The Populist Attack on Elites

Donald Trump and his supporters take pride in attacking liberal elites as the source of most of what’s wrong in America.  In political shorthand, the targets are politicians, media and academicians from the nation’s northeast and west coast.  They are accused, with considerable cause, for supporting policies which undermine traditional social values, hamper economic growth and diminish America’s standing in the world.

Yet the populist assault is really more than political.  It is also social in the sense that it focuses on – and resents – those who are better educated and who have standing in society resulting from the rewards of meritocracy.  Thus, as an example, Tucker Carlson of Fox News lambasts the writers of William F. Buckley’s old magazine, National Review, with almost as much vigor as he directs toward the New York Times and the Washington Post. 

At its heart, the populist principle is that those exercising power in society, whether it be political, social or economic, are doing so at the expense of,  and in disregard for, the wishes and needs of the broader population.  As Tucker Carlson put it in a controversial populist manifesto recently circulating in conservative circles, “They don’t care” about the problems and worries of the “common man”.

There is undoubtedly an element of truth to the indictment.  Certainly one can sympathize with the plight of those on the lower rungs of the life-ladder as President Clinton did when he said “I feel your pain”.  But pain sensitivity is not the same as understanding.

 To attack so-called “elites” as if their existence is illegitimate is to ignore the nature of mankind.  People have long sorted themselves out on different levels.  In old – and current – times, there are kings, aristocrats and commoners.  India has castes (whether officially recognized or not).  Traditionally, class membership was a factor of birth.

The Founders of the American Republic had a different idea.  Art. 1, Sec. 9 of the U.S. Constitution specifies “no title of nobility shall be granted by the United States…”  There was to be no aristocracy or elite defined by birth or formal designation.  Rather, the leadership of the Republic whose authority was to be confined by the limits of the Constitution was to consist “almost entirely of of proprietors of land, of merchants, and of members of the learned professions who will truly represent” everyone.  [Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Papers, No. 36.]  It is to be presumed that the men to be elected to Congress generally “will be possessed of the necessary degree of intelligence”.  (Ibid)

 Thus, elites were not to be banished.  Instead, membership was to be based on intelligence and merit, not hereditary title.

[Leave aside, Hamilton’s naivete about what he considers a natural aristocracy.  Men do not willingly – or gladly – defer power to those they consider their equals.  Americans are instinctive populists.]

Thus, it seems odd that some on the Right who consider themselves strict constitutionalists label themselves as populists, too.  The U.S. Constitution was designed to limit the power of the broad populace whose interests self-proclaimed populists vow to promote.