The last two months have been instructive about what many people on the right choose to call elitism and populism.  We have learned that expecting public officials to answer questions from the press on a regular basis is a function of media elitism; a candidate’s lack of transparency and availability for press conferences is proof of populist disdain for elites.  Fortunately, it has been made clear that a supporter of the bailout and a “pathway to citizenship” for illegal immigrants is the populist firebrand, while opponents of both who point out her utterly conventional establishment views are deeply out of touch with “the base” whom she somehow champions.  When a politician abuses her office and violates state ethics rules, that is evidently just another example of sticking it to the system, while attempting to hold her accountable for her misleading and false statements about her record is proof that we dastardly elitists are deeply out of touch.  So according to these standards, populism is unreflecting attachment to the status quo wrapped in secrecy and misrepresentations, and elitism is defined by efforts to hold politicians accountable to their constituents and to demand that they serve the interests of those constituents.  No wonder people hate those lousy elitists.