Wins of their elites. For a while, they may loudly protest departuresrnfrom inherited beliefs; in the long run, however, they willrnfollow societs”s trendsetters, whose attitudes will be transmittedrnthrough their ehurches, sehools, colleges, music, newspapers,rnand TV programs. I’radihon cannot defend itself v ithout itsrnown strong and sophisticated elites, and the deterioration of traditionrnwill soon weaken and confuse “the people.”rnThere may be nothing wrong with mobilizing ordinar)’ peoplernagainst misguided elites as long as “common sense” sur-rnies, but populism rests on a misunderstanding of how sociehesrndevelop. Re ersing social decline is not a matter of kickingrnthe scoundrels out. It requires the evolution of new elites acrossrna broad range of concerns.rnElites vill always set the tone of societ)’. Attempts to create arn”classless societ}” are bound to fail. As Edmund Burke wrote,rn”Those who attempt to level, never ecjualize. hi all societies…rnsome description [of citizens] must be uppermost.” Levelers on-rnK- pen’ert the social order. “They load the edifice of socieh’ byrnsetting up in the air what the solidity of the structure requires tornbe on the ground.” The only issues worth discussing are whatrnshould be “on the ground,” what should be “in the air,” and howrnthat selection might become flexible, circumspect, and humane.rnA’ mencans liavc always been deeply ambixalent regardingrnocial class. Many have resented traditional Westernrnelites, associating them with injustice and oppression. ThomasrnJefferson declared that “kings, nobles and priests” are always arn”confederacy against the happiness of the mass of the people.”rnThe U.S. Constitution forbids titles of nobility. On the otherrnhand, manv Americans have an almost fawning attitidc towardrnEairopean ro) alh and nobilit}’. Some Americans still play at beingrnBrihsh gentn. Significantly, the original U.S. Constitutionrnset up quasi-aristocratic institutions: the presidenev, the ElectoralrnCollege, the Senate, and the Supreme Court. An elite ofrnpopular representatives would, in the words of the Federalist,rn”refine and enlarge the public views.” It could be plausibly arguedrnthat, in substance, the Eramers set up an elcctixe constitutionalrnmonarchv. In his personal demeanor and sense of decorum,rnGeorge Washington had set standards worthy of a king.rnStill, populist impulses and social resentment have competedrnwith a desire for elites. Jefferson himself voiced populist opinions,rnbut he also wished for a “natural aristocracy.”rnAll elites are prone to self-centeredness, arbitrariness, conceit,rnand inbreeding. The remed, many contend, is “equal opportunit}’,”rnwhich will reward merit. America, they claim, hasrnfound a way of recognizing ability without creating a class socieh.rnBut a classless societ- is an illusion, and talk of “equality ofrnopportunit)” overlooks the fact that ciilization is defined byrnhow it discriminates among abilities. Since man is, by nature,rnlaz’, ei’ilization can not leave discernment of high and low torn”market forces” or the majority. It must create structures forrnpromoting and protecting the highest human aspirations.rnCivilization lives by its discriminations and rankings. It penalizesrnsome human inclinations and rewards otiiers. Gatekeepersrnof many kinds push some individuals forward, hold othersrnback. Civilization favors the wise and virtuous, not thernsuperficial and dissolute; it honors responsible statesmen,rncourageous soldiers, good students, excellent artists, honestrnbusinessmen, and careful craftsmen rather than opportunists,rncowards, slackers, pornographers, shvsters, and fakers, howeverrnable. It is of the very essence of civ ilization not to prov ide equalrnopportunit)’.rnA proponent of “equalitv’ of opportunity” might say that hernopposes only arbitrary or illegitimate denial of opportunity, butrnthat objection begs the all-important question: How should wernproped)’ discriminate? It is through unequal opportunity thatrnsocieh encourages individuals to give their best and discouragesrnthe opposite. Besides, “equality” is a pure abstraction, a mathematicalrnidea, whose application to socieh’ only produces confusion.rnA classical, “well-rounded” education used to be consideredrnbasic for people of influence. The Greek discipline of paideiarnformed the whole person. It was intended to prepare the indi-rn idual for the life of the good, the true, and the beautiful by fosteringrnphysical vigor, intellectual and aesthetical discernment,rnand —above all —moral character. Members of elites had to berncivilized, broad-minded human beings, whatever their specialrnfunctions in society. In combination v’ith good social backgroundrnand experience, sound education was thought to producernthe gentleman, the person qualified for gatekeeping.rnMany champions of “cqualih’ of opportunit)'” would have allrndoors flung wide to merit. Why should a bright, knowledgeablernlawyer not advance quickly in the law firm and in general society?rnPerhaps he should, but not if he is a blatant self-promoter,rnan amoral hired gun, or a person who knows or cares litde aboutrnthe connection of the law to the higher purposes of socieh’. Arnsurgeon highly skilled at wielding his instruments might also bernfound socially wanting for having a truncated, cynical view ofrnlife, choosing his specialty according to profitabilit)’, living in arngarish home, and chewing gum in his flashy tuxedo—characteristicsrnthat are only seemingly irrelevant to the practice ofrnmedicine. Civilization needs some condescension and snobbishness.rnIt used to be said that it takes three generafions for familyrnwealth to produce aristocratic breadth and refinement, butrnthere arc exceptions, and individuals of humble social originsrnsometimes contribute grcatiy to civilization. Burke still mavrnhave a point: “The road to eminence and power, from obscurerncondition, ought not to be made too easv, nor a thing too muchrnof course. If rare merit be the rarest of all rare things, it ought tornpass through some sort of probation.” Employing a lax or narrowrndefiiiition of merit may facilitate social circidation, but onlyrnof a certain type, and soon the new elites will impose theirrnov’n criteria for advancement. Burke’s comment on the era inauguratedrnby the Erench Revolution is relevant: “The age ofrnchivalry is gone. That of .sophisters, economists, and calculatorsrnhas succeeded; and the glory of Europe is extinguished forever.”rnBurke was too uncritical of the old order, but he also did notrnknow the worst of what was to come.rnA socieh’ is fortunate if its most truly admirable individualsrnset the .standards for the rest. One of the central aims of civilizationrnis that they be in a position to do so. Sound elites willrnexhibit flexibilit)’ and tolerance, but to ensure the tethering ofrnexpertise and ability to the humane purposes of life, they willrnlook for more than utilitarian “skill” and energy in those whomrnthey promote.rnSome distinguish behveen “equalih’of results,” which is supposedrnto be bad, and “equality at the starting line,” which is supposedrnto be good. But every societ)’ is the product of long development,rnand there can be no such thing as a starting linernwhere “equals” begin seizing their opportunities. Historicallvrnevolved social struchires and preferences create inequalih ofrnopportimit)’. Equalih’ at the starting line would presupposernOCTOBER 2001/19rnrnrn