So with all the natter and questions that pundits have been asking back and forth about whether Obama's an elitist, it's natural that I've been thinking about the idea myself. Furthermore, after Chris Matthews nailing that guy on what appeasement is (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/15/hardball-
shoutfest-matthe_n_102020.html), I started wondering to myself what an elitist is. Somehow, I doubted that the definition I would find is "arugula-lover" or "person who is unskilled at bowling," so I wandered onto Dictionary.com to find out (Hey, it's quick). Here's what I got:

1.practice of or belief in rule by an elite.

2.consciousness of or pride in belonging to a select or favored group.
I figured, "Okay, people can't be upset about the first one because that's what representative democracy is all about, and I know the government could use some fixing, but we can agree that we like the basic idea of a republic, right?" And so the first one was out because whether or not Obama was one shouldn't be a major issue.

As for the second definition, I find it hard not to believe that Obama is proud of being a college graduate, of having made it to the Senate, and now being able to run for president, so I guess he qualifies, but in that case, aren't all of us elitists in that case? I mean, just about everyone has done something really well that helped you join a certain group of people, whether you got good grades, did well at sports, or got a promotion at work, right? And if you do something well, don't you have the right to have pride in it and all consequences of it? So why can't Obama be proud of the position he's in? It doesn't make sense, so that should, in theory, rule out the second definition.

So what, then, are people so worked up about? It's evidently not anything in the dictionary definition, which means that people are referring to something while using the word for something else. This is a problem. Lapses in communication like this will always heat up arguments because there is a fundamental misunderstanding in what the subject matter is, which will lead to secondary misunderstandings in just about everything else discussed.

I was at this point for a while, until I found an peripherally interesting article in Newsweek (http://www.newsweek.com/id/138528) today and discussed it with my mom. It was an interview with David Sirota about his new book about a supposed populist uprising against the elites that will take place from both the left and the right. Sirota states that there are actually more than a dozen taking place, and then he lists them, and I quote:

"On the left, it manifests itself as a backlash against the war,
economic inequality, and conservatism. On the right, it's a backlash
against illegal immigration and liberal elites. ...They are different in the specific issues they focus on, but the same in what they are acting against: the establishment and the status quo."

Okay, so these are the things that Sirota says are elitist. The argument sounds to me to be a little odd - I thought most were fighting against failed policy, rather than against any particular group of elites. I know that's the reason I'm upset about a lot of the conservatism that's affected the government. If it worked, I'd be perfectly happy with the status quo. I mentioned the article to my mom and asked her my $100 question: "Who're the 'elites' this guy's after, anyway?"

My mom answered in two words: the Jews, citing two quotes. First, one later in the interview, in which Sirota says in response to a question about whether he was worried the book will scare away elites from reading it, "Not at all, because the book wasn't written for the establishment crowd. It's not a book by Tom Friedman. It's not a book for wealthy people." The second one was a quote by some Hollywood director back in the 90s giving a speech, in which he opened by saying, "Welcome, my fellow cultural elites. Or should I say, welcome, my fellow Jews."

Now two quotes, especially two quotes like these that seem to be more emotion-ridden than fact-ridden, are not the foundation of a good argument. However, the foundation of curiosity? I don't see why not, and the more I look at Sirota's political points about the elites, the more I can see a pattern.

Jews are stereotypically for the Iraq War on the basis of Israel's security, and since many are well-off, they would also be stereotypically in favor of conservative fiscal policy (I know, this doesn't have basis in fact, but generalizations and straw men rarely are). On the conservative end, Jews are stereotypically more socially liberal than the American populace at large and since they would have more job security, would be less bothered by illegal immigration.

But when I try to replace "elitist" with its newfound definition in worries about Barack Obama, I wind up just as stuck as before. I don't think anyone's worried about him being a secret Jew, and so this definition makes no sense. Not only that, but Hillary Clinton, the supposed anti-elitist candidate, tends to attract more Jews than Obama does.

The word, I think, is hopelessly confusing, and should perhaps just be purged from the English language until someone can find a good definition. But now I'm wondering if the stereotype of an elitist stems from stereotypes about Jews and maybe just doesn't directly refer to them today. So, what does everyone else think? Am I onto something, or have I just spent too long trying to parse the word?