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.
3 comments:
I largely agree with your analysis – including the co-opting of the anti-elites by that billionaire, Donald Trump.
Elites exist and have always done so. However, there is a problem if political elites do not represent their electorates and start empathising and advocating for their fellow (business, industry, journalism) elites. This is a situation of self-serving elite out of touch with their voters – bad, and usually leads to a traumatic correction.
This was a common factor in, for example, Brexit. The irony that working class Labour voters voted to Leave whilst middle class Labour supports voted to Remain is symptomatic of the problem. The latter opened the UK to mass migration of unskilled migrants that in turn depressed the former’s salaries. This disastrous policy originated with the Labour party’s elites’ identification of middle class, metropolitan left wing social liberalism more than working class concerns.
As for the offspring of politicians going into politics, I think Justin Trudeau proves mediocrity is no hindrance if you have a famous last name. Most Prime Ministers have accomplished something in their lives before taking office.
Unless your surname was Pitt, then assume political dynasties are an abomination – a self-licking political lollipop of the politically mediocre.
Nepotism has no place in the modern world.
Thanks for your thoughts. I suppose the problem is hypocrisy. This is particularly galling when perpetrated by left-wing political parties. Their rhetoric of standing up for the working class doesn't fit with so-called champagne socialists. Right-wing politicians have their own hypocrisy on this. Most of it has to do with 'family values' and 'small business-owner'. I recall one Conservative claiming to be a small businessperson despite the fact that he was a very wealthy consultant.
On your Brexit example I would say that Labour is made up of a coalition and it fractured on the Brexit question.
Both the Labour and the Conservative parties (and even the SNP) have significant differences of opinion on the EU within their own parties. Brexit rather un-tidily cuts across left-right, socialist-capitalist, Labour-Conservative boundaries.
I think that in our Westminster-style first past the post electoral system, big is good and therefore all major parties consist of, to a greater or lesser extent, a coalition of interests grouped broadly into centre-left, centrist or centre-right. In the UK, the 2 large parties seem to manage holding these different interests to the common party platform and consider themselves a ‘broad church’ of views and opinions. As an aside, this may be a reason why first past the post tends to not favour more radical parties.
The unity of the parties is tried at times. Think the Conservatives over the EU and Maastricht Treaty in the 1990s. John Major often had to deal with backbench revolts from his Euro-sceptic wing (he had on occasion to solicit the aid of the Ulster Unionists – ironically). Labour is coming through an internal bloodbath, if you excuse the phrase, with the far left wing taking revenge on the centrists – the Blairites. With Jeremy Corbyn’s better to be expected election performance, I think Blairism will be erased from the Labour agenda for a long time.
Post a Comment