No right is more precious in a free country than that of having a voice in the election of those who make the laws under which, as good citizens, we must live. Other rights, even the most basic, are illusory if the right to vote is undermined.
- US Supreme Court

Saturday, April 19, 2008

elitist persecution

I love Jon Stewart. He was the first guy I thought of when Obama did that one-fingered salute thing and then brushed Clinton/bird poop off his shoulders. Remember how Jon ignored the in-crowd to talk straight to the TV audience when he did the Academy Awards? How bout that Bush press corp comedy thing, eh?

But just as I went from expecting to vote for Obama to becoming actively opposed, so too I am re-evaluating my belief that Jon Stewart is this incredibly intelligent, insightful man. I am thinking now he's just more like an amplifier - what everyone else believes, he magnifies.

Worse, he is helping the defeat of the Democratic party - and progressive ideals. He just doesn't know it yet. By jumping into the existing tension between two incompatible beliefs within the Democratic party, he is widening the split.

(Two incompatible beliefs: that the Democratic party is for the working man, and believes in "all men are created equal", vs. the idea that the Democratic party is aristocratic, smarter than everyone else - and therefore better suited to deciding on behalf of the less intelligent how things ought to be run.)





The basic problem is that he doesn't understand what the word elitist means to those who are using the word - that the word elitist is being used to convey a concept the English language has no word for.

It means something like the belief that the notion that democracy is flawed, because inferior people get to vote - and implies that the fix involves disenfranchising the unworthy (or, conversely, that if only the unworthy could be stopped from voting, so that their betters could run things, America's problems would go away).

Which, in my view, is what this election is turning out to be all about: disenfranchising the people, so that the media can choose the "worthier" candidate over the will of the little guy voters.

Does he really believe I approve of Clinton's performance because I am fooled into thinking she's something she isn't? Can anyone really believe I am so dumb I don't know Clinton doesn't normally do shots the way they do it in Crown Point, IN?

Well, yes, it appears that Stewart and his audience really do think I am that dumb.

Stewart's humor is probably tremendously funny to those who think elitism means...well, what Stewart thinks it means. Yes, it is silly to suggest that Barack Obama is elitist and the Clintons aren't, if you define elitist as being something defined by wealth, rather than attitude.

But to me, it's not funny: my former hero is taking the other side in a debate that feels a lot like "me and mine" being put on trial. And Stewart appears to be saying, yes, it's true - those who disagree with Obama are pandering to unworthy idiots.

Like all other civilized types, he doesn't understand why Clinton would down shots with the yokels, and so he assumes she is wrong to do so, even ridiculous.

Of course, with the liberal elite, you always have to wonder - perhaps they genuinely do believe that all of America's problems would just go away if John Kerry types got to pick and choose which voters ought to be allowed to vote. Maybe they are all so genuinely enamored of what liberals have done that they think forcing a liberal agenda on the nation would solve all its ills. I would have had a hard time believing that smart, educated, sophisticated people could be reduced to such simpleminded scapegoating, but it seems my big problem has been the fact that I overestimate other peoples' intelligence.

update: look what I found! anyone else remember this? Bet you could tell who is/isn't a "Reagan Democrat" by just mentioning this song - was it really 1981 this came out?


No comments: