I saw this from Marginal Revolution: A simple theory of which thinkers support the elites, or not:
Noam Chomsky, for instance, has lowered the status of American elites. That is his net long-run effect, not that he drummed up sympathy for the Khmer Rouge. A lot more people, for better or worse, are more skeptical of a bunch of things because of Chomsky.
This claim that Chomsky lowered the status of elites is unsupported and is a fiction of the author’s imagination. I see the opposite: there are not only more elites, but the returns on elite status have never been greater in terms of wealth, status, prestige, and influence. And elites are trusted and valued more than ever, too, even by people who claim to be skeptical of them.
Some elites affect government and the media; others run huge companies and are worth hundreds of millions or billions of dollars; others have views and opinions that are widely read and disseminated online (e.g. Substack, Twitter), and so on.
Surging wealth on a real basis has made today’s elites wealthier overall compared to elites of the 20th century. Social media means a much bigger megaphone for today’s elites. The rise of Substack, Twitter (under Elon’s control) and other platforms means that cancellation is less of a concern compared to a decade ago. Elites can choose to embrace the orthodoxy or take a more heterodox route.
Government/policy elites were able to impose their rules during Covid, such as lockdowns, often with minimal resistance. Same for business elites and vaccines or mass-layoffs.
Tech elites, such as in AI, are not only getting super-rich, but they also have a lot of influence on the ‘general state of discourse’. Everyone is talking about AI now, and the media defer to these elites for their expertise. Sam Altman is the epitome of this intersection of ‘thought-leader elite’ and wealthy elite. Elon Musk to a lesser extent in the former.
Everywhere you turn online you’re surrounded by elite opinions, elite-run companies, or elites transforming our lives in almost every respect or imaginable way, and helping to form or shape our opinions.
As much as people may complain about elites, people willingly choose to patronize elites. This is because elites lend invaluable credibility and curation. In a digital world awash with content thanks to social media, some of which may not even be human-generated anymore, the supply of expertise is much more fixed with higher barriers to entry.
This is why I am bullish on legacy media, such as the Washington Post, The Atlantic, and the NYTs, yet at the same time I don’t see legacy media as encroaching on the unvetted territory of Twitter, blogs/Substack, and podcasts; rather these represent two separate spheres of elite-status that can coexist or even complement each other. Joe Rogan is an elite in his own respect, as is NYTs columnist David Brooks. Trump is an elite, as is Kamala Harris on the other extreme.
The NYTs and other legacy media need Trump for virality and ad revenue, representing a sort of symbiosis. Trump has always been great fodder for late-night talk shows; Biden less so. Conversely, liberal media elites as the outgroup emboldens conservative elites.
Obviously, Chomsky has many skeptics, yet there are many people who will defend his legacy or are somehow able to compartmentalize the inherent contradiction of a self-proclaimed libertarian anarchist who also supported murderous regimes. But the fact that Chomsky was wrong about practically everything does not mean the public has tired of elites.