A friend challenged me to define what I meant when I said "elite." It was a fair question. So, here's my attempt at an answer.
Admittedly, "elite" is a pretty slippery term, and I understand the objections of those academics who say that it is simply not valid; that one can speak of influential groups, but not of any one elite (more on that in a moment). And I have read with considerable interest the arguments of those on the libertarian side of the spectrum who argue that the word unfairly demonizes the very individuals who are most responsible for economic progress, that is, the entrepreneurs who build new ventures and provide jobs.
That said, I respectfully disagree with both positions. While I have been accused (by people on the Right) of being politically Left …intellectually I am somewhat conservative. Or, perhaps, Old Fashioned is the term, I'm looking for. My conception of the world is derived from those theorists who argue that in almost any society one fairly small group tends to be predominate in decision-making. It will not monopolize all decision-making, but it will be predominant. (See #1 below).
Now, this decision making group is the "elite," that is, at small, highly interconnected circle which exists at the core of the society and which leverages far greater power than its numbers would suggest. It may draw that power from economics, from politics, from intellectual prowess, or from combinations of all these or more. It may define itself as Conservative, or Liberal, or Moderate. It may be based on millionaires or union leaders or tenured professors. It may include media barons, talk-show hosts, bloggers, film stars and (as in modern Italy) porn stars (2).
But, regardless of its make-up, it exists.
This may not be a comfortable political reality, but it does seem to be inevitable. Exactly 100 years ago, in 1911, the brilliant political theorist Robert Michels formulate what he called the "iron law of oligarchy," which states that no matter how democratic a nation may want to be, eventually power comes to reside in small band of administrators. In the century since Michels suggested his law, nothing has happened that (at least in my opinion) disproves him.
That said, elites are not necessarily a bad thing. Indeed, when they are good, they are very, very good. For example, the American founding fathers (and mothers)—particularly Washington, Jefferson, Hamilton, and the Adams husband and wife team—were genuinely awe-inspiring. All the postmodern and New Left critiques cannot alter the fact that those men and women were utterly amazing. They changed the course of history.
But, the Founders were competent. They might battle among themselves, engage in the fiercest party politics imaginable, even kill one another (as when Burr shot Hamilton), but they knew how to run a country and an economy. And they did it very, very well.
When elites are not competent, then things are painfully different. When it forgets that it has a common destiny with the rest of society, or when it is so busy with internal struggles that it fails to notice external enemies, or when it is so lethargic that it cannot respond to natural disasters, or …well, when it fails in a hundred other ways, it is doomed. If the society is lucky, then the larger culture won't go down with it.
I believe, further, that you can actually trace the development and evolution of elites over time. In particularly, I think you can follow them in terms of their sources of power (which will change with time).
Let's take just the American example. Here, unlike Europe, political power usually grows out of economic power. And, so, our first elites based their wealth on international trade—they were either ship-owners, as in Salem (once the richest city in North America) or they produced goods for export to England or its colonies.
After about 1810, though, the elite shifted its focus. Increasingly, it based itself on the ownership of land. (Think of all the presidents who were gentlemen farmers from Virginia). Also, everyone was a lawyer.
Then, starting about 1840, American elites shifted to commerce and industry—a situation that would eventually lead to clash of elites that we call the Civil War. And I think that's where it stayed until very recently. Oh, it expanded to include Press Barons (like William Randolph Hearst, a.k.a. Citizen Kane), more and more bankers, and still more lawyers…but basically that's where things stayed…
Until the 1930s, when we get two new players—people who headed-up large, activist, government agencies (ranging from the WPA to the Army), and University professors who cycle in and out of administrative or consultative roles with the government depending on which President is in power. For the first time, private business has a real competitor for the elite's attention.
Then, once more, things settle down for a while. Again, new groups are added over the course of time—the Press Barons become Media Moguls, film stars and other celebrities take on overt political roles, and so on—but, on average, the American elite remains in industry, commerce, the law, and government…with universities and Think Tanks acting as a kind of waiting room for elite members whose party is out of power for the moment. Come a new election, and they swap places with the other party's intellectuals.
Okay, but, then everything changes after the 1960s. As the nation de-industrializes, outsources, off-shores, etc., the elites begin to exit industry. Manufacturing is no longer an American specialty.
Where do they go? A couple of places: the boardrooms of multinational corporations and Wall Street. We can see that from studies of who earns what. According to one such, nearly 40% of the richest Americans are managers of large companies (I mean really large companies) while another 18% is connected to Wall Street.(3) Of course, there are other billionaires from other places, like Bill Gates and the late Steve Jobs, but on average it is in those segments, multinationals and finance, where we have our most powerful people.
Now, I submit that this elite has not shown itself to be particularly competent. They may not be as inept as some elites we've had in the past (during the Gilded Age, our elites were actually embarrassing), but underachieving all the same.
It is under the watch of these people that our economy has drifted dangerously close to disaster. They have allowed de-industrialization, which makes sense on paper but which is truly deadly in practice. They have shifted millions of jobs overseas. They have blundered into crisis after crisis—starting with the Savings and Loans scandals in the 1980s, then moving on from there to the current sub-prime mortgage mess. And, worst of all, they have allowed the transfer of more and more wealth from the middle classes to themselves.
None of this is good.
So, that is my definition of "elite." And it is why I think that elite needs to be reformed. It has ceased to be what elites are at their best, engines of creation, and become instead the very opposite.
And that is a condition which cannot long endure.
Footnotes
1) Technically, this is known as "elite theory" or "elite studies."
2) Italy's parliament has included porn star Ilona Staller.
3) Mike Konczal, Who are the 1% and What Do They Do for a Living?, New Deal 2.0, newdeal20.org/2011/10/14/who-are-the-1-and-what-do-they-do-for-a-living-61759/?author=101
Posts
