Interesting stuff from the conservative commentator about the misused “elitism”:
What is remarkable about the Miers nomination is that the pro-Miers side managed to define the debate as one between elitists and “heartlanders” or some similar nonsense first. There was no way that anyone could say NR, the Weekly Standard, the Federalist Society, Bork, George Will and Krauthammer were somehow collectively of insufficient conservative authenticity, especially when the defedners — with some exceptions — do tend to be more moderate or, as the Judge says, lukewarm. Hugh Hewitt, for example, is famously dismissive of ideological conservatism preferring to talk about Republicans versus Democrats, not liberals versus conservatives.
The rest goes on to say how the Republican party is populist. I don’t agree with that, but this particular part about the Meirs nomination is certainly interesting. The term “elitist” has been used so often by the right to describe the left and now it’s happening in their own party and I think the use is significant. Disagree with the majority and you’re automatically branded an elitist.
Well, now we all know that this isn’t true. Supposed “elitists” are really just trying to safeguard the principles they believe in and feel will move the country forward in a positive direction.
I know this won’t stop the use of the “elitist” term, but I certainly think it’ll give certain conservative commentators, who are currently being accused of it, pause before they use it again to describe the left.
Or perhaps not.
Time will tell.