If you want to see a really good example of people talking past one another, you need go no further than the charges of "elitism" being leveled at Barack Obama by the McCain campaign.
To those making the accusation, Obama's elitism seems self-evident. To the rest of us, those same charges seem ridiculous. McCain is far richer than Obama, and has been a "celebrity" far longer. Unlike Obama, he was born into privilege. With the notable exception of his time as a prisoner of war, he has led a charmed--even pampered--life. How in the world, Obama supporters ask, can he call Obama "elitist" and keep a straight face?
It's simple, once we realize that this "elitism" doesn't have anything to do with wealth or even privilege. It is an attribute of intellect. The charge of elitism is a manifestation of America's longstanding and unfortunate subtext of anti-intellectualism, and its use during this campaign is both revealing and disturbing.
In 1963, Richard Hofstader won a Pulizer Prize for his book, "Anti-Intellectualism in American Life," in which he explored the popular resentment many Americans feel toward those who excel academically or otherwise engage in the life of the mind. (Hofstader linked this distrust of intellect to Evangelical Protestantism, among several other causes.)
John McCain graduated from the Naval Academy in the very bottom of his class. Sarah Palin attended several undistinguished colleges before finally getting a Journalism degree. (She also clearly shares George W. Bush's lack of intellectual curiosity, not to mention his preference for impulsive, "unblinking" decision-making.) Neither of them has ever been accused of being too thoughtful, and both of them have been scornful of Barack Obama's rather cerebral approach to the issues.
What does contempt for intellect tell us about the policy processes we might expect in a McCain Administration?
First, it is a clear signal that policy decisions will be ideological, rather than pragmatic or evidence-based. People who dismiss scholarship, who sneer at research and place a high premium on speedy decision-making, are not likely to gather all the relevant data before making a decision. These are people who prefer certainty, who believe in "listening to my gut," rather than engaging in a thoughtful weighing of data or different perspectives. (We've had eight years of such decision-making, and we've seen how that works out.)
Second, a President who dislikes "elitists"--defined as people who know what they are talking about--is unlikely to solicit advice from people who know what they are talking about. We can already see this in the staffing of the two campaigns: Obama has assembled advisors who are highly competent and accomplished; McCain's campaign is filled with "the usual subjects"--disproportionately lobbyists and political consultants.
As people are finally beginning to notice, America is facing monumental problems. Our finances are cratering, we are at war, there's a mounting energy crisis, and the planet is warming with dangerous speed. We are in a world of hurt, much of which has been caused or exacerbated by the guy who got elected because he wasn't an "elitist." He was just a spoiled rich kid people wanted to drink beer with.
If we have ever needed an elitist--i.e., a really smart, thoughtful person--at the nation's helm, that time is now. I can drink beer with my friends.
This week OffTheBus is publishing a variety of stories that cover the policy differences between Senators John McCain and Barack Obama. If you have a policy expertise and would like to participate, please see Calling All Policy Gurus.
I think it goes back to pricing higher education out of the reach of the common man and woman. I went to University in Australia in a time when it was free - do you believe that! Now, Australian universities rival American unis for the fees they charge, and we are facing the same social constructs as America, where the masses simply can't afford higher education for their children and therefore look askance at the "elite" who can. Obviously this allows them to conflate elitism with wealth as well.
It is these "C" Student Juvenile Delinquents and thieves of our treasury's way of getting their not too bright and ill informed Base to stay that way.
It is how they psychologically abuse an electorate too busy working by choking the oxigen off the informaiton pipelines so critical to an informed electorate.
It is one of the Chutzpa Party that represents the financial interests of about 5 million people (the short sited greedy, car dealer types among the rich) gets the other 295Million to vote against their own economic interests.
In additon to this they use mockary against their opposition and when they get into power they use the Justice Department as a weapon against same.
When they call an articulate well informed and well rounded Democratic Leader "elitist" it causes the poorly informed not to pay attention to THE FACTS.
So while we should pay more attention to what intellectuals have to say (I blogged about why we should pay attention to intellectuals in Argentina, of all places), I'm not sure it's right to call for an elitist at the nation's helm.
Of course, it helps to be know something about Latin (oops, there I said it again).
So very true -- this was the catastrophe that many of us predicted while others sat around saying: Oh, there's no difference between Gore and Bush... they're both politicians. Those people made me want to scream at them then, but now I hope they have seen the errors of their ways. Last night I was thinking about what a different world we would be living in now if only the Supreme Court hadn't been able to put Bush in office in 2000. It is so important that we elect an intellectual now... someone who will THINK and not act on their "gut" (as McCain has already admitted in his own book that he is prone to do).
In the debate on Friday, they will like McCain because he is awkward and has a phoney grin - because that's how they'd act when speaking in public. They won't like Obama because he appears to be thoughtful, and they're convinced that somehow he is holding this thoughtfulness over them.
Unfortunately, many of the critical thinking skills people need to make a reasoned argument are no longer taught in "life," by parents, or anyplace but college. So instantly, if you reason things out and consider both sides (or more) of an issue, you're some kind of college brain. AKA elitist. And a great many people voting have not been exposed to this kind of reasoning, it seems - they certainly seem incapable of applying it to the selection of a president.
If Obama doesn't win, it won't be because he's black. The "flaw" that people see in him is only made a bit "worse" by the color of his skin. And yet, that "flaw" is what is desperately needed.
You can tell they're different by the way they fight. The Republicans are clearly a mob of rich-kid bullies. Just look at the footage of the 2000 Election Fiasco Florida Recount Mob; you don't need to see anything else. That mob was sent there on purpose in an organized fashion as part of standard Republican strategy. That's why they call it the Noise Machine. They get what they want mostly by bribing people, but use force and intimidation when necessary.
The Democrats are that unpopular boy whose hobbies are things like writing Star Trek fanfic. He's actually the kindest and most intelligent kid in the group, and could come up with all kinds of fun games the bullies would never think of, because they only want to play the same game over and over: Monkey in the Middle. If he were ever infused with an astonishing dose of charisma and some kind of exotic attention-getting device, he might actually have a shot at wresting the leadership of the playground from the bullies in the manner of a touching ABC after-school special or Napoleon Dynamite.