Joe Six Pack vs the New Elite?

[Elgalad]

I found this article written as an op-ed piece to the San Francisco Chronicle ..

Real divide is only in elitist minds
- Victor Davis Hanson
Wednesday, October 27, 2004

ARE THINGS really as ghastly as they appear this election year? President Bush is derided as a liar, brain-dead and a coward, not just by fringe groups but by prominent members of the Democratic establishment. Major intellectuals and artists lament that John Kerry won all three debates by skilled debating -- and yet gained little ground.

Even the wives and children are involved now. Kerry and his running mate John Edwards gratuitously broached the sexuality of Vice President Dick Cheney's daughter; his wife fired back that Kerry is not "a good man." And just when we got a brief respite, Teresa Heinz Kerry derided Laura Bush as never having a real job -- before apologizing that, yes, a decade at work in public school counts as real employment.

Third-party ads, fueled by the money of multimillionaires, imply that Kerry was also a coward and traitor and that Bush was AWOL. CBS News anchor Dan Rather is caught promulgating clearly forged documents, an ABC memo warns against the chimera of objectivity, and Sinclair Broadcast Group agrees to air only portions of a clearly partisan film after Democrats howled. There is no need to mention the conspiracy theories of "Fahrenheit 911," Teresa Heinz Kerry's "scumbag" and "shove it," or Dick Cheney's use of the F-word.

Meanwhile, the back-and-forth acrimony prompts thousands of lawyers to contest an election in advance, hoping to win through the courts should they fail in the popular vote or Electoral College. Unfounded rumors circulate about a renewed draft, the end of Social Security and even of big-shot conservative politicians crowding ahead of the more needy for flu shots.

Is our republic paralyzed with hate, about to experience a dreaded next stage of violence in the streets, akin to the last dark days of the Roman Republic when gangs stormed the forum? Not really.

There is a long history of similar American political invective. The elections of 1864 saw far worse slurs. Statesmen like Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln and Ronald Reagan were routinely decried as savages, baboons and senile. For all the current name-calling, no one has accused either candidate of fathering illegitimate children, turning the country over to the Pope, or being intoxicated while on the job -- standard election year slander of the past. There are no riots in the streets, as was common in 1968.

Yet the true nature of our loud divisiveness is rarely remarked upon. In the last three decades, there has been a steady evolution from liberal to moderately conservative politics among a majority of the voters, whether gauged by the recent spate of Republican presidents or Bill Clinton's calculated shift to the center. Now the House, Senate, presidency and the majority of state governorships and legislatures are in Republican hands. A Bush win will ensure a conservative Supreme Court for a generation.

In contrast, the universities, the arts, the major influential media and Hollywood are predominately liberal -- and furious. They bring an enormous amount of capital, talent, education and cultural influence into the political fray -- but continue to lose real political power. The talented elite plays the same role to the rest of America as the Europeans do to the United States -- venting and seething because the supposedly less sophisticated, but far more powerful, average Joes don't embrace their visions of utopia.

Elites from college professors and George Soros to Bruce Springsteen and Garrison Keillor believe that their underappreciated political insight is a natural byproduct of their own proven artistic genius, education, talent or capital. How then can a tongue-tied George W. Bush and his cronies so easily fool Americans, when novelists, actors, singers, comedians and venture capitalists have spent so much time and money warning them of their danger?

For all Sean Penn's rants, Rather's sermons, Michael Moore's mythodramas and Jon Stewart's postmodern snickers, America, even in times of a controversial war and rocky economy, is still not impressed. National Public Radio, "Nightline" and the New York Times are working overtime to assert their views in this philosophical debate; Jimmy Carter and Al Gore -- not George H. W. Bush and Bob Dole -- are fuming. Most Americans snore or flip the channel.

It is apparently a terrible thing to be sensitive, glib, smart, educated or chic -- and not be listened to, as we have seen from this noisy and often hysterical campaign among elites. That is the real divide in this country, and it is only going to get worse.

Victor Davis Hanson is a military historian and a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution .

The author summed up my own thoughts pretty well. I Have noticed this divide more and more recently. I can turn on the television news channels any time of the day and listen to talking heads preach to me as if I were an uneducated simpleton simply because I have not yet embraced the truth of the Liberal message. And yet when I speak with work associates who are Democrats, I don't get this feeling at all. We debate the issues of course, but we do so as equals. In fact, although we may disagree considerably on political positions, when I bring up this very subject of the media elites they are just as disgusted as myself (though to be honest, they do counter with a few of their own examples of patronizing conservatives )

Point is.. where did this division come from? I recall in previous elections, someone (usually on whichever side happens to be trailing that year) will bring up the old argument "Some folks just Aren't smart enough to vote". Every time I hear words like that I just cringe inside. Why is it so difficult for people (of both political poles) to see their opponents as just as intelligent and informed as themselves? Is it just a simple tactic that we use to demean others when we can't counter their arguments effectively? Or is there something more sinister going on here? I hate to sound like am alarmist, but isn't this sort of stratification of the public reminiscent of the very early stages of many tyrannical states?


"Elitism - It's lonely at the top. But it's comforting to look down upon everyone at the bottom."
-Larry Kersten


-Elgalad

 

[Scuffer]

It's a very interesting thread, which I can't really put my finger on anything definitive. A theory - it seems a little trite when I think about it, so sorry in advance.
It's far easier demean others than have a rational debate. It makes better television too. Having an dem/reb elite bunch on to slam the others is also preaching to the converted. No one turns up to church for a discussion on whether God exists or not. Even the candidates couldn't manage a decent debate, so why should the networks bother? Maybe it's like a baseball (or whatever) game, you turn up holler at your team, won't hear a word against them. The next day at the office, you sit down with your friends and start pulling them apart.
It depresses me, because we have it to some extent here too, but I don't think there's anything sinister going on.

 

[Drewcifer]

I have long subscribed to a different but similar theory, based on the conservative household and upper middle class culture that I was brought up in versus my blue collar life in my twenties. I think that "liberal" and "conservative" are labels that are used mostly by the college educated bourgoise (for lack of a better word) and the political class (politicians, journalists, etc.) This entire heated, bombastic argument between liberals and conservatives is essentially between two competing but socially similar cliques within the same subculture and they both, collectively, make up the "elitists". Most of the people I know who don't have college degrees and upper-middle class jobs would never in a million years call themselves either liberal or conservative. They know what they believe in and it varies from person to person but none of them seem to get too worked up when someone else disagrees with them. Their main concern is providing for themselves and their family, not politics. I think the country is generally fiscally conservative and socially tolerant, neither party reflects this which is why the electorate is so split.

 

[The Last Conformist]

The talented elite plays the same role to the rest of America as the Europeans do to the United States -- venting and seething because the supposedly less sophisticated, but far more powerful, average Joes don't embrace their visions of utopia.

This is funny. I tend to see Americans as more susceptible to visions of utopia.

 

[BasketCase]

And to top it off and confuse the hell out of everybody else, we have conflicting visions of "utopia".

 

[luiz]

Indeed it´s quite annoying when one political side decides to claim "monopoly of intelligence", therefore declaring all who don´t subscribe to their line of thought as "brain-dead morons".

Almost as annoynig as when one side claims the monpoly of morality or compassion.

 

[thestonesfan]

The "Elite" is Bon Jovi and Leonardi Di Caprio??

 

[Paradigne]

Yeah, I'll listen to the political rantings of actor's and musicians... they know all about the politics...

 

[thestonesfan]

University professors teaching the History of Music in Africa have a pretty solid grasp of reality, though.

 

[The Last Conformist]

Almost as annoynig as when one side claims the monpoly of morality or compassion.

Would this apply generally? 'Tween, say, the Burmese junta and the democracy movement?

 

[Elgalad]

I suppose that the argument sort of boils down to a question of whether each voter, or rather each Vote matters as much as another. Elitists seem to believe that the Quality of the votes are what count, and only those who are able to make their decision from a position of intellect or high moral authority are making the right choices.

But what they forget is that One vote IS One vote, no matter who makes it. And therefore Quantity is all that matters in the end.


-Elgalad

 

[SeleucusNicator]

For all the current name-calling, no one has accused either candidate of fathering illegitimate children, turning the country over to the Pope, or being intoxicated while on the job -- standard election year slander of the past.

Awh, they don't mention my favorite.

John Quincy Adams was once US minister to Russia. During the 1829 election, Andrew Jackson supporters spread the rumor that during this time, Adams was a personal pimp to the Czar.

 

[The Last Conformist]

CFC needs someone like Poly's Imran Siddiqui, who actually believes than intellectuals ought have a bigger say than "the mob".

 

[Elgalad]

Awh, they don't mention my favorite.

John Quincy Adams was once US minister to Russia. During the 1829 election, Andrew Jackson supporters spread the rumor that during this time, Adams was a personal pimp to the Czar.

"I did it all for the Benjamins.."
-LL JA






-Elgalad

 

[betazed]

Point is.. where did this division come from? I recall in previous elections, someone (usually on whichever side happens to be trailing that year) will bring up the old argument "Some folks just Aren't smart enough to vote". Every time I hear words like that I just cringe inside.

But why do you say you disagree with that?

All of us routinely agree with the assumption that some folks are not smart enough to vote when we agree with a legal voting age. Having such an age is an implicit assumption that one cannot always be given the right or responsibility of voting. So if we agree that all 15 years olds are not smart enough to vote then is it not rather extreme to belive that all those 15 year olds suddenly become smart enough at the voting age?

There are lots of people who never mature. So what's wrong with the statement "Some folks just Aren't smart enough to vote"?

I vehemently support that statement.

 

[The Last Conformist]

So what's wrong with the statement "Some folks just Aren't smart enough to vote"?

It contradicts ideology we've been spoonfed since infancy.

It also seems to correspond nicely to naive human thinking. There's never been a society that have given children equal rights and responsibilities. The idea of equal such for all adults (or all adult men) has been around forever, OTOH, and sometimes come close to realization.

 

[betazed]

It contradicts ideology we've been spoonfed since infancy.

precisely.

 

[The Last Conformist]

Now, it would be interesting to see some argumentation how limiting voting rights would be beneficial. The historical record of limited franchise is not very encouraging at first glance.

 

[betazed]

Now, it would be interesting to see some argumentation how limiting voting rights would be beneficial. The historical record of limited franchise is not very encouraging at first glance.

Seek you shall find. Ask and you shall be answered.

However, damn job is cutting on my OT time. I will post my thoughts sometime this afternoon.

 

[The Last Conformist]

Better start a new thread on it, I think.


It's only too likely, however, that I won't turn up here again before Monday or Thuesday next week after I leave in a quarter hour or so.