The Revolt Against Elitism Is a Revolt Against Authority

Slate's Jacob Weisberg has a very interesting take on elitism, or, to be more precise, the vague charge of elitism that seems to be a rallying cry for the Republican party. His essay calls attention to -- and provides a close reading of -- two very different definitions of elitism. These two idea have been fused into one slogan for the party as it positions itself for the upcoming elections.

Naturally, even in opposition, Weisberg points out that Sarah Palin and John McCain have an awkward and uneasy alliance:

Palin's definition says elitists are those who think they're better than other people -- a category in which by Election Day, on the evidence of her autobiography, included many of the people working for her own campaign. Palin is raw with the disrespect she feels and takes offense at being condescended to by people who, she thinks, think they are better than she is. Her anti-elitism takes the part of all Americans who feel similarly snubbed, and not necessarily in the context of politics. [...] McCain, by contrast, defined elitism not as believing you are better than other people but believing that you know better than other people. [...] an elitist is someone who thinks the opinion of a minority should sometimes prevail over the opinion of a majority.

The attack on elitism is implicitly an attack on authority. Both versions, Palin's and McCain's, refuse to accept the idea of an authority that hems them in. Unsatisfied when the democratic process goes against them, they reserve the right to exempt themselves from its result.

This kind of rebellion isn't exactly new in American politics. It stretches back to the very beginning of the republic. But there is a radical new twist in the 21st century.

One of the products of the twin revolutions of the Internet and rise of a global financial system that is integrated at the speed of electrons is a decline of authority. At every level we see a stalemate where power is counterbalanced by vulnerability. The U.S. is the world's superpower militarily, but to achieve that we've mortgaged ourselves to the Chinese. Great corporations command the work and loyalty of hundreds of thousands but are vulnerable to a few hundred traders at hedge funds. The Internet makes and unmakes valuable businesses and great fortunes in ever shorter cycles.

It may be stretching the idea to suggest that the assault on elitism draws its power from the weakness of institutions. But something tells me the two are connected. And the age of volatility that we live in is only going to get jumpier.

The coming crisis of state and local governments will force all of us to make decisions about where we cast our loyalties. How many residents will vote to raise their taxes to cover the costs of protecting their communities? How many will simply vote with their feet both within the US and abroad?

The refusal of authority that Weisberg describes is less a product of the right's hypocrisy than the long-term merging of liberalism and libertarianism. The result is a more than political gridlock, it's a kind of paralysis. Weisberg goes on to show that:

It is easy to grasp the political resonance of both definitions. Palin's umbrage at liberals who act superior to conservatives plays upon the American ideal of social equality. [...] McCain's protest against anti-majoritarianism likewise strikes a deep popular chord. It has the further advantage of providing an escape hatch from the substance of issues by reframing them in cultural terms. Arguments for raising taxes, expanding health insurance, and fighting climate change are all met with by the rejoinder that some people should quit telling the rest of us how to live our lives.

Image of Sarah Palin and John McCain courtesy of Chesie - Fotos CC via Flickr