Since the topic of elites seems to be popping up a bit, I thought I’d link to a piece I wrote a couple of years ago. Here are some extracts
Of course there is an Australian elite. In fact, there is more than one. Business wealth commands one sort of power, central position in political machines commands another, and senior office in the public service yet another.
The recent discussion of elites in Australia has focused on the ‘opinion elite’. Many of the assertions that have been made about the opinion elite in recent months, particularly by supporters of the Howard government, have been self-serving nonsense. Nevertheless, there is no denying the fact that some Australians have more influence than others in determining the ideas that are taken seriously in formulating public policy, and that, on many occasions the views of this influential group are not representative of the population as a whole
…
With the election of John Howard, and his advocacy (punctuated by occasional backflips) of the social agenda represented by Pauline Hanson, positions hardened. Today, the Australian elite is divided in much the same way as the population as a whole, between a right-wing group which favours both free markets and a conservative or reactionary social[1] agenda, and a left-wing group which supports republicanism and reconciliation, and opposes free-market reform.
The main difference between the elite and the population as a whole is the absence of any group corresponding to the One Nation support base, opposing both free-market policies and social liberalism. Because of this absence, the Australian elite is both more ‘economically rationalist’ and more ‘socially progressive’ than the population as a whole. However, it is increasingly uncommon to find both traits in the same person.
This is slightly less true of the blogosphere than of the opinion elite, but still not far off the mark.
fn1. In this context, I don’t regard attitudes towards sex and drugs as being significant markers of social views. In Australia, these issues are pretty much separate from views on broader social and economic issues.
John Quiggin 
Good to see a fellow member of the elite being prepared to own up. I am constantly mystified by the large numbers of people like us who resent the tag.
However, I don’t think the real divide between elite and non-elite opinion is essentially ideological, and I don’t think that Hanson necessarily broadly represented non-elite opinion. I think the real divide is between those of us who are good at handling and manipulating abstract concepts, and whose interactions with the world are therefore significantly intellectual; and those who take a formalist or emotional approach to living life.
The formalists are inherently conservative because their approach is “If it worked last time then it should work this time.” Those with an emotional approach are less predictable because they work on the basis of what they want to be true. Both groups tend to be antagonistic to a theory and fact based approach to life, often because it takes them out of the area in which they feel comfortable or competent.
Of course we all adopt formalist and emotional attitudes from time to time, but not all of us are equally willing to move from them. Lacking the intellectual skill to challenge the theory or the evidence, the non-elite fall back on the ad hominem attack.
In using the word “elites,” I don’t think Prof. Quiggin meant people with high opinions of their intellectual abilities, I think he meant people with more power.
If you have such a high opinion of your ability to dissect an argument, Mr. Young, I suggest you pay more attention to reading an argument before commenting on it.
Pr Q’s analysis of elites as being more left wing on culture and right wing on economics is true for financial and cultural elites, but not quite true for political elites – those with a “central position in political machines”.
Howards Tories are to the Right of the masses on both economics and culture, but not that far to the Right. Lathams Laborites are to the Left of the masses on both economics and culture, but far more so than the Tories.
Thus the Cultural Elite are out of touch with real life on the street. Katharine Betts has done a study which shows that, since the downfall of the Old Left statist ecnomic program, the Cultural Left elites have:
Its not only the New Class Cultural Left, but New Labor which is the source of the political dilemma:
And there is no doubt what is one of the main causes in the rift between the Cultural Left elites and Cultural Populist masses.
As I have repeated, ad nauseum, this means that the Left must sacrifice its economic program for the dubious outcomes of its cultural program.
This is because, as Abbott convincingly argues, ALP elites, and their New Class Cultural Left supporters, have little in common with their socio-political base. They dont have to deal with any social pathologies that arise out of well-intended, but wrong-headed, policies.
Howard, by fair means and foul, has won the Culture War that the Cultural Left started. Mark my words: if the ALP, and the New Class Cultural Left, try to fight the election on Cultural grounds they will lose.
*FTR I would vote for an immigration program that offered higher absolute numbers, and a higher ratio, of high-IQ non-Caucasian ethnics.
Robin,
Perhaps you should follow your own advice. I was defining elite in a different way to the good prof, which was the point of my comment.
I confess to being a member of the elite, having recently been confirmed as a Doctor of Philosophy. It wasn’t always so. I grew up in a working class family in Reservoir, the son of parents who had both left school by the age of 13.
I also confess that on all the issues of the “Cultural Left” agenda mentioned by Jack, my views have strayed from the socially conservative Christian monoculturist views in which I was socialised, to strong sympathy for feminism, queer rights, multiculturalism, indigenous rights and international human rights. However, this has not been a matter of adopting views which are fashionable in the classes to which I have risen or the neighbourhood in which I live. It is a matter of evidence and argument convincing me that these discourses are largely correct.
BTW, how does concern about sexual assault, domestic violence, unequal pay for working women, abortion rights, etc., constitute a “Cultural” agenda?
The gap between the cultural left and the mainstream population would not be so great if there was less selectivity when applying so-called progressive notions. For example, most people support equality for women but would object to the fact that progress in both academia and the public sector is currently far easier for women than men. The fact that there are less women at the top has to do with past generational factors and the obvious fact (read the surveys folks if you don’t believe me) that women are generally less career orientated than men. On an individual basis, women have clearly a major employment advantage in both academia and the public sector.
On racism, criticisms of poor behaviour would carry more weight if the cultural left were more willing to acknowledge that many non-Anglo Saxons were often far more racist and certainly sexist than so-called mainstream Australians. My wife is of Indian origin and the worst racism or sexism she has faced in Australia is from Pakistanis, African men and (when she worked in a library in a certain suburb 20 years ago) Greeks.
There is a major contradiction between the willingness of many so-called progressives to criticise someone strongly for telling a mild sexist or racist joke and the willingness of the same to play down some of the social problems within migrant communities such as the way women are often treated in Muslim households or the level of violence within Lebanese and pacific islander communities.
C’mon Jack – a Cultural War is like a War on Drugs or a War on Terrorism. It’s not something you Win or Lose, such as WWII. It’s a series of short term losses followed by short term gains – using very ephemeral categories to define “loss” and “gain”. To say Howard has ‘Won the Cultural War’ is nonsense. Now if you said that Howard has been very successful in waging it – I’d agree with you. Australians probably have more conservative attitudes now than 8 years ago. But there hasn’t been much rollback in things that count. For example, homosexuality is legal in Queensland – which it wasn’t 15 years ago. We’re now talking about “gay marriage” – somnething I didn’t even think would be on the radar.
I agree with you – Labor would be mad if they tried to campaign on Social Issues. But they don’t have to: they’ve got the FTA.
JQ,
I found your entire original article more helpful than the abridged version, but both suffer from a number of generalisations. As you yourself point out in the beginning of your article, the “elite” is not easily defined, and includes people from many walks of life.
Here’s one test to determine if someone is part of the elite: if they are quoted in the popular media saying the word, they’re probably part of the club. Furthermore, to “out” your enemy as a member of the elite has become the ultimate put-down in the land of Tall Poppies.
Your distinction between right wing (socially conservative, economically liberal) and left wing (socially progressive and more dirigiste economically) looks a little too stark.
I suggest that our current government is profoundly conservative, in both the cultural and economic realms. In terms of economic policy, I would contend that the Howard government has done less for free-markets than its predecessor, the GST notwithstanding. Likewise, there are eco-rat members of the ALP still hiding in the closet. As JQ and JS have pointed out elsewhere, what has changed is that economic management is no longer an area of contention (unfortunately) between the ALP and the Liberal Party, so they have switched the battlefield to cultural issues in search of differentiation. Howard is as guilty on this front as Keating.
In response to Jack Strocchi, it’s too early to say that Howard has won this supposed “Culture War”. The man in the street probably wasn’t aware there was one going on, and none of the issues that form the battleground (e.g. reconciliation, republic, detention of asylum-seekers etc.) have gone away.
Arguably the whole idea of a Culture War is something only the elite is worried about – the rest of the population just gets to vote on a party platform every three years. One part of the elite is in power now, and represents Howard’s conservative agenda because of his grip on the Liberal party, but things could change quite radically with a move to a Labor government, and Howard’s departure from politics.
Wouldn’t the absence of a “One Nation style elite” be counterbalanced by the absence of an elite that is economically rational and socially liberal?
Part of the problem is that some people who get into debates about elites, as you can tell from the way they use the word, are actually unaware that it’s a sociological term referring to a certain kind of group. They think it means the same or nearly the same as elitist, i.e. that it’s a pejorative name for a certain kind of individual, and definitely not the kind we want around here. Then I think there’s an intermediate category of people, more educated but not very reflective when it comes to language, who know that an elite is a group but for whom the term elitist exerts such a strong semantic pull that they remain a bit confused. So for them an elite is not an individual, but rather a group of people who are up themselves.
JQ’s original article was about “opinion elites,” which has a different meaning from some of the interpretations in subsequent discussion. It’s not about the opinions of elites, however they’re defined, but about those with privileged positions in forming opinions. Opinion elites include influential academics, journalists, political staffers and business leaders, generally.
With respect to Paul Norton’s claim, a PhD does not provide membership of the opinion elite. Rather it provides entry to a particular mono-cultural elite, being the academic elite. Even within that environment, of course, many more judgements could be applied.
I find most of the supposed right (myself included) are of a more libertarian bent than traditionally right. We are educated, professional, and don’t realy care what anyone does as long as it doesn’t interfere with our own lifestyle choices or cost us money.
The hard left has adopted a lot of the old right’s agenda- state ownership, state intervention on social issues censorship and regulting behaviour by legislation.
Personally I think we are beginning to evolve beyond government- it has ceased to be relevant to a lot of people, who find it intrusive and patronising.
I would regard both the ALP and the Liberal party to be centre-left social democrats, the difference mainly being semantics, and the standard of recruits they attract exhibiting their lack of relevance to many able citizens.
As to the Greens and Democrats, lunar-left statists who believe government is the answer to everything.
There is nothing approaching a party that reflects these views.
Wouldn’t the absence of a “One Nation style elite” be counterbalanced by the absence of an elite that is economically rational and socially liberal?
i have three letters for you: a, l, and p.
That would the ALP that recently agreed to ban gay marriage and lobbied to maintain protectionism in the Australian film and television industry?
Doesn’t seem to fit either description. The CIS far is more along the lines described.
snuh
The ALP could not be defined as consistently economically rationalist or socially liberal. For example, on the economic front its industrial relations policy and on the social front its support of the government’s anti-gay marriage legislation. It, like the Liberal Party, is very much a centrist party, cherry picking from any part of the spectrum of economic and social issues on the basis of what it thinks will sell to the electorate.
It is absurd to divide people and parties into good and elitist. Parties are either charming or tedious. — Oscar Wilde misquoted
“Wouldn’t the absence of a “One Nation style elite” be counterbalanced by the absence of an elite that is economically rational and socially liberal?”
I would argue that we did have such an “elite” in the shape of the key figures in the Hawke and Keating Labor governments, that a considerable fraction of the leadership of the Australian Republican Movement also fits this description, as do Paul Kelly and other non-neocon columnists in The Australian, and most liberal feminist columnists. Other prominent Australians I would place in this category include Meg Lees and the Murray/Cherry/Allison wing of the Democrats, and Dr. John Hewson.
In reply to Yobbo, the CIS doesn’t combine economic rationalism with social liberalism. As evidence, consider the sedulous efforts of its researchers Lucy Sullivan and Barry Maley to blame working mothers and children of ex nuptial births for all society’s ills, and Sullivan’s intervention in the Demidenko affair which resurrected a highly illiberal stereotype of the Jews.
yobbo, that would be the same CIS lobbying to take us back to the 1960s with fault-based divorce? the same CIS that lobbies against third-world debt forgiveness? the same CIS that argues against a bill of rights? the same CIS that supports a market-based system of tertiary education? the same CIS that opposes anything resembling paid maternity leave? and so on.
i’m having some difficulty describing this as socially liberal.
“i’m having some difficulty describing this as socially liberal.”
Probably because all of those positions are economic ones of a rationalist bent, bar fault-based divorce.
Yobbo, you need to clarify why you think opposition to a bill of rights is economic rationalist. And even if you do this, you still won’t have answered snuh’s point that it is not socially liberal.
As for paid maternity leave, if we think about the issue in terms which are both genuinely rational and genuinely economic, we will see that the reproduction and socialisation of the next generation of citizens is a public good. If the costs of providing this public good continue to fall largely on individual women (in terms of income forgone, superannuation forgone, HECS debts unpaid, employment/promotion opportunities missed out on), rather than being borne collectively through measures such as paid maternity leave, it will be underprovided, as it already is in Japan and much of southern and central Europe.