Is this how you define "elite" regarding how it is used in politics?

In general someone who is perceived to be above “average” by a common measure. In a negative way basically the same as elitist. Political leaning: to the left on most issues.

The oligarchical and plutocratic members of society.

I try not to use the word because it doesn’t seem to mean anything worthwhile. I’ve seen elite used to describe “acadamics”, “scientists”, “people who have been to college”, “suburban dwellers”, “white collar employees”, etc – all in a pejorative sense.

I have been in conversations with people where I referred to the position of “elite” scientists in a particular field, only to have the person come back to me and say I was an elitist.

@wonderingwhy See, that is completely different than how my friend uses it. I was thinking similar to you. He is talking about politicians for instance who want to control and influence business, but who have never really worked in business.

Those who want to exert their influence on the masses based on what they believe is correct for them, not necessarily what might actually be. The right wants to legislate morality based on their preferences and the left want to legislate behavior based on their preferences.

@JLeslie sadly that type of personal definition, if you will, is exactly what is exploited by many stakeholders to rile up support or condemnation of various opinions. By purposely choosing words and phrases which are inadequately defined they keep from having to fully back a position, allowing their supporters to do it for them, while being able to easily backtrack by claiming contextual and misunderstanding issues should it become more advantageous to do so at a later date. And by using the words or phrases over and over it implies a false sense of gravitas or acceptance to them, further instilling confidence that the person supports each individuals definition/position regardless of other possibly contradictory acts or statements.

Those who have enough money to influence politics more than 100 million voters can.

Those who make important decisions behind closed doors, when those decisions and their motivations should really be transparent for the good of society: for example, the “inner clique” in political parties where the spinning and strategy is decided. People who have a lot of influence and may have conflicts of interest but there is no way to force them to reveal them because hey, money and power trump all in this system. People who proclaim that certain measures are good for all of society (ie. higher taxes) when they are themselves in a very high earning bracket and they’ve never had to eat KD for days in a row. People who try to control others and the democratic process with the help of their small group of seemingly close-minded people who’ve already made their minds up based on their privileged lives and upbringings.

I think it’s more about attitude and self-righteousness than it is about whether they’ve actuallly contributed or not. The politician Michael Ignatieff’s story in Canada would be a good place to study the impact of the term “elites”. It is widely agreed that he failed to win office due to precisely this perception. It is a term that indicates big-time alienation on the part of those using it.

If I were to use the term for political disparagement to mean those who feel they are above the obligations and responsibilities of the people. A good example is Dick Cheney who when asked why he had deferred the draft 5 times said he“had other priorities in the ‘60s than military service.’

However, I use the term to mean people who have performed at an unusually high level or demonstrated a skill well above normal. Delta Force and SEAL Team Six are elite soldiers. Nobel Prize winners are elite physicists and chemists.

@JLeslie, Your friend has co-opted the language. If he thinks those people are elites then he should seriously consider their suggestions. If he doesn’t think they are elite, he should not call them that.

These days it’s code for someone who isn’t “just plain folk”. It points to a real contradiction in our culture: we’ve long had a romantic infatuation with the idea of the Common Man, but the incredible complexity of domestic and world affairs is such that the last guy you want to entrust with the controls is the Common Man. This leads to the ludicrous situation where someone who wants to be our leader has to possess very uncommon qualifications, yet sell himself as being ordinary as dirt. Having a top-notch education and a good vocabulary is enough to taint someone as an “elite”, it would seem. Better to have been the C-student and speak in rough-hewn, folksy cliches.

People want to be able to relate to the guys in power. They want to think that they’re being governed by people who share their perspective and know what their lives are like. They want to feel that the powerful aren’t going to outwit them with artfully crafted phrases. The word “elite” has been transformed into a trigger for just that fear: that this is someone who doesn’t share your experience because he lives on some higher plane, and he will try to outsmart you to serve his own agenda. He thinks he’s better than you. That’s the message. The actual meaning of the word doesn’t matter.

Precisely what @thorninmud said. Great answer. Mind you, it is possible to be uneducated and still gain an influential “elite” position through ideological nepotism.

The Republicans, as the party of the businessman, are by definition, an elite. Yet typically, they accuse Democrats of being elites mostly because of their educations. Simplicity seems common and common sensical even though it generally advantages the elite. For example, Herman Cain’s 999 plan would be horrible for “common people” economically speaking, yet it seems simple and understandable and that is very appealing.

Educated people are elite by definition, same as business people. Because the world is complex, simplicity doesn’t work. Yet you can slam the educated elite even though they understand that simplicity is bad for common people, and thus get common people to vote against their own self-interest, simply because they don’t trust the egg-heads who are, by definition, out of touch, sitting their in their ivory towers imagining a perfect world that simply won’t work.

In my mind, elitism is thinking you know better, and therefore you need not listen to anyone else. In other words, elitism is about disrespect, and people do not feel included when they see someone making decisions for them, but they don’t understand how those decisions are helpful.

In grad school, I learned that people like to vote for someone like themselves. Since the vast majority of people are average or close to average, they want to vote for someone who seems average. Seems. The trick is for political elites to act common enough to get elected while being smart enough to get elected.

What’s ironic is that the vast majority of elected officials are lawyers. With law degrees. Who passed the bar. Have you ever heard a politician admit to being a lawyer?

Edit. In politics, it doesn’t have a clear definition. In politics, it seems mainly used as a derisive term for very well educated and successful people. PhD holders who don’t share the attacker’s ideology, but instead hold core values exactly opposite of those of the attacker holds. Of course, the talking points then get adopted by legions of people who clearly aren’t elites. But the comical part is those talking points are being written and tested on focus groups by PhD elites.

@wundayatta That is why the guy I was talking to said something very significant in my opinion. He is not saying the education is what makes you a bad man elite, he is saying thinking you know about business and producing when all the person is is an academic makes someone “elite” in the dirty word sense. So, the business owner with the Harvard education is not an elitist by their definition.

This same guy did go after politicians in general as being elitists.

I define elite as the amount of power one/few have to dominate over societies. It doesn’t matter in what form that power comes from, whether its physical strength, high intelligence, or wealth. As long as this one/few are able to use these powers to dominate over societies, then they’re considered elite.

So given our current conditions, it would be the government administration, and wealthy people.

It doesn’t matter if there are people within society who are smarter, stronger, or wealthier, because if they don’t apply their intelligence, strength or wealth into practice, then it’s useless.

I’m a libertarian.