Not all arguments against elitism are created equal. From the time of the nation’s founding, Americans have rightfully rebelled against the idea of a small body of elites telling them how to live their lives. But the traditional conservative case against elitism has been bastardized. Now, anti-elitism is associated with resentment of people who attend Ivy League schools or indulge in “brie and Chablis.” And at its worst moments, this has undercut the expectation that those who seek higher office should bring a certain level of experience, seriousness and understanding of public policy.
This new critique has reached its apex through the canonization of Sarah Palin by her fervent defenders. No doubt, Palin has been at the receiving end of a barrage of unfair attacks ever since she burst onto the national scene. But she’s also been the subject of fair-minded criticism.
Yet even fellow conservatives who correctly note that quitting as governor of Alaska and starring in a reality show would not boost Palin’s chances as a presidential candidate have been assailed by her blind defenders as “elites,” and grouped with those on the Left who engage in vitriolic attacks on her character.
The theme will get a new airing next month with the release of the hagiographic Palin documentary, “The Undefeated.” The film spends nearly two hours portraying Palin as heroic crusader who is constantly attacked by establishment liberals — and conservatives — because they fear her.
Palin isn’t unique in this protected status. Other examples include Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., and, during the 2010 midterm elections, the defeated Delaware Republican Senate candidate Christine O’Donnell.
While it’s difficult to pinpoint the origins of this new anti-elitism, part of it comes from taking the wrong lessons from President Reagan’s success. Because Reagan was mercilessly lampooned and severely underestimated by the liberal establishment, only to prove his critics wrong time and again, conservatives have since reflexively defended Republican politicians who are similarly portrayed as being lazy or unintelligent.
Even as he dramatically expanded government, President Bush got a free pass from too many conservatives for much of his administration, in part because liberal attacks on his unpolished speech were seen as evidence that he was a man of the people.
But it’s a tremendous leap of logic to assume that since criticisms of Reagan turned out to be wildly off, any subsequent conservative politician who generates a similar response is the next Reagan. Whatever was said about him at the time, Reagan served two full terms as governor of the largest state and spent decades reading and thinking about public policy before entering the White House. Yet Palin’s admirers think she can short-circuit all of this work.
It’s important to draw a distinction between superficial elitism that doesn’t actually matter, and dangerous elitism that threatens our liberties.
The problem with President Obama is not that he went to Harvard Law School, but that he says things such as, “We can’t drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times,” while advocating policies that, in his words, would cause energy prices to “necessarily skyrocket.”
Obama’s elitism wasn’t a problem when he spoke about the price of arugula at Whole Foods. But it was when his administration rammed through a law with an “individual responsibility requirement” that forces all Americans to obtain government-approved insurance policies.
The outrage of Obama is not that he’s from a big city, but that he thinks the way to revive the economy is to have federal bureaucrats dole out hundreds of billions of tax dollars.
We will soon celebrate the anniversary of our nation’s founding, so we would do well to recall that our founders were “elites.” They came from cities like Boston, Philadelphia and New York and massive estates in Virginia. They attended vaunted academic institutions of the day and in many respects had European cultural tastes.
Yet their cultural elitism was not a threat to society, which they did not seek to control. Instead, they set up a government of limited and enumerated powers that left most decisions in the hands of states and the people themselves.
Sadly, those who followed our founders sought ever more power for the federal government, and over the decades the judicial branch was happy to oblige. This is the sort of elitism that warrants conservatives’ scorn.
Philip Klein is senior editorial writer for The Washington Examiner. He can be reached at [email protected].
