Friday, 09.12.08
In Defense Of Elitism
ROBYN BECK/AFP/Getty Images
Superiority Complex
November 2002
David Brooks writes that we have democratized elitism in this country. Now everyone can be a snob.
The Palin Nomination
2 September 2008
Like most members in good standing of the Washington media elite, I have naturally and inevitably grown to hate Sarah Palin. But that's okay, because the feeling is evidently mutual. At last week's convention, Palin went on about how "experts in Washington" were counting out McCain with their "usual certitude" and the "Washington elite" weren't taking her seriously because she isn't part of the club. Palin, you see, is a typical American -- a hockey mom who has "had the privilege of living most of [her] life in a small town," as part of a family that has "the same ups and downs as any other." "I also drive myself to work," she added, just in case we didn't get the point.
The aw-shucks act serves two purposes. First, claiming to be The Average is a useful mallet for beating down criticism as hopelessly snobbish -- as when Bill Kristol writes in this week's Weekly Standard that "the liberal elites" will appeal to their "anti-small town" prejudices when they try, presumably with their usual certitude, to keep Palin 3400 miles away from Washington. (I have no idea what "anti-small town" prejudices look like, but I guess I better get some.)
Second, and more importantly, Palin's everyday qualities are supposed to be an actual electoral and governmental asset -- as when Kristol writes (this time in the Times) that by picking a real-live "Wal-Mart Mom," John McCain might have a decisive number of voters saying, "It's about time." Reverse snobbery is the new snobbery: the way to win an election and govern a country is by seeming as ordinary as the limits of credulity allow.
Let me take the bait and make a plea for good old-fashioned elitism: It's not "about time" for an average American to occupy the White House (or the Naval Observatory), and the notion that some ossified and preening elite lords over Washington is silly.
Everyone is an elitist. We want elite doctors to treat our cuts and cancers. We want elite lawyers and accountants to smooth over our divorces and taxes. And we (some of us, anyway) want our elite soldiers to invade foreign countries. And we don't apologize for these preferences. In most contexts, "elite" is just another word for "merit."
So why don't many of us want elite politicians? The reverse snobs usually argue that Everywoman politicians are better at understanding everyone's problems. But even if this claim is true (and I'm pretty sure it isn't) it remains suspiciously unextended to all other aspects of social life. We don't think the lawyers who have been dragged through a messy divorce are more capable of handling a client's. Why?
And anyway, anti-elitism strikes me a strange pose for a through-and-through conservative. The helpful oversimplification is that conservatives are supposed to favor equality of opportunity ("everyone competes on equal footing, outcomes be damned") and liberals supposed to favor equality of outcome ("everyone deserves something, competition be damned"). Equality of opportunity is supposed to dictate that race, gender, geography, and nepotism count for nothing - they're all features that have nothing to do with merit. This principle is why the same Bill Kristol could write (about a different unqualified applicant, Harriet Miers) that there was "a gaping disproportion between the stakes associated with this vacancy and the stature of the person nominated to fill it." That she was a Bush loyalist and a woman said nothing about her merits. Palin's interest in hockey and commuting says equally little.
"Merit" might be tough to define and harder to locate -- as a member of the liberal elite, I certainly have some problems with it -- but as a theory, it hangs together coherently. Conservatives used to like it. But I guess all that flew out the window somewhere between Wasilla and Anchorage, maybe while Sarah Palin was driving herself to work.
A question of styleLynn Forester de Rothschild argues that elitism is about how one conducts one's self, not how many houses one owns. |
The respect factorClive Crook argues that while Democrats "speak up for the less prosperous," they "lack respect for the objects of their solicitude." |
Cowgirl powerKathleen Parker lauds Palin as the voice of small-town America, but urges "both elites and rednecks" to learn from each other. |
Across the pondThe Economist argues that British politics, known for its elites, could use its own dose of Sarah Palin-style populism. |
The right to judgeJonah Goldberg explains how elitism got a bad name and why we need to repair its reputation. |
(28)
This is all nice... but there are bigger issues..
Palin -- I'm curious why no one is looking at the outrageously racist comments in AK.
Let's see. She went to church knowing that there would be a racist speaker about Jews. She did not get up to leave. She sat through the speaker's talk. The speaker was talking about God rath. He said it was God's rath when a a non-Jew drove a truck with bombs in it and killed the Jews.
In other words, I is ok for Jews to be killed sometimes cause God wants it.
This scares me a lot,
People want elites when their 'elitism' is quantifiable i.e., medicine or law - where you can see their success in their past actions.
What turns people off are an elite of ideas. That is, a group of people that go to the best schools and think 'deep thoughts' and then think their conclusions are somehow 'enlightened'. (How many times have you seen people call Obama 'enlightened'? What does that mean, other than 'he says things that make me feel good'?)
What's worse is when the thinker in question buys into this, and condescendingly confides in other 'elites' such things as "So it’s not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion". What makes Obama qualified to make such a judgment? Sure, he has free speech - but the electorate has the right not to elect him, so free speech doesn't factor in here.
It's not the elitism in general that ticks people off, it's the high self regard the 'elites' show in thinking the stereotypes they hold are more than just stereotypes that pisses people off.
In any other job, people are (or should be) selected on job relevant factors. We don't care if an airline pilot seems like a nice guy or gal to have a beer with, instead we hope that they understand how the airline controls work, how to read the instruments, what to do if an engine blows out, etc.
But, for the office of President and VP, we toss these notions aside. Instead of an in-depth understanding of geopolitics, we focus on their hobbies. Instead of a solid grounding in economic theory and monetary policy, we're distracted by their church affiliation and so on.
I don't understand this. The last person I want in the White House is someone like me and who would fit into our circle of idiot peers. Cheers to the author for making this point. Give me the best person for the job. Give me the elite.
Connor Clarke,
Your writing is strenuous. For simplicity sake, let it flow. Your points are most likely missed. What's that all about?
Yup, she's not elite, right. She's elite enough to play the game of elitists. I certainly want an elite government, one with merits. Presidents with merit, we haven't seen one in awhile. And, am talking about elite actions and not elite on paper. Now, apply that book sense to real world.
It's the New England Patriots, not the Boston Patriots.
I agree that I would like an elite President, VP, etc. However, what stumps me is the attacks that the members of the GOP use with the word "elite." What, exactly, is elite media? What are elite easterns? Why the heck is elite such a bad thing all of a sudden? I would take stuffy elitism over moronic instict-ualism (is that a word?) any day of the week.
We can discuss it among ourselves all we want but it's not gonna change the great American public's excitement about our new American Idol Sarah. Yes, we see through it (we elitists), but they don't care to. The McCain campaign can spout the same lies from now until the election, and we can disprove them just as often, but it won't matter to those who are infatuated with this really-nothing-special sweetie who shoots better than Cheney.
You gotta hand it to these guys - they know how to win an election. Too bad they don't know how to run a country. With all apologies to Mr. McCain, you can't learn how to run a country from a prison camp. It disturbs me how close he was to dead last in the scholastic rankings at the Naval Academy. And Palin - how many colleges was that?
(Admittedly, as a decades-long vegan, I'm not all that hot on mooseburgers either, or shooting wolves from the air. Please.)
Read this everyone. Its on the money. The way Sarah Palin was evicerated by some media people turned a large number of people away from the dems, including myself, a very socially liberal person. Take note. People were reminded just how much they hate elitism...indefensible in an election which is swayed by a few swing states. All these incredibly nasty below-the-belt blogs and sneers on national TV on the family have had a horrible effect. I was appalled by the coverage. Also on how incredibly counter-productive it was. Look, I don't agree with many of her views and her record is patchy but I take it personally when people pull these stunts...as do evidently a lot more working white mothers like myself...get smart guys. You are putting a LOT of people off.
It's straightforward, not mysterious.
Being sent to elite prep schools and groomed for "national service" (snort!) like the Bush and Gore families is quite unique. This cycle at least we have candidates who didn't progress purely on pedigree, although Mr. Obama has the unique qualification there, spawn of Harvard alum as he is.
The gap dividing elites from non-elites is borne out by the simple question: Does the candidate have any idea about my life and how I live? Mr. Bush at least pretended to know how to use a chainsaw and (in the Katrina rebuilding) a hammer, but anyone who had ever wielded those implements as a matter of course recognized the artifice.
McCain would easily (but for his handicaps) be capable of wielding a gun effectively, just as Palin would. All the elites in Harvard, by comparison, have plenty of "book learning," but no experience that resembles anything like that found in non-elite, real world America.
The elites in the media and D.C. polity are derided broadly for these deficiencies.
I love the concept of elitism which shouldn't be confused with liberal effetism about which most of our commenters complain.
Try doing this. Turn on RFDTV for Imus, and when his show is finished, leave your TV on that channel.
During the rest of the day you'll see the elite that are really important.
You're right on the mark in saying that for the same reason we don't want to be operated on by just any joe on the street, we also shouldn't want to be governed by someone who lacks the sophistication to understand foreign policy or the economy. John McCain was irresponsible to pick the hockey pig as his running mate. He showed in doing so that he will stoop to whatever level to ingratiate himself to whoever he needs to please at the time. What does this mean about his likely performance if he wins the election? With lobbyists making up the majority of his campaign staff, it surely means more of the same. Kiss alternative energy, balanced budgets and enlightened foreign policy goodbye. Oh, and don't forget your lipstick when you do it!
the anti-eletism charge reminds me of the time nearly 40 years ago, after the nixon supreme court appointments of haynesworth and carswell, senator roman hruska (r)nebraska (no elitist he -- the greatest senator since cicero in his own mind) declared it was about time for incompetence to have a seat or two on the high court: "after all, the incompetent people need representation as well".
Sorry, I'm not voting against Sarah Palin
I'm voting against John McCain
Substitute the work communist for the word elite and you will see why such tactics work. It has nothing to do with intelligence or education... This McCarthyism is nothing new; it's just got a new target.
A smart person recognizes that the hot topics - issues like abortion, guns and gays - aren't even issues that Republicans WANT to win... if they did, they'd lose the biggest motivator they have for their "low information" base.
McCain himself is more the 'I don't really care' kind of guy. He finally figured out he couldn't take his ho-hum boring campaign anywhere and decided to bite the bullet, sell out what little honor he had left, and hire on the experts at smear -- those same swiftboaters who brought you "John McCain has a black baby" in S. Carolina in 2000. And if you listen to McCain, it's Obama's fault that he's forced to do it... that's the final insult to reality.
Where's Edward R. Murrow when you need him?
Elitist here (professional). Your first sentence says it all. The media's darling, Obama, has 3 years 'experience' in the Senate (and spent half of the 3 years on the campaign trail) - and the smooth talking, waffling, 'present' voting 'sweetie pie' of the left is in the #1 spot on the ticket!!! The obvious coddling of Obama by the media (and supposed journalists) makes me ill. What happened to real journalism and fair, unbiased reporting? I am enjoying every minute of the liberals self-destruction. McCain upstaged them.
Independent voting for McCain/Palin.
P.S - Biden has been in Senate for 35 years - can anyone name one thing he has accomplished?
Conor CLarke, it's obvious you have little understanding of America and her "can do" values, which benefits us out here in "fly over country." If Palin were ONLY a hockey mom and a Wal-Mart shopper, then of course, she wouldn't be qualified. But she has started from that point and caught up with "the elites" and is now passing the elites, and will soon be their vice president. And you and your crowd will be dismayed over what Americans have done to your country. Do not despair. There is plenty of room for you and your friends on Laputa. It's waiting up there in the clouds...just for you!
M.B. Drapier
Two quick points:
What's your evidence that she "can do" the job?
Even if Palin is fantastically qualified (and I don't think she is), she's selling herself as an average American. In other words, she's setting the standard that I apply in the piece.
But I agree that it would be a lot of fun to live on an island in the sky.
Conor
Posted by
Conor Clarke 
|
September 15, 2008 11:34 AM
Mr. Clarke: Please apply your first question to Barack Obama, the novice Senator running for PRESIDENT. Provide some evidence that his tenure as "community organizer" improved anything in the community. I believe his own biography states his disappointment over the lack of progress and change. <--(that MAGIC word!) Sarah Palin is running for VP. She accomplished major improvements as mayor for 6 years of her hometown before becoming governor. In these past 18 months, she has CUT the earmarks accepted from Congress by 50%. For those of us longing for reform and fiscal responsibility from our elected officials, Palin has proved herself. Obama...let's see...didn't Mr. Rezko received a HUGE sum of taxpayers' money as a benefit of his friendship with Obama? And should we discuss Joe Biden's son whose legal troubles seem to be ignored by the press while scrutiny is given to a pregnant teenager????
Fuck and shit on the Atlantic!
Barack Obama comes in second in receiving money from Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. His good buddy, Chris Dodd comes in first. I guess that's what elitism gives us. REFORM is needed, and McCain & Palin are all about that.
Since the relative merits of Obama-Biden and McCain-Palin are the entire story of the campaign, I sort of doubt it's possible to say anything comprehensive in a blog comment. The piece was (or at least was supposed to be!) an assessment of a particular claim that Palin had made and continues to make: that her typical biography -- 'just your average hockey mom' -- should make her more appealing to voters.
I find this argument silly. You can absolutely disagree (and please do! there's a good argument to be had), but I hope it's possible to assess the argument without dragging in every detail from the campaign.
Posted by
Conor Clarke |
September 15, 2008 2:01 PM
what turns people off are an elite of ideas. That is, a group of people that go to the best schools and think 'deep thoughts' and then think their conclusions are somehow 'enlightened' What's worse is when the thinker in question buys into this, and condescendingly confides in other 'elites' such things as "So it?s not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion". What makes Obama qualified to make such a judgment? Sure, he has free speech - but the electorate has the right not to elect him, so free speech doesn't factor in here. It's not the elitism in general that ticks people off, it's the high self regard the 'elites' show in thinking the stereotypes they hold are more than just stereotypes that pisses people off.
At the risk of sounding elitist, I?m going to offer a few points. What makes Obama qualified to make such a judgment? Perhaps he has read any number of sociological or psychological books within the last twenty years.
In terms of anecdotal evidence, I grew up in a small town in Iowa, and the only fault I can find with Obama?s statement is that he left out racism, misogyny, and alcoholism.
It seems what?s actually happening is that the McCain camp is able to tap into a source of deep insecurity that resonates with a huge percentage of the population. And yes, it?s true, the electorate can vote against Obama. Congratulations! He might be smarter and more ambitious than you, but you sure showed him!
The gap dividing elites from non-elites is borne out by the simple question: Does the candidate have any idea about my life and how I live? Mr. Bush at least pretended to know how to use a chainsaw and (in the Katrina rebuilding) a hammer, but anyone who had ever wielded those implements as a matter of course recognized the artifice. McCain would easily (but for his handicaps) be capable of wielding a gun effectively, just as Palin would. All the elites in Harvard, by comparison, have plenty of "book learning," but no experience that resembles anything like that found in non-elite, real world America. The elites in the media and D.C. polity are derided broadly for these deficiencies.
Could someone please explain to me how the term ?book learning? is a pejorative? And how being able to use a hammer, chainsaw, and gun are necessary (though I would assume not sufficient) requirements in comprehending the life of the non-elites? I can use all three, but I doubt you would call me a non-elite. The problem with claiming to be part of ?real world America? is that real world America is an incredibly mundane place. I wonder why people even posit so-called ?common sense? arguments-we know what you?re going to say, mundane values don?t change, that?s the whole point. Try this: the next time someone compares Obama to Marx, ask them what specifically it is that they are referring to. When I?ve done it I?ve gotten vague responses that include: ?He wants to give away my money? (how people cling to the phrase ?my money?), or else they make mention of communism or socialism, or both, as they are, to the non-elites, apparently interchangeable. I?ve yet to get a specific, substantive example, much less, again, why I should consider the possibility of such a comparsion to be a bad thing.
The problem with only having small town, real world (what does that mean?) values are that, surprise! Elites know what they are. It?s that simple. Maybe we simply think that ignorance and cowardice are wrong. And yes, I said cowardice. Small towns are necessarily systems of limited symbolic action. Mundane places don?t offer risk, or for that matter comfort, so much as they offer the safety of stagnation and complacency. Obama went from being the teenage son of a single mother on food stamps to Harvard, he didn?t do so in a small town. It might have been possible for him to do so in a small town, the difference being, if he had, he most likely wouldn't have returned.
How about this: non-elites must, instead of defining themselves in opposition to something, define themselves by what it intrinsically means to be non-elite, and why such traits are inherently more desirable than those possessed by Elites.
I appreciate your comments, Mr. Clarke, and I have sent your article to all my email friends because I think it illustrates the great divide between perceptions. You stated that Sarah Palin is "claiming to be The Average." I think she is illustrating THE EXTRAORDINARY. Unlike the elite who may not be familiar with pumping their own gasoline, driving themselves to work, killing their own meat, shopping at Wal-Mart, etc. Palin does all that and still manages to carve out a legendary career. Dislike her politics if you like, but becoming the first female governor of Alaska, the youngest governor of Alaska, and doing all that while bucking the GOP good old boys in her own party reveals a woman who is anything but AVERAGE. That's the point, really. Attacking her positions would be far more beneficial to the Democratic Party than attacking her as being too simple or average. That's a losing argument.
And to Doug who posted his attack on small town folks, calling them cowards and ignorant, I can only say your words reveal your character and bigotry. The food stamps that you mentioned were received while Obama was attending an exclusive, expensive prep school and his mother was working on her PhD. That is what we usually refer to as welfare fraud. I guess elites are allowed to do that while those people you bashed in the small towns are not. Does anyone else hear Orwell's words replaying? "All are equal. Some are more equal than others."
That's elitism, folks.
Respect for higher-order thought is under attack.
America is on the way to becoming a sound-byte, media-driven population majority with a short attention span and a focus on entertainment and opinion. It takes too long to get facts and process ideas - more than the sound-byte attention span can handle.
Opinions supported by sound-bytes and and immediate personal experience without a broader context applied are much more convenient.
It’s laziness, carelessness, and egocentrism. Those who do not fall into line, who challenge people with information and challenge them to think attract resentment and anger instead of structured debate and are labeled as "Elitist".
Sorry to be coming to this so very late; apparently running an in-shambles right-of-centre newspaper at a state university in "Blue State America" ain't easy.
I'm from small-town America; damn proud of it, too. I can relate, in ways, to Sarah Palin. I'm not, however, comfortable with her as vice-president, nor with her attacks on the Washington élite (even as much as I've, living inside the Beltway, come further to loathe them.
I think a serious deficiency of this élites-versus-small-town-Americans debate is the underlying, inaccurate assumption that élite = urban and "real" (or, less charitably, "hick"?) = rural. Leaving his being a slave-owner aside, we can look to the venerable Jefferson as, perhaps, the most important example of the falsehood of this delineation. Until those of us in/from rural America open our eyes to the presence of -- and need for -- rural aristocrats, so to speak, who share many of our values, traditions, and roots, but who are, in ways, "forward-thinking" and "better" (specifically intellectually and socially), we risk enduring this us-versus-them battle that, in so many ways, only harms us, allows us to be trampled by the forces of modern consumer capitalism (to which, all too easily, we've foolishly acceded), and destroys all that we hold sacred. At the same time, the urban élite need to recognize a few things:
- They haven't a monopoly on élitism.
- Urban areas have their own "hicks".
- There ain't nothin' wrong with bein' backward; rednecks, et cetera, are good folks, and, their seemingly backwards beliefs notwithstanding, ought to be accepted -- and their contributions (cf. Jim Webb's works) appreciated -- rather than ridiculed wholesale.
The inimitable Daniel Larison says it better than I can, and I encourage all, regardless of political stripe, to give him a read. http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2008/09/09/kosmopolites-take-two/
Elitism has nothing at all to do with merit. That's what sucks so bad about GWB, he is a total elitist with no merit whatsoever. If I had a dime for every ignorant Ivy-League graduate who thought they were gods gift to this world, then maybe I could afford to send my kids to a $50K/yr private school and become an elitist too. As a scientist I obviously value education highly. I appreciate leaders who are learned and accomplished. WHat I loathe, however, is an elitist mindset. Think about your own life. How much of what you do is motivated by the prestige you think it will bring? Do you really believe you are better than other people because of the bullet points on your resumé? In my experience, it is the rare ivy-league graduate who does not have an inflated view of themselves. I want smart, capable leaders, but I also want leaders with empathy. Leaders who understand that most people cannot afford to send their children to $50k/yr private schools. Elitist think that they have "earned" their success, but they haven't earned anything. If we had equality in our education system, then perhaps that Ivy-league degree actually would mean something. If you think you are better than the millions of teachers, artists, researchers and plenty of other people who make less money in a year than the Obamas spend on their children's education, then you are an elitist. If you really were interested in merit, you would spend your hard-earned bucks toward making education better for all children. We can do this, plenty of countries much poorer than ours have done so.
By using this Service you agree not to post material that is obscene, harassing, defamatory, or otherwise objectionable. Although The Current does not monitor comments posted to this site (and has no obligation to), it reserves the right to delete, edit, or move any material that it deems to be in violation of this rule.
-->
To hear the McCain-Palin campaign spin Palin's non-existent foreign policy experience, the Boston Patriots could find any of 500 fans in the stands of a Patriots-Colts game to sub for injured Tom Brady. We all know that asking that sub to know many of the plays or have experience at the quarterback position is just elitist, and in this case, frankly, sexist.
Posted by Chris Darrouzet | September 12, 2008 2:58 PM