The issue with “elitism” as opposition to populism is that the current crop of elites are generally not believed to have earned their keep. If we had a crop of elites that were exceptionally smart, or had proven their dedication to the country by fighting for it, or shown a special degree of noblesse oblige, then there would be a coherent position around keeping them in power and giving them extra slack, but most people, left and right, see the people who currently have power as morally shaky at best and usually much, much less competent than the elite of 100 years ago.
I think there would be a decent block of support for a society run by Henry Fords, or Werner von Brauns, but I don’t think any sizable group of people want a society run by Richard Hananias and Larry Finks. As a concrete example, a lot of people stopped trusting scientific institutions when a sizable share of the people saying that covid lockdowns were critical to public health immediately did an about-face during BLM. A scientist willing to hold to the evidence at hand even when it’s politically dangerous is worth listening to, but backing down on that even once is permanently discrediting. Scientists who want to influence policy must maintain a pristine record of never falling into Lysenkoism, or they will be treated as just another lobbying group[1].
Put briefly, “elitism” can only exist when the ruling class got there on merit and reliably polices its own to maintain an aura of benevolence and competence. While past populism was of the liberal conviction that power should be delegated as broadly as possible, current populism is generally a reaction to the current crop of elites being viscerally repulsive to a large segment of the population, and people reacting by trying to get absolutely anyone else to replace them.
In other words, you can’t have your cake and eat it too. If you want to be politically sacrosanct, you must be above politics in your conduct. You don’t get to enjoy the benefits of being a political client without the costs of being a political target.
There’s a difference between “powerful man who does some mean things because that’s how the sausage is made” and “utterly irredeemable, useless person that the nation would unambiguously be better off without”. Most people are realistic enough to tolerate the former, but view the current elite as being better described by the latter.
Ford, for instance, said some things that are uncomfortable for most modern audiences, but also revolutionized manufacturing, was vigilant about his workers’ quality of life, and, moreover, seemed to genuinely love America and its people. Vlad the Impaler put quite a few heads on pikes, but did it to save his homeland from invasion, and is thus regarded by many of his countrymen as a hero. Larry Fink, in contrast to them, is strictly parasitic in his relationship with the broader society[1].
Visceral, literal ugliness is also a factor in public opinion. Having read through a few of the Epstein emails, I think anyone that trashy would have been escorted out of any gathering of America’s past ruling class fairly quickly. A lot of modern populism stems from the fact that Midwesterers with 1600 SATs are struggling in life while a Rothschild scion is chatting to Epstein about her 1070, and while Epstein is gloating tastelessly about his clique’s intellectual superiority to the rest of society in another tab.
Economists may object, and I’d have sympathy in a freer market than this one, but the ostensible value of this kind of finance is in profiting off of inefficiencies in the market and thereby removing them. This defense starts to falter when the government can be lobbied to maintain these efficiencies indefinitely at taxpayer expense.
Put briefly, “elitism” can only exist when the ruling class got there on merit and reliably polices its own to maintain an aura of benevolence and competence.
My instinct is that the “aura of benevolence” part is the most necessary and the “aura of competence” part is almost optional. If an elite class (or faction of elites) is perceived to be hostile to the interests or values of the people (or a faction of people), then it would be quite sensible for those people to reject those elites in proportion to their (perceived) competence. There might be some people who are awed by power and competence, any power, regardless of where it comes from and what it does, and thus worship that power regardless of whether it seeks to help or harm those people. (Right now I have in mind the AI successionists who say that it would be immoral for humans to continue existing if it stifles the growth of far superior artificial beings, or the e/accs posting about worshipping the “god of thermodynamics”.) But, although I might be typical-minding here, I think that most people want to be able to trust that the people with power will work to preserve and augment rather than destroy the things that they care about.
I think political scientists would agree with you. Competence has a complicated effect. It builds trust slowly, but then one spectacular failure destroys it quickly. Also, what’s tracked by the populace is the perceived competence, not the actual competence. An accusation of corruption can destroy the trust as much as actual corruption.
An accusation of corruption can destroy the trust as much as actual corruption.
I’ve seen this position from a lot of academics, in quite a few well-cited papers on the subject, but I don’t think it holds. They were accused of corruption for a long time by lots of people, but trust didn’t take a nosedive until there were viscerally apparent examples of it that directly impacted peoples’ lives.
The issue with “elitism” as opposition to populism is that the current crop of elites are generally not believed to have earned their keep. If we had a crop of elites that were exceptionally smart, or had proven their dedication to the country by fighting for it, or shown a special degree of noblesse oblige, then there would be a coherent position around keeping them in power and giving them extra slack, but most people, left and right, see the people who currently have power as morally shaky at best and usually much, much less competent than the elite of 100 years ago.
I think there would be a decent block of support for a society run by Henry Fords, or Werner von Brauns, but I don’t think any sizable group of people want a society run by Richard Hananias and Larry Finks. As a concrete example, a lot of people stopped trusting scientific institutions when a sizable share of the people saying that covid lockdowns were critical to public health immediately did an about-face during BLM. A scientist willing to hold to the evidence at hand even when it’s politically dangerous is worth listening to, but backing down on that even once is permanently discrediting. Scientists who want to influence policy must maintain a pristine record of never falling into Lysenkoism, or they will be treated as just another lobbying group[1].
Put briefly, “elitism” can only exist when the ruling class got there on merit and reliably polices its own to maintain an aura of benevolence and competence. While past populism was of the liberal conviction that power should be delegated as broadly as possible, current populism is generally a reaction to the current crop of elites being viscerally repulsive to a large segment of the population, and people reacting by trying to get absolutely anyone else to replace them.
In other words, you can’t have your cake and eat it too. If you want to be politically sacrosanct, you must be above politics in your conduct. You don’t get to enjoy the benefits of being a political client without the costs of being a political target.
I am with you, but I think you underestimate how repulsive the elites used to be in the past.
There’s a difference between “powerful man who does some mean things because that’s how the sausage is made” and “utterly irredeemable, useless person that the nation would unambiguously be better off without”. Most people are realistic enough to tolerate the former, but view the current elite as being better described by the latter.
Ford, for instance, said some things that are uncomfortable for most modern audiences, but also revolutionized manufacturing, was vigilant about his workers’ quality of life, and, moreover, seemed to genuinely love America and its people. Vlad the Impaler put quite a few heads on pikes, but did it to save his homeland from invasion, and is thus regarded by many of his countrymen as a hero. Larry Fink, in contrast to them, is strictly parasitic in his relationship with the broader society[1].
Visceral, literal ugliness is also a factor in public opinion. Having read through a few of the Epstein emails, I think anyone that trashy would have been escorted out of any gathering of America’s past ruling class fairly quickly. A lot of modern populism stems from the fact that Midwesterers with 1600 SATs are struggling in life while a Rothschild scion is chatting to Epstein about her 1070, and while Epstein is gloating tastelessly about his clique’s intellectual superiority to the rest of society in another tab.
Economists may object, and I’d have sympathy in a freer market than this one, but the ostensible value of this kind of finance is in profiting off of inefficiencies in the market and thereby removing them. This defense starts to falter when the government can be lobbied to maintain these efficiencies indefinitely at taxpayer expense.
My instinct is that the “aura of benevolence” part is the most necessary and the “aura of competence” part is almost optional. If an elite class (or faction of elites) is perceived to be hostile to the interests or values of the people (or a faction of people), then it would be quite sensible for those people to reject those elites in proportion to their (perceived) competence. There might be some people who are awed by power and competence, any power, regardless of where it comes from and what it does, and thus worship that power regardless of whether it seeks to help or harm those people. (Right now I have in mind the AI successionists who say that it would be immoral for humans to continue existing if it stifles the growth of far superior artificial beings, or the e/accs posting about worshipping the “god of thermodynamics”.) But, although I might be typical-minding here, I think that most people want to be able to trust that the people with power will work to preserve and augment rather than destroy the things that they care about.
I think political scientists would agree with you. Competence has a complicated effect. It builds trust slowly, but then one spectacular failure destroys it quickly. Also, what’s tracked by the populace is the perceived competence, not the actual competence. An accusation of corruption can destroy the trust as much as actual corruption.
I’ve seen this position from a lot of academics, in quite a few well-cited papers on the subject, but I don’t think it holds. They were accused of corruption for a long time by lots of people, but trust didn’t take a nosedive until there were viscerally apparent examples of it that directly impacted peoples’ lives.