It seems to me that the word elites is usually used in the pejorative, so it’s worth discussing when and how it’s used as complimentary.
The first question we should ask about elites is: what’s wrong with elites?
I would point to lack of humility as an important trait of elites. It seems to me that elites see themselves as more than they are.
Do elites suffer from self-deception with regard to who they are? I would say so. Elites suffer from lack of self-awareness. They cannot see their own weaknesses and mistaken beliefs. They tend to deny and ignore their dogmatism.
The word elites is almost never used as complimentary. Rather, the word “elite” is a common compliment used to refer to elite athletes, elite special forces, elite competitors, elite artists. These are references to specialized skill sets, winners of specific games and specific competitions. Michael Jordan is elite. Michael Phelps is elite. Jony Ive is elite. John Lennon is elite.
Elites like Tyler Cowen are not necessarily elite. Why? His views on COVID and the lockdowns lacked humility. Once you fall into the quagmire of “the elites” it’s difficult to remove yourself.
Elites see themselves as more than they are. They lack self-awareness.
I agree elite is applied to academia, as well as politics and business, in the way you say but it also applies to those groups in the same way as for others you list.
I think the word harm is missing from this discussion. Adam Smith, F.A. Hayek, Thomas Sowell, Arnold Kling, Milton Friedman, and Russ Roberts are an examples wise men that I consider elite, but not elites. They’ve done no harm. They are elite role models.
First a qualifier. I would not say someone has never done harm but our opinions on these people more or less align. That said this is entirely based on opinion. I know two people who think Roberts has done harm by comments post-October 7. I'm not sure harm is exactly the right word but it comes very close to what someone stated to me regarding their opinion of Sowell. I have little doubt we could find people who think the others have done great harm. And they almost certainly think Chomsky hasn't.
Sure, me too. And others are happy to defend Chomsky. That misses the point.
And it's worth noting that your willingness to defend your opinion sounds a bit like you think it is fact. It reminds me of the lack of humility you mention in elites.
Haha. Good one stu. Will admit when I’m wrong and apologize. Certainly I don’t argue or defend every opinion. Sometimes better just to go our separate ways. You live in your community and I’ll live in mine. Live and let live. But when someone makes an obvious mistake that harms others in my community I may choose to hold them accountable. Justice. Likewise, I’ll defend the best ideas and thinkers in my community.
As you have noted, Paul Krugmen and people like him have quite a lot of status on the left, but his opinions would differ wildly from other economists.
"because libertarians tend to be contrarian and in opposition to the establishment"
Which libertarians?
Tyler hints at it with the COVID comment. There were a lot of "libertarians" that went all in on COVID lockdowns (like himself), and in other ways side with the elites vs libertarians on many issues.
And then there is the big kahuna of immigration. Open Borders is a "traditional" libertarian cause, but after seeing what happened in California and elsewhere many libertarians are now on the opposite side of the issue. The key divider on this seems to be mood affiliation with elites rather then good arguments.
Economists like Krugman who are famous and well-regarded among different political groups outside of academia use their credentials in economics mostly to lend weight to their political arguments. Joseph Stiglitz comes to mind as another example who plays to populist sentiments on the left as well as Peter Navarro among the populist right, although that group definitely puts less value on academic credentials than the left.
Elites are a much broader group than intellectuals. Elites comprise the professions, prestigious artists, senior executives and administrators, major media personalities, and so on.
What intellectuals say or do, has little impact on the status of elites, broadly defined.
The status of a particular elite group X depends much more on what X does than on what intellectuals say about X. For example, the status of public-health officials depends more on how they behave during a pandemic than on what intellectuals of any stripe say about the public-health officials. There is a competitive forum of ideas; and the person in the street compares those ideas to reality.
“That is, our nature leads us to seek to lower the status of establishment politicians, even though from a libertarian perspective nowadays the alternatives are worse.“ Arnold - Trump is better than both George W. Bush and Barack Obama. Agree?
Libertarians may help generate better alternatives by understanding how Milei became the choice of Argentinians, then putting their shoulder to the wheel to support a centrist candidate who advocates "right-sizing" government to 20% of GNP in the West. Other examples would be John Howard in Australia, and Margaret Thatcher in the UK. Letting the perfect be the enemy of the good won't work.
I'm rather fuzzy on what we mean by elite and suspect people reading his post, and yours, have very different understandings of the label. That said, I agree Ivy and peer institutions are elite institutions and most of the faculty can be identified as such. I'm less certain one should be labeled as such for merely being there.
Cowen says that anyone there raises the status of the elites. That seems a stretch. He also says Chomsky lowers it. Beyond the obvious contradiction, I'm rather skeptical about the claim about Chomsky. Who decides Chomsky's effect? Cowen and others at Mercatus? Would faculty at elite schools agree?
It would be hard to figure out the teams if the scores were kept based on status of elites, up or down.
The economic scores are kept in US Dollars, as income & wealth. Not the same as zero-sum status, and it’s possible to get millions from a govt that prints money. And the teams are NOT rich vs poor, rather there are many different teams, companies & professions.
Political teams in the US are Dems, Reps, & usually ignorables (almost 0 elected decision makers).
There’s a large number of voters who are pro-life, Big Compassionate govt —what is their Team? It has almost nothing to do with elites.
The deeper reason for discussing elite status is because all the elite colleges & media, are now partisan Dems. Reduction or increase in elite status is highly correlated with changes in Dem status.
At least Tyler noted many voters choose a single primary issue, not elite status changing.
[Reps in govt should require edu orgs getting govt benefits to have at least 30% Republican professors & Trustees- on repeat]
It seems to me that the word elites is usually used in the pejorative, so it’s worth discussing when and how it’s used as complimentary.
The first question we should ask about elites is: what’s wrong with elites?
I would point to lack of humility as an important trait of elites. It seems to me that elites see themselves as more than they are.
Do elites suffer from self-deception with regard to who they are? I would say so. Elites suffer from lack of self-awareness. They cannot see their own weaknesses and mistaken beliefs. They tend to deny and ignore their dogmatism.
The word elites is almost never used as complimentary. Rather, the word “elite” is a common compliment used to refer to elite athletes, elite special forces, elite competitors, elite artists. These are references to specialized skill sets, winners of specific games and specific competitions. Michael Jordan is elite. Michael Phelps is elite. Jony Ive is elite. John Lennon is elite.
Elites like Tyler Cowen are not necessarily elite. Why? His views on COVID and the lockdowns lacked humility. Once you fall into the quagmire of “the elites” it’s difficult to remove yourself.
Elites see themselves as more than they are. They lack self-awareness.
I agree elite is applied to academia, as well as politics and business, in the way you say but it also applies to those groups in the same way as for others you list.
I'm skeptical Cowen would self-identity as elite.
I think the word harm is missing from this discussion. Adam Smith, F.A. Hayek, Thomas Sowell, Arnold Kling, Milton Friedman, and Russ Roberts are an examples wise men that I consider elite, but not elites. They’ve done no harm. They are elite role models.
First a qualifier. I would not say someone has never done harm but our opinions on these people more or less align. That said this is entirely based on opinion. I know two people who think Roberts has done harm by comments post-October 7. I'm not sure harm is exactly the right word but it comes very close to what someone stated to me regarding their opinion of Sowell. I have little doubt we could find people who think the others have done great harm. And they almost certainly think Chomsky hasn't.
I’m happy to defend Roberts and most likely Sowell, but no one is perfect.
Sure, me too. And others are happy to defend Chomsky. That misses the point.
And it's worth noting that your willingness to defend your opinion sounds a bit like you think it is fact. It reminds me of the lack of humility you mention in elites.
Haha. Good one stu. Will admit when I’m wrong and apologize. Certainly I don’t argue or defend every opinion. Sometimes better just to go our separate ways. You live in your community and I’ll live in mine. Live and let live. But when someone makes an obvious mistake that harms others in my community I may choose to hold them accountable. Justice. Likewise, I’ll defend the best ideas and thinkers in my community.
"Economists have higher status in the eyes of"
Which economists?
As you have noted, Paul Krugmen and people like him have quite a lot of status on the left, but his opinions would differ wildly from other economists.
"because libertarians tend to be contrarian and in opposition to the establishment"
Which libertarians?
Tyler hints at it with the COVID comment. There were a lot of "libertarians" that went all in on COVID lockdowns (like himself), and in other ways side with the elites vs libertarians on many issues.
And then there is the big kahuna of immigration. Open Borders is a "traditional" libertarian cause, but after seeing what happened in California and elsewhere many libertarians are now on the opposite side of the issue. The key divider on this seems to be mood affiliation with elites rather then good arguments.
Economists like Krugman who are famous and well-regarded among different political groups outside of academia use their credentials in economics mostly to lend weight to their political arguments. Joseph Stiglitz comes to mind as another example who plays to populist sentiments on the left as well as Peter Navarro among the populist right, although that group definitely puts less value on academic credentials than the left.
Elites are a much broader group than intellectuals. Elites comprise the professions, prestigious artists, senior executives and administrators, major media personalities, and so on.
What intellectuals say or do, has little impact on the status of elites, broadly defined.
The status of a particular elite group X depends much more on what X does than on what intellectuals say about X. For example, the status of public-health officials depends more on how they behave during a pandemic than on what intellectuals of any stripe say about the public-health officials. There is a competitive forum of ideas; and the person in the street compares those ideas to reality.
Arnold - What is your definition of elites?
“That is, our nature leads us to seek to lower the status of establishment politicians, even though from a libertarian perspective nowadays the alternatives are worse.“ Arnold - Trump is better than both George W. Bush and Barack Obama. Agree?
Libertarians may help generate better alternatives by understanding how Milei became the choice of Argentinians, then putting their shoulder to the wheel to support a centrist candidate who advocates "right-sizing" government to 20% of GNP in the West. Other examples would be John Howard in Australia, and Margaret Thatcher in the UK. Letting the perfect be the enemy of the good won't work.
I'm rather fuzzy on what we mean by elite and suspect people reading his post, and yours, have very different understandings of the label. That said, I agree Ivy and peer institutions are elite institutions and most of the faculty can be identified as such. I'm less certain one should be labeled as such for merely being there.
Cowen says that anyone there raises the status of the elites. That seems a stretch. He also says Chomsky lowers it. Beyond the obvious contradiction, I'm rather skeptical about the claim about Chomsky. Who decides Chomsky's effect? Cowen and others at Mercatus? Would faculty at elite schools agree?
It would be hard to figure out the teams if the scores were kept based on status of elites, up or down.
The economic scores are kept in US Dollars, as income & wealth. Not the same as zero-sum status, and it’s possible to get millions from a govt that prints money. And the teams are NOT rich vs poor, rather there are many different teams, companies & professions.
Political teams in the US are Dems, Reps, & usually ignorables (almost 0 elected decision makers).
There’s a large number of voters who are pro-life, Big Compassionate govt —what is their Team? It has almost nothing to do with elites.
The deeper reason for discussing elite status is because all the elite colleges & media, are now partisan Dems. Reduction or increase in elite status is highly correlated with changes in Dem status.
At least Tyler noted many voters choose a single primary issue, not elite status changing.
[Reps in govt should require edu orgs getting govt benefits to have at least 30% Republican professors & Trustees- on repeat]