abridged from a fellow named Andy Rutledge:

Unfortunately, equating elite with elitist is a common mistake. However, the two words and the two ideas are miles apart. We do ourselves, our world, and our grasp of reality a disservice by failing to note the differences between these two words and their respective ideals.

Let me ...note that there is such a thing as high quality. There is such a thing as low quality. If we fail, for whatever reason, to distinguish between the two we pervert and harm our culture and our language.

Elite is good. Elite is the shining example toward which to aspire. Lance Armstrong was an elite cyclist. Roger Federer is an elite tennis player. Barak Obama is an elite politician. Chris Wallace is an elite newscaster. These are obvious facts and the relevant qualities, skills, and abilities of these individuals are indisputable. No, there is nothing wrong with elite.

I’m only pointing out that high and low quality, elite quality and other quality, exists. Elite is not something sinister or conceited. It is a level of quality and a distinction from poorer examples. That’s it.

Elitism is indeed a contemptible ideal. But let’s not get into the habit of equating elitism or elitist qualities with elite quality. We need to understand and distinguish between these two ideals, lest we harm our culture, pervert our language, and generally look like fools.