Enough With "Elitism"

If you're interested in knowing what type of beer Barack Obama drinks or whether Hillary Clinton follows her shot with a chaser, there are other political blogs to quench your thirst.

Elitism is a tough charge and it's a legitimate attribute to be debating. But to use as signifiers one's bowling score and one's interlocutory manner with a diner hostess ... that's a little ridiculous.

Both Obama and Clinton have had Secret Service details for a bit. Neither of them has had to open a door by themselves for a long-while... nor driven a car... nor shaken a hand without an elitist rope stretched between them and the public. Both are coddled by fundraisers, yes-ma'am-and-sir'd-by advisers, hugged by supporters.... A sense of entitlement is thereby built in to a presidential candidate. (The only exception I can think of: Barack Obama's aides -- senior AND junior, call him "Barack.")

Campaigning in Iowa in 1988, Michael Dukakis famously asked for some Belgian endives. Remember when George H.W. Bush professed to be amazed by the new contraption of a supermarket scanner? Remember when Trent Lott confessed that he'd just taken the DC metro for the first time? When Hillary Clinton, professing her feminisity, said she wasn't going to stay home and bake cookies like Tammy Wynette? George W. Bush likes back massages? Bob Dole lives in the Watergate? Pat Buchanan lives in a manse in Virginia? How many houses does John McCain own?

The point, I guess, is that it's silly to debate elitism by pointing to the alleged elitism of your opponent. Because this is Washington, D.C., and if you're a presidential candidate or a national political figure, chances are pretty good that you're developed a bit of an ego and a bit of a sense of entitlement.

Comments

You seem to be confused by what an elitist really is.

An elitist is not the same thing as being rich.

An elitist is someone who fails to respect others because of a percieved difference in sophistication, education, or wealth.

John McCain having eight houses doesn't make him an elitist unless he were to talk down to people who have less houses than he.

Obama not knowing how to work a diner doesn't make him elitist (although you could argue it makes him "out of touch" with the voters).

Just wanted to clear things up!

Posted by Jesse | April 14, 2008 4:24 PM

Belgian Endive:

Mr. Dukakis knows he must try not to be tagged as an elitist Eastern liberal. ''The danger is that this comes across as Harvard for President, bringing enlightenment to the Indians,'' said one Democratic consultant.

The Governor got in trouble with farmers for suggesting that they diversify with such ''yuppie'' crops as Belgian endive and blueberries. On a recent Midwest swing, he was more careful, spending the night on a farm and proposing some sort of assistance to farmers that would set a fair price for their crops. ''What do you think?'' he asked farmers. ''I'm here to listen and learn.''

Posted by dry_fish | April 14, 2008 4:24 PM

Just answer us one question. What then is the point of all of your blog postings on this issue? Are you just a sociologist in disguise? Or do you see your chance to be one of the sharks in a feeding frenzy so you can talk about it years later about how terrible it all is? I find it sort of odd that you have taken it upon yourself to post about nothing else about this matter but then try to put yourself above it somehow. Talk about elitism.

Posted by Steve | April 14, 2008 4:36 PM

Excellent points, although a small quibble. That G.H.W. Bush story about the shopping scanner is an urban legend: http://www.snopes.com/history/american/bushscan.asp

Posted by Brian | April 14, 2008 4:37 PM

What the hell does any of this have to do with being a good President? I don't care if the President is an "elitist" or can't "connect" with small-town or large-town voters. I don't care if the President has the support of Oprah. I don't care if the President has ever shot a gun or has a favorite Bible story. Totally f-ing asinine.

I want a President who won't start stupid wars. I want a President who won't torture. I want a President who will put competent people in charge of FEMA and the EPA. I want a President who can do something about healthcare.

Posted by BR | April 14, 2008 4:45 PM

The reason Obama has a Secret Service detail is due to viable death threats received early in his campaign. I'm sure that having this detail is a sign of elitism, Sen. Obama longs for the days when he was a plebe like us, with no need for a personal security detail guarding me and my family.

As for Obama's diner skills, something tells me he's right at home at Manny's or Macarthur's here in Chicago. Trust me, these aren't upscale joints. In fact, even where he live - Hyde Park - there are not a lot of "fine dining" joints - I think of two, maybe three. The image of Hyde Park as being an elite chardonnay-swilling crowd is fairly off-mark. Mostly places that cater to the college crowd. The surrounding neighborhoods are full of soul and fried food joints. When I first moved to Chicago, most of my friends lived in Hyde Park. It was a lot more like Berkeley, pre-Chez Panisse.

Posted by Judy | April 14, 2008 4:57 PM

Day 4 of excuses and explanations, always a moving goal post on this useful but hardly surprising bit of information dripped from a closed fundraiser a few blocks from me.

Very amusing, Tells me the internal polling has the Dems, the DNC and the Obama camp very nervous.

As for quibbles over elitism (much less "feministy", whatever that is, the little scribes are so nervous), don't worry.

While the Democrats are struggling to count their toes and fingers in the late summer and fall, the Republicans will make the label stick. I see the little Dems worry now that Obama will be labeled Marxist. A non-believer. Horrors... Don't worry, the R have been working on that for weeks, already.

Democrats should start asking why the party runs such miserable, un-vetted, cold and distant technocrats as Obama, Kerry, Gore and so on. Dukakis. They thought it would work with the preacher man. What a joke. Obama has USED religion and a religious institution to further himself politically. This is finer than 'typical white people' who have other uses for religion. I guess, judging from his words and his acts. I decry it all but I don't ask (all but demand) for peoples' votes AND demean them..

Don't get the idea I am for Hillary either. I am not.

Former Democrat, gave up on them. They can't find the door, the door knob nor their own nose. Useless. Again and again.

Posted by Marisacat | April 14, 2008 5:05 PM

1. Your info on Dukakis is just wrong. He just made a suggestion, as the other commenter notes.
2. The event with GHWBush did not happen as you claim.
3. Hey, Atlantic, maybe you need to think about factcheckers for bloggers. The Atlantic brand should mean something. Or just make them google their own facts.

Posted by Henry Clay | April 14, 2008 5:33 PM

Both Obama and Clinton have had Secret Service details for a bit

I love the equivalence. Clinton's had a detail for the past 16 years and Obama's had one for about 6 months. But I guess that counts as "a bit."

Posted by nattyb | April 14, 2008 5:37 PM

The film of GHW Bush in the market at the check out utterly flummoxed by the scanner is readily available. I have seen it twice since Friday.

Really silly to falsely defend dessicated, all but mindless former presidents, whether Bill, still ambulatory (mores's the pity) or GHW, who jumps from planes (cradled by a manservant) better than he manages much else these days.

Posted by Marisacat | April 14, 2008 5:48 PM

Obama in Iowa on the topic of farm prices:

"Anybody gone into Whole Foods lately and see what they charge for arugula."

What the hell is arugula?

Posted by Tim K | April 14, 2008 5:55 PM

Funny that Ambinder titles his piece "enough with elitism" while then going on to say Elitism is a tough charge and it's a legitimate attribute to be debating.

In the 1st comment, Jesse defines it as lack of respect, looking down on others over disparities in sophistication, education, wealth. That is inadequate. The fear of elitism in a leader is not that they merely might be snobs. They may actually be great people that care, in the abstract, about everybody and are "sneerless" - but at the same time in a bubble, unconnected and not understanding of the legitimate needs and concerns of the masses.

That was really the biggest concern people outside the "Teddy Kennedy I'd vote Satan onto the SCOTUS if he was pro-choice, and against Jesus if he opposed abortion" Wing of the Democrat Party. There really were several Senators that were open to voting either way on Roberts depending on if his unquestioned brilliance had somehow detached him from everyday American society. Roberts passed that test. No elitist.

In the Presidency, especially in today's world where the Gulf between the Ruling Elites in America and the People has greatly widened, we do not want a President that fails to lead for all the People. Answers like "Wow, gas prices are headed to 4 dollars a gallon? I didn't know that..." do not inspire confidence that the President is looking out for my interests. Nor do statements made to SF millionaires that Marxist theory explains those unwashed white working class Democrat masses with their silly racism, religion, guns, anti-gay marriage, and anti-immigrant feelings they "cling" to who could be elevated to the enlightenment SF wealthy Dems have if they were only smart enough to get a good job or the Fed Gov't gave them one.

Obama is open to the elite charge more than Hillary or McCain - for the simple reason that while they came into money later in life - no one was schmootching their butts in their formative years and raving about how "special" they were as they lived with executive-level parents or grandparents. McCain for sure because he was a guy who lived in quarters the size of Michelle Obama's shoe closet that he shared with another pilot and was a 43-year old making middle-class wages and passed over for Admiral and involuntarily spearated from the service before he met his beer distributor heiress.

Hillary entered the Elite when her husband's power gained her the cushy law firm jobs with little work required and all the "Boards" she sat on beginning in her mid-30s.

But the Obamas have both been selected on brains and affirmative action criteria for "special treatment, as special black people of high promise" since they were back in grade school. Elitism and haughtiness comes naturally.

Posted by Chris Ford | April 14, 2008 6:06 PM

This debate is really getting tired (witness the rant of the previous post). And it needs to end soon. I've had Hall & Oates' song "Out of Touch" in my head for the past 4 days. Enough is enough of this b.s. debate.

Posted by Dan | April 14, 2008 6:35 PM

The reason why Marc is trying to squash the "elitism" debate is because it hurts Hillary badly.

Obama never called Clinton an "elitist". However Clinton sure called Obama one. Instead of telling us commenters not to talk about that, why don't you write a post telling Hillary to not be a hypocrit?

Why, because this is why:

Hillary in 2007: "Sen. Obama's remarks are elitist and they are out of touch."

Hillary in 1992: "I suppose I could have stayed home and baked cookies and had teas but what I decided to do was fulfill my profession"

Bill Safire in 1992: "The cookies-and-tea stereotype is elitism in action."

So why is not germane again to talk about "elitism"? When in fact it is the charge that Hillary herself brought to the debate. Marc Armbinder has no qualms posting all other sundry charges that Hillary makes. But this conversation is somehow off limits? I wonder why? Some people think everyone else is just stupid.

Posted by Bubba | April 14, 2008 7:51 PM

Funny that Ambinder titles his piece "enough with elitism" while then going on to say Elitism is a tough charge and it's a legitimate attribute to be debating.

Funny indeed. I think he meant to say that we should only discuss elitism as long as it is only focussed on Obama when others are making those charges. When those charges are revealed to be phony and hypocritical, well then we cannot talk about the "elitist" hypocrits making that charge in the first case.

It is a legitimate attribute only as long as we talk about Obama, eh?

Posted by Bubba | April 14, 2008 7:56 PM

I'm not quite sure why "elitism" became such an all-purpose, automatically discrediting word in politics. With the coarsening and dumbing down of culture, I think we could probably use some more "elitism."

And, I think "elitism" is a poor word to describe Obama's remarks and what they represent. I'd argue that "provincial" is a better description. Like many coastal, urban liberals, he does not seem to understand that many persons have different backgrounds and experiences which can lead them to different conclusions on things like the role of private ownership of firearms or the political implications of their faith. Many urban, coastal liberals think these views must be the result of cynical manipulation by others. Obama doesn't have to agree with their views, but if he hopes to engage and to persuade these voters he should acknowledge that their views are as sincerely formed and held as his own views.

Posted by VaGuy | April 14, 2008 8:13 PM

Webster defines elitism: 1. elit * ism (noun) 1: leadership by an elite. 2: consciousness of belonging to an elite. -- elit * ist (noun) elit * ists.

Whether it be special forces, politicians, etc.; elitism, is kind of synonymous. So, here's a story about an elitist. Hillary Rodham, arms extended, toddles toward the home-movie camera. Hillary's present-day voice-over explains, the Rodham family cottage, down by the lake, lacked indoor plumbing. It was hardship borne from the start. Yet, more telling events seem to fall by the wayside. Take twenty-seven year old Hillary's first real job. The upshot: Jerry Zeifman fired Hillary for unethical practices during the Watergate Investigation. Why was Hillary fired? “Because she was a liar,” Zeifman said in a recent interview. “She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer. She conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality.”

“I have gone [duck] hunting. I am not a hunter. But I have gone hunting," says Hillary. Perhaps as amusing, is how an elitist politician worth over $100 million-dollars, espouses small town family values. Not only does Mr. Zeifman’s account go to character, it goes to a lifelong pattern of lying and obfuscation. It took Zeifman twelve years to get his story aired. After Watergate, Zeifman could not recommend Hillary for any subsequent position of public or private trust, nor furnish her with a letter of recommendation. After that, Hillary's employment record is one of strict nepotism, cronyism, and amnesia.

Although few suspected the lengths to which Hillary would go, a leopard never changes her spots. According to Mr. Zeifman, it’s not just Hillary’s dishonesty; that’s a fact not in dispute. More to the point is the overall timeframe, in which she has behaved in a fraudulent manner. "The Clintons corrupted the soul of the Democratic Party." -Henry Ruth, lead Watergate courtroom prosecutor. Again, Hillary Clinton is a bold-faced liar, who will stop at nothing. Should anyone doubt either Mr. Zeifman, or Mr. Ruth’s veracity regarding the Clintons, dispute this: http://theseedsof9-11.com

Ps. Parental reminder: due to possible long-term side effects, please use caution when teaching a child to quack like a duck.

Posted by Peggy McGilligan | April 14, 2008 9:52 PM

The "Bittergate" charges are indeed bullshit, which is why it's so infuriating that she's making them, knowing full well that they're false.

Of course, she makes them just the same, which is why Hillary is a sleazy, status quo politician whom I'll be happy to see the back of.

Posted by ched | April 15, 2008 3:28 AM

BBC today: "In America, it seems presidential candidates have to dumb down in order to get elected."

Thanks a lot, American media. You've made us the laughing stock of the world.

Posted by KathyF | April 15, 2008 3:33 AM

But the Obamas have both been selected on brains and affirmative action criteria for "special treatment, as special black people of high promise" since they were back in grade school. Elitism and haughtiness comes naturally.

So...black people who succeed are necessarily out of touch elites?

That's not racist at all!

Posted by Starscream | April 15, 2008 7:04 AM

How to talk American:

"I get to be the most thoughtless, clueless, selfish, self-regarding, provincial, entitled, belligerent, giant asshole I want, without earning or deserving the right to any of it -- just don't call me a goddamn elitist!!!"

Posted by Bill | April 15, 2008 7:55 AM

[quote][i]BBC today: "In America, it seems presidential candidates have to dumb down in order to get elected."[/i]

Thanks a lot, American media. You've made us the laughing stock of the world.
[/quote]

Exactly what part of Obama's "bitter" comments did you find intellectually enlightening?

The crux of elitism is that the so-called "elites" dumb it down. The media just replays the sound bite.

I'm clinging to my gun.

Posted by mattc | April 15, 2008 8:03 AM

Exactly what part of Obama's "bitter" comments did you find intellectually enlightening?

Ummm....it was based a good deal in truth?

Posted by Bill | April 15, 2008 8:06 AM

I'm with VAGuy. When the hell did "elite" become a pejorative term? Thanks, but I'll take some elitism over the "aw shucks" cowboy doofus who presently occupies the White House.

Posted by Gob Bluth | April 15, 2008 1:38 PM