If one believes in a cohesive society and social order, then it follows that there will be elites. This is almost a truism in authentic conservatism. Indeed, whenever that has been an attempt to overthrow the social order under the banner of absolute egalitarianism, the results have been utterly disastrous. This is not to defend an unjust and unequal society. I believe firmly in the tenets of Catholic social teaching and that such concepts as solidarity, the common good, subsidiarity and the preferential option for the poor must form the basis of public policy. Another way of saying this is that the social order should not depend uniquely on material wealth. It should rather depend on education and knowledge. But there must be a social order. One of the great achievements of modern society is that people from lower-class backgrounds can use education to propel themselves to the top. They can be part of the elite, and this should not be a dirty word. It should elucidate respect, and it should inculcate public virtue.
Today in the United States, elitism seems to be a dirty word. And this is not the result of an economic progressivism, as the denigrators of elitism seem quite comfortable with vast disparities in wealth. These people who dub themselves conservative instead wrap themselves in the mantle of cultural populism, condemning all the affections of supposed elitism and promoting instead the virtues of a plebian culture (I use that word in a technical, not pejorative, sense). Alongside, there is no deference accorded to knowledge and learning, those with academic qualifications from the top centers of learning are mocked, and the folk wisdom of the layman is supposed to be more valuable than the pontifications of the experts on matters ranging from economics to global warming to evolution.
As with many things, I ultimately put this down to a deep-rooted and abiding Protestant culture in the United States. After all, with a personal relationship with God, who needs mediators? Who needs a central authority when individual becomes their own personal authority? One huge difference you will notice between the United States and Europe lies in the respect accorded to members of the academic elite. Of course, populism has deep roots in the United States, but it was not always like this. Not so long ago, elitism was not a dirty word, and members of the elite were motivated by a duty to public service. No longer. The only respectable “duty” today is either making money or engaging in public activities that are supported by the populist culture (such as the military).
Why I am writing this post? Because, quite frankly, the reaction among some of my fellow Catholics to the nomination of Sarah Palin has been eye-opening. I could immediately understand the pro-life and pro-family attraction, but what threw me was the almost messianic-like admiration (and yes, I choose my words quite deliberately!). And then it dawned on me: she appeals deeply to a certain pent-up hatred of elitism, to a certain folk-populism that somehow considers itself “conservative”.
Let me quote a few remarks to give a flavor:
“A high school basketball star, a beauty queen who eloped with her husband to save spending on a foolish lavish wedding. Talk about the necessary ‘down home’ appeal I commented on Obama not having! This gal has it coming out her ears…Who’s going to get the votes of all those down home folks Kerry so foolishly tried to woo by going duck hunting one day? Why they’re going to vote in droves for a gal who totes a gun and goes moose hunting an Alaska and has a husband who snowboards and toots around on his snowmobile.”
“Democrats have been exemplifying the ‘we the elite know what is best for you’ attitude, it seems McCain has take a step further towards the ‘aww shucks, I’m just a country boy like y’all’ image.”
“At the conclusion of the clip, Rush said, “Babies, Guns, and Jesus. Hot Damn!” I don’t care how you feel about guns, that is a good line.”
“Obama’s elitist, condescending, small-town-bashing bigots can kiss my ignorant, gun-toting, Bible-clutching @ss.”
“She also knows how to handle an M-16.”
“Sarah Palin was the one that most inspired me. How could you not love a blue-collar hubby-marrying, pro-drilling, elk-hunting, moose-burger eating, snowmobiling, mother of five who hangs out with the NRA and Feminists for Life?”
Here we have a rather perverse glorification of plebian culture, and at the same time a thinly-disguised sense of insecurity. For in this world, being blue collar, shooting guns and riding snowmobiles and motorcycles is somehow seen as more virtuous than coming from a broken family and earning a degree from Harvard Law School. Notice the anti-intellectualism that is thrown in for good measure. What kind of message does that send to society, especially children from deprived backgrounds? Is it not bad enough that the major “celebrities” in this culture are narcissistic actors, violence-peddling rappers, and aggressive sports stars? Shouldn’t Barack Obama be touted as a better role model for the young than Snoop Dogg? And shouldn’t the people who call themselves conservative be on the front line in this respect? Shouldn’t elite education and culture be seen as something to aspire to, not to mock?
Let me be very clear: setting aside the anti-intellectualism, although I have no interest in much of the activities of blue-collar culture, I’m not condemning it either (apart from the gun culture, which I do oppose quite strongly). I merely think that it should not be regarded as a sign of virtue against the “elitists”. And for the record, I have the same interest in windsurfing and lacrosse as I do in Nascar and hunting, namely none whatsoever. For that is precisely the point: none is “better” than the other.
This kind of attitude is especially poisonous in a political culture. I remember one of the legendary lines from the 2004 election, when somebody touted the relative virtues of George Bush with his shotgun versus John Kerry with his surf board. The picture was stark: George Bush was a man of the people, and John Kerry was an out-of-touch elitist. People seem to forget that one should vote based on policies, as Bush rapidly found out when he was comfortably re-elected and yet realized he had no mandate. I thought people were finally getting past this silliness, and yet here we go again, four years later as Palin steps into the scene, with the same old slurs, the same old insecurity, the same barely concealed disgust with somebody who prefers thoughtfulness to the language of a good old boy.
For in elections, policy must be paramount. I am quite comfortable supporting east coast Brahmins and western blue collar populists if they espouse the right policies. Case in point: Montana governor Brian Schweitzer. In his own unique folksy way, his rhetorical demolition of McCain’s energy plan was far more effective than anything I have seen or read by an academic on this subject.
We cannot reach this point until we cast aside the highly un-conservative suspicion of elitism. Latter day conservatives like to compare current culture to that of the Roman empire. Let me offer this choice: would you prefer the elitist rhetorician Cicero, who stood for the republic and the virtues of public service, or some of the later vulgarians who ran the show?
September 2, 2008 at 12:33 pm
MM,
I can see why you’d conclude that there’s an anti-elitism at work here, and in some cases, that may be so, and where it is, I generally endorse your remarks.
On the other hand, some people’s excitement over Palin might be less about anti-elitism and more about the fact that here’s a politician running for office who clearly isn’t consumed by her political life, or even close to it. I think that was part of the initial appeal of Bush to some people… here’s someone running for high office who hasn’t spent their entire life moving toward that moment. This is someone for whom high office isn’t life-defining… they’ve found meaning & purpose elsewhere.
One final tangential note:
People seem to forget that one should vote based on policies
What about their judgment?
September 2, 2008 at 12:39 pm
Time Magazine is now reporting that Ms. Palin as mayor inquired with the town librarian as to how to go about banning offensive- to-local- sensibilities books from the local system.
Of course, some commenters-visitors here may say there is nothing so uniquely American like a good-ole fashion book burning.
September 2, 2008 at 12:45 pm
How would you define the elitism you’re writing in defense of?
September 2, 2008 at 12:47 pm
Wasn’t it Anne Richards ,the then future govenor of Texas, at the 1988 Democratic Convention who said the line regarding GHW Bush, “Poor George! He was born with a silver foot in his mouth”. I wish I had a time machine and could see how MM reacted or would have reacted to that line if he had heard it. Forgive me if I am wrong in assuming your reaction might not be in line with your post here MM.
September 2, 2008 at 12:48 pm
I think part of America’s anti-elitism is related to the return of evangelicals and fundamentalists to politics in the 70s. But part of it is also related to the fact the elite in the US hold different values than most people, and many of them think they’re better because they do so. Peter Berger famously called the US a nation of Indians ruled by Swedes, meaning that the elite (in business, academics, and politics) in the US are very secular, while the general population isn’t. The secular humanism of the academy is not unrelated to anti-intellectualism.
And the numerous “Jesusland” cartoons, the “flyover country” references, and the treatment of Christian belief as something worthy of mockery and scorn are all real. If there’s an anti-elite sentiment in this country, there is also an anti-Christian sentiment, and an anti-prole sentiment, and since the last two are held often by the same people and directed at the same people, it is not surprising that a reaction against secular humanist derision is often responded to with anti-elite, anti-intellectual statements.
September 2, 2008 at 12:52 pm
Zak, yes, these points are valid. I guess what I don’t follow of how the antithesis of an elite bias against Christianity became guns, nascar, and snowmobiles.
September 2, 2008 at 1:01 pm
Part of the distrust of intellectual culture in rural areas stems from the way they were historically treated as fertile ground for eugenics and social experimentation by the elites in power at the time. I grew up in an area where, back in the 1920’s to 1930’s, the poor were viewed as mental defectives and forcibly sterilized. A fair amount of rural blacks don’t trust the “elitist” medical establishment because of the Tuskegee experiments. In the past hundred years or so, there have been many, many examples of small-town Americans being used as fodder for “elitist” experimentation and social-do-goodery that failed disastrously. So I think many rural Americans have a healthy distrust of the elite, and it’s not without good cause.
September 2, 2008 at 1:01 pm
William F. Buckley, who meets no man’s definition of an anti-elitist, once said that he would rather be governed by the first 400 people in the Boston telephone directory than the faculty of Harvard. So would I.
There is good elitism and bad elitism. Elitism goes bad when it turns from appreciating and mastering knowledge and higher culture to holding those who do not share such an appreciation in contempt. At various points during the campaign, Senator Obama and his surrogates have seemed to lapse into this bad sort of elitism. Witness his comments about bitter people clinging to guns and religion, or his chiding Americans for not speaking much French. Or note the fact that, when discussing the Palin pick, the Obama campaign has repeatedly referred to Palin as the “former mayor” of a small town, despite the fact that she is a sitting Governor.
September 2, 2008 at 1:04 pm
There is most certainly a populist/anti-elitist strand to the modern conservative coalition. I recall back in high school when I listed to talk radio being annoyed with Rush for insisting that it was a total waste of money for a city of fund a symphony orchestra. (I don’t object to the government funding art, if it’s good art. Though so much of what’s funded these days is trash one sometimes wonders if we should get rid of arts funding entirely.)
However, I think that the situation is a bit more nuanced here than you’re catching. When Obama is branded with elitism, it’s not so much because he doesn’t bowl or ride a motorcycle — it’s because he’s rather to glib in assuming that he knows what really motivates all those plebs — even in controversion to their stated beliefs. This is a common failing in the “elite” left. The whole _What’s The Matter With Kansas_ line of thinking is that middle Americans actually _support_ the progressive agenda, they just don’t know they support it, because they’re put off by the fact that the progressive party is inextricably entwined with moral and cultural stances they find revolting. If we could just get those stupid yokels to vote their self-interest, the thinking goes, they’d get over all the God and guns foolishness.
So part of the reaction against elitism is a reaction against being called stupid or accused of not really believing what you believe by the alleged “elites”.
Additionally, there’s the problem that elite culture and opinion is generally so malformed these days that often if one wants truly good thinking or work, one must seek those on the periphery of the self-proclaimed “elite” set. Chances are that a “world renowned Harvard ethicist” will be totally a creature of the tends of our time, whereas someone who write and teaches about the same topics with similar erudition and education, but does so in a manner that respects the historic patrimony of the Church and Western philosophy will end up at some little known state university simply because he does not conform to “elite opinion”. Once people are kicked around by this a few times, they tend to have it in for the “inside set”. One does want someone of exceptional education and ability as a leader, but that does not necessarily mean one of the “elite set” in the normal sense.
Finally, there is an element of what we might call “regionalism” or affinity for like culture. Though you may be motivated only by affection for Obama’s policies, let’s lot ignore the fact that for many young, urban, “sophisticated” types, part of the appeal of Obama is that they imagine he’s “like them”. To this extent, one can hardly blame people to whose lives the experiences of Palin bear a strong resemblance for liking that fact. Rest assured, it is not their only motivation. If it were, they would all be equally happy to support progressives with back-woods/rural type roots and habits, and we know that that is not the case.
September 2, 2008 at 1:12 pm
Morning Minion writes : “If one believes in a cohesive society and social order, then it follows that there will be elites.”
True. But truly great men are most rare, ( I have only ever known one), while wise fools are most common.
And those with at least common sense hold in derision those same wise fools who set themselves up as the elite
Democracy may be tyranny by the masses, but it is superior to the tyranny of wise fools.
September 2, 2008 at 1:21 pm
So part of the reaction against elitism is a reaction against being called stupid or accused of not really believing what you believe by the alleged “elites”.
Exactly.
Though you may be motivated only by affection for Obama’s policies, let’s lot ignore the fact that for many young, urban, “sophisticated” types, part of the appeal of Obama is that they imagine he’s “like them”.
The thing that stuck me most about the selection of Palin was the outright rage that I heard from people here in San Francisco. It’s no secret that most of the people here regard SF as an oasis of sanity in an otherwise horrible, backwards country, but the sheer vitriol that I’ve heard from people is quite astounding–the sort of people (generally men) who decry misogyny and sexism now referring to Palin as “McCain’s bitch” and so forth. She’s not part of the milieu that these people associate with, so it’s evidently ok to deride her in the harshest of terms. And people wonder why they get labeled “elitist”!
September 2, 2008 at 1:38 pm
Some good points have been made already. If I could some up how I see it:
Elitism is not the same as recognizing the existence of, and even respecting, the elite. Rather, it is a certain attitude, perhaps even a belief system, among the elites of the type described by DarwinCatholic. The anti-elitism (NASCAR and gun people are better is a reaction to that elitism which becomes the mirror image of elitism (I think that makes sense.)
For what is worth, I live in a rural area dominated by what I think are populist attitudes. Most of them are not anti-elites. They actually have much respect for elites. What they don’t like is an elite comes around and acts like they or their ideas are better.
I can give a good example. Some of our children go off to Ivy League schools with encouragement of the community. Some come back and do not flaunt their privileged education, but use it to help the community. They are accepted and fit in fine. Others come back with an attitude that they are better than the rest because of their education. They will have trouble.
This form of populism is not anti-elite and I think it is perfectly acceptable within Catholic social teaching.
September 2, 2008 at 1:50 pm
Indeed, although I dislike secular humanism, I’ve never been interested in hunting, I despise snow-mobiles as recreation (they’re loud and smelly-put on snowshoes and go for a walk!), and NASCAR holds no appeal for me. They signal a certain cultural outlook, just as shopping at a grocery store co-op, going to the symphony, and reading Maureen Dowd signal a different outlook. They are clear exceptions, and I think some movements (like crunchy-cons) have arisen in part as reactions against the use of the signals (something exploited by Democrats like Mark Warner with his bluegrass band and NASCAR sponsorship, I would note).
Guns might be a little different, because they are a more clear symbol of a sphere (the family/household) where the government’s sway is not absolute – one’s responsibility to provide for and defends one’s family is antecedent to one’s duties as citizen, it could be argued. I know you don’t buy that argument, although I think it is consonant with the church’s understanding of the primacy of family.
September 2, 2008 at 2:03 pm
I like ctd’s differentiation between elites and elitism. I immediately thought of clerics and clericalism.
September 2, 2008 at 2:35 pm
Both parties are full of establishment figures who love The People (TM) but are less than comfortable with actual people who don’t fit into their base. (I actually said this to a Kerry campaign worker who sat next to me on a plane in despair on the day after the 2004 election – I told her the party needed to focus more on real people and lose the academic addiction to concepts). Much of the comfort with actual people is filtered that way, to sort out unsympathetic from sympathetic people.
The interesting thing is that the calculus of Christ is that we must actually actively seek out those who are unsympathetic with our preferences, however well thought through and defensible those preferences may be. That goes for liberals and conservatives and the non-aligned.
One of the best things about Vox Nova is it makes that something more of a reality than it tends to be elsewhere at St Blog’s.
September 2, 2008 at 2:43 pm
“How would you define the elitism you’re writing in defense of?”
Tom, I like you, so please don’t hold your breath waiting for MM to reply.
September 2, 2008 at 3:02 pm
William F. Buckley, who meets no man’s definition of an anti-elitist, once said that he would rather be governed by the first 400 people in the Boston telephone directory than the faculty of Harvard. So would I.
Blackadder,
Wouldn’t it be better to pick, say, New York rather than Boston? There might be some Harvard faculty members within the first 400 people in the Boston telephone directory.
Was Buckley (and are you) singling out Harvard, or would the name of any Ivy League school do equally well? Or any university?
Would you rather pick a doctor from the yellow pages or from Harvard Medical School. (Same question for about any profession for which Harvard has a school.)
September 2, 2008 at 3:07 pm
That’s because ‘elitism’ doesn’t refer to an actual elite, but rather to the prejudiced mindset of a Eurosnoot such as yourself, MM. People, people who can’t stand people, they’re the sorriest people in the world. One loves humanity as a concept. When said humanity lives next door, not so much.
‘Elitism’ in the American context refers to liberals (in the American sense of the word, before MM says “But in 1785, liberalism meant… !) who think they know what’s best for the common man. For that, said common man is supposed to be grateful and reward the ‘elite’ at the voting booth. If they fail to do so, it clearly has to be due to their inability or unwillingness to know their superiors and their endless benevolence.
Said ‘elite’ finds pleasure in endless wankeries over this or that social ill and cannot wait to force their conclusion on the people. Puffed up by their self-diagnosed humanitarian qualities, they are engaged in endless self-congratulation. South Park illustrated this perfectly – liberals smelling their own farts, delighted with the smell. Living in a bubble, they deem themselves unbiased and open-minded. They were the nonconformists’ uniform, they are the dittoheads who deem themselves unique. They usually dislike the USA while praising everyone else. They vary from the angry young man to the middle-aged professor still preaching revolution from his tenured position. They are naive enough to fall for Obama’s shtick.
In brief, certain Vox Nova writers are part of said ‘elite’.
September 2, 2008 at 3:11 pm
Considering Mr. Naus that you have cloistered yourself in a moderately wealthy suburb, I find your commentary on being in touch with humanity fascinating.
September 2, 2008 at 3:12 pm
Mr. Nichols writes : “Or any university?”
All of them.
Excluding the Quadrivium of course, i.e. Christendom College, Madalen College, Thomas Aquinas College, and Wyoming Catholic College.
September 2, 2008 at 3:14 pm
oh yes, and also St. Thomas Moore up in New Hampshire. They also should be excluded.
September 2, 2008 at 3:15 pm
I can talk smack with anyone, put me in the Philharmonic or the baseball stadium.
I live in a small town, not so much a suburb. My neighbors across the street are Filipino, next to them is a Sikh family from India. My chiropractor is Afghan. This here is diverse, unlike the rich white liberal enclaves along the California coast.
September 2, 2008 at 3:19 pm
St. Buckley was not referring to doctors or scientists, you know, people with degrees that are hard to get. I am sure he meant people from departments like political science, philosophy, English, Gender Studies and what not
September 2, 2008 at 3:22 pm
MZ Forrest writes : “Considering Mr. Naus that you have cloistered yourself in a moderately wealthy suburb, I find your commentary on being in touch with humanity fascinating.”
But MZ, it’s better than being cloistered in one’s mind without a window. I think Mr. Naus nails it nicely.
September 2, 2008 at 3:28 pm
I am also not ‘cloistered’. This year alone, I’ve been to Italy, Austria, France, Canada, Texas… I do photoshoots all over California – I’m just never without my iphone or Macbook :) Otherwise, you’d miss me too much. Of course, if you mean that I don’t spend time in Oakland’s ghetto, then you are correct.
September 2, 2008 at 3:35 pm
William F. Buckley, who meets no man’s definition of an anti-elitist, once said that he would rather be governed by the first 400 people in the Boston telephone directory than the faculty of Harvard. So would I.
This came more from Buckley’s inferiority complex than from any honest evaluation of Harvard professors. It’s not anti-elitist, but anti-intellectual. The folly is that the academics are merely replaced by non-academics who attempt to be academics. We see this across many think tanks today.
September 2, 2008 at 3:37 pm
If Buckley had an inferiority complex, he certainly hid it well.
September 2, 2008 at 3:37 pm
I can only speak for myself, but since you quoted me, I will.
It’s a very complicated issue, and I’ll be talking about it a lot on my blog between now and the election, in case you want more soundbites. But the fact that it’s not simplistic is part of what is making the red state folks angry, and I think it’s what you’re not understanding about our reaction.
We are not anti-elitism. (I agree with you that it is a good thing. I’m all for it. But I also believe that people should have as many houses as they want and can afford, and it’s between them and God what they did with their honestly-earned money.) What we are is anti elitist BIGOTRY.
No one assumes that I’m ignorant, because I work in show business. But they assume my cousins are ignorant, because they still live in the country and they only speak one language and wouldn’t be comfortable with a wine list. They seem to think that they therefore should not be allowed to vote for president. They also seem to think that if they were not so ignorant, they would see the light and vote for Obama.
The world is full of extremely intelligent people who don’t have college degrees and only speak one language. And they’re getting really tired of turning on the television and hearing what idiots they are. Speaking for myself, I am sick to death of hearing how stupid my cousins and my mother and all my friends back home in my small town are. Especially since I know better.
September 2, 2008 at 3:37 pm
I live in a small town, not so much a suburb. My neighbors across the street are Filipino, next to them is a Sikh family from India. My chiropractor is Afghan. This here is diverse, unlike the rich white liberal enclaves along the California coast.
With all due respect, Gerald, you live a half million dollar home in Tracy, CA. I lived in Tracy’s (for a time) cheaper sister city, Manteca. Tracy has become the new East Bay. So what ever may be your cultural credentials, don’t pass yourself off as a man of the lower classes.
September 2, 2008 at 3:38 pm
Republicans define “elitism” with cultural signifiers: If you like latte, live on the coasts, eat organic food, drive a car made in northern Europe (Saab, Volvo, VW…) hunt birds rather than deer…etc.
Democrats, back in the days of Harry Truman and FDR, defined elitism in economic terms – “Malefactors of great wealth,” “economic royalists,” “the rich, lolling obscenely in opera boxes…” (actually, that was Mencken).
A reporter asked Sherrod Brown a couple years ago why so many rural and poor whites were voting for Republicans. His response: “Because Democrats stopped talking to them.”
A big piece of that has to do with the Civil and Voting Rights Acts, and their political aftermath. LBJ said that “we’ve lost the South for a generation” due to those Acts, but he lost more than the south: Racist whites everywhere were alienated from the Democratic Party. Part (at this point, only a small part, I hope) of the “elitist” charge is lingering resentment against urban northeastern Democrats for overturning the structures and privileges of Southern Post-Reconstruction society. The “outsiders” who tore down a system that had worked (for whites, anyway) for a hundred years were the original targets of the charge of elitism.
September 2, 2008 at 3:38 pm
p.s. And my point is, that’s why we are all fired up about the idea of Sarah Palin for Vice President.
September 2, 2008 at 3:40 pm
If Buckley had an inferiority complex, he certainly hid it well.
Yes, which results from how one conceals an inferiority complex: one attempts to come across as far more brilliant and astute than one really is. I’d say the contemporary Buckley is Fr. Richard John Neuhaus.
September 2, 2008 at 3:47 pm
One other thought – I am far to the left of most democrats these days because I’m an old-fashioned economic liberal – I’d love to see a far more progressive income tax, tilting the playing field in favor of union organizing, government regulation of public goods, single-payer health care, and so on.
September 2, 2008 at 3:48 pm
Well, they were both brilliant and well-read, but the evidence for an “inferiority complex” is entirely in your imagination, is it not? The famous Buckley quote was merely a defense of democracy.
September 2, 2008 at 3:52 pm
Unlike Buckley, I’ve actually met Neuhaus. I don’t find the claim of an inferiority complex plausible in either case. But perhaps I just lack Policraticus’ evident perceptiveness in such matters.
September 2, 2008 at 3:55 pm
Never said I was one of the ‘lower classes’.
I don’t think it’s right to compare Buckley to Neuhaus. I find Buckley infinitely more interesting. Not to mention, who are you to know just how astute or brilliant Buckley was ? Build your own harpsichord, sail around the world, start a magazine, run your own talk show, then get back with us. He was a man who lived life to the fullest.
“Elitists” are the secular equivalent of religious moralists, always trying everyone to tell how to live, and condemn those who refuse. And Obama is their high priest, god and king.
September 2, 2008 at 3:57 pm
* and in some of Vox Nova’s writers, we find an unfortunate combination of ‘elitist’ AND religious moralist, that double-pronged thorn in humanity’s side :D
September 2, 2008 at 4:07 pm
That’ll make a great campaign slogan…
“OBAMA ‘08: Least he ain’t Snoop Dogg!!!”
September 2, 2008 at 4:12 pm
Hey, Tom, I think Gerald Naus answered your question about definitions.
Mr. Naus, great job, but don’t strain yourself proving cred. Being “cloistered” is a state of mind — people can be surrounded or even raised by normal folk and still be snobbish and condescending, just look at Joe Biden. Great web site, BTW.
September 2, 2008 at 4:15 pm
Gerald lives in a 500k home in the new East Bay. Must be an elite so he should be trusted.
September 2, 2008 at 4:16 pm
BA – If Buckley had an inferiority complex, he certainly hid it well.
Policraticus – Yes, which results from how one conceals an inferiority complex: one attempts to come across as far more brilliant and astute than one really is. I’d say the contemporary Buckley is Fr. Richard John Neuhaus.
That last one is just too funny coming from an anonymous nobody on the internet who prides himself on being smarter than anyone else and snips at people like George Weigal and William F. Buckley, calling the first an under achiever and saying the second had an inferiority complex.
September 2, 2008 at 4:16 pm
One of the dangers of being very smart and well educated is that one is often tempted to imagine that one knows all that there is to know (or at least, that little of what one knows is false) and that one is thus in a position to “fix” the world in vast and wonderful ways.
I suspect that one of the points behind Buckley’s quote was that the faculty of Harvard (or any very consciously elite institution) were more likely to imagine that they could sit right down and reshape the world, and would do immeasurable harm before they realized they were wrong. Others would — or at least, historically have — behave more modestly and in keeping with custom.
Elite education and ability is important, but to the extent that it opens the door to pride, which allows people to attempt more than they actually have the ability to do, it can be very dangerous.
September 2, 2008 at 4:18 pm
Policraticus writes : ” not anti-elitist, but anti-intellectual. The folly is that the academics are merely replaced by non-academics who attempt to be academics. We see this across many think tanks today.”
Your might have a point if the American universities and colleges were not themselves training grounds and anti-intellectual.
September 2, 2008 at 4:24 pm
Sounds like Poli might be engaging in some logical fallacies himself.
September 2, 2008 at 4:28 pm
I’m pretty far from the East Bay, actually :) Just up the road are cows and farms. The nice thing about this part of California is that one can get great organic fruits and veggies and cheap prices directly from the farmer – in my case, they are Afghans. Now, buying at Whole Foods Market, THAT is elitist. Heh !
Btw, what did arugula do to deserve the mockery? =P Guilt by association, I say !
September 2, 2008 at 5:02 pm
I like ivy league graduates. The ones who worked for me were very handy to have around, for certain kinds of things. They don’t usually make good guides if you are trying to get a moose though.
September 2, 2008 at 5:03 pm
“Why I am writing this post? Because, quite frankly, the reaction among some of my fellow Catholics to the nomination of Sarah Palin has been eye-opening. I could immediately understand the pro-life and pro-family attraction, but what threw me was the almost messianic-like admiration (and yes, I choose my words quite deliberately!). And then it dawned on me: she appeals deeply to a certain pent-up hatred of elitism, to a certain folk-populism that somehow considers itself “conservative”.
This just wows me!!! Goodness what is it about Plain that has got Obama supporters all upset. THis is awoman that is has connectons to ordinary people and it is all gangbusters on her.
There is no Messiah like reaction toward Palin. We respect her for wath she has done. Also a former Huckabee supporter a healthy populism and conservativism is not in itself a contradiction.
September 2, 2008 at 5:05 pm
“As with many things, I ultimately put this down to a deep-rooted and abiding Protestant culture in the United States. After all, with a personal relationship with God, who needs mediators? Who needs a central authority when individual becomes their own personal authority? One huge difference you will notice between the United States and Europe lies in the respect accorded to members of the academic elite.”
Wait at one you talk about the Messiah “mediator” Palin and how how weird that is. THen we have this. Well what is it.
September 2, 2008 at 5:20 pm
Minion really lacks the spirit of ecumenism. How pre-conciliar of him.
“One huge difference you will notice between the United States and Europe lies in the respect accorded to members of the academic elite.”
respect accorded…lol. Genuflection required ? I’m sorry, but an egghead is an egghead regardless of time and place.
It seems that the greatest inventors and entrepreneurs aren’t exactly at home in academia.
It’s quite a common attitude in Austria that university careers are for people who can’t make it in the real world.
Lastly, everyone admires a great scientist, it’s the wannabe philosopher kings people can’t stand.
September 2, 2008 at 5:27 pm
jh – This Obama supporter at least is thrilled with McCain’s pick – the Democrats’ job just got a whole lot easier. Please, please keep her on the ticket.
September 2, 2008 at 6:11 pm
Matt
We shall see how she plays out. Again the attack on her is unreal.
She will appear on talking head shows have her cruciable by fire. I just wonder if so many people were thinking she will failn, then what is up with the over top attacks. I smell fear. SHe is a Republican you can’t put in a box but no doubt many will try to do ut. I have ssen how poor JOhn Mccain is potrayed as some far right zealot that is uncaring. So people will do what they will have to do to win.
September 2, 2008 at 6:26 pm
Palin’s not a messiah.
On the other hand, I do respect her for being a mother of 5 who served two terms as mayor and went on to govern a state.
I respect the fact that when it came down to it — chose to give birth to a Down Syndrome child rather than abort and whose daughter chose to give life rather than death to the living, human consequence of a bad decision on her part.
I respect Palin for putting ethics over party affiliation — for resigning from her post (and a whopping salary) and taking on a corrupt Republican leadership and winning.
I respect her opposition to abuse of taxpayer funds — selling her predecessor’s jet on Ebay, for instance. =)
While I don’t do much hunting myself in Queens, New York — but I love the fact that she can fish, hunt moose, and operate a firearm.
Do I think Palin has the capacity to summon heroic forces from the spiritual depths of ordinary citizens and to unleash therefrom a symphonic chorus of unique creative acts whose common purpose is to tame the soul and alleviate the great challenges facing mankind? — Well, probably not. But she has invigorated the Republican party with her spirit and her witness to the pro-life cause, and I’m looking forward to hearing her speak this week. =)
September 2, 2008 at 6:54 pm
“summon heroic forces from the spiritual depths of ordinary citizens and to unleash therefrom a symphonic chorus of unique creative acts whose common purpose is to tame the soul and alleviate the great challenges facing mankind?”
Is that a Campbell original in praise of the Wizard of O ?
September 2, 2008 at 6:56 pm
I heard one of my favorite D.C. pundits say that the most vicious attacks on Palin would come from East Coast intellectuals.
Having myself been raised in the North East and diploma from the Columbia University of NY, I didn’t think there was much merit to such prognostication … until I read this post.
Interestingly, my blog was quoted, though it was actually a quote by Dr. Mark Byron, a college professor likely to have been laying as bait for such responses. I’ll have to email and let’m know he’s landed himself a whopper!
September 2, 2008 at 7:51 pm
You’ve got to be kidding, MM. You purport to see “almost messianic-like admiration” in a blog post that merely admired Palin’s moose-hunting, etc., even while you insisted blindly that there was no quasi-messianic quality to such phenomena as the Obama-inspired “American Prayer” video?
September 2, 2008 at 7:53 pm
“You’ve got to be kidding, MM.” He’s not kidding. He’s deluded.
September 2, 2008 at 7:57 pm
What you say is completely true in the abstract. In reality, modernity has so infected the Western world that her culture is rotten to the very core. Her elites are, and have been for a couple of centuries, exceptionally abhorrent.
When we get a society that produces elites worthy of elitism, I’ll take you seriously. Until then, keep shilling for the pro-infanticide candidate and slamming the pro-choice woman in the race.
Or, you could try putting your catholicism before your pet politic viewpoints, instead of torturing reality to make it appear anyone who disputes you is an apostate.
September 2, 2008 at 7:59 pm
“instead of torturing reality to make it appear anyone who disputes you is an apostate”
And let’s not let them forget that this is exactly a tactic of some here on Vox Nova. We’re not following the ‘right’ Jesus, after all. We’re obviously not part of the shrinking Church, don’tcha know.
September 2, 2008 at 8:12 pm
“St. Buckley was not referring to doctors or scientists, you know, people with degrees that are hard to get. I am sure he meant people from departments like political science, philosophy, English, Gender Studies and what not”
So SCIENTIFIC opinion is respected in conservative circles. they’re not snooty elites like those idiot philosophers.
So we should defer to scientific opinion in questions of. . .what?
Global warming? The origin of Life on Earth? The origin of life in the womb?
The modern conservative DOES respect the elite. . . as long as the elite agrees with what the modern conservative antecedently believes.
September 2, 2008 at 8:12 pm
(sorry, forgot to close the italics)
September 2, 2008 at 8:14 pm
The main point those, is what should the elite be?
You seem to believe that extreme specialization entitles one to rule, ala any PhD. I would certainly argue that rising at 3am, when one is 16 and still at studies and extracurricular activities, to track, kill, dress and retrieve large game, especially a young girl who does so, elevates one to elite status, far more than knowing every little detail about the tsetse fly.
That which you identify with Plebian classes would have scandalised the society that gave us the Plebians themselves. After all, Lucretia was known for her spinning, not her expertise in the ethnographic expression of spinning techniques among Persians. Cincinatus is recalled for his warrior’s courage and his farmer’s humility, not his extraordinarily deep study of the effects of tax increases on olive production.
Your heart may be in the right place, MM, (and I admit this is obviously debatable) but your extraordinarily myopic worldview is on full display in this post. As is your abject fealty to modernity, as oppressive a thought system as man ever did devise.
September 2, 2008 at 8:54 pm
Elitism is twofold. In addition to acknowledging your talents and gifts, your refusal to acknowledge them in others. Good elites use their gifts to help others. Bad elites use their gifts to rule others. Thomas Jefferson and John Adams were the former. Barack Obama is the latter.
September 3, 2008 at 1:45 am
God hands out various talents and temperments in his infinite wisdom. The ivy covered elites are no more suited to public office than the moose skinners.
September 3, 2008 at 10:17 am
I think there’s an inferiority complex among those who studied things like philosophy, theology, English and the like. Because, after all, one can survive without being told about Leibniz’s take on Monaden, but without a doctor, not so much. Do try Leibnitz cookies though. Butter cookie with milk chocolate covering. The meaning of life will become clear immediately.
September 3, 2008 at 4:31 pm
Anti-elitism did not pop up in America in the 1970’s or even in the 20th century. The election of Andrew Jackson, the founder of the Democratic Party, was in large part a reaction against the Virginia and New England elites that had held power since the days of the Revolution.
The British settlers who founded this country came from very different parts of the UK and settled in different areas in the US. I highly recommend the book “Albion’s Seed” by David Hackett Fischer which traces the 4 British folkways in America that shaped this country to a very large extent. The Puritans from the eastern fens of England who settled in New England were diametrically opposed to the “Distressed Cavaliers” from the south of England who moved to the Chesepeake Bay area. The Quakers from the English Midlands who settled in PA and Delaware had almost nothing in common with the largest immigrant group, those from the English/Scottish borderlands and Northern Ireland who moved into the backcountry of New Hampshire, Penn., Virginia and Georgia.
All of these groups disliked and distrusted the others. The “red state/blue state” divide didn’t begin in 1972 or 1980 or 2000 – it was there before the founding of the country. Bostonians and Virginians held each other in contempt even before slavery was introduced. The orginal “Redneck culture” existed long before America did – it was formed from hundreds of years of cattle rustling and battles along the Scottish-English border. Because the “borderers” (commonly, but inaccurately known as “Scotch-Irish”) were the most numerous group by far, they have molded much of US culture – individualistic, tough, anti-elitist, pioneering, practical and yes, also, violent and frequently contemptous of “book larnin’.”
September 3, 2008 at 7:39 pm
Thank you for the compliment of quoting my post on the Republican tactics. Unfortunately I think you have misrepresented me. I was having just as big a shot at the Republican ‘aww shucks’ spin as I was at the Democrat ‘we are the elite’ attitude. Admittedly it is easier to take shots from afar (Australia) but was merely expressing a mild interest in that side of things. My main point about Palin is that, however cynical I am them choosing her, it clearly shows that the pro-life agenda is well and truly on the political table in this election in a way it never seems to have been before.
Unfortunately the Democrats (and some Republians) will work very hard to neutralise this influence and either before the election (via Democrats) or shortly after (via Republicans) she will be moved to a safe place where she can affect nothing substantial.
September 4, 2008 at 10:22 am
As an elite conservative you should just rest your parochial little mind and so as I say. There, now don’t you feel better? Just let me do your thinking for you. If you have a problem with that then maybe you should reconsider your own elitism.
September 5, 2008 at 1:54 pm
It’s not the elite people have a problem with. It’s the elitists who look down on blue-collar workers that we have a problem with.
September 5, 2008 at 7:30 pm
“Republicans define “elitism” with cultural signifiers: If you like latte, live on the coasts, eat organic food, drive a car made in northern Europe (Saab, Volvo, VW…) hunt birds rather than deer…etc.”
I’m a Republican. I love latte. I live in L.A. half the time. I eat organic food sometimes, I just don’t make a religion of it. I can grow or shoot my own food. I have an “Ivy League comparable” education and I know all sorts of multi-syllable words and I even speak two languages. But I’m from a town of 1,200 — in the racist South, no less! So I guess that sucks all my accomplishments into a black hole.
“…structures and privileges of Southern Post-Reconstruction society.”
Are you KIDDING me? Have you BEEN to the South? Or read a semi-objective book about reconstruction? Among the many other things I get tired of is the holier-than-thou attitude of people from outside of the south who try to pretend that kidnapping Irish farm girls from their families and forcing them to work in sweatshops in the northeast was NOT slavery. And like a lot of other people from the south, I have white ancestors who were slaves. And you really think that Reconstruction was the kindly people from the north coming HELP us? Would you like to know WHY there aren’t big city elitists in the south? Because, as you might notice, there aren’t big cities! Now, why is that?
I really resent the attitude, stated or otherwise, that southern Republicans are racists. I’m not saying that racism never existed in the south and doesn’t still exist, but it has long since stopped being a prevailing attitude. In 2008, white Republicans (which is not redundant, but the only thing liberals hate worse than Republicans is black Republicans) are not opposed to Obama because he’s black. Give me a break. THAT is exactly the kind of elitism we’re trying to tell you we’re sick of!
September 15, 2008 at 1:07 pm
[...] ordinary and normal, in stark contrast to the “freaks” who constantly attack her. I’ve already noted the glorification of the cultural baggage that surrounds her: the beauty queen, eloping with her [...]