May 12, 2008
Calling Ivy-League-Educated Candidates Elitist Is Anti-Democratic, Columnist Argues
Tagging Barack Obama an elitist who is out of touch with the working class, in part because he is Columbia- and Harvard-educated, allows “deeply anti-democratic” ideas to fester, argues Stanley Crouch in an article posted on the Web site RealClearPolitics.com
“It has become commonplace for the predictable millionaire puppets of Fox News and their conservative talk radio counterparts to present themselves as the voices of the working class in combat with an educated elite from places like Harvard,” Mr. Crouch writes.
But those are clichés, he argues, that are anti-democratic “because they scoff at this basic truth: Education is the key to social mobility in our country.”
“The presidency,” he continues, “is not an Academy Award for Best Performance as a bowler, a fast food gobbler, a whisky and beer guzzler, a hard-hat-wearer or a hunter. We ought to know how far leadership capabilities are from surfaces, slogans and costumes.
“And we should be ever suspicious of anyone or any group that scorns education, that pretends to believe that only the simple and the uncomplicated can express the national ethos.”
Sara Hebel | Posted on Monday May 12, 2008 | PermalinkComments
Previous: Is Ralph Nader Poised to Raid the Democrats' Youth Vote?
Next: Bob Barr Enters the Presidential Campaign
Good name for a bowling team: The Elitists.
— original marci May 12, 03:32 PM #
Interesting that the right is full of college drop outs such as Rush Limbaugh and Tucker Carlson…
Dick Cheney left UW Madison before completing his doctorate…problem with follow-through?
— Amy James May 12, 03:40 PM #
Education doesn’t make one elitist. Trying to relate to the working class by talking about the price of Arugula at Whole Foods is elitist.
— jason May 12, 03:52 PM #
My father attended Yale on a 100% scholarship back in the 1950s. His family was poor and he helped to support them with his paper route earnings when he was in high school. He want on to be a pastor and a professor—never making lots of money. I also attended college with nearly 100% scholarship. I agree with Couch for the reasons he states. We should also remember that we shouldn’t generalize the people who attend those universities. They aren’t all born with silver spoons in their mouths. I grew up economically poor, but with my father’s multiple degrees we kids always had high expectations for ourselves. It is too bad that we feel there is something untrustworthy about someone who is thoughtful and well educated. Often that means that one thinks of others before thinking of oneself because you have a broader picture of the world and your place in it.
— Reb May 12, 04:00 PM #
I’d agree to a point with the author – I’d very much agree with jason in #3. Wasn’t it Herrnstein & Murray in the ‘Bell Curve’ who pointed out that education at the more “elite” schools wasn’t as isolated and “elitist” until later in the 20th Century? (Am I allowed to mention that book on these blogs??) Then again – does elitism = monetary or does elitism = mindset of the enlightened few vs. the masses.
— JD May 12, 04:09 PM #
I am proud to be an elite (I am most likely the first African American to earn a Ph.D. in evolutionary genetics, 1988.) However being an elite, does not necessarily make one an “elitist.” Given the small size of the African Amercan middle class, most highly educated African Americans are one generation removed from poverty, and many still have family members who reside below the poverty line (as I do.) Michelle Obama comes from roots very much like my own, she was raised in a working class family that struggled on the south side of Chicago. Her experiences at Princeton can be generalized to an entire generation of African Americans who were educated on elite campuses. It is precisely because people like us have had these experiences that we can emphasize wth poor and working class people. It is absolutely outrageous that their political opponents have characterized the Obama’s as elitists (a taste for arugula doesn’t make one an elitist, it means you have enough education to shop for healthy foods for your children.) What is really at issue here is the “out-of-place” principle. This principle states that socially dominant persons (racially) have a harder time recognizing the achievements and character of persons they see as inherently inferior to them. Thus, much of the distain and distrust voiced by working class European Americans is not really abou the Obamas being elitist (they certainly don’t make that claim about the Clintons or McCains who are much, much, wealthier). It really is about them being educated, successful, articulate, but unfortunately the wrong color. In the old days, people who have just called them “uppity.” However, I believe it is imperative that working class European Americans get past this initial bias, because the other candidates in this race represent politics as usual (both Clinton and McCain.)
— Joseph L. Graves, Jr. May 12, 04:19 PM #
Obama is called elitist not because he is Harvard and Columbia-educated but because of his elitist stances (e.g. bodyguard-protected Obama argues against a concealed-carry for ordinary citizens). Do I allow for “deeply anti-democratic ideas to fester” by saying this out loud?
— Mark de Goz May 12, 04:21 PM #
Elitism, in the political sphere, is stepping outside the weary old cliches when addressing voters and their concerns. Letting market forces determine the appropriate value for goods and services is an elitist phrase but “getting government off our backs” is not, for example. So in order to be highly intelligent, well-informed (well-educated sounds snooty), and non-elitist requires lessons in the character and communication skills of Lincoln, Twain, Rodgers, and my favorite, Sam Ervin, who knew how to make physics sound like a joke from a Cracker Jack box. Don’t say hypotenuse without an “Aw shucks!”
— Droste May 12, 04:28 PM #
Ivy League educated = elitist? I guess that makes George H. W. Bush part of the “elite” that the conservatives disdain? Oh, I forgot, George II didn’t really get “educated” at Yale; he just got his degree there.
— Sandy Thatcher May 12, 04:36 PM #
You must understand that Obama is not called an elitist because he IS one. Thus it is futile to search for the reason. Any Democratic candidate is bound to be called an “elitist” before the campaign is over, because that little trick has worked for the Republicans for so long. Egad – it almost worked for Hillary.
— /case hardened May 12, 04:55 PM #
Obama seems to be a nice guy. But listen closely to his speeches, and you’ll soon realize that he’s at most enthusiastic and half-literate (a much-better speaker than Hot Springs used-car salesman Bill Clinton, however).
Unfortunately, he’s also an isolated snob — a type that we rarely elect president — who was not merely accused of telling an audience of San Francisco highrollers that small-town Americans are, in effect, pathetic idiots clinging to God and guns for relief from their bitterness (his words). Academics prefer him, because so many cling to the same defensive view of the dirty, uneducated masses: too stupid to have any understanding and just too boring to think about. As these pages illustrate, that’s part of the hopeful theology that relieves our own Chardonnay-soaked misery.
Thus, in choosing the chief executive of the largest, most difficult-to-manage organization in the world, we’re willing to overlook Obama’s obvious naïveté, inexperience motivating a complex organization to change, and shopworn policies that have failed here, there, and everywhere. Why not? Logic is something we impose on students and opponents.
— S. Britchky May 12, 06:09 PM #
Joseph’s comments are exactly the reason I fear Obama as the President. It is likely that Obama, like Joseph, has a chip on his shoulder, believing that so many white people are biased. I have a feeling race relations will worsen because of this outlook if Obama gets the office. He will instigate problems to better the black population and not work for unity. The problem, though, is not that people are criticizing Obama for being an elitist because of bias, it is because he is not being genuine. I find it hard to believe he would even go to a grocery store, except to campaign, but then he is trying to relate to blue-collar families, citing an example of arugula prices from an expensive grocery chain certainly exhibits how out of touch he is with the common people.
— jason May 12, 06:53 PM #
“Elitism” is not the issue. Obama’s problem is that he wants to “reduce inequality” by “sharing our prosperity.” In other words, he wants to take more of the money that you earned (and don’t really need) and give it to somebody who didn’t earn it but needs it—at least Obama thinks he needs it. That’s not elitism. That’s sentimentalism.
— Mike May 12, 07:36 PM #
Sorry Mike #12 that’s not sentimentalism, that’s the Beatitudes (feed the hungry, clothe the naked, etc.). Many of us out here think those are more worthy causes than you and your ilk affording that new Hummer or private jet service.
Obama is obviously a man of high standards, and of course that does make him elite in the best sense of the word.
— John May 13, 07:48 AM #
to #12 (Jason), Could you please give an example of a “problem” that Obama might “instigate,” that would “better” the Black population? What do you think the predominantly White Congress, predominantly White judicial system, predominantly White executive branch, predominantly White military, and predominantly White police force would do while Obama is instigating this “problem” to better (heaven forbid) the Black population? Do you think they would be silent? You fear one biracial man in a predominantly White country. Your fear strikes me as irrational, but I’m trying to understand your point.
— Ve May 13, 08:46 AM #
Maybe he is against concealed carry because many of the carriers will be quick to pull out the gun to blast the first black person they see and think of as threatening (just about all), perhaps even the PHD evolutionary geneticist above. Obama is threatening to many, who call him elitist, because they cannot deploy the usual black stereotypes against him to derail his candidacy (so they have to pull out something like Reverend Wright). The MSNBC report today on the kind of racism his staffers have faced is a far better indication of what the real objection to Obama is.
— Eric May 13, 09:54 AM #
“Maybe he is against concealed carry because many of the carriers will be quick to pull out the gun to blast the first black person they see…”
If this is his sentiment (which is truly racist sentiment), he might wish to make some reseach on how often such incidents occured in 48 states who have concealed carry (and 39 of those have shall-issue laws) over the last decade. Just as a reality check.
— Mark de Goz May 13, 11:30 AM #
Elitist or Not? And, what constitutes Elitism aside, —- the fact of the matter is given all the evaluative metrics (delegate count, number of states won, popular vote ascendancy, etc.) —- he is the de facto democratic nominee —- ergo, all comparative evaulations are now between McCain and Obama —- as such the nub of the issue is —- where elitism ranks in the perception of the voters per se, and for what percentage will it be the primary deciding factor in McCain vs. Obama —- vis-a-vis the casting of the actual vote.
Apropos, henceforth, in my opine, in the final analysis, the core issue is how many votes does this label actually cost, —- what energy and effort would be required to overcome or neutralize/minmize this elitist label, and what will be the net effect of votes saved? —- Of course it is a given that the utilization of any “resource requirements” will face competitive and conflicting pressures (e.g. fighting a “lack of patroitism” label will probably trump fighting a “elistist,” as would defending an attack on an economic proposal, or …)
— zahid May 13, 12:08 PM #
To #17, Hi Mark. I don’t see how you can say that fear is racist. True, I’m basing my fear on the number of police officers (Black and White, but more often, White officers) who kill unarmed Black people. Did you hear about the 92 year old Black woman, sitting in her house in GA, when the police broke in and killed her? They lied and said drug dealing was going on in her house. My thought is, if the police do this on a semi-regular basis, and they’re “trained,” maybe some ordinary guy with a gun, will blow me away, just because I walked too close to him. After your saying it doesn’t happen, I will keep in mind, that perhaps ordinary citizens won’t be so quick to kill. In fairness to Obama, he may not have that actual fear, but I sure DO!
— Ve May 13, 01:57 PM #
Hi, Ve, nice to talk to you again. Please do not confuse concealed carry with police. So far statistics overwhelmingly shows that private citizens who took a headache of going through the legal procedures of getting checked, tarined, fingerprinted are much more reasonable with their firearms than police officers. Convictions of CCW holders misusing their right are virttually nonexistent. Please understand that your fear of firearms in the hands of law-abiding citizens is unfounded. It is rooted in emotions rather than evidence. And this issue is so importnat to voters that Dems (as well as many many academics) practically shoot themselves in the foot by failing to grab its importance. Gore and Kerry paid dearly for it. Hillary has figured it out by now, but not Obama. Those votes will count, believe me, I know the people of “gun culture”.
— Mark de Goz May 13, 02:10 PM #
Well, Mark, I happen to be part of the gun culture, and I regularly shoot here in red state N.C. I also know the nature of racism and southern racism in particular. The whole rhetoric and false dichotomy of white, working class, gun owning people versus so-called “elitist” academics, minorities, and liberals is itself a pretty clearly racist division in and of itself, as if whites are working, salt of the earth, common sense types who value God and guns, while everybody voting for Obama must be liberal and academic (code for many things, including people of color and Jewish Americans, and whomever else racists want to tag as radical intellectual and non-white), or simply African-American, Latino, Asian, immigrant or any other group that is of color and not immediately associated with Academe and not embracing ultra-conservative elements. And, I might note that you rather interestingly clipped off the “and think of as threatening (just about all), perhaps even the PHD evolutionary geneticist above” portion of my statment, which emphasizes the racial stereotypes operating.
— Eric May 13, 03:17 PM #
And, it is not racist sentiment to point out the racism inherent and operating in American culture. That is another objectionable tactic at play in the current political season and in general where race is concerned. If one points out or attempts to contend with existing racism, that person and his statements and tactics are given the label of racist.
— Eric May 13, 03:19 PM #
Eric, I am an immigrant, an academic, and I do not embrace ultra-conservative elements. But I do embrace individual liberties and disagree strongly with the arguments that I should give them up because somewhere somebody might believe that those liberties could be misused. And I again call you to show me a single example of how a legal CCW owner shot an innocent person due to a racial prejudice. Please support your argument with some modicum of evidence.
— Mark de Goz May 13, 04:01 PM #
The article’s primary focus is “Elitism” —- or rather being an “Elitist” —- associatively the conjured linkage has deviated to issue of “guns” —- ownership, rights, crimes, etc.
Apropos, would like to know —- if anyone out there has some pertinent data of “elitist gun-ownership percentage” vs. “non-elitist gun-ownership percentage” per se? —- of course in some ways that brings us back to where it all started —- before percentages can be assigned, one must separate the elists from the non-elitist.
— zahid May 13, 04:30 PM #
To #20, Well, Mark, I’m going to defer to you on this issue regarding citizens shooting innocent people. I just didn’t see where Eric’s statement was racist, when you consider that innocent people are shot, even if only by the police.
My brother, a well- educated wealthy gun owner, is not worried about Obama and the Second Amendment. He said Obama knows that no one gets between an American and his gun. He said, he will vote for Obama, although doing so is against his personal interests (his taxes will be raised). He’ll do so because he knows that, mine, thank goodness, will be lowered!!
— Ve May 13, 04:56 PM #
Sure, Ve, many people will vote for Obama anyway, but why not grab an opportunity and score big points right away. Imagine, Obama saying consistently in favor of gun rights — you’d get 5-10 million votes outright! Most of us are no racists (I’d have no problem voting for C. Rice).
But we don’t like when politiciants speak against those rights:
— we know from other country examples (as well as Wash DC, Chicago) that losing gun rights does not happen overnight, but rather slowly, so we are very vary of any anti-gun rhetorics.
— we view anti-gun stances of politicians as a) elitism, b) PR baloney, c) something that helps them to be viewed in our crime-ridden society as saviors.
— Mark de Goz May 13, 05:27 PM #
To #26, Mark, Well, actually I can think of several instances in which citizens (not sure how law abiding they were) shot people because of racial prejudice. One case that comes to mind, is the man who shot the Korean student in Bloomington, IN, and then killed a Black man (former college basketball coach) in the Chicago area, and then wounded a Jewish man in the same area. I think the killer then killed himself, and I don’t think he had ever been convicted of a crime before he started killing. There have been cases of people, throughout the South,shooting and killing Black people in broad daylight, who were never punished. These killers were often considered to be “upstanding” members of the community (see Parting the Waters, by Taylor Branch for discussions of several such cases).
Now, I get your point, (and agree with it) that normal law abiding people don’t kill innocent people, but on the basis of those killings, I just mentioned, I wouldn’t say that my fear is just based on emotion.— Ve May 13, 09:43 PM #
No, Ve, the discussion was about lawful concealed carry weapon holders. Sorry, but what you mention is not relevant to that discussion.
— Mark de Goz May 13, 11:26 PM #
Mark, the discussion was about alleged elitism and whether particular stances are elitist. I pointed out that there are reasons why a person with even a respect for the 2nd Amendment might well be concerned about a broad concealed carry regime. You cannot separate issues of guns from other issues, racial mythologies of crime and violence, and American racial hisotry.
Now as for the CC business, a lot of CC studies seem to done by right wing organizations or pro-gun lobbies. Many will parse other studies to suggest that CC carriers are acquitted of murder when charged but don’t track race of shooter and race of victim or economic status of shooter or economic status of victim, or jury composition (by race and gender) which impacts conviction rates as well.
And not specifically responding to specifically rigged questions, like those likely to elicit reports and stats largely from special interest organizations doesn’t constitute a lack of evidence. We aren’t freshman comp students around here.
But just for fun, take a look at some of the CC cases of the past several years. There are more than this to discuss and compare, but work calls.
Murder of Bouncer
http://www.kare11.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=97142
Jewish Community Center Killing
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/josh-sugarmann/seattle-jewish-federation_b_26274.html
Texas CC Holders Arrests
http://www.vpc.org/press/9801tex.htm
— Eric May 14, 10:47 AM #