Answering Charges of Elitism

Image via Wikipedia

I'd intended to let the parody video in this post stand on it's own, but then I read this article on Politico: essentially arguing, democrats are condescending elitists and therefore will lose control of congress, this election cycle, and deservedly so. The article points to all the likely culprits ─ Jon Stewart & Stephen Colbert, Rachel Maddow, President Obama, etc. ─ as the voices of condescension.

Elitism is the belief in the superiority of some class of people, and their consequent entitlement to privilege: I don't see this from the democrats, so I have no choice but to call shenanigans.

The essential message of modern liberalism is that cooperation leads to shared prosperity and government is a legitimate tool for building consensus. American Conservatism, conversely, argues that government essentially inhibits liberty and destroys individual prosperity, while gripping firmly to protectionism, a political theory itself necessitating government of considerable size and complexity.

The sort of pragmatic assessment typical of swing-voters concludes ─ both political ideologies have some degree of validity ─ but offers little, except a motive to vote congressional power to the opposite party of the sitting president. Progressivism holds all of the above in balance, under the belief that rational and measured governance maximizes prosperity at all levels and this is the view typically held by “Obama Democrats.”

This sheds light on a major irony of our age ─ the Democratic party is the bastion of republicanism in the US ─ while the Republican party effectively enforces a plutocracy, under a guise of “common sense” and moralistic politicking, by manipulating a predominately male, Caucasian, Christian and middle-class electoral base, in order to win elections.

Returning to the charge of elitism infecting the democratic party, if we conflate the progressive ideals of rational and measured governance with a belief that only people belonging to a certain “class” are worthy of office, then yes, the charge stands. However, that class of people isn't necessarily democrats, nor wealthy, nor educated, nor of any particular race, nor gender, nor religion: they are only those people who are demonstrably qualified.

Christine O'donnell is a perfect case study in a demonstrably unqualified candidate. She is running, as conservatives always do, on a return to “traditional values.” What's different about her, and her Tea Party ilk, is that they've re-branded those essential values (traditionally Christian) as the American Values laid out by our Founding Fathers, in order to fortify the Republican base and sway independent voters. However, she has demonstrated that she lacks (potentially) any understanding of the constitution, let alone even a rote knowledge of the text:



To base your campaign on the notion that we have strayed from, and even betrayed, our principles as laid out in our constitution, while lacking even the ability to quote the original text or enumerate the amendments, ought to be sufficient cause for any rational person to deny you their vote. Even the dissatisfied & disaffected ─ who would vote simply against the powers-that-be or for the ideologically sympathetic ─ should have adequate reason to seriously reconsider voting for the candidate, after such a gaff.

As to the other charge, condescension, there's a degree of guilt throughout the party but it's part and parcel of politicking in America and, I think, of any honest debate in which the principals have an emotional or vested investment. If President Obama believes he is right, any argument he makes can (by definition) be interpreted as being condescending, it's an easy term to lob around and surprisingly effective.

The power of the term to defame, reveals the utter irrationality of politics in the US and hints at pervasive persecution and inferiority complexes amongst the political right. To truly be condescending, President Obama must believe he is not only right, but that he is fundamentally superior to his audience, he must, essentially, be a megalomaniac. To be perceived as condescending requires either the fear that he is in fact fundamentally superior, or the belief that he thinks himself so ─ in both cases his intent, tone, message, and supporting evidence likely don't matter, because the underlying problem is the personal insecurities and irrationalities of such an individual are beyond his control ─ Obama could try to attenuate his message, but unless he unequivocally acquiesces, such a person is lost to him.

Meanwhile, Jon Stewart is a comedian, who hosts a show that essentially lays plain the hypocrisy of the powers-that-be, both in Washington DC and the news media, while making cock jokes. Stephen Colbert has made career of being a caricature of a (conservative) pundit, often stretched thin for a joke. They both, admittedly, pick on the Political Right more-so-than the Left, but because there's more to pick on, than because of political leaning: there is no liberal equivalent to the conservative Fox News. Stewart and Colbert both demonstrate such high degrees self-awareness and their humor is so often self-deprecating, that elitism and condescension seems total non sequitur.

Image via Wikipedia

As to Rachel Maddow, she's a pundit, her job is to have an opinion and to talk about it in an entertaining manner, while maintaining an air of journalistic integrity. She may, at times, be condescending toward a guest, or pick up a clip of a right-leaning politician to just poke fun, but it's bad for her career to be condescending toward her audience: such is the nature of punditry on the political left. By definition, to be liberal is to be both tolerant and open to persuasion.

In a twist (applying most especially to Obama) the terms “aloof” or “out of touch” are also frequently used to describe liberals. I can't see how aloofness follows from condescension, altho the reverse seems plausible: the implication being liberal ideology and the resulting policies are fundamentally flawed and inherently bad for the nation.

Those trying for relatively unbiased assessment use the terms “cerebral” or “professorial” instead, but the implications remain. In essence, acknowledging a rational and a measured approach to policy, while dismissing the it, for what ought to be it's strongest merits. I don't understand how people can vehemently oppose reason, in favor of emotional and visceral responses. Emotion, instinct, and intuition are vital to all aspects of life, even political life, but they're best used barometrically ─ to indicate when action is needed, not what action to take.

Of course, a rational analysis of Obama's ability to connect with the common-man, would concede that he is more than capable of doing so; he won the presidential election with the popular vote. Still, he did not, does not, and perhaps cannot connect with all voters, it's the nature of American politics, it may be human nature. Barack Obama is to some, an other, one of them, the opposition, the enemy ─ he is black, he is male, he is (now) an entrenched politician, he is a democrat, he's not liberal enough, and et cetera ─ but he is the legitimate voice of a majority and this point point must be recognized in a democracy.

That majority consists of Progressive-Democrats; a political class which fears plutocracy, or rule by the financial elite. The apparent opposition, The Tea Party-Republican, is inspired by fear of oligarchy, which is a more generic political elite ─ underscoring another irony of this election cycle, this has caused conservatives to apparently rebel against the status quo ─ embracing an anti-incumbency movement.

Recognizing the similarity in fears, provides the real framework for understanding the 2008 Democratic victories, the ensuing Tea Party movement and the apparent Republican shift in the 2010 midterms.