The true democrat wishes to share the great works of culture with all who are able to appreciate them; the egalitarian, recognizing that genuine excellence is rare, declares greatness a fraud and sets about obliterating distinctions.

Elitism is repulsive when based upon external and artificial limitations like race, gender, or social class. Repulsive and utterly false—for that spark of genius is randomly distributed across all cruel barriers of our social prejudice. We therefore must grant access—and encouragement—to everyone; and must be increasingly vigilant, and tirelessly attentive, in providing such opportunities to all children. We will have no justice until this kind of equality can be attained. But if only a small minority respond, and these are our best and brightest of all races, classes, and genders, shall we deny them the pinnacle of their soul's striving because all their colleagues prefer passivity and flashing lights? Let them lift their eyes to hills of books, and at least a few museums that display the full magic of nature's variety. What is wrong with this truly democratic form of elitism?

The severest test of democratic institutions is experienced when the attempt is made to establish a policy which shall guard the interests of the future at the expense of the demands and needs of the present. Democracy produces attitudes and characteristics of the people which are inimical to stable economic arrangements looking to the future, such as are implied in a forest policy. The vast country with an unevenly distributed and heterogeneous population presents the greatest variety of natural, as well as of economic conditions; the immediate interests of one section naturally do not coincide with those of other sections; particularistic and individualistic tendencies of the true democrat are antagonistic to anything which smacks of "paternalism," the attitude under which alone a persistent, farsighted policy can thrive. Frequent change of administration, or at least the threat of such change, impedes consistent execution of plans; fickle public opinion may subvert at any time well laid plans which take time in maturing; the true democratic doctrine of restricting State activity to police functions, and the doctrine of non-interference with private rights, as well as the idea of State rights in opposition to federal power and authority—all these characteristics of a democratic government are impediments to a concerted action and stable policy.

Which would you rather be, a dumb person or a dictator? Perhaps a dictator would be better. I don't want to be a dumb person.

It is largely up to the politicians which social forces they choose to liberate and which they choose to suppress, whether they rely on the good in each citizen or the bad. The former regime systematically mobilized the worst human qualities, like selfishness, envy, and hatred.

A person is not a democrat thanks to his ignorance of literature and the arts, nor an elitist because he or she has cultivated them. The possession of knowledge makes for unjust power over others only if used for that very purpose: a physician or lawyer or clergyman can exploit or humiliate others, or he can be a humanitarian and a benefactor. In any case, it is absurd to conjure up behind anybody who exploits his educated status the existence of an "elite" scheming to oppress the rest of us.

I wonder how many of the people who profess to believe in the leveling ideas of collectivism and egalitarianism really just believe that they themselves are good for nothing. I mean, how many leftists are animated by a quite reasonable self-loathing? In their hearts they know that they are not going to become scholars or inventors or industrialists or even ordinary good kind people. So they need a way to achieve that smugness for which the left is so justifiably famous. They need a way to achieve self-esteem without merit. Well, there is politics. In an egalitarian world everything will be controlled by politics, and politics requires no merit.

In general dictators have not done better at [economic] policies than democrats—far from it. Most dictators have ravaged their countries for personal gain. Scholars have asked whether democracy helps or hurts the economic growth of poor countries and despite many surveys, have come to no conclusive answer.