« The Man-Crush Primary | Main | In Praise of Focusing American Ire on Small Middle Eastern Nations »
July 05, 2007
The Chattering Class's Reverse Elitism
To bounce off the previous post a bit, I wonder if the punditocracy's odd valuing of Republican personality traits isn't a sort of compensatory move for the chattering class's distaste for Republican policy ideas. If you want to be balanced, but think it's stupid to say that tax cuts raise revenues, you need to find some grounds on which to compliment Republicans.
So far as I can tell, these grounds tend to be that vaunted Heartland "authenticity" that journalistic elites are so acutely aware that they lack, or their apparent toughness, which journalistic elites are also acutely aware that they lack. The folks populating the Sunday shows think -- and are probably right in thinking -- that they know a helluva lot more about social policy than Fred Thompson. But they don't think they're tougher than him, or more of a Tennessean. So those are the ground on which he's complimented. And since journalist types don't know enough to judge the worth of such things, and are only lauding the qualities in the first place because they think the rubes like 'em (and what the rubes like has a talismanic power to those self-conscious about their class), they tend to mention those issues a lot, and do so utterly uncritically.
July 5, 2007 | Permalink
Comments
This is a good point, and I think there is something to your argument. It's crucial to the self-image -- or, to put it more bluntly, the vanity -- of the pundit class that they see themselves as being scrupulously "fair" to "both sides" -- regardless of the actual content and truth value of what is being discussed.
This is a fairly classic deformation professionel, and it's had very grave consequences for our country, and our world. However, it doesn't explain the specifically gendered nature of the punditocracy's commentary.
A more complete explanation would have to factor in two more points. First, there's the brilliant success the right has had in putting their talking points into the mouths of the mainstream media (part of which, as you suggest, has to do with playing them like a violin concerning their self-consciousness about being "liberal" and "elitist").
Second, there's the fact that the clever exploitation of gendered stereotypes have been absolutely crucial to the Republicans success. The portrayal of Democrats and the left as feminized and Republicans as manly goes back at least as far as Reagan's 1966 gubernatorial campaign, and over the years was perfected to a fare-thee-well by Nixon, Bush I, and Bush II.
The obsession with gender is, in turn, a manifestation of the broader Republican narrative that has shifted attention away from economics and towards cultural politics. The Republicans know very well that as long as we're talking about bread and butter issues and which party is better for the economic interests of the vast majority of Americans, they will always lose. But if they can change the topic of conversation to race, gender, sexuality, etc., they stand a chance of winning a good part of the time, at least among certain key constituencies (like working class whites).
Posted by: Kathy G. | Jul 5, 2007 10:43:17 AM
Ezra,
I've been thinking along those lines, but haven't been able to really articulate my thoughts even to myself. Good points, all.
Kathy G.,
Um, yeah. Nothing to add except a thank you to you as well for writing clearly the thoughts that have been nibbling around the edge of my consciousness lately.
Posted by: Stephen | Jul 5, 2007 10:46:35 AM
But there's not a lot one can do about that. Say the Democratic candidate in 08 was a SEAL chief petty officer, who had done three tours as a sniper-scout in southern Afghanistan and won the Navy Cross for single-handedly wiping out a Taliban column, before returning to Harvard to write his doctoral thesis on "A Review of Current Procedural Approaches to the Killing, Gutting and Eating of America's Enemies".
They'd say he was unstable because of combat stress, or they'd accuse him of getting lost on his infil, or misreporting the contact (were there fifteen technicals there or only twelve? Why won't he tell us the truth?). Or they'd find out his wife talked in a funny way.
Posted by: ajay | Jul 5, 2007 11:13:35 AM
No. The chattering class has no distaste for Republican policy ideas; they either like them, don't have the skill or brain to analyze them, or just don't care. However, they are aware that MOST PEOPLE, in fact, do have a distate for Republican policy ideas. So they change the subject to meaningless, superficial trivia they don't need any training or education to understand, and they try to convince the rubes that those are the things that matter.
Posted by: bobbo | Jul 5, 2007 3:04:20 PM
Also, your post assumes that "authenticity" is an actual, demonstrable trait. It isn't. It's whatever the pundits want it to be, and it belongs to whomever the pundits want it to belong to.
Posted by: bobbo | Jul 5, 2007 3:09:54 PM
I don't think it's reverse elitism at all. I think it's elitism. Who did the media prefer? In my lifetime they preferred the aristocratic JFK, the blue-blooded Bushes, Reagan and Thompson the movie stars. The media rejected working class, sweaty Nixon, ethnic Dukakis, and the Southerners; Johnson, Carter, Clinton, and Gore (but not the pseudo-southerner Bush 43). If you ask me, it's pretty clearly garden variety elitism.
Posted by: J Bean | Jul 6, 2007 12:04:55 AM
Fred Thompson is less tough than the chattering classes who love him? In whose world? I'd take on Fred Thompson, the man is a walking, talking, cardboard cut out.
aimai
Posted by: aimai | Aug 16, 2007 6:34:44 PM
The folks populating the Sunday shows think -- and are probably right in thinking -- that they know a helluva lot more about social policy than Fred Thompson.
Damning with faint praise?...
Posted by: Mike the Mad Biologist | Aug 16, 2007 10:54:49 PM
slxygaouz ypkwl txbhg hkcl zyesrcg ncojkfwal vxqifks
Posted by: bvdjnaxr gwyimbr | Sep 17, 2007 11:20:45 AM
irfjueqg agqkdjb ejhxs sejwtfcdu hmyxjld crlu xlwcqht http://www.kihovbf.eqkcs.com
Posted by: cdqnoza iyvfbgqwe | Sep 17, 2007 11:20:58 AM
