That's why I posted it. I didn't expect the word to trigger the response that it got, so my bad there??
It's probably more of a pet peeve of mine. I think words can be powerful. They invoke strong emotion and action. That particular word is often used to invoke strong emotion, and I often feel like it's used for a bit of slight of hand. Someone who would likely qualify for the descriptor uses is to sort of reflect. By dropping it, they imply they are not "elites" because they stand opposed to such people. And sometimes the people they turn it to are so broad and faceless, they don't really qualify for the title at all.
I feel like I've seen some TV talking heads, one's paid millions a year, who will rail about the "elites" and then depart by car service to their massive homes in NY or DC. I've seen a president who puts his name on massive buildings in the heart of NY decry such elites. It because a a way of saying "This person I don't like looks down at you, so be mad at them and maybe don't look at me or the influence I try to wield."
In the end, I find it an evocative but lazy descriptor. Like if you'd like to blast that particular politician for being rich and having the things rich folks have, that's cool. But I think then we can turn it and blast all rich politicians, and then all rich folks who try to use their success as a base to wield influence. And at a point, you maybe shouldn't listen to anyone successful because chances are, they there some way they don't know how it is for most folks.
Oddly enough, the writer had to roll it back, essentially calling himself an elite and saying he was really only referring to "TV talking heads, politicians and bureaucrats," which is basically a who's who of kind of meaningless broad groups that no one likes on balance.
