A Devastating Week for Elitism

What do a Hall of Fame football coach and broadcaster, an overnight British vocal sensation, and several hundred thousand American taxpayers have in common? Quite a bit, as it turned out last week. Not because any of them had anything to do with each other specifically. Rather, it is what each of them represents individually and the disdain they draw from their misdirected critics.

After 30 years in the TV broadcast booth, John Madden announced his retirement from professionally commenting on a game he once professionally coached. Even a casual or non-fan can review Madden’s resume and appreciate his accomplishments and lifetime commitment to the game of football. He was a high school and college stand-out player. Though his professional career as a player was cut short due to injury, Madden spent nearly 20 years as a college and professional coach before spending the next three decades on all four major television networks. If you’re doing the math, that’s over 50 years of football for the 73 year old. He won a Super Bowl and never had a losing season as a head coach. Not to mention the endorsement deals and the multi-million dollar football video game franchise bearing his name...

The talent show lady is common as regards looks, but uncommon as regards what’s important. After all, she wasn’t competing in a beauty contest. Much like Pavaroti, she is part of the natural aristocracy of talent, not looks. If we’re trying to say she’s not elite because she didn’t train at Juliard, well, how many popular musicians have any training whatsoever? Lennon and McCartney couldn’t even read music.

As regards Madden, as a broadcaster he had an appeal as a common man. Certainly, we didn’t like him for his piercing insight, or his ability to string ideas together. As for his coaching career, he was an elite. The proof is in the pudding.

I guess what I’m saying is that pop music isn’t opera and football isn’t chess. they are already demotic pastimes. Highlighting one or two more “common” than usual heroes is beside the point. Now, tell me a story like Einstein’s, and it really gets me going.

Anyway, I resent the implication that elitism is bad. It’s the pretence to elitism, or the evil use of elite power, that I despise.

Anyway, I resent the implication that elitism is bad. It’s the pretence to elitism, or the evil use of elite power, that I despise.

The difference between the "objective journalist" and the "conservative talk show host" is the difference between a sophist and a philosopher (using the etymological definition of the latter term). I cannot undertake to pinpoint the difference between "objectivity" and "wisdom." Is there, after all, such a thing as "unwise objectivity?" And yet it would be risky for anyone to openly claim superior wisdom to a debating opponent because that is inherently arrogant:

sophist
1542, earlier sophister (c.1380), from L. sophista, sophistes, from Gk. sophistes, from sophizesthai "to become wise or learned," from sophos "wise, clever," of unknown origin. Gk. sophistes came to mean "one who gives intellectual instruction for pay," and, contrasted with "philosopher," it became a term of contempt. Ancient sophists were famous for their clever, specious arguments.
philosopher
O.E. philosophe, from L. philosophus, from Gk. philosophos "philosopher," lit. "lover of wisdom," from philos "loving" + sophos "wise, a sage." "Pythagoras was the first who called himself philosophos, instead of sophos, 'wise man,' since this latter term was suggestive of immodesty." [Klein]
Modern form with -r appears c.1325, from an Anglo-Fr. or O.Fr. variant of philosophe, with an agent-noun ending. . . .
It is a form of arrogance to claim to be above labels, above "left" and "right" - especially when the person who does so then labels his debate opponent "conservative" or "right wing" or, the now-obsolete favorite, a "right wing cold warrior." It is a form of humility to accept a label when it fits. Said differently, the only way to even attempt to be objective is to assume that you are inherently subjective, inherently not objective. Only then will you make full disclosure of what you want to be true before discussing what you believe to be true.

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.