Twisting the Concept of 'Elite'

[Joanne98]

by Linda McQuaig

Clearly, a compulsory item future U.S. presidential candidates will have to commit to memory will be the number of houses they own.

Sadly, however, there may be no other repercussion from Republican John McCain's inability last week to remember that he owned seven.

Conservative pundits were quick to suggest that attempts by Democratic rival Barack Obama to make an issue out of McCain's wealth would backfire since, they said, Obama is the real elitist who's out of touch with ordinary Americans.

This involves some twisted logic.

The simple truth is that McCain's seven homes - regardless of how many of them he can recall at any given moment - are a reminder that he and his beer-fortune-heiress wife Cindy belong to a tiny elite of fabulously wealthy Americans.

And while voters don't necessarily care about the details of McCain's housing abundance, they might be more interested in his avid support for - and intention to extend - the Bush administration's massive tax giveaways to this elite little club.

As the non-partisan Tax Policy Center has calculated, McCain's plan would further cut taxes on the top 0.1 per cent - Americans earning at least $2.8 million a year - by an annual average of $192,000. Obama's plan would see taxes for this crowd rise on average by $788,000 a year.

A fundamental problem in the last few decades - both in Canada and the United States - has been the relentless campaign waged by the financial elite to overturn postwar social and economic policies that provided significant gains for the middle and lower classes in the decades following World War II.

The campaign has been phenomenally successful. As a result, the poor have lost ground, while the middle class have barely held their own or made small advances - by working longer hours or having two-income families.

Only the rich have thrived. And they have truly thrived. A group of international economists, including McMaster University's Michael Veall, has tracked the spectacular gains of the top 1 per cent of income earners, who now, in both Canada and the U.S., enjoy over 15 per cent of national income - a level not seen since the days of the idle rich in the Roaring '20s.

Yet even as the rich have redirected income towards themselves, they've managed to remove the issue of economic inequality from the agenda. Part of the strategy - honed by media-savvy conservative think-tanks and commentators - has been to redefine the notion of elitism to refer to those who belong to the liberal elite, and do things like drink lattes, maintain an international outlook and speak articulately.

Accordingly, Democrat Al Gore, with his commanding grasp of issues in presidential debates, was accused of being an elitist. Similarly, Democrat John Kerry was branded elitist for being able to speak French.

In the same breath, Conservatives somehow presented George W. Bush, a rich kid who'd barely held a job before running for president, as a populist and down-to-earth guy who'd be fun to have a beer with - presumably because he was inarticulate and barely functional in even one language.

Whether McCain drinks beer, latte or Ovaltine doesn't alter the fact that he supports Bush's massive favouritism towards the real elite - the powerful financial one that runs his country. That alone should prevent McCain from adding to his housing inventory the large white edifice on Pennsylvania Ave.

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/08/26-7

[OHdem10]

1. Until we learn very firmly, that "elite" is an attitude that has

little or nothing to do with money or wealth, we will throws
bombs that do not detonate, make cases that do not stick.

Elite for most people refers to an attitude of intellectual
superiority. A kind of "I know what is best for you" "we,
intellectuals spend time thinking about these things".

Yes sometimes we use the term, to include the wealthy who
influence the government; but most often when average
Americans think of elite--"eggheads"

[mwb970]

2. I realize it doesn't matter what the word actually means, but just for fun...

e·lite

–noun
1. (often used with a plural verb) the choice or best of anything considered collectively, as of a group or class of persons.
2. (used with a plural verb) persons of the highest class: Only the elite were there.

–adjective
representing the most choice or select; best: an elite group of authors.

So, someone accused of being "elite" is being tarred with the epithets choice, best, and select. Americans may not know much, but we do know one thing: we don't like people who are the best at what they do. They make us uncomfortable.

[verges]

4. Using that definition

I want an elite for President. I WANT the best and brightest in Washington!

[fencesitter]

7. True, but "elitist" is seen as snobbery..

Navy SEALS are an "elite" fighting force. One wouldn't think snobby warriors.

[Igel]

8. Then there's a second word.

Elitist: Somebody who holds to elitism as a principle, or a word used to describe such a person.

Elitism, care of dictionary.com:
n. The belief that certain persons or members of certain classes or groups deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority, as in intellect, social status, or financial resources.

n. The sense of entitlement enjoyed by such a group or class.
n. Control, rule, or domination by such a group or class.

American English usage has just about effaced the difference in function between "elite" and "elitist". I haven't, and it's glaring. Kerry, Obama, my wife, the old bastard in my church, the guy on an alumni retreat that got under a tractor at a hayride and fixed it, Bush, Gore, and many, many others are elites. My wife and the tractor-fixing millionaire aren't elitists. I can vouch for the old bastard's being an elitist. I suspect Gore is, but then again almost all politicians are. Elitism and a sense of humiliation and actual gratitude for the honor of serving is rare among politicians; oft feigned, oft adopted as part of the public persona, but rare--and when present, frequently intermittent.

Elitism is bad. Sometimes superior abilities make for superior leaders, etc. But often not--it's more than just a few abilities, it's how they fit together.

Confusing the two terms just leads to confusion. The OP twists the two terms together so that they're indistinguishable. But one can have 7 homes, be elite, and not be elitist (not that McCain is in this group). One can fight for power and wealth and amass quite a bit of both, and still not be elitist. There's a difference between having power and believing that it's your due, not because of what you've done, but because of who you are.

Americans have generally not had a problem with elites, as long as they can show, minimally, a lack of elitism. Europeans have, for good reasons, and still do. Americans are buying into this, and it's a silly buy-in process, if you ask me. Americans have generally had severe problems with elitists; this I agree with.

[Alcibiades]

3. This fake populist anti-elitism is wearing thin

Lots of Republicans drink French wine, drink expensive coffee, eat weed salad, and have other "elite" tastes. More so than with Democrats, I'm sure.

John McCain is an admiral's son who married a beer heiress. Like Bush, his "common touch" is entirely fake. When we go in for surgery, we don't want a stupid doctor--why are so many people bothered by the idea that smart people might be in charge of our government?

[Phred42]

5. Why not? They have been ORWELLIANIZING every term thatthey can

[Waiting For Everyman]

6. The most important issue on this board

They are the predators of this planet.

Soccer moms (and other Rep voters) are afflicted with a new form of dementia, in that they can't seem to grasp this obvious reality.

If I had one wish, it would be that the consequences of their choices only affected them.