A particular part of political rhetoric has been sticking in my craw lately, and that is knee-jerk anti-elitism and anti-establishment commentary and criticism. It's not as though I do not see the criticisms of the status quo of several advanced democracies. There are plenty who could easily look at Canada's two ruling parties (Liberals and Conservatives) and feel great dissatisfaction, especially given their similarities. In America the decades of conflict between Democrats and Republicans may be nauseating to their citizens, but that hardly means that Donald Trump is the answer. Donald Trump is never the answer.
Here's what I find baffling about this anti-elite, anti-establishment rhetoric: those who use it almost always mean replace one set of the establishment with another.
Elites tend to exist for a reason. Sometimes, believe it or not, it is based upon merit. It more often is tied to wealth/class, prestige, family, and entrenched socio-cultural attitudes. People tend to mingle within their own class. When I went to events in Toronto it would not be uncommon to see journalists (off the clock), politicians, and academics comfortably rubbing shoulders with each other. Oftentimes there are familial, friendship and marriage connections between similar individuals. These, unfortunately, create connections that allow these people to become more firmly rooted and ease the path for their patronage network/families.
My egalitarian streak rankles at this sort of pattern. However, the NDP in recent years has been afflicted with these sorts of cozy connections. The party president was Rebecca Blaikie, daughter of long-time NDP MP Bill Blaikie. His son is now a member of parliament. Jack Layton's son is a sitting city councillor in Toronto, and his daughter, if memory serves, is a key figure in the Broadbent Institute, an NDP-friendly organization. I'm not saying these individuals do not deserve the positions they hold, but I think it would be naive to assume that part of their success is not tied to the links they have.
I have a certain level of empathy for anger at the elites who govern our society, but more often than not those who are angry are co-opted by other elites to displace them. Perhaps the most paradoxical representation of this is Donald Trump, a wealthy conman/business mogul who has rubbed shoulders with the elite class for decades. Though we can look further back quite comfortably. George W. Bush was held up as a 'regular guy' despite the fact that he was Yale-educated and the son of a president and from a political dynasty. I'm willing to engage in a conversation about class warfare, but if it's just the Orwellian story of various factions of elites warring against each other and using popular support to further their aims I have a hard time taking the critique seriously.
We will never divorce ourselves from these so-called elites. Once the revolutionaries take the palace it isn't long before they become the new elites themselves. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. This doesn't mean that change is impossible, it just means making peace with the fact that being aligned with people who have high levels of education or experience is inherently positive, not negative. Throwing the bums out is a great in theory, but then we have to actually manage our affairs in the wake of the toss.
Ultimately I suppose I'm annoyed by this lazy criticism and its ineffectiveness to articulate any kind of positive message. If you don't like the actions of the politicians/government, write them, join a party, sign a petition, participate in a protest, stand for election. Pretending you are justified in destroying the system rather than responsible for trying to fix it is just getting old.