Letters to the Editor
-
deering's right, robert
(and, about to go to sleep, i didn't reread your post - just wanted to say hello to deering. how are you? it was really nice washing all that linen in public. hope you thought so too). back to you, robert. you can only say what you think is right at the time. if you change your mind you can say so. if you hurt people's feelings you can apologize. if they can't accept it, you can't do anything about it. you don't rule the universe. if nothing seems to help, you hunker down with your family.
-
Liberals are anti-elite, too
Look at our complaints regarding the "Gang of 500" who run the nation's political discourse.
The difference is that our problem is with unearned elite status, while the conservative problem is with competence. Modern conservatism reveres hierarchy and inherited privilege, which is at odds with meritocracy and equality of opportunity. Modern liberalism reveres skill and diversity, both contributing to overall organizational competence.
Both are anti-elite, which is to say that neither are; liberals are anti-conservative-elite (in their opposition to inherited privilege) and conservatives are anti-liberal-elite (in their opposition to the meritocracy). The frame is wrong.
-
As for the non-elite
It's clear that many of them, in pointing out "factual errors," are a very literal bunch who have missed completely many of the subtleties and satirical points to be had in Maher's piece.
-
Anit-elitism has a long US history beginning with President Andrew Jackson.
Bill,
We elite Democrats don't like to admit it, but puttng the hayseeds in office is pure Jacksonian democracy, where "government is so simple that anyone can do it" and "to the victor belongs the spoils" meaning that the winner, like Bush, has every right to pay off his friends with government appointments.
Jackson, a dedicated anti-elitist and probably the most over-rated president in our history, is in many ways a soulmate of Bush, who at least is no a racist as Jackson was. This is not a fan letter for Bush, either.
Lawrence Ladin
-
Utopia & liberalism
But I do believe that everyone has the ability and the right to contribute and lead fulfilling lives in society. This is impossible in todays classist society, and one that will not be solved by "liberalism" (which in fact, has no sense of collectivity; it's an individualist political philosophy). It will only be possible with eliminating, as much as possible, monetary, racial, and sexual barriers.
Sean,
For a foundational philosophy, I prefer one which stresses the freedom of the individual, i.e., liberalism. From there one can move on to the public good.
Liberalism is conducive to your concerns. It can eliminate, to the exent possible, the barriers you wrote of. In fact, it is the liberal philosophy which produced the civil rights laws in the United States. (Don't misunderstand; the hard work of oppressed individuals was the civil rights movement, but the goal of that movement was a liberal goal). There is no reason that liberalism cannot narrow monetary barriers, too. A minimum and maximum wage, just taxation, and channeling of funds into the greater good can lead to a fair economy and society. What's missing, as always, is political will, a problem which is exacerbated by political corruption; those things, however, are part of the human condition and will unfortunately be found in any system, be it capitalist, communist, or socialist.
Lastly, call me naive, but I think that liberalism can accomodate the best ideas of capitalism and socialism and other helpful -isms, because liberalism is devoted to societal progress. If a thing works well, use it; if not, disregard it.
We should reach for the stars, as you say. I for one will never falter in my attempt to invent a truly good vegan brie cheese.
-
elites = ?
While I agree with Bill Maher's general sentiment, I'd like to add my voice to the chorus of folks who point out that labels like "elite" don't really tell you that much. Being well-educated, doesn't mean you'll de facto be egalitarian or justice-oriented in the enactment of that education. By the same token, being "non-elite" doesn't automatically consign you to the outer darkness morally, intellectually or in any other fashion.
Being elite means lots of things so that's why the modifiers are so important and what's more important is the moral compass of the person so identified. Remember, the Waffen-SS were elite. You wouldn't want them running anything in a democracy.
George W. Bush is a child of privilege who masquerades as a good ol' boy to get re-elected and because it suits his self-image. There are plenty of trust-fund morons around who are quite happy staying East Coast country-club. W merely highlights the presence of another variant of same: the dude ranch trust-fund moron.
Fundamentalist, absolutist and supremacist thinking have no special class identity. But I'm sure as I am of gravity that they have no place in any country that has an ounce of self-respect.
-
Why do religious politicians need their own college?
Bill poses the question:
How do you get to be such a top dog at 33? By acing Harvard, or winning scholarship prizes? No, Goodling did her undergraduate work at Messiah College -- home of the "Fighting Christies," who wait-listed me, the bastards -- and then went on to attend Pat Robertson's law school.
Answer: because they are elite!
-
It's all France's fault.
Damn those stuck-up French for giving us such a snobby word! It gave hyper little American boys like Bush and Rove their perfect little playground taunt.
-
I disagree, but...
Durianjoe,
I still disagree, but respect your viewpoint. It's not that I'm totalizing about it, and am disrespectful of the base of the individual. The great mistake of many communist/socialist sects, inspired mostly by Lenin, was a worship of collectivism to the point of being dehumanizing. The Cultural Revolution was mostly allowed to flourish because, like most mass-hysterias, people had been separated from themselves and each other in pursuit of a collective ideal that ended up being impossible to achieve, for them or anyone else. You see this sort of totalitarian outlook cut across political ideologies, and rearing its head in the evangelical movement.
But I do believe identity politics, and an uber focus on faux individualism (ie individualism focused on surface level status). has created a crisis in todays liberal politics. We see the split come up across classist lines all the time in identity movements; second wave feminism fracturing from the input of bell hooks and women of color, the civil rights movement splitting between the urban poor and upper-crust blacks (witness the statements of Bill Cosby), or the fissures opening up in the gay community over the issue of Log Cabins, queers, and other issues. Does this mean that class identity should be the only defining mark? No. But it may be the best predictor.
Call me old fashioned, but I still believe, and am encouraged, by the possibilities inherent in unionism, socialism, economic democracy (control directly of your workplace), and the possibilities of them all. We shall both see, I guess, how things will turn out in the future.