Elitism is under attack in America. The tea party activists of the right and the progressive activists on the left spend their time attacking the “elites” of America. There are the elites of Wall Street, the elites of academia, and the political elites, to name a few. The idea is that these elites control the ruling class of America. The goal of both sets of activists is to remove these elites and replace them with the common man.
This fear of an elitist ruling class is irrational, conspiratorial, and fails to match up with progress in American history. Even though it is, blaming the elites for all the problems in America is a common class argument. Today, I am going to address that argument on the right end of the spectrum from an article in the American Thinker blog.
I. Yardley’s Argument
Jim Yardley, of the America Thinker, wrote an article where he assesses the current status of elites in America. His assessment is (emphasis mine):
The folks we have as our political leaders are considered the elite, by news media types who think that they themselves are part of the elite. Both groups view themselves and each other not as merely “good,” nor even just “better,” but clearly the “best.” But do they mean the best of that group that represents all Americans? If they do, then I’ll have to confess that my definition of the “best” is a little different than theirs.
Yardley centers on the idea that if the elites are the “best” of America, then do they represent the best of America? His answer is no. To be clear, his definition of elite centers around the political, academic, and business elite that includes the Harry Reid, Barack Obama, and George Soros types of the world.
The people in Yardley’s “elite” are a romanticization of the American everyman. Yardley includes servicemen and women, Boy Scout leaders, first responders, bake sales leaders, and everyone who spends time giving back to their communities each Thanksgiving. They are the “All-Americans” that are the actual elites.
The “self-proclaimed elites” are children of privilege, went to an Ivy-League School, and decided to become a lawyer. For Yardley, these elites are closer to the Mandarin of China, or the bureaucrats of society. The elites work on “getting their tickets punched, and memorizing the right answers” and end up contributing little to society.
For Yardley, these elites are subject to scorn and ridicule as he argues that elites developed the Titanic and built the Great Wall of China. Yardley’s goal is to replace the self-proclaimed elites with “All-American.”
There are several problems with Yardley’s arguments: it fails to stand up to philosophical scrutiny as well as historical scrutiny when compared to historical events in America.
II. Logical Problems with Yardley
First, Yardley associates his version of elitism with the common “All-American.” In other words, the idea is that everyone is elite. If you have reason and common-sense, then you are elite. This is proven in his list of “noble” people, firefighters, police, bake sale moms, etc. The point is to level every person. If every person is elite, then no one is elite.
This idea is important, because if everyone is an elite, or equal, then everyone is also capable for public office. On its face, this argument seems to be an American democratic idea. Everyone has the capabilities of serving and nothing makes our leaders better than us. There is even a tinge of John Locke in this argument: Everyone is born a tabula rasa, or a blank slate, and from there they learn.
The problem with this argument is that it assumes equality of talent and reason that simply does not exist. Indeed, the very thought that we must strive towards equality shows that inequality exists on this level. This can be shown with Yardley’s own examples of his “ideal elite.”
Let’s take a police officer and a firefighter. Give them each the highest training in their field and send them out to do their job. They will both perform admirably in their job and receive distinction in their field. Now take the two, keeping their original training, and place them into the opposite role, firefighter into policeman and vice versa. The firefighter will use his training in fighting fires to combat crime. The police officer will combat fires with his knowledge of crime fighting. The distinction is gone and the community is worse off for having two individuals in their wrong roles.
Take the example of a church. When you walk into a church building you do not find a room full of pastors and ministers. There is, in most traditional settings, one preacher or teacher, leading the “flock” and the rest are followers. A hierarchy is set in place with some in more “elite” positions. In the Catholic Church this is promoted even further with local parishioners below Archbishops, Cardinals, and the Pope.
Any number of combinations will work with this theory. The point is simple though; a person with training in a field is bound to be statistically better at performing the tasks within that field than a person without training. Think of the criticism of Barack Obama and Sarah Palin in regards to their bids for Presidency. The largest criticism for both was inexperience in leading people at the highest levels of government. Experience can make one better at a job than another person, making the more experienced the elite.
The end point is this: If some people can be trained to be better at a job or task than others, then the idea of universal elitism falls. Elitism is, as Yardley defines it, being the best. Performing at a task better makes one elite at that task. The same principle applies to the political spectrum, if one is better at achieving political results, then that person is an elite in that field. If that person is replaced by a person without training, then on the whole, job performance will falter.
Using this logic, the goal should be to put in even more qualified people into Congress as opposed to removing them. If those who hare not the best at being a politician or a leader are then thrust into those positions, the community and country are worse off for having poor leaders. y
III. Historical Problems with Yardley
The second problem with Yardley is that he misrepresents elitism in America. He charges the elites with creating the “indestructible” Titanic and the immovable bureaucracy of the Mandarins. While people elite in their fields created these items, elites also created the ideas behind the American Revolution, the US Constitution, Emancipation, Desegregation, the most recently in history, the technological revolution.
The Constitution and Desegregation are particularly damning to Yardley’s points. The Constitution was almost entirely a product of elitism. The earlier version of government, the Articles of Confederation, was based off of the popular ideas of Thomas Paine. This government was a complete disaster. Elites, especially James Madison and Alexander Hamilton stepped in to create the Constitution. The Constitutional Convention was done in secret, away from those who Yardley would consider to be the ideal elites. The product of this secrecy has been one of the most free and stable forms of government the world has ever known.
The idea of setting up checks and balances and elections was to push the brightest of society into leadership roles. The Constitution sets up a kind of filter for society to choose the best leaders and as representatives.
In the Southern South, the elites had to step in with Brown v. Board of Education to desegregate the schools and end the doctrine of separate but equal, Jim Crow laws, and protect minorities from racism. Yardley’s elites resisted this change for years after the Civil War.
In short, far from destroying the country, in most cases, the elites were responsible for the ideas that founded the United States. In cases where elites were not involved, you have situations like the Jim Crow South, the anti-federalists, and populism.
IV. Summary
The problem with railing against “elites” is that if you don’t send the best to represent you in Congress, then an inferior representative is sent instead. Though I have the utmost respect for policemen, I do not want one helping me over a doctor in a medical emergency. Nor do I want the doctor protecting me in a robbery.
The reason elites exist is because society has roles that need to be filled. To become competent within this role is to become a part of the best in that position. To become the best is to become elite. Though a person may be elite at a particular job, this does not make them automatically qualified to govern.
If America is to come out of this economic downturn and continue a steady course, it will be because elites were able to solve the problems and enact solutions. Soccer moms and policemen are great at their individual jobs, but they are not equal to John Roberts in his role as Chief Justice, Governor Phil Bredesen in his role as Governor of Tennessee, or the late Adrian Rogers in his role of leading a church. Inherent inequalities exist that prevent the same level of competency.
Recognizing the abilities and skills of elites in politics will better help the country remain on the right track. Ignoring a person merely because they are better at a particular task or job, on the sole basis that they are elite, is not only wrong, it is suicidal for a nation to pursue. Complex problems require experts capable of solving those complex problems.
Does this mean that being elite automatically makes an elites solutions the best? No, no one would argue such a thing. But it does mean, that a person trained, with the requisite knowledge, will be more prone to find the correct answer. Though a thousand monkeys in a room full of typewriters could eventually bang out Shakespeare level works, the easier solution is to just give one typewriter to Shakespeare. Common sense cannot replace education, knowledge, and wisdom. After all, it took more than common sense for Einstein to discover the laws of relativity.
