"Intelligent," not "Elitist"

Kelly O'Donnell, on the Chris Matthews show this morning, made an excellent point in clarifying/rebutting the derogatory use of the term "elitist" to describe an "intelligent" politician or candidate for public office. President Obama was labeled an "elitist" by many conservative voters during the 2008 presidential campaign, and he is still often referred to as elitist. Many incumbent Democratic Senate candidates up for reelection this November  who are educated and intelligent are also being labeled as elitist and "out-of-touch with the people." The label is being used by conservatives, both in the Republican Party and in the new "Tea Party," and it is derogatorily intended to try to paint the person/candidate as one who sees themselves as intellectually superior and unable to identify with or feel compassion for the average, ordinary citizen.


What I find particularly interesting is that this kind of criticism or epithet does not tend to come from people who are educated. It comes mostly from the less educated and less experienced. As Kelly O'Donnell pointed out, intelligence should not imply elitist. The Webster's Collegiate Dictionary defines elite as a "socially superior group." So there is a tremendous difference between elite and intelligent. Most of us don't much admire anyone who is interested in feeling superior to someone else. But I don't think anyone who is at all educated would say that it is not valuable to be intelligent. However, I do think that someone who is less well educated might be the first to criticize or condemn someone who is well educated by referring to them as seeming "superior." In my view, some Republicans, and many of the members and candidates of the Tea Party, are not particularly well educated. (Sarah Palin, the ringleader of the Tea Party movement is a case-in-point. One need only watch the interviews of her with either Charlie Gibson or Katie Couric to see the evidence.) This is one of the reasons that they tend to level the epithet of "elite" toward intelligent and highly educated candidates. It is a weak and childish criticism revealing their own insecurity and their probable jealousy of the education of the people they are criticizing.


In short, intelligence is a commodity not a detriment, but elitism, being by definition about superiority, is hopefully never desirable. We have a superbly intelligent president right now with a highly intelligent administration. They are not elitist, but many of them happen to be highly educated people which is one of the criteria I certainly use to vote for anyone for public office. They also seem, by their action in the passage of much valuable and varied legislation, to be genuinely and seriously compassionate to the needs of the American citizens. They also need to be given the time that we gave them (at least one term, not only a year and a half) before we criticize them for not solving all the problems that were dropped in their laps by the previous administration. It takes intelligence not elite thinking to repair the kind of damage that is now crippling this country. We have that in the current administration in the federal government.