I think you're missing a middle ground & the analogy with Google is pretty weak at best...
As far as school & healthcare go I think a lot of people just want access to "decent" healthcare & education, it doesn't have be cutting edge. No one wants mediocre, true, but there are many levels in between mediocre & elite. Often though many people don't have a choice where their kid goes to school or the resources to really know how good their doctor is.
While people may want the best or people may want to be the best, often people are realistic in what's achievable. Most of our society is kept together by people doing a "decent" job, no reason they shouldn't be rewarded with a "decent" lifestyle.
Do you want 1000 random links from the internet or 10 ordered blue links on Google?
Do you want to send your child to a "mediocre" school or have them operated on by a "mediocre" surgeon, or do you want them to go to the best schools and have the best medical care?
If you are an investor, do you want to invest in mediocre companies? If you are searching for work, do you want to work at a middle of the road place? And if you are an employer/entrepreneur, do you want anything other than the best employees?
Everyone is an elitist when they are doing the selecting. Some people don't like it when they are on the other side of the selective filter. But let's not kid ourselves, elitism is not an "undercurrent" and it's not objectionable by any means. It's the whole ball of wax in any functioning society.
Elitism based on merit is perhaps defensible, elitism based on inherited wealth and status is troubling for although it is entirely natural for the individual passing on benefits to their offspring I seriously doubt that it is the best thing for the long-term health of any society.
When calls someone/something out for being an elitist/elitism they are actually calling out a false sense of superiority. So no, it's not a compliment or a good thing. It puts you in the same group as Nazi's/racists/xenophobes.
From the dictionary: Elitism is "the advocacy or existence of an elite as a dominating element in a system or society."
A society that favors the elite individual above all else is by nature hierarchical, exclusionary, and anti-democratic. Elitist societies by definition disempower the majority for the enrichment of a few. And as per the definition of "society" — "the aggregate of people living together in a more or less ordered community" — elitism is an absolute failure.
Your attitude epitomizes this online community, and that's not a good thing. Frankly, it's pretty repugnant.
Jonas Salk developed the polio vaccine, which was used to inoculate millions. Just about every medical procedure used in practice and documented in textbooks was developed by the best doctors, systematized, and then scaled out.
> or to send their children to the very best schools.
Take a look at ai-class.org, ml-class.org, db-class.org. Textbooks were version 1.0 of this concept, and also tend to be written by the best educators.
The point: different people in different areas have different talents. The key is to come up with models that allow the efforts of the talented in each area to scale out so that more can access them, and so that the less talented can benefit from the solutions even if they couldn't think them up in the first place[1]. This is a process of iteration.
But the iteration won't even get started if one rejects quality/elitism from the beginning.
[1] How many of the tens of millions of people operating browsers, iPhones, refrigerators, or automobiles can understand them, let alone improve them, let alone invent them? Civilization is based on finding the best, allowing them to amass resources, and rewarding them for distributing their discoveries to as many as possible. Denying that a technical elite exists is counterproductive.
You pretty much sunk your argument with the very first example. Salk gave the polio vaccine away for free so that kids wouldn't have to die anymore from it.
Elitism states that only the best should have it. Altruism states that everyone deserves to have it.
If the 80% has no money, then the 80% cannot reward the elites.
Then scrod came in with the dictionary definition of "elitism". And my point is that people will always favor their family, their friends, people who have been through similarly trying circumstances. The formation of factions of people who cooperate is inevitable, and some will be successful. Furthermore the beautiful, the intelligent, the charismatic, the ruthless will always have an advantage over the masses. Does anyone really want to live in a society that's NOT run by people who are in some way "the best"? I understand that some people are against hereditary wealth and privilege, but in a meritocratic society it's just a different set of people who are the elite. Again I ask, where is the society which is not dominated by an elite?
At this point it's impossible to tell if the post was edited, but when I read it last night, I don't recall seeing the phrase "above all else". It's not implied by his dictionary definition, so that part of his statement is too strong - "dominating element" vs "above all else". It's clear that scrod has contempt for any society with an elite (which I again emphasize is every advanced society on earth right now).
And then finally the moralizing came in: "Your attitude is pretty repugnant", in an attack on a strawman!