Who’s Afraid of Political Elites?

Share this article

Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity often scourge the “liberal elites.” Michael Savage joins them. However, as an independent, he also scourges the “country club” and “checkered pants” conservative elites. Given the popularity of their respective talk shows, it appears Americans share a disdain for political elitism. A democratic, populist, anti-aristocratic thinking pervades the general population.

The foregoing reveals a great American irony, though. Simply stated, the Constitution created an elite form of government. Examine the following quotations from Federalist No. 10, written by James Madison:

Hence, it clearly appears, that the same advantage which a republic has over a democracy, in controlling the effects of faction, is enjoyed by a large over a small republic—is enjoyed by the Union over the States composing it. Does the advantage consist in the substitution of representatives whose enlightened views and virtuous sentiments render them superior to local prejudices and schemes of injustice? It will not be denied that the representation of the Union will be most likely to possess these requisite endowments.

The effect of the first difference is, on the one hand, to refine and enlarge the public views, by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens, whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country, and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations. Under such a regulation, it may well happen that the public voice, pronounced by the representatives of the people, will be more consonant to the public good than if pronounced by the people themselves, convened for the purpose. On the other hand, the effect may be inverted. Men of factious tempers, of local prejudices, or of sinister designs, may, by intrigue, by corruption, or by other means, first obtain the suffrages, and then betray the interests, of the people.

In the next place, as each representative will be chosen by a greater number of citizens in the large than in the small republic, it will be more difficult for unworthy candidates to practice with success the vicious arts by which elections are too often carried; and the suffrages of the people being more free, will be more likely to centre in men who possess the most attractive merit and the most diffusive and established characters.

In the preceding passages, Madison contrasted “pure democracy” with “a republic…in which a scheme of representation takes place.” Notice his verbiage in describing the representative rulers: enlightened views, virtuous sentiments, superior, wisdom, patriotism, love of justice, most attractive merit, most diffusive and established characters.

Madison defines elites as those who are morally upright and wise in the eyes of other citizens. Of course, Madison was not naïve. He realized that representative politics “may be inverted,” and the “interests” of the people could be “betray[ed].”

All forms of representative government are elite by definition. Notice that Madison contrasts republicanism with pure democracy. The Founders distrusted democracy, remaining concerned about majority interests usurping or oppressing the rights of minority interests. Examine Madison’s words in Federalist No. 51:

It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part. Different interests necessarily exist in different classes of citizens. If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure.

But it is not possible to give to each department an equal power of self-defense. In republican government, the legislative authority necessarily predominates.

The society itself will be broken into so many parts, interests, and classes of citizens, that the rights of individuals, or of the minority, will be in little danger from interested combinations of the majority. In a free government the security for civil rights must be the same as that for religious rights. It consists in the one case in the multiplicity of interests, and in the other in the multiplicity of sects. The degree of security in both cases will depend on the number of interests and sects; and this may be presumed to depend on the extent of country and number of people comprehended under the same government.

It is tempting to echo the rhetoric of conservative radio talk show hosts. Perhaps, like Madison, they are calling their listeners’ attention to “the oppression of [America’s] rulers.” To do so, however, is to diminish the genius of Madison. The Constitution was created with a “multiplicity” in mind. Congress was given the power to make as many laws as are necessary to protect the myriad of interests. And, as Madison stated, the legislative branch “predominates” all three branches.

It appears, then, that rightist rhetoric is misinformed. Rather than disdaining a political elite, right-of-center pundits should champion elitism—one that believes morality and wisdom should rule. Furthermore, if conservatives want to change this country, they need to heed Madison’s remarks and focus on the Legislative Branch. Presidents can have as many ideas as they want; but only Congress can enact laws.

Daniel Smith is an intern at the American Journalism Center, a training program run jointly by Accuracy in Media and Accuracy in Academia.