Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
A Response to My Friend Sal, the Dirty Elitist
When I was a sophomore in college, I took a class on Russian Politics. It got me hooked and I ended up with something of an unofficial (because it didn’t exist) minor. In the first class, the professor asked whether the American Revolution really qualified as a revolution. I honestly don’t recall what the general consensus was at the time, but recently I have been thinking about that question. I am half-inclined to say that the American Revolution was the only true revolution. I say that because, in one sense, it was an unnatural revolution. It was a revolution of thought, disenfranchising an authority but, unlike the various Russian and French revolutions, not replacing it with another, worse, authority. That’s what I mean by ‘unnatural’: it was the sort of revolution that simply doesn’t happen.
Other revolutions are easy — they just follow the contours of human nature. We always root for the underdog because virtually all of us are underdogs. There is always someone with privilege. In baseball, half of the players have recognizable names because their fathers were players. Is this unfair? Hard to say. But it is undeniable that there is an advantage. We’ve all experienced it in our own lives. We all know (or some of us might be) people whose parents paid for their educations, put them in quality schools, paid for tutoring and ensured that they got into good colleges, good graduate schools, etc. For most Ivy-Leaguers, for example, it would be pretty difficult to defend against this charge. They’ll take the one or two rags-to-riches examples and say they’ve proven you wrong — but they’re usually not the example. Is it any wonder that people are taken in by the idea of affirmative action? It is a pretty weak answer when conservatives say that there is equal opportunity – because there isn’t. There is equal legal opportunity, but a fat lot of good that does the guy with no money and no family.
We’ve been talking about elitism lately. It is a difficult situation because, really, the liberals are right. Take Ricochet, for example. What a wonderful premise; this site is based on the idea that conservatives are smart, and that conversation among every-day conservatives is just as invigorating as the conversation you hear from any of our talking heads. But what of our pundits? Ever see them on the Member Feed? Ever see them commenting, even on their own articles? Nope. Well… some are exceptions, which is a real testament to the truth of conservatism. Justified elitism has the major downfall of tending to go to one’s head, of leading to dismissiveness and condescension.
Yes – justified elitism: it can be pretty obnoxious talking down to the under-informed. You sometimes have to start at their level. You cannot assume that they’ve devoted their lives to learning all of the facts and history. Just when you start trying to talk to them, you realize that they didn’t actually read The Wealth of Nations. So much easier to talk, to write, and to have them just listen.
Goodness, I experience this plenty in my own life. I’m a lawyer. I get talked down to all the time. When I go to the doctor’s office, I don’t know everything that’s going on – but I want to know. So I ask tons of questions. I probe and I make conversation. It takes a lot of patience, because the doctor cannot make assumptions. When I go to an orchard, it is the same thing. I ask the farmer about his apples, and I wonder whether I have the right mix for the cider I want to make. I ask about strains and about hybrids. It takes a lot of patience to talk to a lawyer who doesn’t know anything about farming. When I go to the mechanic, I ask about my brake shoes and about the struts on my car – does that noise mean something is loose? It takes a lot of patience to explain these things to a lawyer who tucks his tie into his pocket so that he doesn’t get grease on it.
Politics is strange like that. Politicians peddle in opinions, don’t they? But they aren’t doctors or mechanics or farmers. They’re not just peddling in opinions, but in judgments. They want to manage, but, unfortunately for them, our disagreement is not about whether they are competent to manage but whether we want to be managed in the first place. And that is why we lose.
Conservatives are walking proof that the liberals are right. Even our Tea Party rebels – who include Harvard Law grads and Supreme Court clerks amongst their ranks – tend to come from the elite. These are people who wouldn’t talk to you except to beg for your vote. I recently remarked to a friend that the only sort of politician I will enthusiastically vote for is the one who will arrive in DC and promptly fire himself. I don’t want to be governed. It is precisely why we had that stupid revolution in the first place. We actually got together a group of men who were willing to congregate at the capital only to castrate themselves. They left things too vague, however, and the constitution we’ve got hasn’t just become a living organism, it’s become a cancerous one.
In response, we gather our own elite. We send our best and our brightest to go argue with their best and their brightest, but they find they have more in common with each other than with us. They’re all ‘experts.’ Even conservatives are stratified. It doesn’t take a Harvard education to say “hands off,” but when the rubes gather to say it they’re shouted down by the experts. Those experts prove that the liberals are right – the elitists with power may say all the right things, but, in the end, they’re going to protect their positions, their status, and their livelihood.
The problem with conservatives is that our revolution has to be only half a revolution. We can’t rely on inequality to foment grievance and pit the lowly against the elite. All that ever does is replace one elite with another. It never removes the throne, it only changes the ruler. The feminist movement, the civil rights movement, unions, the LGBT movement, etc. – they start out as appeals to actual inequality, but they eventually settle in as empowerment movements, aimed at flipping the power rather than removing it. So we have to have a half-revolution. We accept inequality, we accept elitism, we accept those experts and those people who would never condescend to mix it up with the dirty folk. We allow for movement up and down, knowing that this moves everyone up in the long run. But we have to tear down the throne itself – so that the experts cannot rule us. And that is really hard to do, because that throne is just so tempting and there are just so many people to resent for all their privilege.
But looking back, it would seem that we tried some 200-odd years ago. Frankly, I don’t think it’s going to work.
Published in General
Disclaimer!!
This is an off-the-cuff, unedited essay in which I engage in a good amount of hyperbole. The underlying premise is pretty easy:
Inequality exists. A lot of it exists for a good reason. But a lot of it exists because of privilege. It is human nature to resent that, and virtually all of us do. Liberals base virtually their entire ideology on appeals to this resentment. Conservatives recognize that tearing down rulers will only result in more – if different – rulers. They recognize that inequality is real, as real as short and tall or smart and dumb. They don’t promise to alter reality as the liberals do. Conservatives are right… but when liberals play to resentment, they’re also right, because inequality really does lead to elitism. Elitism sucks, and conservatives accept it as a necessary evil.
But they must accept it only as a necessary evil. When they start defending it, they’re simply proving themselves wrong.
I’d like to clarify an important point. Elitists are not dirty. Hygiene is important to us. Dirt is a bit proletarian, we prefer to leave it to hoi polloi.
That’s very eloquent. I think it gets to the crux of the matter.
So far is it from being true that men are naturally equal, that no two people can be half an hour together, but one shall acquire an evident superiority over the other. Dr. Johnson
I was nearly prepared to additionally disclaim that this is not a true disagreement with your post – I had previously written it on the topic of elitism. But it does draw two very important distinctions. If elitism is acceptable as natural and unavoidable, as we argue that it is, it is incumbent upon us to acknowledge and deal with the negative consequences. Namely, arrogance, condescension, dismissiveness. Secondly, we also have to recognize that there are exceptions, and that people still fall through the cracks. It is very easy to ignore that, and since that is what liberals appeal to, they will be right, and we will be wrong, if we persist in defending all elitism in that same manner.
What post is this in response to?
I tried looking at Sal’s started conversations, but Page 1 had January-April 2014, Page 2 had May-June 2014, and Page 3 had “OOPS! THAT PAGE CAN’T BE FOUND.”
http://ricochet.com/profile/25276/page/1/
It isn’t worth reading. Just read my response and assume that I’m right. ;)
hah – looks like it was promoted. Nice job, Sal!
Check here: http://ricochet.com/conservatism-meritocracy-and-the-new-elite/
Thanks, but it’s really just elitist cronyism.
My mom’s family members were all very well educated, but her second cousin, who would be 110 today, never went to college. Instead, she studied for a year at the Mass College of Art. She lived on Binney Street, next to Mass General, because her job there was to draw the surgeries. She always prefaced everything she said with, “Well, I didn’t go to college.”
I’ve known so many extraordinary people like her.
This is why the “elites” make me crazy. I admire their achievements, but an Ivy League degree doesn’t say much about their character (Elliot Spitzer is a Harvard Law guy) or anything else.
Lots to think about, here. Thanks for posting it, Ryan!
At least the political elites tend to be somewhat more libertarian in practice than the people who vote for them.
Either I’m thinking of different “elites” than you are, or I understand libertarianism even less than I thought I did, or I’m simply very slow on the uptake tonight … but I don’t “see” what you mean. Would you mind elaborating, please?
in all honesty, this sat in my inbox for 5 days because I hadn’t planned to post it. But since Sal brought us on topic…
I didn’t particularly want people to misinterpret me as having a chip on my shoulder, rather than a legitimate point to make.
My rare comment goose-egg of a post is probably a good place to start.
Just clicked. I’m a little surprised that landed a goose-egg. Interesting post. Doesn’t help much in arguments about Citizens United, though.
So it’s all about amnesty for illegal immigrants, in your mind? (That’s the only specific you mention approvingly in that post, so if that’s not what you mean … well, still not following, sorry)
Sal,
Don’t put up with this GARBAGE. Don’t you realize what Ryan M called you? I mean I can thing of no lower pejorative that could be said on Ricochet. Make him retract. Hyperbole, indeed!!!! Just in case you are in so much shock that your mind is blocking the truth from you I will point out the word.
“A Response to My Friend Sal; the Dirty Elitist”
Beware of Geeks bearing gifts!!!
10
‘This is why the “elites” make me crazy. I admire their achievements, but an Ivy League degree doesn’t say much about their character (Elliot Spitzer is a Harvard Law guy) or anything else. ‘
Is it true, I seem to remember reading somewhere that once having achieved entrance to Yale, Harvard, etc., that no one flunks out , that is, if you do very little you will ‘graduate’ with a Gentleman’s C? By the same token do any of these ‘Rhodes Scholars’ actually graduate or do they just shoot the breeze for a couple of years and spend the rest of their lives bragging about it?
A lot of them do very serious work, but that isn’t really the point of a Rhodes Scholarship. The idea behind it was to bring the best and brightest young Americans and expose them to the best and brightest young Britons and to British institutions and culture.
No, sorry. I always have immigration on my mind because I think it’s one of the most important issues. It was really about how rich/elites tend to be more libertarian, which is why we don’t have even more populous/socialist policies than we do now. The immigration angle was to explain to those who oppose amnesty why they aren’t getting what they want despite overwhelming support among the overall population, and why it’s supported by the Republicans in power, even though it seems politically insane.
It’s one of the rare examples were elites and non-elites disagree, but in these cases the elites tend to win. It’s not so much an argument but an explanation of “this is why there’s this strange disconnect.”
One of the things that I noticed is that Democrats have a whole slew of people, both Clintons, Gore, Kerry, Obama that have been building their resumes and ‘preserving their political viability’ while planning to run for President since about the age of 16. People whose every move from an early age has been a calculated campaign move. Such people are sick in my opinion. They should be the last people considered for public office.
On our side, Ted Cruz is a good example of someone who has been planning his political career since middle school. Do you think he’s sick? Would you consider voting for him?
Rarely have I ever read anything I agreed with so perfectly. Thought I was the only one with this concern, . . .
It is an interesting point, and I hate to do this, but Terry said something similar about term limits on our last podcast: “on the other hand, what if you’ve got a guy in there who is just really good?” I think a person can support Cruz while still saying that Kerry et. al. are disgusting. It would help to admit that there are lifelong democrat candidates who are not disgusting, and that there are lifelong republicans who are, but (cont…)
(…cont) don’t just consider the nature of politics, which (quite frankly) doesn’t really speak well of anyone involved; consider the difference between the tactics of the right and left. Yes, perhaps Cruz has spent a lifetime essentially preening for political office (I cannot verify this claim, though). But observe his behavior and listen to what he says. If in Hillary’s case, what that means is being able to convince a significant chunk of the population that the sky is green… well, let me put it this way: the politics of the left seems less honest, it seems to play upon unnecessary fears, it pits people against one another in grievances (the entire purpose of Obama’s “community organizer” career, which has squared with his subsequent behavior in office), etc… On the right, we share the need for political connections and fundraising – but personal training involves more legitimate arguments and appeals to freedom, morality, and so forth. That doesn’t mean republicans are perfect (good lord, it doesn’t mean that!), but I would not be so quick to lump all politicians into the same boat.
I’d vote for him and happily. I certainly understand the practical realities of learning about politics and government, and needing to specialize in those areas of expertise in order to get to be a U.S. senator or president within one’s lifetime. But I still think it is a strange way to get there. Professional politicians preserve their jobs and will sacrifice principles to do so. The professional politician will look at his desk filled with 75 issues and chuck some just because he has to do so. Preserving his base, representing the people who supported him and his campaign–these things matter. And a single- or two-issue politician wouldn’t, practically speaking, stay that way for very long. The realities of office mitigate against that. But: I like the idea of people being inspired to run as a limited-time public service, and I would rather have people run for office as part of an otherwise-filled lifetime.
I’m not really disagreeing with you. I’m saying that Cruz, arguably the most popular politician among the Republican base, is every bit as calculating and career-minded a politician as Bill Clinton or Barack Obama.
We the lazy public want politicians who want to keep their jobs. That way, in our minds, we can hold them accountable. We love that. (How many times have I seen people threaten our volunteer school committee members, “We won’t vote for you again.” Really? Please don’t. We are so tired.)
In the olden days, we wanted to promote people to office sporadically from their other occupations, and these leaders would say to us,”I’ll do the best I can. I did not ask for this, and I cannot make any promises.” In this scenario, we were all in it together.
In the first scenario, we elect our employee, not our hapless leader.
Neither works perfectly, and in the highly specialized beehive of modern civilization, the professional politician is easier for all of us to work with. But I wish it weren’t so. I like to elect people who are reluctant a little bit. Of course, the reluctant-warrior path can lead to single-issue nutcases who are inept in everything else.
As to which works better, both are probably as apt to succeed as fail.
Let’s talk about Bill Clinton for a second. He aced academic tests. No question. But all that tells me is that he has a good memory.
Reporters have the ability to very superficially understand things well enough to write about them plausibly. Editors and actors have the same language-imagination ability. But there is a world of difference between having actually loved someone versus reading and writing about love. There are limits to language.
The world’s greatest actors have the same mental ability as Clinton has. But Tom Selleck was only pretending to be Eisenhower. He was not Eisenhower. There is a difference.
The country elected Clinton because he impressed them with his superficial language ability. But I say George H. W. Bush who had actually physically served his country during World War II was much more intelligent than Bill Clinton.