"The E-Harmony Election"

The E-Harmony Election: When Did Voting Become Like Dating? And When Did It Become Like Dating Yourself?

I just stumbled across this August 26th article by Melinda Henneberger and Dahlia Lithwick in Slate.  It thoroughly and eloquently captures the frustration I feel every time I hear someone defend a candidate because "I could sit down and have a beer with him" or "he/she is ordinary like me."  Americans seem to love the idea that This Is A Country Where The Boy Next Door Can Become President!

I don't want the president to be the boy next door.  I want him/her to be smarter, more capable, more thoughtful, more experienced, and more competent than I am and than most of the rest of the populace is.  The last thing I want him to be is ordinary.

Which brings up a corollary -- since when did "elite" become a dirty word?  We're already running from the dirty "L" word (well, some people are), now we're supposed to run from the dirty "E" word, too?  Elite means excellent.  Extraordinary.  Above average.  Ya know, all those things middle America supposedly believes in and strives for.  Apparently we're allowed to trumpet the elite athlete, elite student, and elite soldier, but not, god forbid, the elite candidate.  (And "elite" is not the same as "elitism."  The latter implies a supercilious, condescending attitude -- sort of like what Dick Cheney displays every time he opens his mouth.  The former is something we should hold with pride.  It's not something to be ashamed of.)

Comments

[litbrit]

Apparently we're allowed to trumpet the elite athlete, elite student, and elite soldier, but not, god forbid, the elite candidate.

THANK you.

And thank you for posting this--it's terrific.

(Also, élite has become a sneer when combined with media, as in the "East Coast media élites" Bill Donohue keeps referring to when he defends Sarah Palin's Witch-hunting pastor.)

[Lisa Simeone]

This is where the Left is partially at fault -- we have allowed the Right to make "liberal" a dirty word by running from it and not owning up to it proudly. Certainly candidates, since the Reagan era, have done this. Now the same thing is happening with "elite." But if instead of recoiling in horror, we flung it back in their faces, with a straightforward assertion of what it means, we could take it back.

Isn't one of the rules of rhetoric that you don't allow your opponent to define the terms of the debate? (I don't know, as I've never officially studied Rhetoric.) You certainly don't allow anyone -- opponent or not -- to mis-define terms. That's just asking to be clobbered. Not to mention asking for discourse, of whatever kind, to be dumbed down and distorted.

[Stephen]

Well, elite this time around is just a substitute for "uppity nigger."

It is depressing how the Presidential election is becoming more like a search for a soulmate using 29 Dimensions of Compatibility. This election is the first time, though, that I really want to meet both candidates. Obama because he's so impressive and awesome, I'm hoping some would rub off, and McCain because I want to kick him in the nuts.

What? Everyone knows he deserves it.

[Lisa Simeone]

I think denigration of the term "elite" goes back way before Obama came on the scene.

There's certainly a strain of anti-intellectualism in America that runs very deep. You'd never find this kind of crap in, say, France, where intellectualism and intellectuals are prized.

[jean]

Susan Jacoby in 'The Age of American Unreason' goes into this in detail. We've been living with this meme since the founding of the country.

[Stephen]

I'm not saying it's a new phenomenon, only that this word has been a convenient refuge for racists who want to express their displeasure at a black man suggesting he's worthy of being President, but who know enough to not be too overt about it.

[Corvus9]

Two points.

First, after eight years of Bush I am actually more sympathetic to the basic underlying premise of the "I could sit down and have a beer with him/her" consideration. I find Bush extremely annoying. Every time I see him speak, my fists tighten, my teeth grind, I shake in paroxysms of rage, I go into an animalistic frenzy and howl at the moon...you get the picture. Dude's annoying, is what I'm saying. and Cheney is just a creep.

Ditto McCain and Sarah Palin. I hate the way both of them talk. Also, McCain seems angry all the time, and Palin has the false demeanor of the kind of conniving schemer who is trying to get one over on your but can't quite hide it. Neither of these people are people I want be close to, let alone have a beer with. They make me uncomfortable.

Now, Barack? I like Barack. It's nice seeing someone whose accent sounds like mine. He lives in Chicago! My parents are from Chicago. Yeah, it's shallow, but after all this time listening to politicians who come from "somewhere else," I had never noticed how nice it is to have someone up there with a familiar accent. Fuck New England and the South. Midwest represent! But more importantly, he just is easygoing and likable, and after eight years of being on nails whenever my president speaks, I would like the opportunity to not be like that. It's seems like a serious handicap. This probably played into my support for him over Clinton. Even if they had the exact same positions, and a similar cadre of advisers (instead of a pact of scumbags like Penn and Wolfson), I would probably have supported Barack anyways. Hillary always seems slightly fake to me; I never really trusted her.

Now, it could be pointed out that many of these character disagreements are actually the result of policy differences, the result of some kind of unconscious psychological transference, but I think my point still stands. There is something to liking your president, either as an intuitive gutcheck or as a simple matter of comfort. One probably shouldn't base their entire decision upon this, but I see no reason why it shouldn't be weighed in the decision-making process. Just accept it, and stop running unlikeable motherfuckers for office.

Second, this is probably just my inner anarchist, but I see this value placed in elites as misplaced, and is just a revulsion among the left for the prevailing anti-intellectualism of some corners in America. The reason I think it is misplaced is because I think there are some perfectly good reasons for a dislike of "elites," although not the reason that Stephen brings up.

The problem with the idea of elites is the way it is used. People may not have much of a problem with certain people described as elites, as in people who have reached certain level of achievement in a certain field or discipline. The problem is that is doesn't really apply to all disciplines. Nobody talks about the elite mechanic, or the elite carpenter. Or even elite teachers. Often, elite is just used to describe certain professions, or fields or disciplines, and to signify that those professions, or fields or disciplines, are superior to others: Economists, lawyers, docters, professors (not teachers), CEOs, national media journalists, politicians. People described as elites are people who are being signified as possession power and influence. The Elite are not just people who are good at what they do. They are the people are are shaping the world. And if they aren't elected, then they are people with influence that is less than fully subject to the will of the people. And of course, that means when the world gets screwed up, it's these peoples fault, at least it's more their fault than it is mine. Hell, a lot of the fault that is mine, or some other person's of equivalent power in this country, is really the fault of the "elites," because somewhere there is an "elite" who persuaded them of their erroneous opinion.

If you hear someone attack someone for being good at something, yeah, that's silly. It's just professional jealousy or self-hatred speaking. But I think there is a very good reason to despise the members of elite society, because 99.99999% of the world's problems can be traced back to them. And the masses should not trust them any farther than they can throw them.

The problem with Lady Lynn Forrester de Rothschild calling Obama elitist is not that she is demonizing the elite. It is that she is the elite, as her name makes so abundantly clear. And yes, Obama is a member of the elite: politician, Lawyer. But his entire approach to politics is to try to mobilize the people, the non-elites. If an elitist believes in leaving things in the hands of "the elite," then Obama is in fact, an anti-elitist, as far as that can go. (Yes, he used advisors and experts to craft policy, thus relying on elite opinion, but the purpose is to put those "elites" to work at the behest of the popular will, which is, I think, the proper place for members of "elite" professions.) And this can only work if the people place some actual value in their own needs and concerns. If we just roll over for the powerful, the powerful will serve the powerful. The Rothchilds will help the Vanderbilts and the Smiths and Rodriguezes and Johnsons will be working more hours for less pay. So we do need to attack the elites. We just need to keep clear which type of elites we are attacking.

[Lisa Simeone]

Corvus,

Well, I can't argue with that.

[Lisa Simeone]

P.S. And my plumber IS elite.

[Sara]

Corvus, I think I would need a beer or six if I was going to have to sit down and talk to any of: Bush, McCain or Palin.

[litbrit]

*applauding Corvus*

Well-said, and I agree: there is a distinction between elites.

And I am an elite Mama, if I say so myself.