John Ridley, blogging at NPRs Visible Man has a post up regarding the ongoing brouhaha about who is an “elite” and who isn’t: The Elitist Tipping Point. He notes, amongst other things:
Folksiness is a queer thing. You can be from a well-to-do family, attend an Ivy League school and be a “regular Joe” like George W. Bush, or you can be from a well-to-do family, attend an Ivy League school and be haut monde like John Kerry.
Or you can grow up living on food stamps in a single-parent home, attend an Ivy League school and be an “elitist” like Barack Obama for implying that people get upset and myopic when they loose their jobs.
Indeed.
And along the lines of what I was getting at yesterday:
we’re electing the president of the U.S.; still the most powerful person in the world. I don’t want an underachiever working on my car’s transmission. Why would I want someone regular sitting in the Oval Office? Sorry, give me somebody who’s demonstrated a capacity to excel.
Update: Link to my previous post fixed–I had grabbed the wrong url earlier.
Sphere: Related ContentFiled under: 2008 Campaign, US Politics | |
The views expressed in the comments are the sole responsibility of the person leaving those comments. They do not reflect the opinion of the author of PoliBlog, nor have they been vetted by the author.
August 22nd, 2008 at 1:15 pm
[...] debate over “elitist” candidates and what it means goes on. Political dirty text tricks: Some of the folks who signed up to be informed of Obama’s Veep [...]
August 22nd, 2008 at 2:00 pm
You seem to be confusing “a demonstrated capacity to excel” with elitism. I don’t think most people see them as the same thing at all.
In the case of both Kerry and Obama the problem is there’s nothing there in the way of accomplishments (outside of electoral victory in very liberal domains). Therefore the tendency to talk down to people. It’s easier to get people to buy into what you’re selling if you act as if you have the smarts and the gravitas — in other words you’re among the elite (and it helps if you’re talking to people in places like Chicago or Mass). That “I know better than you” attitude is what many see as elitist (in the worse sense of the word), not accomplishment. Acting elite is used as a substitute for accomplishment. It’s harder to make that charge against a guy who had military accomplishments (McCain) or business ones (GWB) than Obama or Kerry.
P.S. I don’t think your link pointed to the correct post. I think you meant to link to this one
August 22nd, 2008 at 3:52 pm
It’s not whether or not a candidate has the capacity to excel or not; it’s what they excel at that determines whether or not they are fit for the Oval Office.
No one excels at everything.
If I have a problem with my car, I call an excellent mechanic, not an excellent plumber. Which is not to say that I don’t like my plumber, or that I think he is not excellent; he’s just not excellent in the right way.
August 22nd, 2008 at 6:32 pm
No one excels at everything.
If I have a problem with my car, I call an excellent mechanic, not an excellent plumber. Which is not to say that I don’t like my plumber, or that I think he is not excellent; he’s just not excellent in the right way.
Looks like you’ve been reading Plato’s Republic, Capn. D!
Good work!
If we follow the Socratic line of argument, I guess the question is, which candidate is the most concerned with truth?
McCain is clearly a good warrior, and certainly could be part of the (sub)guardian class. But since he is so single-mindedly concentrated on militarism and shows little interest in truth and facts that he cannot bridge the need for rationality to temper emotion.
Obama, on the other hand, has the most Socratic background–being a law professor from U Chicago. He has shown his ability to withstand criticism and scrutiny and defend himself–yet he maintains an interest in questioning and pursuing complexity.
While not a philosopher in the most Socratic sense, it is pretty clear that he meets that notion much more than the unidimensional McCain.
August 23rd, 2008 at 4:33 pm
Thanks for pointing out the NPR post. The link you provided was broken. The current one is:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/visibleman/2008/08/the_elitist_tipping_point.html
August 23rd, 2008 at 11:26 pm
I don’t care if the president is a philosopher. In fact I rather prefer him not to be one. To me the notion of a philosopher as president is analogous to my idea of a plumber fixing my car. Truth is for the academia to ponder. The world is a cruel and unforgiving place, and this nation has serious problems that will require more than deep thought to fix.
August 24th, 2008 at 10:21 am
@Beth Wellington - Beth–thanks, I fixed it.
August 24th, 2008 at 12:20 pm
I don’t care if the president is a philosopher. In fact I rather prefer him not to be one.
So are you a Platonist or not?!?!?
August 25th, 2008 at 3:29 pm
Once upon a time I read Plato, in high school and as an Undergrad. However, to what degree any one philosopher has contributed to the understanding of the world that I have synthesized for myself, I am a bit wont to say.
I’m not sure that taking a philosophy that is a few thousand years old and applying it without modification to the modern world is wise. My world is different and far more complicated than Plato’s was. The consequences of war, for example, are much more intricate in today’s world than in the Hellenic era. Armies are much larger; weapons far more devastating; and you find a complicated tangle of alliances (both written and implied) that connect nations all over the world to each other. Plato didn’t even know most of that world existed. His political universe was miniscule, and the tactical world that he saw was nothing like ours.
His work, like the work of other classical philosophers (and earlier) is relevant only when modified to fit the context of the modern world.
In any case, I don’t see the office of president as a philosophical or adademic post. It is a job for a pragmatic and realistic person - not for an idealist.