Scarcely a day passed in this election, it seemed, when “elites” were under attack. Sometimes it was John McCain, but more often it was Sarah Palin. Who are these people? How can we recognize and avoid them?
They are the kind of people, who like to spend large parts of their life in foreign countries, especially France.
They like the written word, and make a point of being widely read.
They hang out in places where they can talk to their fellow elites.
They have the hubris write “wisdom” that they think will benefit ordinary people, and publish newspapers to influence public opinion.
You get the idea. Bad people. Unamerican people. Er, like Benjamin Franklin.
“Elites” are an interesting group to attack. The word itself, of course, means a group of people who are simply better at what they do than their fellows. An elite soldier might not be a better person, but we expect that he’s a better soldier. The attack on “elite” politicians implies that being a politician is somehow inherently dishonorable, and that the better you are at it, the worse a person you are. If that were it, we could let it slide. But “elite” media types are also attacked, as if there was something inherently dishonorable about journalism.
Elites, of course, believe that you should be able to name a news source you read (not just listen to) if you are going to influence public policy. Nasty elites like Katie Couric. I saw Katie Couric hang out with Elmo once. Of course, PBS is run by “elites” too, so beware of Sesame Street.
The irony is that the same people who decry elites are the people who praise the founding fathers to the high heavens, even if they have difficulty naming very many of them. Not just the words or the overarching principles of the Constitution are sacred, but the very intent of the framers. But the framers were not ordinary people, plucked off the fields, 18th century Mr. Smiths gone to Philadelphia. They were elites. The man who wrote the Declaration of Independence was so full of himself that he cut up his Bible to make a new one that would be more authentic, because he thought he could discern Jesus’ voice.
You can see it, too, in McCain’s references to Obama’s eloquence at the debates. The word “eloquent,” once a sort of back handed compliment, like articulate (oh my god, it’s a black who can talk like a man!), became an actual insult, as if the only reason one would speak well is if one were a con artist.
There we see most clearly, perhaps, the true nature of the attack on “elites.” It is nothing more, or less, than a preference for mediocrity. It isn’t truly the people who are under attack, it is the pursuit of excellence itself.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
There's a difference between "elite" and "elitism", the attitude that I'm better than you because of some irrelevant or inconclusive difference, e.g., "I attended Harvard Law School, so obviously you should defer to my opinion when I talk about economics or the war in Iraq." The shift from attacking elitists to attacking elites can, I think, be chalked up to sloppy language (and sarcasm-quotes that don't render properly in speech: ``The media "elites" say that...'' becomes ``The media elites say that...'').
Another irony this campaign season was the rhetoric about "small town values" and "real America". If "I live in a small town, so I'm better than you" isn't elitism, I don't know what is. According to the Census Bureau, roughly 80% of Americans live in urban areas, so it was probably a bad idea to insult such a large portion of the electorate.
As for criticisms of Obama's eloquence, I've understood them to be based on the idea that smooth talk can hide a multitude of problems (like a fast-talking salesman, but prettier). This stands in opposition to McCain's purported straight talk.
Smooth talk *can* hide a multitude of problems, and elitism *is* problematic. But I think the rhetoric of the campaign, and certainly the rhetoric on talk shows, takes it a bit further; to first, discount that a Harvard Law degree indicates any qualification at all; and then, to move on to actually suggesting that it's actually a net negative in that it distances the holder of such a degree from "Joe six-pack" (which was, what, the notion that people see things more clearly after drinking 6 beers?).
Similarly, eloquence *is* a qualification for the office of President, who often has to sway primarily with the power of his words... or to quote a Republican, the use of the "bully pulpit." That doesn't mean that all eloquent people are better presidents than all ineloquent people, nor even that the best person for the job might not be a particular ineloquent person.
It's important to lay the groundwork for the idea that ignorance is strength, I suppose, if you're going to push for the election of Sarah Palin.
"Joe six-pack" (which was, what, the notion that people see things more clearly after drinking 6 beers?).
You must have been thinking of this cartoon.
Post a Comment