To the Editor:
Zak Moore's argument in "Elitism, Not Intellectualism," (Oct. 5) creates a dangerous precedent. While he does not say so explicitly, it can be reasonably inferred that he views elitism is always "ultraliberal." He mentions ideological elitism, but follows it up in the next sentence by changing it to "ultraliberal elitism." Moore is right in saying "it seems to be an ethic of self-righteousness that transcends any individual issue" and that "it is an approach that looks down on certain people and their positions, and high-handedly labels them as culturally inferior and intellectually ignorant." Moore says this isn't "partisan in nature" but refuses to explain how this is the case.
Moore sees the targets of these "ultraliberal elitists" as religion, American pride/patriotism and respect for the common American. I'm not sure from where this characterization comes. While there is a disturbing trend of a lack of discussion on the topic of religion, I don't see how this is an "ultraliberal" problem. There are plenty of non-religious conservative and moderate elitists who take the same attitude.
Many liberal elitists may decry patriotism as propaganda, but oftentimes we need to take a critical look at why our leaders wrap ourselves in the flag (are they trying to exploit our patriotism?). I can't imagine anyone doubts that the patriotism of the vast majority of Americans is authentic and something to be valued.
It appears that Moore is simply building a straw man for the sole purpose of tearing it down. The issue of elitism is certainly something we need to discuss, but to tie it solely to liberalism misses the point entirely. Condescension is a societal problem, not a liberal problem.
