhere, and so it did, usually accessed by force, by overthrowing someone already in power, and taking
it from him, although early on there was surely some consolidation through individual efforts – very early on.
There were other accesses: the priesthood, by appointment to office by kings or by trade; but the
opportunities were limited and so was the elitism. The Fugger family of financiers became powerful elite by
loaning to kings and princes, until those luminaries just decided not to pay, at which time the Fuggers
disappeared from power. And there is a long list of priests and appointees who disappeared when they lost
favor with those who had a lock on the real power.
All that has changed, at least to a point, because there are so many more opportunities to assemble
power. Surely birth advantage still exists and so do riches, however assembled; position, influence and
money yield immediate potential for power. But a free society – free enterprise in particular offers many,
many opportunities that lead to power – and so do the various media: writing, television, moving pictures.
Academia provides a yet an additional road to power. The question of it all is, what kind of power. Teachers
and professors can influence students; media powers; anchor people, entertainers, editors, publishers; all
influence opinion which is power of a sort, but different from say political power. And who are the political
powers? That also has changed. Office holders wield power, but often constrained by other factors such as
political parties, contributors and other powerful influence peddlers, thus creating a certain level of dilution.
Intellectuals? Who are the intellectuals? They also used to be better defined, and perhaps primarily by
education, though also by connections with other intellectuals. Now, I would contend, much “intellectualism”
is more feigned than real. Not that there are still not a circle of highly intelligent, highly intellectual individuals,
but their fields are often narrow enough so that their influence is limited, and others who are more vocal and
better connected flaunt themselves as intellectuals in a very convincing manner; that is, many people believe
it whether it is deserved or not. And since the medium of intellectual expression is still the written word, and
less and less people in our culture read, much of it is lost through either ignorance or indifference, being
replaced by the charismatic and vocal who are supported by other interests. The true intellectuals, I would
contend, have less and less influence outside their fields, and thus less and less power.
And what of the “common people?” Who are they? Who can say? If they are college educated does that
preclude them from being of the common people? If one is not does that relegate him (or her) to the
common people? My own view is that those who deliberately exclude themselves from available knowledge
of the world and economics might be considered “common people,” through their own efforts to do so, but I
am sure many would argue with that definition. But how can there be “wisdom of the common man” without
knowledge? On the other hand there are probably more than a few who wield power without a great deal of
knowledge through their economic or social positions. Into this one must project something we call “the
middle class.” And who are they? Another amorphous mass of humanity, but an important mass because
they are influential through their numbers (votes) and spending/investing power. Does that inject enough
confusion into the equation?
I think it suggests that there are different levels of power, and that is a good thing because it diffuses
power wielding – or it should. Whether it does or not is open to some question as there is ample indication
that the “power brokers” have learned to marshal the “masses” (meaning most of us) to their interests.
Which brings me back to my original position – the critical middle ground, the middle ground between elite
arrogance and ignorance or indifference of so many others. Elite arrogance must be tempered; mass
ignorance needs to be eliminated – through knowledge. Unchecked elite arrogance leads to dangerous
paternalism, mass ignorance leads to subjugation, and a combination of the two yields socialistic
dictatorship that will ultimately weaken what has been wrought. Between the extremes the terrain is dicey
and the challenges daunting, but the amalgamation of elite and the people working together toward the
common goals, with understanding and respect for the institution will continue to yield special results. We
have seen them, and experienced their magic, and though times become ever more challenging that does
not mean we have to become second rate – but we can.
While struggling with this I came upon an article in The Week magazine (2 May 2008) that added an
interesting new element. The article was entitled “Politics: What is an ‘elitist’?” It specifically dealt with
accusations that Barack Obama was an elitist. The Week polls many sources and most seemed agreed that
Americans have a resentment of “the elite,” or as Dean Barnett in The Weekly Standard put it, “elitist
condescension.” One source saw this (on the part of Obama) as a clever strategy, another as a
manifestation of eloquence, and yet another as expressing a growing aversion to phony folkiness. In any
event the suggestion was that there is a difference between elite and elitism. Does this further confuse the
picture?
The power of propaganda consolidating the power of intellectual elite through networks of connection
and influence, with growing influence of powerful economic interests (lobbies) coupled with the our
stupendous growing reliance – dependence – upon government control and munificence, along with disdain
of the “common man” for “elitism”, which may be intelligence or it may be condescension – what a brew. Can
there be any hope for any kind of balance from the middle? The middle – neither arrogant elite nor
uneducated masses (despite how the media might attempt to spin it), but a knowledgeable and concerned
amalgamation of the two, willing to discuss and compromise, really is that to which we need aspire; our
future as a free, strong and productive republic depends upon how close we can come.
The most difficult middle ground defense is against attacks from the elitists on one side and “the people”
on the other. This, incidentally, was one of the heaviest considerations shared by the founders of our
republic, and it was ultimately determined through difficult compromise that included Federalism, population
representation in the House of Representatives and equal state representation in the Senate, checks and
balances, and a strong constitution and Bill of Rights that permitted the Constitution to be changed by state
ratification. Compromises and lack thereof are, as one would expect, both urged and deprecated by
intellectual elitists at one end of the spectrum and democrats on the other.
The problem, in a nutshell, is that the people lack the ability to rule themselves due to ignorance,
excessive self interest and susceptibility to propaganda. The elites, on the other hand, are far too susceptible
to hubris and the lure of power. The founders understood the former but feared the latter more, due to their
experience with European aristocratic tyranny. In fact the rule “of the people” had really never been tried, so
that might have led to favoring the lure of the unknown to the surety of the known. Of course it is evident that
this struggle was a subset of the more general poles of order versus rights, order presumably lying with elite
leadership and rights with people’s desires.
Interestingly, elitism is a sticky wicket and depends on how elitist is defined, how elitist leaders are
selected, and the power they wield, as well as the power they are denied. So who are the elitists? We
apparently have two criteria: education and money. And the people? Both Hitler and Mussolini were
socialists, meaning adherents of “the people,” who became dictatorial tyrants. Mugabe, Lenin, Stalin and
Chavez are of the same ilk. This would suggest that many use democratic support from the people as a
mere screen for assuming power, then either revert to form once they have secured it, or are lulled by the
temptation of power. That’s probably too simple and discounts the possibility that such leaders actually
believe in their message, but then revert because they find it necessary or expedient to do so. As personal
motives are often difficult to assess, one really never knows what is in the mind of a seeker of elitist power.
I think the bottom line of it all is that, regardless of motivation, populists who want to promise the people
everything they want, find they can’t deliver. The people want too much – and too often without expending any
effort – or responsibility – in the process. So the elitist leadership challenge becomes how to share limited
resources without destroying the engine that creates them. There are many models. The European current
model is socialistic leaning, with high taxation – income redistribution. The Asian model is more
paternalistic. The Latin American model is somewhere in between, and the US model is more geared to
individual effort, a model that is moving inexorably toward the European model. Unfortunately there is too
much pressure from “the people” to do what they (the voters) think needs to be done – whatever that is –
either in electing incompetents that don’t know how to govern, or in pushing for self serving policies. Struggle
for power and resources is the history of man; republics have just widened the scope of those who can
participate. James Madison, in Federalist Number 10 put it succinctly when he said that factionalism can’t be
eliminated without eliminating liberty itself; but even without liberty there was still factionalism; it is the nature
of man.
Factionalism, does that not take us back to motives? What do the politicians – our elected elite leaders –
really believe, and how far can they go in doing what really needs to be done before they get voted out of
office? And of course politicians are human and susceptible to temptation, as are all the rest of those that
make up our complex elite structure. So let’s face it, the system – whatever system – is loaded with greed
and self interest, and how could it be otherwise, considering the nature of man? Which is why either/or
polarization is ultimately toxic, and balance between what could be and what is is more realistic. This, of
course, is the middle ground to which I think, and our system preaches, we must aspire. The people have
trouble with it in action; the politicians publicly feel they have to champion whatever they
think the people will support to get elected; and the media exploits whatever they find to exploit. While in the
meantime everyone out there is doing his or her best for themselves and the position that favors them.
Welcome to the real world; and beware, whoever achieves too much power is going to be tempted to exploit it
to the detriment of the rest of us, or at least those that don’t agree with them.
That, however, doesn’t really address elitism, or intellectualism, or the common man. What are they? I
have wrestled with the concepts with different results and I believe that is illuminating and educational. We
throw the terms around with quite some abandon.
In times past there was little ambiguity; one was born to elitism. Ah, you might say, but it had to start
somewhere, and so it did, usually accessed by force, by overthrowing someone already in power, and taking
it from him, although early on there was surely some consolidation through individual efforts – very early on.
There were other accesses: the priesthood, by appointment to office by kings or by trade; but the
opportunities were limited and so was the elitism. The Fugger family of financiers became powerful elite by
loaning to kings and princes, until those luminaries just decided not to pay, at which time the Fuggers
disappeared from power. And there is a long list of priests and appointees who disappeared when they lost
favor with those who had a lock on the real power.
All that has changed, at least to a point, because there are so many more opportunities to assemble
power. Surely birth advantage still exists and so do riches, however assembled; position, influence and
money yield immediate potential for power. But a free society – free enterprise in particular offers many,
many opportunities that lead to power – and so do the various media: writing, television, moving pictures.
Academia provides a yet an additional road to power. The question of it all is, what kind of power. Teachers
and professors can influence students; media powers; anchor people, entertainers, editors, publishers; all
influence opinion which is power of a sort, but different from say political power. And who are the political
powers? That also has changed. Office holders wield power, but often constrained by other factors such as
political parties, contributors and other powerful influence peddlers, thus creating a certain level of dilution.
Intellectuals? Who are the intellectuals? They also used to be better defined, and perhaps primarily by
education, though also by connections with other intellectuals. Now, I would contend, much “intellectualism”
is more feigned than real. Not that there are still not a circle of highly intelligent, highly intellectual individuals,
but their fields are often narrow enough so that their influence is limited, and others who are more vocal and
better connected flaunt themselves as intellectuals in a very convincing manner; that is, many people believe
it whether it is deserved or not. And since the medium of intellectual expression is still the written word, and
less and less people in our culture read, much of it is lost through either ignorance or indifference, being
replaced by the charismatic and vocal who are supported by other interests. The true intellectuals, I would
contend, have less and less influence outside their fields, and thus less and less power.
And what of the “common people?” Who are they? Who can say? If they are college educated does that
preclude them from being of the common people? If one is not does that relegate him (or her) to the
common people? My own view is that those who deliberately exclude themselves from available knowledge
of the world and economics might be considered “common people,” through their own efforts to do so, but I
am sure many would argue with that definition. But how can there be “wisdom of the common man” without
knowledge? On the other hand there are probably more than a few who wield power without a great deal of
knowledge through their economic or social positions. Into this one must project something we call “the
middle class.” And who are they? Another amorphous mass of humanity, but an important mass because
they are influential through their numbers (votes) and spending/investing power. Does that inject enough
confusion into the equation?
I think it suggests that there are different levels of power, and that is a good thing because it diffuses
power wielding – or it should. Whether it does or not is open to some question as there is ample indication
that the “power brokers” have learned to marshal the “masses” (meaning most of us) to their interests.
Which brings me back to my original position – the critical middle ground, the middle ground between elite
arrogance and ignorance or indifference of so many others. Elite arrogance must be tempered; mass
ignorance needs to be eliminated – through knowledge. Unchecked elite arrogance leads to dangerous
paternalism, mass ignorance leads to subjugation, and a combination of the two yields socialistic
dictatorship that will ultimately weaken what has been wrought. Between the extremes the terrain is dicey
and the challenges daunting, but the amalgamation of elite and the people working together toward the
common goals, with understanding and respect for the institution will continue to yield special results. We
have seen them, and experienced their magic, and though times become ever more challenging that does
not mean we have to become second rate – but we can.
While struggling with this I came upon an article in The Week magazine (2 May 2008) that added an
interesting new element. The article was entitled “Politics: What is an ‘elitist’?” It specifically dealt with
accusations that Barack Obama was an elitist. The Week polls many sources and most seemed agreed that
Americans have a resentment of “the elite,” or as Dean Barnett in The Weekly Standard put it, “elitist
condescension.” One source saw this (on the part of Obama) as a clever strategy, another as a
manifestation of eloquence, and yet another as expressing a growing aversion to phony folkiness. In any
event the suggestion was that there is a difference between elite and elitism. Does this further confuse the
picture?
The power of propaganda consolidating the power of intellectual elite through networks of connection
and influence, with growing influence of powerful economic interests (lobbies) coupled with the our
stupendous growing reliance – dependence – upon government control and munificence, along with disdain
of the “common man” for “elitism”, which may be intelligence or it may be condescension – what a brew. Can
there be any hope for any kind of balance from the middle? The middle – neither arrogant elite nor
uneducated masses (despite how the media might attempt to spin it), but a knowledgeable and concerned
amalgamation of the two, willing to discuss and compromise, really is that to which we need aspire; our
future as a free, strong and productive republic depends upon how close we can come.