The Elitism of Thinking For Yourself

So the Republicans and the media are going to portray the likely Democratic nominee as an out-of-touch elitist. Gee, who could have predicted? They never do that! Except every four years, no matter who the nominee is and no matter what he or she says or does.

But the concept of elitism as it exists in our politics is a peculiar one. Why was John Kerry an "elitist"? Because he windsurfed and lived in a big house and put Swiss cheese on his Philly cheesesteak. Why is Barack Obama an elitist? Because he buys arugula and orders orange juice rather than coffee. For this, Newsweek is alleging, on their cover, that he suffers from a "Bubba gap."

You might think that "elitism" in a politician would consist of, say, economic policies that favor wealthy elites at the expense of common people. But you would be wrong. Apparently, that has nothing to do with it, or it would be Republicans who got portrayed as "elitists," but Republicans get to be portrayed as "regular folk" while doing everything they can to screw regular folk. Meanwhile, the people whose policies actually help ordinary people out get accused of being "out of touch elitists."

One might fairly wonder what the hell it has to do with anything if the president eats and drinks the same things as Joe Sixpack.

As Chris Bowers at Open Left put it:

Comparisons of this nature always have a not so subtle message that purchasing consumer goods in a manner that is economically sustainable for your local region, environmentally sustainable in general, demonstrative of a curiosity toward and acceptance of other lifestyles and cultures, and, of course, personally healthy actually makes you an elitist. In other words, purchasing goods in a progressive manner is itself elitist, whereas purchasing goods in a less sustainable manner that suits enormous corporations makes you a populist.

It is the same sort of twisted logic that makes you an elitist by voting for candidates who want to broadly redistribute wealth or expand civil rights and liberties. Or, more crudely, the same sort of twisted logic that currently makes you an elitist because you voted for the black guy. I don't know exactly when underdogs, small business people, alternative lifestyles and cultural minorities became the elites, but it seems to be a permanent fixture of conservative ideology in the post-civil rights era. Comparisons like "arugula track vs. beer track" is one manifestation of that ideology.

Atrios, as usual, was more succinct:

The answer is that it's elitist to do anything but conform to the prevailing social norms. It's elitist to believe that you can do things differently.

Indeed. Although since the charges of "elitism" are leveled most often and most vociferously by, well, media elites, maybe the problem is that people like Chris Matthews think the unwashed middle-american masses define "elitism" this way. And, by setting the terms of the debate in this manner, it's a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy.

There's something to it, though. I gave up eating meat in 1995, when I was 18. I always made a point of not rubbing this fact in anyone's face. It was my choice. I wasn't going to hassle anyone else about the choices they wanted to make.

For some people, though, that didn't matter. The moment they found out I was a vegetarian, it was as if I'd insulted them personally. "Why would you do that? Don't you know humans are omnivores? Haven't you heard of the food chain? What, you think you're better than me?"

Atrios is onto something; I got the distinct impression people were responding to my having chosen to do things differently as some sort of active insult to the status quo they were following, and thus as an insult to them personally. I suppose that's the nerve the media is touching when they try and get people worked up about how Barack Obama shops at Whole Foods.

Let's show those faux-populist media snobs that "reg'lar Americans" are smarter than they give us credit for. Don't believe the hype.