STORY TOOLS

• E-mail story
• iPod friendly
• Printer friendly

More Sunday Perspective

• Letters to the Editor: July 20, 2008
• Outpost of Opportunity: Immokalee's untold story
• Phil Lewis: Answers still sought in school dispute

Share and Enjoy [?]

When did the word “elite” become an insult? When did “elitism” become something to be ashamed of?

Merriam-Webster’s online dictionary defines “elite” as: “The choice part ... the best of a class ... a group of persons who by virtue of position or education exercise much power or influence.” Maybe the problem that some people have with the idea of “elite” is that phrase, “by virtue of position.” Maybe they object to the idea of a person being born with a silver spoon in his mouth, rich and secure from birth.

The same dictionary’s definition of “elitism” or “elitist” reads: “1. Leadership or rule by an elite. 2. The selectivity of the elite, esp. snobbery.” Ah, there’s the rub. For in this democracy of ours, where we dearly believe that any one person is as good as any other, snobbery is regarded as a social evil and a political no-no.

That’s why you see presidential candidates visiting bowling alleys and factories: to show that they’re regular guys. Calling a political candidate an elitist is an insult; it’s like saying he (or she) regards himself (or herself) as better than the ordinary people, the common folk, the average voter.

But in a way it’s true, isn’t it? A person who has made her (or his) way to political leadership is a damned sight more accomplished than the average Joe, in many ways. A person who can get people to donate millions of dollars to her (or his) political campaign is doing something I’d never be capable of doing. Could you?

The problem is, at heart, a misunderstanding of the definition of that word “equal.” When Thomas Jefferson wrote into the Declaration of Independence that “all men are created equal,” I’m sure he didn’t mean that in its broadest, most literal sense. He knew, for example, that he was a lot taller than Alexander Hamilton, and that George Washington was a lot stronger, physically, than the two of them combined.

Did Jefferson think that women were equal to men? I doubt it. Women weren’t regarded as true citizens back in those days. It wasn’t until nearly 150 years after that historic July 4 that American women got the vote.

Equality, in the legal and political sense, means equality before the law, equality of opportunity, a fair deal for every citizen. It does not mean that I can step into the lineup of the Boston Red Sox baseball team and do as good a job as their regular players. It doesn’t even mean that I’m as good a writer as Dashiell Hammett or Carl Hiaasen.

But, in pandering to the voters, politicians have allowed that word “equal” to mean that any one person is as good as any other person in every sense.

This is nothing new. The ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle wrote, “Democracy arises out of the notion that those who are equal in any respect are equal in all respects; because men are equally free, they claim to be absolutely equal.” Well, common nails and kumquats may be absolutely equal. Bacteria and earthworms may be absolutely equal. But people are not. Each human being is unique, with individual strengths and weaknesses, talents and foibles.

I can think of a politician who was born with a silver spoon in his mouth, the son of a very wealthy and powerful father, a member of a self-made elite: John F. Kennedy.

Instead of pandering to the lowest common denominator, as today’s politicians unceasingly do, JFK appealed to the best in us. He strove for excellence.

President Kennedy challenged the American people to do their best in everything from public service to flying to the moon. He said the American people can accept such challenges “not because they are easy, but because they are hard.” Of the Apollo lunar program in particular, he said we will get to the moon “because that challenge is one we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one we intend to win.” An elitist? You bet he was! He hired the best and the brightest and turned the White House into a Camelot filled with youthful energy (he called it “vigah”), new ideas and great accomplishment.

Elitism needn’t mean snobbery, and an elitist is not necessarily a bluenose. But to watch the way today’s political candidates twist themselves into pretzels to avoid being thought of as an elitist would be comical, if it weren’t so stupid.

---

Speaking of politics, I was pleased to see my fellow columnist Brent Batten come out in favor of term limits, an idea that I’ve long favored.

In a recent column, Batten wrote that “The accumulation of power through seniority gives veteran lawmakers … the ability to intimidate junior members. ... The hope of acquiring such seniority pushes members (of the House of Representatives) to ’bring home the bacon’ to their districts. ... Term limits would allow honorable men and women to serve their country and their constituents free from the distractions the possibility of a career in Congress present.”

Batten points out that “Members of Congress aren’t likely to impose term limits on themselves. The surest way to do it is through an amendment to the U.S. Constitution.” He’s dead right. I have a suggestion, though, that might help to get the ball rolling: Propose a term-limit amendment, but make it for future members of the House and Senate. Then the present members might actually vote for it.

Many of those politicians, like Sens. Robert Byrd and Ted Kennedy, intend to stay in office for life. They will block any move toward an amendment that will force them to step down from power. So, recognizing this, make the term-limit amendment apply only to future officeholders, not those presently in office.

It’s a sop to the people who are causing the problem, but it just might get the problem solved, eventually.

Naples voter Ben Bova is the author of more than 115 books, including “The Same Gunn Omnibus,” a collection of tales about a roguish entrepreneur of the future. Bova’s Web site address is www.benbova.com.