R: Reject Elitism

Yale University is an elite institution. As Yale students, we pass through one of the most prestigious institutions in the country and, upon graduation, have an elite credential bestowed upon us. Elites are often thought of as a class of people who, because of their position or education, wield an outsized amount of power or influence in society. For this reason, both the proponents and opponents of “the elites” refer to them as the ruling class. But it is not just Ivy Leaguers who comprise the elite. Celebrities, businessmen, academics, journalists, politicians, and a number of others can be considered among the ranks of the elite, provided that, relative to their peers, they are superior in terms of ability or qualities. I hope our debate focuses on two things: The first is how our politics should be ordered. Second, we should consider elitism an attitude, as an approach towards taste, culture, and society.

Now, Yale students are elites, but they can still reject elitism. It is oftentimes the case that the “best” of a profession or field are merely con artists skilled in sophistry. Elites credential and validate other elites. They are the masters of using convention to their own advantage. Did Socrates not haunt Athens exposing those who said they knew something as frauds who really knew nothing? It is not only contemporary elites who fall short of truly being the best. William F. Buckley, Jr., famously said, “I would rather be governed by the first 2,000 people in the telephone directory than by the Harvard University faculty.” What kind of politics is most conducive to the advancement of the good? Perhaps it is ordinary people who know what is best for them. In fact, some might argue that support for elitism is incompatible with localism and subsidiarity. Does elitism belie faith in democracy? Or even in America? Even if elitism is conceived of as just an attitude, it runs the risk of snobbery and lacking charity. Should we not search for the good in everything? Does an emphasis on quality hinder our ability to appreciate the ordinary?

But what about the tempering of taste and the ennoblement of custom? We should be striving to enjoy what is noble and beautiful in all things. If something or someone is the best, then it or they are the best. It is the elite who have produced the master works of our civilization, high culture, contributed to the traditions we have inherited, and pointed out our folly when we have strayed away from those traditions. It should not be a surprise that the music of a classically trained pianist is more pleasing to the ear than that of an amateur. If we are to respect expertise in the arts and trades, then we should do the same for politics. Conservatives believe that hierarchy is natural. While we can and should advocate for political equality, human society will always consist of various interdependent inequalities. Each man may be equal before the law, but at every time and in every place, an elite will form and influence politics. Whether the elite is formally a part of the political order, like in aristocracies, or whether they are informally so, like in the modern-day United States, it merits serious consideration that they may be best suited to rule.

Is there a tension between elitism and hierarchy? Is elitism morally neutral? Can adherence to tradition be an answer to wrongheaded elitism and rash populism? Can anyone become an elite? Should we be worried about “elite overproduction?”