The Presidential Dichotomy (10/16/08)

before adding my thoughts, i wanted to share a section of an article written by james k.a. smith (some of you are familiar with him) that i came across on his website.

the article addresses several issues that i think will present us with some interesting and beneficial points of discussion. at the very least, some of you will decide to be offended, which if nothing else will make things lively.

Ronald Reagan was no intellectual, but he had an earnest faith in ideas and he spent decades working through them. He was rooted in the Midwest, but he also loved Hollywood. And for a time, it seemed the Republican Party would be a broad coalition — small-town values with coastal reach.

In 1976, in a close election, Gerald Ford won the entire West Coast along with northeastern states like New Jersey, Connecticut, Vermont and Maine. In 1984, Reagan won every state but Minnesota.

But over the past few decades, the Republican Party has driven away people who live in cities, in highly educated regions and on the coasts. This expulsion has had many causes. But the big one is this: Republican political tacticians decided to mobilize their coalition with a form of social class warfare. Democrats kept nominating coastal pointy-heads like Michael Dukakis so Republicans attacked coastal pointy-heads.

Over the past 15 years, the same argument has been heard from a thousand politicians and a hundred television and talk-radio jocks. The nation is divided between the wholesome Joe Sixpacks in the heartland and the oversophisticated, overeducated, oversecularized denizens of the coasts.

What had been a disdain for liberal intellectuals slipped into a disdain for the educated class as a whole. The liberals had coastal condescension, so the conservatives developed their own anti-elitism, with mirror-image categories and mirror-image resentments, but with the same corrosive effect.

The federal electoral game has come down to a tribalism. The presidential debates have amounted to little more than another opportunity for the candidates to preach to their respective choirs. And thus campaigns come down to little more than a bet on who has the bigger choir, and who can motivate their choir to come out and vote. Since the elite choir that the Republican party really serves is so small, they had to look for a cagey way to find another choir. Their bet--embodied in Palin--is that there is a massive, perhaps largely quiet, choir composed of Joe Sixpacks in the middle of the country--a choir whose anthem is a long disdain for complexity and "learning."

But that's not "conservatism." It is a wanton disdain for the wisdom of the past that has spiraled into a reverie of ignorance cloaked as "common sense." That such people get a vote is exactly why conservatism has always had an uneasy relationship with democracy.

i don't think anyone from any edge of the political spectrum will deny after some reflection that the dichotomy smith observes as developing over the last few decades between the anti-elitism of the right and the condescension of the left, has manifested itself in the current nominees for president and vice president from the two dominant parties, or at least in the way their campaigns have operated.

consider the rejected candidacy of dr. ron paul. i would argue, and i think many would agree that no candidate from either party is more qualified to address the current economic crisis of this country. furthermore, in my opinion, ron paul was the ONLY republican candidate with a sane foreign policy. obviously, i can't prove this by any means, but i wonder how many people chose not to vote for him because of the way he spoke (that is to say, his vernacular was that of a college professor rather than a big game hunter) and the fact that he was interested in engaging in legitimate, intelligent political debate about relevant issues, rather than stirring people up with one-line zingers or cheap appeals to patriotism, anger or fear.

understandably, what the GOP has come up with are two candidates who either are, or present themselves as, the opposite of intellectual. an example would be in tonight's debate, mccain criticized obama, who, after presenting his energy plan which he claimed would aggressively pursue alternative energy and push oil companies to drill on the thousands of acres of land they already own but have yet to make use of, said he would also think about off-shore drilling. mccain chuckled and emphasized obama's use of the word, 'think.' off-shore drilling, he insisted, must be started immediately; considering one's options, reflecting on the possible consequences of one's actions, etc—that's pointy-headed east-coast mumbo jumbo!

it cannot be ignored that mccain's critique here is indicative of a hyper-consumerist worldview which demands immediate (and necessarily temporary) satiation of one's most immediate desires (which are perceived as needs).

then we have sarah palin, who makes barack obama look over-qualified. what at first to me seemed a very curious choice for a running mate, is now making more and more sense. she is the complete opposite of an academic, for one thing. she stays away from the big words ron paul used, as well as the big issues he addressed. while she accurately reminds us that she didn't come out of washington and is just like all the joe (and jane) plumbers out there, she brings nothing new, innovative, or interesting to the political table; she totes the neo-conservative line and is sure to throw in a few smackeroos in her speeches. while i would thus not be inclined to vote for jane plumber, that, my friends (as mccain would say), is more than enough to scoop up the votes john has been after since 2000.

of course, i can't go without addressing my problems with the other side of the aisle, but i'll save that for another time.

thoughts?