When it comes to defining what "Elites" are, it is important to set up definitions that not only bound what you are talking about but also facilitate useful distinctions. Otherwise you run the risk of letting ego and flattery to guide your assignments of such an aspirational and desirable label, or not getting anywhere in your conversations. See how "hero" is thrown around for anyone who does even something mildly positive rather than rightly reserving it for larger-than-life figures.
An Elite is someone who controls society in some respect, great or small, and a person must possess 4 conditions to a certain degree in order to be considered an Elite:
1. Influence
2. Legitimacy
3. Command
4. Context
1. Influence is the ability to change the thoughts and behaviors of others. The crudest fashion of this is by reciprocity - give them resources to serve your interest, which is a matter of circumstance more than it is personal character. But the more salient are the character qualities, not the monetary circumstances, that make someone able to influence others. Maybe it's through personal relationships. Maybe it's through effective rhetoric. Maybe it's through intimidation. But being able to change the actions of others, particularly in quality or quantity, is foundational towards what an Elite is capable of.
2. Legitimacy is the "Right to Rule" sense that people observing the subject believe is deserving of them. Anyone can stand on Capital Hill and proclaim themselves to be President, but not only will the political body not find them legitimate, but the general populace will not either. This is independent of liking or even supporting the figure. Biden is widely reviled, but still considered a valid holder of the office he occupies, whereas Vermin Supreme has no political legitimacy to speak of. Elites hold themselves and are held as being categorically valid for the position they hold or aspire to, and that sense often propels them into those seats. And reciprocally, holding the trappings of an honor produces legitimacy for the holder.
3. Command is the ability to devote non-personal resources and labors of others towards one's own will. Anyone can choose to use their personal resources however they wish, but Elites can compel others to use theirs in a variety of ways aligning with the Elite's will. Giving them over into the personal possession of the subject is the lowest level of this quality - even hobos can compel this kind of transfer - but it is more like Alexander the Great's ability to compel his men to follow him and give their lives for his great vision. Elites must be able to have others invest their resources and selves into the Elite's own vision. They must be able to create followers.
4. Context is in what spheres or manners is this person capable of the above qualities. One can be considered a legendary Magic the Gathering player and, in that context, worshipped and revered - while still being a lowly clerk at the local grocery store lorded over by a petty manager. The circle(s) in which one holds influence, legitimacy, and command matters greatly as being Elite is often context-specific. The Molehill Kings who fight bitterly over tiny fiefdoms in Nationalist circles are defending the context in which they believe they are or can become an Elite. And the sorts of broader-level Elite "souls" tend to express their Elite qualities in multiple spheres simultaneously, and some influence in certain areas leaks over into others by virtue of their aristocratic characters.
This at least is a good starting list to shape discussion. You can notice that most people will have some of these qualities while lacking others, but lacking any of them makes you at best an aspirant, but not a fully-realized, Elite.
A forest hermit might be considered legitimate in his wisdom and influential in that, but outside that specific context he isn't even noticed and doesn't command others in such a way as to bring about his will into the world around him. A spoiled rich kid might have the trappings of the Elite in the sense that his money and familial position can command others and he is recognized as a legitimate heir, but take away his money and his ability to influence others disappears entirely. A construction worker can influence traffic by setting up cones along a road, but no one even recognizes him beyond the barest sense of legitimacy granted to him due to his hardhat and hazard vest, nor could he rightly command anyone outside of an extremely narrow and borrowed context of waving at vehicles to make them slow down else they get in legal trouble.
And much of this is by degrees, as petty or aspirational elites exist alongside clear and unchallenged elites outright ruling their various and adjacent spheres. And their rule, as implied by the euphanism of the very word, will serve others to draw the lines of acceptable behavior and guide the ways they approach power themselves. Like many things in life there is a certain fractal-effect as you go up or down in social complexity where "Eliteness" can exist in complete or aspirant forms. I'm personally quite sparing in whom I would call an Elite to preserve its useful sense of distinguishing between the common, largely powerless peasantry and those who can and do shape society at large. But everyone will slice the pie to a size that suits them.
Walt did you consciously slow down your speech speed here or did you dose yourself with Xanax? Amazing how much more of a laid back vibe this was...one could almost imagine you stroking your beard and puffing on a pipe in contemplation.
Definitely worked for this format where it otherwise would've been jarring in contrast between your molasses sweet southern guest and your usual hyper speed. Nice episode with some good perspectives.
One of the hosts said something along the lines of conservatives are stupid and that’s why the institutions are generally so liberal. It’s true that if you disaggregate by liberals seem to have a low to mid single digit IQ advantage over conservatives, and this has gotten worse in recent years as Trump is a much less appealing candidate to educated people than someone like Romney. But I think this doesn’t explain nearly as much as people think at first glance.
First, many more people identity as conservative than liberal (38% vs 24% in 2020: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_presidential_election). People always forget moderates, and self identified moderates score lowest on tests and vote heavily Dem. 69% of Trump voters in 2020 identified as conservative while only 42% of Biden voters identified as liberal.
So when you look at self identified conservatives you’re looking at a fairly representative portion of the Republican base, while self identified liberals are a smaller and more elite portion of the Democratic base. By raw numbers there are probably about as many intelligent conservatives (by whatever threshold you want to define that) as there are liberals, but there are more dumb ones.
Secondly, from what I’ve seen this has gotten a lot worse in recent years, and Republicans won the college educated vote for decades before recent elections. But the institutions were still overwhelmingly liberal.
I say this not to cope, because I do think the right definitely has a retardation problem, but because I think it’s only part of the problem. There ARE enough smart conservatives out there to be bureaucrats or work for NGOs but they just don’t want to. Personality differences put the right at a severe disadvantage for taking over institutions. Walt is right that smart conservatives generally try to make money and quietly raise families rather than sacrifice their personal wellbeing for the “long march through the institutions.”
A lot of people are small c “conservative” and who aren’t all about MAGA or putting women back into the kitchen or whatever they do want order and stability and a better version of the right would have a shot with them.
When it comes to defining what "Elites" are, it is important to set up definitions that not only bound what you are talking about but also facilitate useful distinctions. Otherwise you run the risk of letting ego and flattery to guide your assignments of such an aspirational and desirable label, or not getting anywhere in your conversations. See how "hero" is thrown around for anyone who does even something mildly positive rather than rightly reserving it for larger-than-life figures.
An Elite is someone who controls society in some respect, great or small, and a person must possess 4 conditions to a certain degree in order to be considered an Elite:
1. Influence
2. Legitimacy
3. Command
4. Context
1. Influence is the ability to change the thoughts and behaviors of others. The crudest fashion of this is by reciprocity - give them resources to serve your interest, which is a matter of circumstance more than it is personal character. But the more salient are the character qualities, not the monetary circumstances, that make someone able to influence others. Maybe it's through personal relationships. Maybe it's through effective rhetoric. Maybe it's through intimidation. But being able to change the actions of others, particularly in quality or quantity, is foundational towards what an Elite is capable of.
2. Legitimacy is the "Right to Rule" sense that people observing the subject believe is deserving of them. Anyone can stand on Capital Hill and proclaim themselves to be President, but not only will the political body not find them legitimate, but the general populace will not either. This is independent of liking or even supporting the figure. Biden is widely reviled, but still considered a valid holder of the office he occupies, whereas Vermin Supreme has no political legitimacy to speak of. Elites hold themselves and are held as being categorically valid for the position they hold or aspire to, and that sense often propels them into those seats. And reciprocally, holding the trappings of an honor produces legitimacy for the holder.
3. Command is the ability to devote non-personal resources and labors of others towards one's own will. Anyone can choose to use their personal resources however they wish, but Elites can compel others to use theirs in a variety of ways aligning with the Elite's will. Giving them over into the personal possession of the subject is the lowest level of this quality - even hobos can compel this kind of transfer - but it is more like Alexander the Great's ability to compel his men to follow him and give their lives for his great vision. Elites must be able to have others invest their resources and selves into the Elite's own vision. They must be able to create followers.
4. Context is in what spheres or manners is this person capable of the above qualities. One can be considered a legendary Magic the Gathering player and, in that context, worshipped and revered - while still being a lowly clerk at the local grocery store lorded over by a petty manager. The circle(s) in which one holds influence, legitimacy, and command matters greatly as being Elite is often context-specific. The Molehill Kings who fight bitterly over tiny fiefdoms in Nationalist circles are defending the context in which they believe they are or can become an Elite. And the sorts of broader-level Elite "souls" tend to express their Elite qualities in multiple spheres simultaneously, and some influence in certain areas leaks over into others by virtue of their aristocratic characters.
This at least is a good starting list to shape discussion. You can notice that most people will have some of these qualities while lacking others, but lacking any of them makes you at best an aspirant, but not a fully-realized, Elite.
A forest hermit might be considered legitimate in his wisdom and influential in that, but outside that specific context he isn't even noticed and doesn't command others in such a way as to bring about his will into the world around him. A spoiled rich kid might have the trappings of the Elite in the sense that his money and familial position can command others and he is recognized as a legitimate heir, but take away his money and his ability to influence others disappears entirely. A construction worker can influence traffic by setting up cones along a road, but no one even recognizes him beyond the barest sense of legitimacy granted to him due to his hardhat and hazard vest, nor could he rightly command anyone outside of an extremely narrow and borrowed context of waving at vehicles to make them slow down else they get in legal trouble.
And much of this is by degrees, as petty or aspirational elites exist alongside clear and unchallenged elites outright ruling their various and adjacent spheres. And their rule, as implied by the euphanism of the very word, will serve others to draw the lines of acceptable behavior and guide the ways they approach power themselves. Like many things in life there is a certain fractal-effect as you go up or down in social complexity where "Eliteness" can exist in complete or aspirant forms. I'm personally quite sparing in whom I would call an Elite to preserve its useful sense of distinguishing between the common, largely powerless peasantry and those who can and do shape society at large. But everyone will slice the pie to a size that suits them.
Excellent points. I think your 4 conditions are really useful criteria for this question. Thank you for commenting!
Walt did you consciously slow down your speech speed here or did you dose yourself with Xanax? Amazing how much more of a laid back vibe this was...one could almost imagine you stroking your beard and puffing on a pipe in contemplation.
Definitely worked for this format where it otherwise would've been jarring in contrast between your molasses sweet southern guest and your usual hyper speed. Nice episode with some good perspectives.
I'm just rubbing off on him, Kate lol
One of the hosts said something along the lines of conservatives are stupid and that’s why the institutions are generally so liberal. It’s true that if you disaggregate by liberals seem to have a low to mid single digit IQ advantage over conservatives, and this has gotten worse in recent years as Trump is a much less appealing candidate to educated people than someone like Romney. But I think this doesn’t explain nearly as much as people think at first glance.
First, many more people identity as conservative than liberal (38% vs 24% in 2020: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_presidential_election). People always forget moderates, and self identified moderates score lowest on tests and vote heavily Dem. 69% of Trump voters in 2020 identified as conservative while only 42% of Biden voters identified as liberal.
So when you look at self identified conservatives you’re looking at a fairly representative portion of the Republican base, while self identified liberals are a smaller and more elite portion of the Democratic base. By raw numbers there are probably about as many intelligent conservatives (by whatever threshold you want to define that) as there are liberals, but there are more dumb ones.
Secondly, from what I’ve seen this has gotten a lot worse in recent years, and Republicans won the college educated vote for decades before recent elections. But the institutions were still overwhelmingly liberal.
I say this not to cope, because I do think the right definitely has a retardation problem, but because I think it’s only part of the problem. There ARE enough smart conservatives out there to be bureaucrats or work for NGOs but they just don’t want to. Personality differences put the right at a severe disadvantage for taking over institutions. Walt is right that smart conservatives generally try to make money and quietly raise families rather than sacrifice their personal wellbeing for the “long march through the institutions.”
A lot of people are small c “conservative” and who aren’t all about MAGA or putting women back into the kitchen or whatever they do want order and stability and a better version of the right would have a shot with them.
I just think Sunshine gets off on calling right-wingers stupid.
My wiki link didn’t post correctly. Go to the “voter demographics” tab to see the ideological breakdown and how they voted
Beautifully done.