  Thinking about the last few larger posts, I notice there is, at least implicitly, a certain assumption behind what I've been writing. Might as well get it out in the open. I am an elitist. The audience at home is no doubt thinking, "you think this surprises us? " But, figured I should express it a little more clearly. What do I mean by being an elitist? Certainly, I am not suggesting removing the equality before the law (and would be a damnable fool if I tried to deny the equality before God), and do not mean to suggest it. But, certainly to be an elitist does mean that egalitarianism, under some definition, is out. Well, best to define what "elite" I have in mind.
I am thinking of what some call the "natural aristocracy" on the one hand, and the idea of orders or classes of leisure (rightly understood) on the other. To the first. A natural aristocracy, as I see it, includes those who are, for lack of a better term, born and made as the best in some higher field of human experience (intellect, theology, political activity, art, etc.). "Born" meaning that these individuals, for whatever reason, have a certain innate talent and drive for this type of higher activity. "Made" refers to these same individuals being instructed (or crafted, or some other term...I have yet to determine which is the best description) into the mindset, discipline, and character of such high activities. Admittedly, while the very best would be those with the highest levels of both, there is a spectrum on this scale (in other words, some are born with great potential, but by lack of instruction don't fulfill it completely; or some are not as innately gifted, but by instruction can make more with what they have).
To the second. In attempting to mold a group of such individuals, it is best that there is a class or order in society that has leisure rightly understood (something that has mention in urlLink Paleface's post on conversation). This "rightly understood" means that this leisure would be spent, by custom and social pressure, in the higher pursuits, without the worry of day-to-day needs.
In the contemporary context, the first (natural aristocracy) is still in existence. The second, the order or class, has ceased to be, and is not likely to return in the Western world in the foreseeable future. While I could go on more about these definitions, there is another point, more important to this post, to make.
I am an elitist.
But, by the definition given, I am not among the elite. This can be a difficulty for many. Often, when one runs into an elitist (at least of the more humdrum kind), this individual assumes s/he is among the elite. Sadly, this seems rather typical of a large portion of those younger people who recently received undergraduate degrees in philosophy (among others). It is easy to be an elitist if you think you are of the highest rank. But, that can slip quite easily into a self-made delusion. But, on the other hand, elitism remains even where it is supposedly shunned. Consider a vast number of dedicated egalitarians. While all for total equality and the like, of course these particular individual activists (whether by right of raised conscienceness, speaking truth to power, being the voice of the marginalized, what have you) will have to "take the lead" to bring along those still mired in false interests or the like. So, there is a reverse - the most unelitist activist, often by his/her very practice, illustrates elitism (with, again, this particular person being among the elite).
If one understands elitism in the style I mention, it would rather seem to call for some humility, and a good deal of self-consideration. To see that there is a natural proclivity for some to be the best does not equate to meaning that you the observer are among that group. If, upon reflection, you see where in the general hierarchy of talent and ability you are placed, it is best to live in one's place.
I look at my own place, and the analogy that comes to mind is a medieval one. There is an elite, and elite of great intellects, stretching from the past to the present. Among them, I am rather like a cleric scribe in a Middle Ages monastery - I can copy the great thinking of a St. Thomas Aquinas or a St. Bonaventure, and perhaps even on some little point offer some guidance for clarifying their thinking or for those great minds that will come later.
But as for myself, I realize I will not be one of those thinkers. Better to respect them, and try to learn from them. But, we live in a time where respect of that sort is hard to bring about - it is not generally in our upbringing. A scholastic named Bernard de Chartres apparently once said, "In comparison with the ancients we stand like dwarves on the shoulders of giants" - we may see a little further, but only because of the height we stand on. Today, we are like ants crawling on the heads of titans - we too may see a little further, but our vision is fractured. Enough rants ( why do I hear "less talk, more rock" in my mind?
). 
