I can assure Burrus and your readers that the conservatives’ pejorative use of the term “elitist” has nothing to do with either privileged members of exclusive clubs or the antithesis of “Joe Sixpack.” Actually, I’m quite surprised that someone who apparently has done research on the topic of “elitism” failed to make the distinction between the Heritage Dictionary definition of “elites” and the definition when used in the politically ideological sense.

Perhaps it stems from the fact that Burrus, as a liberal, doesn’t understand what conservatives mean by “elitism” when referring to liberal leaders and that his article was primarily just an excuse to bash Bush and Palin. His references were so thinly veiled that he might as well have just mentioned them by name.

The liberal elitist in the politically ideological sense is an intellectual who believe it his right, yea his duty, to be a surrogate for the rest of us poor commoners who are not competent enough to look out for ourselves. The objection by conservatives to elitist by this definition has nothing to do with not wanting the brightest and most able leaders. Instead, it has everything to do with wanting to avoid the tendency of liberal leaders toward a general nanny-ism, central planning of economies and societies, and a general distrust of the “common person” to decide for himself and herself what is in their own best interest.

This, of course, only scratches the surface. If Burrus or your readers truly want to research the topic of elitism as it applies when used by conservatives in reference to liberal leaders, I suggest they read A Conflict of Visions, by Thomas Sowell. Until then, let me interject for Burrus regarding his article in behalf of conservatives who actually know what they mean when referring to a liberal elitist…

“Never mind.”