Some Thoughts on... Liberal Elitism
A message to my cousin:
It was so good to see you on Eid and to debate the Presidential campaign. You know that you should support and vote for who you think and feel will be the best candidate to lead the nation over the next few years, whether that is McCain or Obama. The point that worried me the most about your arguments wasn't directly around the candidates, but your use of the word "elite" with a negative connotation to describe liberals who may be supporting Obama.
The word elite is being used a lot in the media and there are many meanings that are floating around. The three definitions that I think are most relevant to describe a person who is elite are:
1. Someone who is a high achiever – athletes, artists, scientists, writers, academics. Almost any one who excels at what they do can be put in this category. I think the use of elite for these people is appropriate and should not have a negative meaning. For example, the Navy Seals are an elite arm of the military since they are high achievers and strive for excellence.
2. Someone who looks down on others. These people are also known as snobs. This is not a good thing.
3. Someone who wants to preserve inequality or differences. In the 50's, the "white elite" in the South tried hard to repress the rights of different races. These people are inherently snobs by definition since they look down on other people.
Taking these definitions, I want to point out three ways how the conservative media and some politicians are actually intertwining these different definitions to create a confused use of the word "elite".
First, you are elite under the first definition, and that is not a bad thing. You are intelligent and intuitive and have had a world-class education. An elite achiever is not necessarily a snob or someone who wants to preserve inequality. The negative media around the word elite has created this Catch-22 trap where people who are achievers feel that they need to hide their accomplishments in order to be "Joe Six-Pack". This focus in the end only encourages mediocrity. People should not be snobbish about their achievements, and people who do achieve have an obligation to help those who do not achieve as high.
Second, people have equated Obama and sometimes the organizations, newspapers and academics that support him as elitest. These people are mixing the first and second definition of elite. Obama and some of his supporters (the New York Times, Robert Reich, Thomas Friedman, etc) are all high achievers. But that does not mean they are snobs! Obama in particular is working very hard to support working-class voters who may not be high achievers but should receive support nonetheless.
The third point is that it is actually the Republican party that historically has been the elite party under the third definition – because their mandate is to preserve the status quo and preserve inequality. It's funny that conservative politicians, like Karl Rove and Michael Bennett, have been using the word "elite" as a negative word against liberals, when it is the GOP that historically has looked down on other classes/ people. At the Republican convention this year less than 10 percent of the delegates were people of color (an all time low). The rest were white Americans. This is not a true representation of America, and I think it reflects the fact that these folks are ones that are looking for ways to preserve an "old" lifestyle which is long gone – and to preserve it at the expense of others.
I would recommend you to use your definitions of the word "elite" carefully, especially, if you are voting for McCain. He is a person who was not an excellent student, does not go to church on a regular basis, comes from a very well off and rich background, and supports many policies that preserve the status quo and would continue to preserve inequality. All characteristics opposite of Obama. I am constantly amazed how the negative use of the word "elite" keeps coming back to portray Obama in this campaign.