Why Does the Tea Party hate “Elites”? (Hurlicious)

In 1958, an English sociologist and Labor Party politician named Michael Young imagined a future in which the British establishment dissolved itself, abolished all forms of hereditary power and created instead a meritocracy (a word Young invented) based on IQ. In Young’s fable, the academically talented from the working class happily join the elite. But the less-talented resent them even more than they did the old dukes and duchesses. By 2034, this resentment leads to a violent populist revolution that sweeps the meritocracy away.

To some, this story has always seemed like a warning to America. In 1972, the American sociologist Daniel Bell cited it and predicted, with amazing prescience, the rise of an anti-elite-education populism. Bell got one thing wrong, however: He thought the coming attack on universities would take the form of enforced quotas and lowered standards. In fact, American universities staved off that particular populist wave in the 1970s by expanding their admissions to include women and minorities, while keeping standards high.

The result of that expansion is now with us: Barack Obama, brought up by a single mother, graduate of Columbia and Harvard Law School, is president. Michelle Obama, daughter of a black municipal employee, graduate of Princeton and Harvard Law School, is first lady. They brought with them to Washington dozens more people, also from modest backgrounds, mostly not with inherited wealth, who have entered high government office thanks in part to their education. Not that Washington wasn’t stuffed with such people already: Think of Clarence Thomas, son of a domestic servant and a farm worker, graduate of Yale Law School, Supreme Court justice.

Despite pushing aside the old WASP establishment — not a single member of it remains on the Supreme Court — these modern meritocrats are clearly not admired, or at least not for their upward mobility, by many Americans. On the contrary — and as Bell might have predicted — they are resented as “elitist.” Which is at some level strange: To study hard, to do well, to improve yourself — isn’t that the American dream? The backlash against graduates of “elite” universities seems particularly odd given that the most elite American universities have in the past two decades made the greatest effort to broaden their student bodies.

Because they can offer full scholarships, the wealthier Ivy League schools in particular are far more diverse, racially and economically, than they were a few decades ago. Once upon a time, you got into Harvard or Yale solely because of your alumnus grandfather. Nowadays, your alumnus grandfather still helps, but only as long as you did well on the SAT, captained your ice hockey team and, in your senior year, raised a million dollars for charity (the last was not a requirement when I got into Yale, but it seems to be now). If you did all that and come from a broken home in Nevada, so much the better.

At one level, the use of “elite” to describe the new meritocrats simply means that the word has lost its meaning. As Jacob Weisberg points out, when Sarah Palin, Christine O’Donnell or — bizarrely — Justice Thomas’s wife fling the word “elitist” at opponents, it often means nothing more than “a person whose politics I don’t like” or even “a person who is snobby.” But after listening to O’Donnell’s latest campaign ads — in which the Senate candidate declares proudly, “I didn’t go to Yale . . . I am YOU” — I think something deeper must be going on as well.

I suspect the “anti-elite-educationism” that Bell predicted is growing now not despite the rise of meritocracy but because of it. The old Establishment was resented, but only because its wealth and power were perceived as undeserved. Those outside could at least feel they were cleverer and savvier, and they could blame their failures on “the system.” Nowadays, successful Americans, however ridiculously lucky they have been, often smugly see themselves as “deserving.” Meanwhile, the less successful are more likely to feel it’s their own fault — or to feel that others feel it’s their fault — even if they have simply been unlucky.

The author believes people like Obama and his wife are elites because of their intelligence and that universities have become more “diverse” without lowering “standards.” The writer apparently did not read the excerpts of Michelle's semi-literate racial grievance screed that served as her graduation essay from Prinecton. She apparently failed to notice that the president believed there are 57 states and cannot correctly use the appropriate personal pronoun, using “I” when “me” is appropriate.
By the way, what were Obama’s SAT scores? What were his LSAT scores? We learned Bush's SAT and GMAT scores. If we don't know Obama’s , it is becuse they were mediocre. Elite meritocracy my foot. And the crowd he brought to the White House are simply a gang of hooked up Chicago pols—Jarret, Axelrod, Emmanuel—whose “elite” status consists of being made members of the Daley crime family.

I personally hate the concept of elitism as counterintuitive to the American precept that “all men are created equal”. Elitism warps that dream.

Just like Barbara Boxer telling the military general that she had “earned the title of Senator”. We don’t bestow titles in this country.

The highest ranking in the entire world is that of “American Citizen”. It trumps every Emirate, Kingdom, or Dictatorship in the world.

That’s why Bammy should not bow to anyone. They all should bow to the “lowest” of us.

I liked what you wrote so much that I thought I would repost it.

You capture the spirit of America.

Great post!

STE=Q

I personally hate the concept of elitism as counterintuitive to the American precept that “all men are created equal”. Elitism warps that dream. Just like Barbara Boxer telling the military general that she had “earned the title of Senator”. We don’t bestow titles in this country.
The highest ranking in the entire world is that of “American Citizen”. It trumps every Emirate, Kingdom, or Dictatorship in the world.

That’s why Bammy should not bow to anyone. They all should bow to the “lowest” of us.

*Standing ovation*

James Taranto at Opinion Journal's Best of the Web Today came across it...

This is entertainingly clueless. In fact, no one resents President Obama and other members of the cognitive elite for their fancy degrees or their personal success. What is vexing about the liberal cognitive elite is two particular forms of hubris to which highly intelligent people are especially prone.

The first is the idea that because they're smarter than you, they're more qualified to run your life. This is the presumption at the root of ObamaCare and pretty much all socialist economic policies.

The second is the disparagement of common sense because it is common. Think of Obama's infamous comment about the bitter clingers of Western Pennsylvania, or the liberal elite's vicious attacks on anyone who opposes the Ground Zero mosque...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703440004575548234125768478.html?mod=WSJ_hp_mostpop_read

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.