So, who’s “elitist”?

The most common dictionary definition of an “elitist” is one of selectivity, an engendered pride of belonging to a group perceived to be “elite”. By this definition, the Special Forces or Army Rangers are “elites”, for example. These are honorific titles that were earned through hard work, sweat and courage. However, like the word “liberal”, colloquial usage is transmogrifying this word into an epithet.

This drives the Democrat /Left nuts, of course. By their definition, “elite” is a good thing, ergo belonging to an elite is especially good if it means what they want it to mean, that they are “special”. Today, the MSM and Liberal flail in helpless confusion as the Tea Party lobs charges of Liberal (Democrat/Left) “elitism”, which carries very different and negative connotations altogether.

I understand their confusion, so perhaps I can help them understand

We are talking here about political values. The Democrat /Left defines “bad elites” as perceived-to-be-privileged groups: the rich, white people, Jews, WASPs, Christians. It perceives “good elites” as people defined by their level of education and political values. Upper-level education (or fame) + correct Liberal /Left world view = elite. By this definition, Obama is a good elite, Newt Gingrich is a bad elite and Abraham Lincoln doesn’t even register.

This is why the MSM appears lost in confusion whenever rich or highly educated (even Ivy League) conservatives hurl this term back at the Left to define academics, MSM talking heads, environmentalists, labor union leaders and other members of the Democrat Left. “How can those “bad” elites dare to criticize us, the “good” elites” for being “elites”? The hypocrisy!” bleats the Left.

So, so very sorry! Let me try to help out.

Let me ever so humbly submit a definition of what we on the libertarian and conservative side of the spectrum mean by the term “elitist”:

“One whom presumes unearned or unwarranted authority for themselves while being insulated from all consequences of that authority”

By unearned, unwarranted authority, I refer, for example, to lawyers and advocates who presume to be experts in economics, work or product safety, or the environment simply by virtue of a JD or BA in journalism or having the gift of gab. I mean academics and Ivy League graduates who presume to be authorities on subjects outside of their fields of expertise; politicians who believe themselves to be entitled members of a ruling class, and a President who feels himself to be knowledgeable on all subjects (his country, the economy, world peace, conservatives, poverty…etc) about which he knows absolutely nothing by virtue of …well, being Him. For that matter, I refer to anyone who has the temerity to presume they know how to tell other people where their best interests lie.

By “insulated” from consequences, I mean living in a protective bubble, real or perceived, that protects the Lefty Democrat elitist from ever confronting the consequences of his or her views or actions. Let me offer just a few examples of this to help out my friends on the Left:

1) Politicians and environmentalists that force expensive environmental compliance burdens on vehicles that devastate the ability of the working poor to own and operate vehicles (e.g., California Democrats) necessary to their livelihoods.

2) Politicians,  First Ladies and political operatives that don’t believe that election laws apply to them, especially when they control the Dept. of Justice and the IRS.

2) Northeast Liberal politicians who married into or inherited their wealth knowing full-well that need not pay a dime of their own money against their mandated tax increases on the middle class (e.g., Kerry, Pelosi, Kennedy).

3) Wealthy Hollywood actors and actresses who promote libertine lifestyles, environmental action, immigration amnesty and increased taxation knowing full well that it won’t affect their lifestyles on iota and that their money can paper over any personal consequences of their lifestyles.

4) Pampered university professors, living off the wages of the working class, that feel free to pontificate on economics, the mores of the working class or on how society must be changed to fit their ideals knowing full well that their tenured positions protect from any and all economic consequences (or so they think).

We on the so-called “right” know this elitism. We don’t like it.

Does anyone else care to add to the list?