Alex Himelfarb is absolutely right in noting the reversal in language underlying the attacks on "elites" from both the Cons in Canada and the Tea Party south of the border - as the term has been redefined to refer to anybody with an education and/or a degree of expertise in a field who happens to disagree with the party in question, rather than the genuinely wealthy and powerful. But I can't entirely agree with Himelfarb's associated view that the term is generally too much an example of dirty politics to have value.
If anything, I'd argue that there's probably more need now than there's been in the past half-century to call attention to how people fitting the original definition of elite are able to secure massive personal gains while leaving the risk of loss with those less fortunate - with a particular focus on the deception involved in examples like Himelfarb's, where well-funded campaigns have been used to warp the meaning of words for the benefit of the already-privileged. And that means reclaiming the term and redirecting its power toward those who deserve to answer for it, not abandoning it altogether.
No comments:
Post a Comment