Redneck progressive Joe Bageant's Mystery Political Consultant is back with a post that includes a class-based insight into why the American elites, including media elites, despise religious conservatives. Excerpt:
Elite consensus on the issues of race, sex and role of faith in public life are to the left of public opinion, the only area in which this is the case. Elite opinion is overwhelmingly secular, pro-choice, supportive of gay rights and hostile to overt displays of racism.Tolerance and liberalism on this front is a very useful tool, since it buys political space to be more conservative on the more important money issues. It also enjoys the advantage of making the right enemies, after all who wants to be on Pat Robertson's side during weekend dinner parties at the Hamptons.
When social conservative complain about the "Liberal Media" they are not wrong, but only in regard to their issues. The contempt of the American elite for the religious right is quite real. What social conservatives misunderstand is that the hostility against them is not because the threat their ideas represent but only a display of the traditional contempt that the merciless strong have for people they consider to be the feeble minded weak.
The significance of the religious right in our politics is only in the wonderful diversions their issues create. Issues that feed a war between urban educated middle classes against the more numerous, the ever more frustrated lower income fundamentalists on issues that are unsolvable in nature.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
"There is a big difference between the church and the government."
Does that mean that churches who believe in pacifism shouldn't pay taxes? The Caesar coin may have had two sides, but it was the same coin. Did Jesus not tell his disciples to render onto Caesar? Hypothetical question, obviously. He didn't specify when to not give money to govt. You can argue all you want about separating church and state -- a good conservative issue, no -- but in the end our neighbor in need is our neighbor indeed. And whether she's helped through our church or through foreign aid to alleviate poverty, there's potential for one less victim of starvation. God can use the Church and He can use government. He's much bigger than our puny, political tripe.
MargaretE
Ossicle, I kid. Actually, you gave a very honest answer, and I think you're dead on. That's exactly why elitists like yourself hate religious conservatives. But I'm starting to wonder why we use the term "elitist" for people like Ossicle. They're pretty much everybody I know, and their's is the prevailing cultural norm. What's so "elite" about it?
There are, indeed, very stupid Ivory-tower academics churning out all sorts of nonsense. Somehow this is supposed to reflect poorly on Democratic politicians, although no one's ever quite explained why. There is, objectively speaking, a lot more, and lot worse, nonsense churned out by the far right, but people aren't suggesting some white-supremacy militia is setting Republican policies. (I'm sure 'Daily Kos' has suggested that, and also that the moon landings were faked and that Hungarians are dirty ghoulies who wash in peanut oil. Because, apparently, now 'Daily Kos', means 'any post ever made there by anyone'.)
Those were the original elites, but you can only make fun of college professors for so long before voters realize, hey, those guys aren't running for office.
So Republicans started defining 'elite' as 'anything we can make fun of'. At all. There are all sorts of terms you can use to describe Obama more than McCain, but, even subjectively, it makes no sense to consider Obama 'richer' or 'more out of touch with middle class' or 'earned less of his own money' or any of the other normal meanings of 'elite'.
Despite some people not liking it, it really is an issue of framing, because, otherwise, it's sheer nonsense. If you operate in the imaginary world where all liberals are latte-sipping unemployed college students, atheists, minorities, and elite millionaires, well, that's what you'll see.
I, OTOH, fail to even slightly fit into any of those categories. As does every other Democrat I know. (Well, I do know a few college students.)
Seriously, look at the red states and the blue states. Zoom in. Pick any red or blue county. Look at the actual divide and you'll see it's almost always within 65/35. 99% of Democrats are not 'liberal elite', and 99% of Republicans are not whatever the stereotype there would be.
For a thought experiments, grab every Democrat and pair him up with a Republican that lived almost exactly his lifestyle. You'd have maybe 10% extra people left over at the end. And you guys left-overs would be more disreputable than ours...we'd have a lot of actors, you guys would have a lot of militia members. (We wouldn't actually have a lot of professors, simply because we'd pair them off with right-wing think-tank guys who do basically the same thing, except don't also get paid to teach.)
And that article would be a good deal less confusing if it used 'beltway' instead of 'elite', because using elite the way it does, while actually correct, renders it near incomprehensible in this world where Republicans (and some Democrats) constantly use it to mean something entirely different.
And this 'consensus' is exactly what the Netroots is attempting to fight. We're kicking those idiots out. The motto of Daily Kos is more and better Democrats.
I recommend that you guys do the same on your side. Of course, you've got a slightly paradox there, in that if you start putting in politicians that do what people actually want, instead of the beltway consensus, you'd essentially lose on every one of your issues. (No, despite what the article says, you'd lose on your social issues too. The consensus is 10 years ahead of the societal curve on homosexuality...or, rather, it was five years ago, and hasn't moved since. Whereas society has. And will keep moving. And society hasn't wanted to outlaw abortion for decades.)
On reflection I feel I should explain something.
I never lived in the Deep South or the Old South. I think I wrongly made comparisons about parts of the South to the rest of the South. I grew up in "The Mountain South" for lack of a better word. And a specific part there in.
I do think there are cultural differences in regions of this country. If I'm more comfortable with the "Mountain South" this is simply due to early childhood memories and aesthetic preference. I may have seemed to denigrate the North in an unfair manner. There are many things about the culture of New England or the Midwest that are admirable. There are many things about the Mountain South I find offensive and strange. However I don't see why it's terrible to say their culture has some good qualities too.
On the elite thing I really think both parties will generally be dominated by an elite. This is simply the nature of leadership to an extent. Palin is something of an outlier as she's one of the least elite choices I've seen and the idea she's too ordinary, even in the pettiness of certain scandals, is actually of some concern to me. We're going to be led by an elite to some extent. Just like world records in sports are rarely going to be made by ordinary Joes who put on a pair of tennis shoes one morning.
I think the issue between the parties is what kind of elite should rule us. Traditionally Republicans prefer elite soldiers and businessmen. The Democrats prefer their elite to be academics and activists. Both traditionally like children of privilege, but in the last 50 years I'd say Democrats like that a bit more. (Kerry, Gore, Kennedy, and Stevenson. The Bushes are an old-money family, but other post-war GOP candidates don't seem to fit that description as well and when they do they lose: See Romney or Forbes) As I'm an academic with little interest in the military or business the GOP has always been a weird fit for me. Hence I've kind of voted more against the Democrats than for them.
Anyway George Will was right it's about what kind of elite you want, not whether you want an elite at all.
RR inspires me to point out something else: no society survives and grows without the dynamic tension between conservatism (preserve what we have) and liberalism (I'd choose progressivism, actually, but the reader should get the picture, I'm sure). A semantic point worth emphasizing: small-c and small-l is what I'm talking about. A descriptive label is never definitional to the individuals in the group so described. I'm a lifelong Democrat, I've never pulled the "big lever" in any election, and my mix of liberal and conservative attitudes and opinions does not make me a "moderate".
People feel. Lack of feeling is a key component of evil. In my travels (sorry, don't mean to be lyrical or pompous) I've encountered only one sure way to solve the problems and resolve the conflicts of any time or context:
Leave your anger at the door, and when you sit down, agree that everyone at the table is there for the good of the community. Anyone who is not explicitly there for that good either doesn't belong there or needs to be investigated. ;-D
One other thing often forgotten: today's liberals usually become tomorrow's conservatives.
The "Anonymous Political Consultant"'s assessment seems on the money to me. The political opinions of the religious right are so ridiculously far outside the mainstream of opinion that they're really only addressed as a source of entertainment. They are not taken seriously by liberals because they are fundamentally childish and unrealistic.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.