Why isn't Communitarianism more popular as an ideology?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Ever since the demise of the Federalists in the 1810's the U.S. has lacked a party that espouses the idea that there exists a group of wise elders who are smarter than the common people and that should therefore be entrusted with making decisions for society as a whole.  Whether it be Jacksonian Democracy, abolitionism, populism, progressivism, the New Deal, the Great Society, Reaganomics, New Democrats, etc., the predominant thought in American political discourse has been that there exists some elite group (which group is the elite group differs depending upon the movement) that has been the cause of most of the ills of society, and that if we could just get rid of or control that elite, society would be better.

Communitarianism depends upon people accepting that there exists a group of people who can make wiser decisions than those made by the people as a whole.  The continuing litany of elite-bashing makes acceptance of any self-proclaimed elite unlikely in the American body politic.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

It's interesting that in a country where religion is so tied with politics, people would still be strongly adherent to the First Amendment that a political party could be sunk if they so much as put the term "Christian" in its name.

If a Baptist tried to start a Christian Democratic party here, he'd get few votes from Methodists, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, or Catholics as they'd suspect he thought that he was a better Christian than they.  Same for the other creeds.  The multiplicity of Christian denominations makes it hard to form a Christian themed party here.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The Christian Coalition is very recent and despite its name, focused on only a few narrow issues.  Not only that, I'd argue that its collapse proves my point.