Elitism and Anti-Egalitarianism

Today, as the rest of the world discusses elections results and all that entails, I decided to poet a piece that certainly will not be read by anyone.

 

The term anti-egalitarian on the right-hand summary of our site probably requires a little explanation. To the uninitiated egalitarianism evokes much of what folks think to be good about America.

Egalitarianism, in its broadest sense, has given rise to communism, socialism, and democracy.  The idea of leveling the playing field is appealing to most people. Anyone that openly opposes egalitarianism is often considered an elitist.

There we have it; egalitarianism is good, elitism is bad and people that believe the first are also good, making the second group bad. That is at least the simple take on this. Of course the issue is not a simple one.

Equality under the law (with caveats) and equality of opportunity (based entirely on merit) are good sorts of egalitarianism. (Of course equality of opportunity based entirely on merit can become a meritocracy which is a kind of elitism. See how this is more complicated that the black/white simple analysis above?) From a paleoconservative point of view embracing this kind of egalitarianism is a given.  Discriminating against people on the basis of skin color is stupid - equality under the law(all other things also being equal) and equality of opportunity (again all other things being equal) are good societal traits.  The term "anti-egalitarian" as used on this blog does not represent an rejection of these points of egalitarianism.

First a clarification of the two points above before I move on to a full assault on egalitarianism and a defense of elitism.

Equality under the law does not necessarily mean that everyone gets the same rights. How does it make sense to allow someone on public welfare to vote?  Think about it, doesn't this allow one group to vote for people that will guarantee that their payments from the pockets of others continue?  Should non-property owners be allowed to vote on referendums at the local level related to property taxes?  Certainly not, at least not in a rationale world.  Should people that cannot read at a level sufficient to allow them to understand a standard newspaper be allowed to vote?  Probably not, how could such a person make a reasoned and informed decision.  Being treated equally under the law certainly does not equate to receiving the exact same rights as every other citizen.  It means being treated equally based upon your capability to contribute and your investment in society. 

Equality of opportunity does not mean that government ought to set differing standards to allow certain groups additional access to education, jobs or benefits - this is the antithesis of equality. Affirmative action, progressive taxes, social security, luxury taxes, inheritance taxes and even property taxes (if used wrongly) are governmental means of "guaranteeing" equal economic opportunity -but at what expense?  In reality the cost of this opportunity is borne by others that have been more successful or just plain lucky - either way such programs are socialist, this is bad egalitarianism.

There is something else fundamentally wrong with praising egalitarianism and vilifying elitism.  This logic assumes that there is nothing of human endeavor, merit, skill or ability that ought to be rewarded and emulated. And really, if you break it right down it does not matter is a person achieved their success through luck or skill - both are things that people aspire to.  We are each capable of controlling, to some degree, our skill and (luck is what it is). All the same most people want some of each. Why punish people for being lucky or skillful?

Is it possible that there are in fact certain traits that ought to be revered and emulated?  Don't we admire young athletes who work very hard and hone their skills to championship levels? What of rags to riches innovators and inventors?  Hard work and dedication are indeed traits that we ought to admire - how can something we should admire be punished by taking the profits of that hard work away and giving it to someone less capable or less dedicated?

You can certainly call me an elitist and I will not find offense in it.  I believe people that work hard and achieve success honorably are elite in a sense. You may also call me an anti-egalitarian; for I believe that all people, ideas, values and principles are not equal nor should they be treated as such.