So, Barack Obama has finally revealed himself as an elitist? This is news?
I daresay anyone who has been paying even a smidgen of attention to this presidential campaign knows that Obama’s appeal to the Democratic party is as a kind of patrician wise man whose soaring rhetoric places him on a pedestal far above the faithful, looking down on the rest of us with a benign smile on his face. The unspoken message of Obama’s candidacy is that he is better than the rest of us and that we should aspire to emulate his “post racial,” “post partisan” example.
Let me emphasize that there is nothing inherently wrong with this notion that our president is a better man than the rest of us. Hell, you couldn’t put yourself on the line and run for that office unless you had a supreme confidence in your own abilities not to mention a raging ego that kept telling you that you were the only one in America who can deal with the problems that face us.
But the question of our leaders being out of touch elitists is one that’s been debated since the beginning of the republic. The patricians who dominated the presidency for the first 36 years of our existence as a nation felt themselves entitled to make decisions for the benefit of the “mob” – the great mass of people that so terrified many of the Founders including Jefferson. The Founder’s reaction to Shay’s rebellion in 1786 – where ordinary citizens rebelled against unjust tax and debt policies – was to convene the Constitutional Convention, partly to make sure that the chaos of the mob did not threaten men with property.
The convention did not allow for direct election of the president and placed the election of senators in the hands of state legislatures because at bottom, our Founding Fathers had a profound mistrust in the ability of ordinary people to make reasoned judgements about such weighty matters as politics.
Talk about elitism.
They were very well meaning sorts, our Founders. They sincerely believed that they were serving the people by looking down on them as a bunch of morons. It was part of what historian Page Smith calls the “Classical Christian Consciousness” of many of the them. They saw man as born into mortal sin and therefore an imperfect being who couldn’t be trusted with too much power over others. Our balance of powers among the three branches of government is derived from this mindset.
Strangely enough, the Classical Christian Consciousness collided with the very beginnings of the Enlightenment in America which saw humans as perfectible creatures with the potential to perfect institutions like government – a vision eventually embraced by the Jeffersonians who took a significantly different view of people and their role in a free society.
While the Jeffersonians placed a little more trust in the masses, they were far from being supporters of pure democracy – allowing for the people’s “betters” to still make the big decisions that affected ordinary people’s lives. It wasn’t until the election of Andrew Jackson that the common man developed a political consciousness of his own and found a man they could elevate to hero status.
Elitism has a long and honorable history in the United States so the question is why come down so hard on Obama? Or other liberals for that matter. Democratic strategist Kirsten Powers is brutally honest in why liberals feel Obama’s comments are no big deal:
“It comes off very badly,” Democratic strategist Kirsten Powers said of the small-town America remarks. “They are things that I think in a liberal world sound totally normal, and outside of that world I don’t know that he appreciates how it sounds. And it just sounds very elitist, and it sounds like he’s looking down on people.”
Ann Althouse also thinks that Obama’s elitism is nothing unusual:
I must say that the original statement sounded like a typical law-school-liberal remark. I think it was quite sincere, and I’m rather sure he believed he was being admirably intellectual and raising politics to a new, higher level. Within a liberal law school environment, that statement would be heard as a thoughtful, compassionate insight. Some of your colleagues might think you were excessively, squishily tolerant of what they see as ignorant, bigoted people, but I don’t think they’d push you to be more understanding of the alien culture you were observing.”
Are liberals then the intellectual descendants of the Founding Fathers?
I’m sure they’d find the comparison somewhat flattering but they’d be offbase if they believed it. At bottom, liberalism is about control – controlling markets to make them “fairer,” controlling businesses to make sure they follow acceptable practices in labor relations, marketing, and environmental policy, and controlling ordinary citizens to make sure that their thinking is correct about anything and everything they deem important.
The Founders, on the other hand, were interested in granting as much freedom to the masses as their patrician hearts felt was safe. The Jeffersonians felt the Constitution didn’t go far enough in granting ordinary people liberty. The Federalists felt it may have gone too far. And therein lay the first divisions in American history – two sides made up of elitists arguing over how much power with which folks could be trusted. Not very edifying nor does it reflect well on our national icons. But as in most things at the beginning of the United States, our leaders meant well.
Here we are 220 years later and we’re still discussing elitism. I find it amusing that this argument has exploded across the internet – surely one of the most elitist of all American venues that such a conversation could take place. Both right and left have been known to denigrate the tens of millions of ordinary citizens who don’t read blogs, barely know the internet, and eschew the minutia of political debates in favor of following every twist and turn on American Idol. Both sides see this mass of uninformed, easily misled voters as a beast to be moved and manipulated with images, propaganda, and the white hot rhetoric of political combat.
It is not only elitist but also delusional to believe that this great amorphous mass of citizens cares a whit about the daily goings on here in blogland or the internet. What whispers might come their way is the result of these internet foo foo rahs spilling over into the mainstream media. Even then, if it doesn’t appear on Entertainment Tonight or if Jay Leno doesn’t make a joke about it, it simply doesn’t exist.
Does that sound elitist? You betchya. So what’s the difference between our putting on airs of superiority over the rest of the population and Obama’s belief that many middle class whites don’t vote their interest but their values, “clinging,” in his words, to guns, religion, and bigoted notions of immigration and the dreaded “other” in their communities?
The difference is that Obama is running for president and we are not. And no man who wishes to be president can be so ignorant, so insensitive, so denigrating of the deeply held values of the American people. Obama may not like it that ordinary people use a different criteria to decide who to vote for than he and his liberal friends use. But recognizing its legitimacy is at the very least smart politics and at most the mark of a man who can connect with the average voter at more than a superficial level.
Both John Hinderaker and Ed Morrissey believes this incident finishes Obama as an electable candidate. I would say that such talk is premature. After all, as an elitist, I believe that most people will accept the candidate’s explanation and move on because they don’t understand the egregious nature of Obama’s remarks.
I suppose come November, we’ll find out.
1:01 pm
They’re all elites, especially Jorge Bush and Juan McAmnesty…
Look at how Jorge, has refused to stop the invasion from the southern border for seven years now, even though a clear majority (and a large one at that) of Americans want the invasion stopped. Why hasn’t he? Because for one thing business wants the continued “slave labor” and secondly, he and other elites want to move us to a sort of “North American Union” which will exist in reality but not likely in name. Don’t believe me? Just examine where many products are now made. If not in China, there’s a good chance they’re made in Mexico. Toothpaste, candy, tools, etc. made by the cheap labor of Mexico.
The NAU is coming about – the GOP denyers are being made to look like the fools they are: Miquel Medved, Carlos Rove and the like.
OH MY GOD! THE MEXICANS ARE COMING! THE MEXICANS ARE COMING! Lock up your wives and daughters! Hide the good silverware!
You are an hysterical dolt.
ed.
4:13 pm
Check out my photo-composites dealing with Barack’s ultra arrogance.
6:23 pm
On the next Jerry Springer show:
“Snobbish elists who love Obama…and the women who love them.”
10:31 pm
The Modern Liberals/Democrats are the heirs of a centuries old monarchist viewpoint that the working class are moronic peons who require management.
They view themselves as a ruling class who are morally obligated to manage the rest of us and provide everything from employment, housing, and health care to morality and correct thinking.
They believe that anyone who thinks that they (and everyone else) should be required, let alone allowed, to provide for themselves on their own merit, skill, and intelligence must be uneducated, deluded, or part of a conspiracy to steal from, and suppress the peons.
The Clinton “Legacy of Lies” and Obama’s continuing veil (increasingly thin) of pretty words are a part of the same tradition of “tell them anything, then rule them wisely” that monarchists have practiced since the dark ages.
10:37 pm
Brilliant. Over the years, some of these same thoughts have ricocheted off various parts of my brain. Of course, I lack your ability to consolidate and clearly set them forth. Thanks for saving me the hard work.
3:09 am
Elitism and elites isn’t such a problem; it’s when the elite gets entrenched that things get ugly. This is why the dynastic trends in American politics are so disturbing; some very large percentage of Congress come from “political families”.
As you point out, our Revolution wasn’t so much a revolt against the idea of elites; those were the French and Communist revolutions. Ours was against nobility, which is the idea that elite status is inherited.
The question in democracy – as in all systems – is how to pick the ruling elite. It may well be that elections aren’t always the best way, especially in a vast country where the only ways to get noticed are to have “name recognition”, or to be a single-minded political careerist like Obama.
11:34 pm
Elites aren’t the problem, just “our” elites in this era and place. Charles Murray did a fantastic job in his book, “Human Accomplishment”, in a small section explaining in part why accomplishment had fallen off so badly in western civilization, comparing elites of today with elites of the past. Especially at the height of the Renaissance. Reading his analysis of what makes civilizations not merely good, but great, and what spurs accomplishment, the Marxist assumptions in Obama’s comment are diametrically in opposition to the beliefs of most of yesteryear’s elites. In particular, the view of “transcental goods”. Murray, while himself an agnostic, was surprised at how important this turned out to be and thus he listed it among his “four essentials” for “genius level” accomplishment, especially on a civilizational level.
As an aside, the absolute worst thing for societies to experience was Communism. The fall off for Russia in accomplishment was most severe.
9:07 pm
You may be an elite if you are not a redneck.
2:42 pm
[...] Right Wing Nut House, “Elitism and the Elitist Elites Who Think They’re the Elite” [...]
12:48 pm
[...] Elitism and the Elitist Elites Who Think They’re the Elite Right Wing Nut House [...]
5:14 pm
If we are going to discuss the “elite” and “elitists”, we need to know what these words mean.
World Book Dictionary, 1988
elite: “1. the choice or distinguished part; those thought of as the best people”
elitism: “1. rule or government by an elite”
elitist: “1. of, having to do with or favoring elitism”
The key phrase is “those thought of as the best people”. You see “thought of” not “who think themselves to be”. We do expect our leaders to be elite, but we make the decision. The self appointed elite are noxious in the extreme.
Here is an example. As a computer programmer, I can readily identify the most elite programmers very easily. They are the least self-important. They do not consider themselves elite; it’s a bit of a paradox, but very true. These real geniuses are more interested in learning from others, in expanding their knowledge and awareness than in convincing others of their abilities. They are not interested in getting agreement or in being listened to, they are interested in listening. They listen to and respect neophytes, who, unburdened by a lot of experience and fixed ideas, can often come up with very innovative solutions, even if they’re not geniuses themselves.
A real elite individual is universally recognized and has the ability to recognize and admire others’ virtues. He or she is genuinely self confident and does not require a lot of admireation to re-inforce that certainty of his own abilities.
People who appear to consider themselves to be the elite, like Obama, are genuinely certain of their own superiority, and of others’ inferiority. Those who others recognize as truly elite tend to consider others to be their equals. They don’t need to look down on others to feel good about themselves. They feel good about other people, and it is contagious.
The people we most admire are the genuine elite, the unmistakable superior person. The most significant characteristic of such a person is the their innate appreciation and respect for others.
In this quality, Obama and Hillary are both sadly lacking, and that is what keeps them out of the league or the truly elite. Democrats do not seem to get this and fall for the pseudo-elites every time.
McCain tells people that he graduated near the bottom of his class at the Naval Academy. He does not aggrandize himself. Now, the simple fact is that anyone who gets into and is graduated from Annapolis is inherently elite…these folks are the best our country has to offer. So here’s a guy who wasn’t at the top of his class, so how did he achieve so much? He must listen to an awful lot of very smart people and be bright enough to understand them. And most importantly, he’s not too important to listen to others, hence his town hall meetings. He likes those small venues because it gives him the opportunity to listen to what the public has to say as much as to share what he has to say.
Do we want an elite in the White House, you bet we do. And we can tell the difference between the pseudo elite and the real thing. The American people believe in themselves and so do our leaders.
Best regards,
Gail
7:08 pm
OH MY GOD! THE MEXICANS ARE COMING! THE MEXICANS ARE COMING! Lock up your wives and daughters! Hide the good silverware!
You are an hysterical dolt.
So legitimate concerns over out of control illegal immigration = ravings of a “hysterical dolt”?
Please do elaborate.