Friday, February 6, 2009

Sarah Palin & Elitism

Conservative writer Yuval Levin offers an interesting and well-written analysis of one of the most culturally divisive public figure in recent memory, as he explores The Meaning of Sara Palin:

So why did it happen? What was the Palin episode really about? The answer has much to do with the age-old tension between populism and elitism in our public life, which is to say, between the notion that we are best governed by the views, needs, and interests of the many and the conviction that power can only be managed wisely by a select few.

_____________

In American politics, the distinction between populism and elitism is further subdivided into cultural and economic populism and elitism. And for at least the last forty years, the two parties have broken down distinctly along this double axis. The Republican party has been the party of cultural populism and economic elitism, and the Democrats have been the party of cultural elitism and economic populism. Republicans tend to identify with the traditional values, unabashedly patriotic, anti-cosmopolitan, non-nuanced Joe Sixpack, even as they pursue an economic policy that aims at elite investor-driven growth. Democrats identify with the mistreated, underpaid, overworked, crushed-by-the-corporation “people against the powerful,” but tend to look down on those people’s religion, education, and way of life. Republicans tend to believe the dynamism of the market is for the best but that cultural change can be dangerously disruptive; Democrats tend to believe dynamic social change stretches the boundaries of inclusion for the better but that economic dynamism is often ruinous and unjust.


Interesting article, and worth the full read, but I am interested in exploring a tangent. I know some are wary of the charge of elitism made by conservatives, but it is a very real, if mostly unconscious, tension that has existed in the history of American politics, religion, education, and entertainment.

I can be a "high art" elitist when it comes to music, and no one, except maybe my wife, will suffer the consequences of me only having classical music CDs in my car (yes, I am one of 7 people in the US without an I-Pod). I can send my future kids to go to the poshest schools and get them the elite education that will open the best professional doors possible, and no one has to be deprived of their educational choices as a result. I can even hold religious beliefs that may be viewed as exclusionary, but as long as I practice my faith in love and peace, life goes on.

I may be a college educated, professionally successful, artistically inclined, and convicted by my faith, that should not translate into arrogance or contempt for those with different tastes, opinions, and experiences.

But for politicians, politics are a different beast altogether, as those in power have the unique ability to make their opinion law, and that is, or should be, a HUGE problem.

Politicians tend to arrogantly declare that they can solve our problems if we only trust them and give them the power and money to do so. And we forget that their solution is mostly their (or their party/lobbyist/think thank of choice) opinion, and not often enough does empirical evidence, history, natural law, or constitutional restraint factor into the formation of said opinion. Yet time and time again, we grant them the power, and time and time again we create a new set of problems that must be fixed with even more government power and taxes.

What was Einstein's quote about insanity?

No comments: