In Defense of Elitism

Rating:
Summary: Elitism never sounded so commonsensical
Review: "To speak in defense of elitism is not to tilt the balance of national life, but to seek to restore it." So avers William A. Henry III in the last line of his excellent apologia, In Defense of Elitism.

A registered Democrat, card carrying member of the A.C.L.U., and culture critic for Time magazine, Mr. Henry has risen to defend what many of his ilk cannot, namely, that some people are better than others. His elitist argument is not centered around arbitrary factors, such as race or sex, but around the measurable achievements one has in abilities and talents. If you can demonstrate sufficient ability or talent you go to the front of the line, that simple.

The thrust of his polemic is Egalitarianism, zealous in nature and form, is waging a viscious war against the ideals of Elitism. He provides the reader with numerous examples of such zealous egalitarianism as the feminist-revised "Little Red Riding Hood" which now ends with grandma scaring away the wolf by jumping out of the closet dressed as a ghost and then celebrating with Red about their newfound empowerment as women. Or August Wilson, 3x Pulitzer Prize winning American dramatist, winning his first Pulitzer because the Board " was attracted above all to the idea that he was a black high school drop out..." and because they wanted to "...send a message of hope to Black America."

He also makes a powerful point about this trend toward Egalitarianism; specifically from where its support emanates. He writes: "Egalitarianism is supported most strongly, of course, by the half of the population that is below average and that therefore gets a better deal our of egalitarianism than it ever would our of elitism." The obvious eloquently stated. But he then goes on to add this: "But the lower half could not prevail without the moral surrender of much of the upper half..." This book is peppered throughout with such clarion statements. While he oppugns the egalitarianist trends much favored by the left he falls short of outright denunciation holding that the ideals of egalitarianism are noble.

Those of us who have commonsense in place of a political agenda oftentimes feel as if it's us who are the crazy ones and books like "In Defense of Elitism" give us that much needed reassurance that we are indeed sane. The book is a quick read taking me only two evenings to get through the 212 pages, but it'll take several lifetimes to figure out how it all got so mixed up. Let William A. Henry's book be a guide along the way!

Rating:
Summary: Square pegs and round holes
Review: A challenge facing some persons claiming the title of liberal; reconciling the egregious errors of some elements of multiculturalism with egalitarian ideals. It seems to have been an issue the late Mr Henry struggled with himself. Who was he? old-style liberal, moderate, progressive, neo-conservative or gainsaying it all - an elitist! This difficulty in definitions and specifically his declaration of his liberal qualifications, provided ammunition for the extremes of both sides. The radical left excoriated him and the book, for not only his views, but moreso for exposing the internecine squabbles of competing liberal ideologies. The far right held the book up as affirmation, and chortled, either with self-satisfaction or in ridicule at this 'confused' liberal. Either way, they missed the point, and the benefits to be gained from a thorough reading of this trenchant and moderate (in the proper sense of the word i.e. balanced) book. What Henry says here will rub salt into the wounds of both the politically correct left, and what his colleage Robert Hughes calls the patriotic correct right.

In his DEFENSE OF ELITISM Henry defines what being an elitist is. Someone who believes "some ideas are better than others, some values more enduring, some works of art more universal, some cultures, though we dare not say it, are more accomplished than others and therefore more worthy of study." Nowhere here does he eschew egalitarianism in favor of elitism. Both are necessary in ensuring societal progress and for rewarding achievement. The problem, he says, is that there has been an "erosion of the intellectual confidence to sort out and rank competing values". Bravo! In challenging multiculturalism, it's defenders label one as insensitive, and it's opponents read this as support for some pernicious ideologies that are offered as alternatives.

Mr Henry insists on what can be called an honest intellectual assessment of the merits of ideas and issues. Actually we could extend this to words also. Mediocrity is, we would agree, inferior to meritocracy but this book would argue refering to oneself as moderate does not mean that you favor mediocrity. Being an egalitarian is also not a defense of the cultural pluralism that is characteristic of multiculturalism. Mr Henry makes these distinctions clear but he stops here. He could have gone on to make the following distinction, which is in keeping with his argument. An assimilated, multiethnic America is not an issue, but a pluralistic federation of multicultural states is another thing entirely. That's the only problem I have with this otherwise excellent book - a failure to provide 'full-disclosure' of his views.

Rating:
Summary: A Call to Excellence
Review: America's vital lie is egalitarianism, claims William A. Henry III, and with a "rising tide of mediocrity" what we need is to call to excellence, as well as the renewed confidence to say that some ideas, people and things are simply better than others. In other words, we need more elitism. In this well reasoned (though not rigorously argued) treatise, Henry's unflinching conservative opinions will no doubt infuriate some, especially as he applies his central thesis to multiculturalists, feminists, affirmative activists, and others. But he provides some thought provoking arguments that I thought made the book worth reading.

Henry begins by outlining his views of elitism, which he believes has been unfairly derided. He believes that at its core, elitism embraces excellence, not snobbery. Realizing that, we should reclaim the confidence needed to sort out, rank, and decide between competing ideas and values. Elitist societies uphold objective standards, embrace rationalism, and respect accomplishment. They also believe that competition brings out the best in people more than coddling does, and that people who make the most of themselves and contribute the most should be rewarded for their achievements.

Those ideas aren't pervasive today as Henry would like. Instead, many embrace the notion that "everyone is pretty much alike, that self-fulfillment is more important than objective achievement, that the common man is always right & needs no interpreters or guides for his thinking, and that society should succoring its losers rather than honoring and encouraging its winners to achieve more and therefore benefit everyone." If we believe that everyone is equal, then success and failures are anomalies, and therefore luck determines our fate more than hard work, talent, intelligence, or initiative. Rugged individualism & self-reliance falls out of fashion, and is replaced by an "entitlement mentality." Objectivity & rationalism are viewed as cultural artifacts, no more valid than intuition or other more primal ways of viewing the world. We believe that
"all of the children are above average," much like in Garrison Keillor's fictional Lake Wobegon, despite that fact that our children's test scores are falling relative to children in other nations.

Although the Declaration of Independence proclaims that "All men are created equal," Henry believes it's been a grand folly to take that idea to the extreme, seeking not just equality in a legal sense, but also equality of outcomes in every field. People are not equal - some people are brilliant, some dim, some hearty, some handicapped, some slothful, some productive. And as a result, some of society's rewards are distributed unequally. But we don't know what to do with inherent inequalities in the egalitarian, democratic USA. We assume that "fair" competition would result in all groups sharing equally in society's rewards, and that any differences must be the result of an unfair system.

In the end, Henry's arguments are sound, and worth reading and considering. But this is by no means a balanced book, and that's why I didn't find his arguments more persuasive. He doesn't acknowledge the complexity of some of the issues he discusses, nor does he anticipate counter-arguments and refute them. For example, he believes in providing equal opportunity to pursue excellence, but ignores the historical (and sometimes legally sanctioned) lack of opportunity for women, blacks, immigrants, etc.

Society will always struggle with what to do with the successful, talented, or lucky versus the poor, short-changed, and unlucky. Ultimately, the extent to which we correct these discrepancies requires that we know how much of one's success is due to individual choices, and how much due to random chance, and how much due to society's help or hindrance. Separating these influences is a difficult if not impossible task, and thus the debate between egalitarianism and elitism will no doubt continue.


Rating:
Summary: YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS, RIGHT-WINGERS!!!
Review: IMHO, the greatest irony of the right-wing is this----on the one hand they want to preserve a top-down society where the elite, that is, those on top (where they come from, of course) remain in power----yet they want to present themselves to the masses of people in this country as the salt of the earth, just plain folks.

Look, conservatives, if you want to believe, as Henry argues in this book, that elitism is a supreme virtue, fine. But then, speaking as a commierad lefty, I don't want to ever hear again from right-wing talking heads on the radio or the TV complaining about how liberals and leftists are, well, elitist----showing contempt for the common sense of the Average American----'cause elitism is the bastion of Western Civ, remember?

You can't have it both ways......

Rating:
Summary: Excellent discussion of what it really means to be "elite."
Review: People who say the word "elite" with a sneer have no concept of what it really means. Mr. Henry explains what I have long suspected -- that being "elite" is not the same thing as being a snob. This is an excellent book that I recommend for anyone who gets the two concepts confused.

Rating:
Summary: Worthy but incomplete
Review: The best thing about "In Defense of Elitism" is its bluntness and mostly unapologetic tone (I don't know why Henry feels compelled to trot out his liberal credentials). The greatest flaw of the book is that Henry sorely overlooks a glaring irony: most of the tenets of cultural illiberalism and "identity politics" that he rightly assails were formulated and propagated by the elite. What Henry is really attacking is not egalitarianism but a self-insulated elite that panders to a misguided notion of egalitarianism. It is not the "elite" but the majority of middle-class America that has held most steadfastly to the individualist ethos that Henry praises, and it is only now that the "elite" is beginning to "rediscover" values that they have long dismissed as products of the sexist, racist, ignorant, and philistine masses.

Interestingly, Henry has something in common with the liberal "elite" he despises, which is a contempt for the middle-class aesthetic. He reveals this in the seventh chapter, easily the worst of the book. He includes both sensationalistic news coverage and family photo albums in his indictment of our culture of celebrity (often appropriately called "star-f***ing") without distinguishing between the pernicious and the harmless. His tirade against karaoke is just plain weird--does he object to having fun?

Perhaps Henry's book should have been titled "In Defense of Merit" instead. His main thesis seems to be that people should look up to the successful and seek to emulate them, not destroy them, and that the aristocracy of talent has an obligation to encourage our better angels.

Unfortunately, this laudable reassertion of the individualist/meritocratic ethos is clouded by an authoritarian impulse that is more in line with the traditional notion of nobility rather than a society based on objective rewards and punishments. The problem of elitism is that all too often people appoint themselves as elites and then seek to impose their will on the rest of society like some Niezstchean superman. If you truly believe that you have ideas and values that are superior, the best way to enforce these ideas and values in a manner consistent with a (classical) liberal society is to SET AN EXAMPLE. Instead of sitting back and whining about how the masses are "uncultured" or turning yourself into a social hermit, get out there and DO SOMETHING about it. If your ideas and values are truly the best, the great filtering process of time will serve you and people will come to you. Henry never provides a call to action in a clear and forceful way, and by this failing his book merely adds to the cacophony of complaint.

Rating:
Summary: Common Sense Forgotten
Review: The late Mr. Henry serves as the voice of enlightenment to modern America - so beset by misdirected idealism. As a geek in the truest sense of the word (software developer), I have existed in a libertarian subculture for most of my life - a subculture that espouses meritocracy at its very core. Mr. Henry speaks to me, inspiring me to recognize and uplift my own views, no matter how contrary they are to popular media rantings about equality. We are all offered a chance, and Mr. Henry was clearly brave enough to speak the truth: what we do with that chance is up to us.
IN DEFENSE is highly recommended to those who praise the pursuit of education and the advancement of the individual; it is a concise work and a joy to read.

Rating:
Summary: Articulate and logical. Henry is someone you must consider.
Review: This book argues that some people are more competent than others and that some cultures are more valuable than others. Henry discusses the manner in which American institutions elevate egalitarianism, derogate elitism, and end up as incubators of mediocrity. He offers seven criteria by which one can identify a superior human culture. In doing so he offers mettlesome arguments against many of the dogmas that afflict the academe and the rest of our society. He offers the idea that people should be judged not on politicized identifiers like gender or race but on merit alone, and he defines, rather plausibly, what "merit" is. Even if you don't agree with Henry, or if you're annoyed with him for speaking up in this manner, you have to admire his precise and unafraid writing. He is someone you must consider.

Rating:
Summary: A call for standards from the left
Review: This book is a stand out in the annals of efforts to show why trying to equalize everything ends up as a failure and a morass of crudeness and mediocrity. Unlike many conservatives who just take the secular culture and the ACLU to task this book is actually thoughtful, balanced and not trying to bring back the good old days of cardboard piety. Instead it argues for a call to excellency and standards and a renaissance of deeper, classical learning rather than a preoccupation with fads and pop psychology. It shows that if you throw every whim, every garbled nonsense and every passing crisis made personal philosophy into the same pan you don't end up with a melting pot but a politically correct wasteland without brilliance and diversity. It isn't an indictment of liberal advances rather than an outcry for forfeiting the dumbing down of the citizenry and that goes for the one track minded fundamentalists as well as the grudge bearing self-worshippers of every stripe.

Rating:
Summary: William Henry Argues for a more Elitist Society
Review: William A. Henry III, with his perfect name for an elitist, argues that the society has gotten too egalitarian wanting equality of results and status for everyone and everything, with no attention being paid to elitist values of striving for excellence, enforcing discipline, and ranking people, things, and ideas according to their merits. Anyone who thinks that society has gotten too egalitarian will be please with this book.

Henry sometimes sounds like a far right winger like David Duke or Dr. William Pierce with his arguments that conquering the frontier civilized this country and with his rebuttal of afro-centrists who claim that blacks invented some basic technologies and once had a high civilization in Egypt. However, the direction of his arguments eventually leads to the liberal ideals of integration, equality of opportunity, and assimilating any individual of any race into this country which has been predominately white for so many years. His idea of America is one in which any individual of any race should swear allegiance to Western ideals which will make them American--a citizenship not based on race.

Problem is, it may be very hard, if not impossible, to enforce Western ideals in a multi-racial society especially if assimilation is not enforced. He seems to make the same mistakes in thinking that libertarians do--that we are just individuals and we are not tied to an ethnic group and its culture.

He calls racists and sexists "creeps", but by identifying himself as elitist, he vaguely realizes that he will also be considered a creep by quasi-marxist egalitarians who have developed the concepts of racism, sexism, and anti-elitism. He has a way of offending the politically incorrect crowd that might agree with him in order to keep his mainstream liberal credentials. (He was a culture critic for Newsweek.)

I think the dubious advantage of an egalitarian society that de-emphasizes excellence is that people can be lazier and not have to work to be the best that they can be. Meanwhile though, we are competing with other cultures that may not be so lazy and egalitarian.

The author may some interesting comments of education. He said that his mother who went to a school in the 40's of average reputation had to read all 37 of Shakespheare's plays in one semester, as opposed to the one a week assigned during a 12 week semester at average colleges today. With the increase of numbers of people going to college, a dilution of the quality of that education has taken place.

Henry questions whether it is a good idea to bankrupt the middle class by finances their childrens' college education if the education does not really advance their career life monetarily. He mentions college grads that are messenger boys on a permanent basis. (I must say that the economy is tough these days--it's harder to find a white collar professional career.)

He talks about how there is a glut of journalism grads, but not enough job slots in the field to give all these grads a job in journalism. He wants an education system that puts more people onto a vocational track and leaves college for the true eggheads of this world.

He deplores the turning away from tracking students according to ability in high schools and including special education students into the class of students of normal intelligence because doing so slows down the rest of the class. This problem stems from egalitarians who hate the elitist idea that it is beneficial sometimes to exclude people that don't qualify to join a certain group.

Henry mentions that our European-derived culture is a mix of egalitarian and elitist ideals. Since World War II egalitarianism has dominated the culture.

I would say that many of us have egalitarian and elitist impulses wanting to exclude others at times as a matter of pride in accomplishment and status, but also not wanting to excluded from any group feeling that we are equal to anyone, even though we aren't. We feel the shame of inferiority when we are excluded.

I don't agree with him that we should have more confidence in the mainstream media as opposed to the alternative one because he asserts that it has higher journalistic standards, although he criticizes mainstream media for not keeping up to those standards.

Elitism probably won't solve any racial dilemmas, if we go back to a system of meritocracy, we will still have an underclass of pre-dominately lesser talented non-whites discontent with the lower pay that lesser talent brings. They are not to blame for being lesser talented, if it is genetically based. That's probably why the egalitarian notion of equality of results is popular; it gives people the illusion that everyone of whatever race is equally talented.