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?
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In