But aristocracy always expects some form of subservience from non-aristocrats, even if it is only symbolic. This is what is objectionable about elitism, not the recognition by the elitist that he is superior to another.

For example, if I feel my educated vocabulary is superior to your gutter argot, I feel that is justification for my elitism. But if I feel my midwestern broadcast standard accent is superior to your southern drawl, simply because of some imagined regional superiority, then it is not justified. To put it another way, to be unable to speak your own native language correctly is evidence of laziness and ignorance. To speak with a a regional accent (or in Britain, an upper class accent), is a question of happenstance.

The reason I'm venturing onto these dangerous grounds is that we are subtly being subjected to a form of social discourse where using complex concepts, or precise logic, or even an educated vocabulary is being attacked as "elitism". To deliberately alter your normal voice so you are palatable to the uneducated is patronizing and insulting. It's one of the reasons I like Obama's rhetorical style, he speaks, like JFK or George Will, without attempting to dumb himself down for his supposedly dull audience. Senator Clinton, who is no doubt as intelligent and well educated as Obama, uses a speech suitable for an 8th grade listener. This is profoundly phony, yet it is Obama who is criticized as elitist. The same thing happened to Adlai Stevenson. He was "too smart for his own good", a criticism I have never been able to hear without cringing. I find anti-intellectualism much more reprehensible than elitism, and if that is elitism, then I gladly confess to the crime.