April 16, 2007
Bill Maher’s Elitism
In an April 13th Salon.Com article, Bill Maher attacked the “right-wing” crusade against the “elite.” This cheap shot specialist whined that in other fields, elite is good. Tiger Woods is elite, a brain surgeon or a Delta Force unit are elite. It means excellence, darnnit! But in politics, he says, right-wingers like Rush Limbaugh demonize the elite and by doing so are really embracing incompetency, his prime example being the Bush administration.
This isn’t to defend or criticize President Bush, only to educate Mr. Maher, who has conveniently and selectively parsed “elite” to launch a screed against the President. The word “elite” as conservatives are using it is irrelevant to any administration policy or to excellence itself.
Bill, the “elitism” in question is defined as those who believe they know better than the rest of us, who know what others need, what others should or shouldn’t do or say, how they should behave, and what laws are needed for their well being. Elite here means patronizing and paternalistic. It means people who consider themselves overseers on the plantation of life, governing benignly they say, but anxious to use the whip on anyone straining under their leash.
It’s the kind of elite that labels as ignorant those who don’t share their views, who are stunned that anyone could vote for Bush and were insane or stupid to have done so. The kind of elite that dismisses Clinton’s oval office sex as trivial and says “kids are going to have sex anyway, so we might as well give them condoms.” This elite would be furious that someone entered their house to steal their belongings, but justify and support the same theft of our country’s resources by illegals.
It is an elitism of a self-centeredness that eschews the collective idea of patriotism, for to participate in a love and celebration of America would place them at a level they consider beneath them, a level that contains pick-ups, trailer parks, hunters and guys who actually weep at the sight of the flag. This elite smirks at the yahoos who remove their hats and put hands on hearts to sing the National Anthem. It is an elite that instead preaches hate for the country that educated them and makes them money.
This elite habitually labels opponents in marginalizing stereotypes — rednecks, bible belters and wingnuts, racists, sexists and homophobes, while squealing indignantly at feminazis. It’s an elitism that excuses liking something loved by the masses as a “guilty pleasure.” Just slumming! It’s the elitism of sanctimony and self-righteousness, an elitism of people who believe they sit at the right hand of a god they don’t believe in or give a damn about.
This elitism has lost touch with the people and are actually afraid of them, the people who live in what they dismissively insult the space between Los Angeles and New York as “the flyover.” They want the government to keep the flyover in check, with entitlements, restrictions, taxation — anything to keep them down on the farm, ignorant, dependent and enabled, perpetual victims and losers. The elite is the gated community or this country.
This is an elitism that hates the capitalistic rich and wants to punish them for their wealth while accumulating their own riches in ways they find acceptable. Sam Walton, bad rich; Theresa Heinz Kerry, good rich.
An elitism that is frightened by Christianity and the religious, except for Islam. These elites are not fools. They know Pat Robertson won’t strap a bomb to himself and come calling.
This elite that thinks that those who live in strong faith must be irrational and puzzledly shake their heads that someone would actually say grace in a restaurant before eating. It is an elitism that mocks Jesus and the Bible, but is deeply offended by a lying, elitist story that a Koran was flushed down a toilet in Guantanamo. An elitism that justifies “Piss Christ” as art, but wrings its hands at the inappropriateness of the Danish cartoons.
It is the elitism of an academia that indoctrinates but does not teach, that circles its wagons to exclude different, attacking ideas. It is the elitism of cowardice in the face of error, like the Duke 88, who unequivocally condemned the three lacrosse players in a public ad, but who are now nowhere to be found, their names erased from the web, anonymously elite and unwilling to apologize for their contribution in helping to ruin these kids’ lives, but screaming for an apology from Imus for a remark that injured no one. As I write, the 88 remain shamefully hidden in their weasely lairs, protected by the big blue wall of elitism. It is the elitism of hypocrisy. This is the elitism we’re talking about.
The trouble with your analogy, Bill, is that Tiger Woods’ elitism isn’t making him insist that the community of golfers swing HIS swing, or use a putter he thinks is best. An elite brain surgeon doesn’t lobby for legislation mandating his surgical technique over others. An elite Special Forces unit doesn’t legislate mandatory training like theirs for those who don’t care one whit about training.
They are all elite because they are great at what they do and that excellence is honored by everyone, left and right. You have seen elitism, Bill, and to paraphrase Pogo, it is you.
If the elite are, as you say, those people who think they know better than others that there’s something terribly wrong and want to change it - Example: The ease of being able to go into a store and with no difficulty what so ever, buy an automatic gun so that they may be able to,just as easily, go out and slaughter 33 young people - then what this country needs are more people who think and act “elite.”
Howard, two different issues and I’m not sure I get the point you’re trying to make. You’re pissed about that kid. So am I. But his behavior has nothing to do with the “elitism” I wrote about here. The kid is sick and you can’t argue a point using a damaged individual as evidence or an example of anything except that he’s damaged.
Hey, if my pieces keep us in contact, great.
Of course the general idea of democracy is the sovereignty of the people. But history has shown us that even the political opinion of a large part of a population doesn’t necessarily (or even most often) lead to the most favourable results. This is because clever politicians can appeal to the public’s instincts to get them to support actions/policies that violate basic human rights, impede scientific progress and enlightenment and/or further ignorance, irrationality and hipocrisy. Think of what the NSDAP and specifically Hitler got the German people to support - think of how the catholic and protestant church got people to slaughter others because they didn’t share their beliefs, think of how scientific theories that are as corroborated as can be and accepted by the entire scientific community (i.e. evolution) are being decried because they don’t fit some irrational belief-system.
So my point is - people who excel in their fields are not and shouldn’t be required to pretend that their findings or achiecements are not any “better” than the opinion(!) on that topic by people who have not investigated it scientifically (in the case of evolution e.g.). Anti-scientism is populist in the worst sense of the word. People who evidently have not the slightest knowledge of epistemology or philosophy of science think that their opinion on science should matter just as much as that of the scientific community.
Back to politics: My examples above (to which one could add the public support for the war on Iraq - which is basically support for violation of international law and human rights) show the basic problem of democracy: The general populace knows next to nothing about economy, ecology, national and international law etc. - so there is no basis for claiming that the lowest common denominator of its opinion on these matters will have the quality of being well thought through all things considered and conforming to the facts than that of any random person within the populace.
That’s what’s wrong with democracy - BUT there is no viable alternative to it, because anything else would mean violating the right to self-determination (within the limits of the rights of others). This is why democracy only works with an enlightened (in its philosophical sense) people. For this it is in turn required to teach people to use their gift of rationality, to create incentives for using their rationality and to eliminate sources of irrationality where education is concerned. To be enlightened does not only mean to further one’s own knowledge on the subjects on passes judgement on, but also encompasses being able to acknowledge that there are people who are more knowledgable than oneself in a certain field. A capable lawyer, a studied scientist, a brain-surgeon.
And in a community (as the populace of the United States) where a large part willingly abandons rationality in favour of anachronistic religious interpretations (creation vs. evolution), in favour of self-serving extremist policies (violation the constitution and human rights) - scientists, people defending human rights and the constitution have not only a right but the duty to exert all the influence they have to turn the tide. Yes, this may be what you call “patronizing” - and in some cases it may be. In most cases it is just an effort to educate. Think of the efforts to re-educate the German population to democracy in face of the violations of human rights (including their own) they supported. You could view that as patronizing - and it was, because it came from the outside (nevertheless this is the probably the one and only case in recent history where it was necessary to go to such extreme lenghts). But what the scientific community, certain lawyers, human rights-activists and politicians are trying to do is coming from within the community - it is an effort to re-establish rationality and respect for human rights (which everybody - be it an american patriot, a suspect or a terrorist - has in virtue of being human).
Now I will be the first to say that being rich or coming from an influential family does not qualify a person to have more of a say than any “shitkicker from Kansas” - but I will say that people who exel in their fields ought to have more of a say, and that a “shitkicker from Kansas” might want to think about the fact that there are people who know better than he does how to economically structure a community, what constitues fact and what constitutes irrational belief, how scientific facts about industrial pollution killing fauna and flora ought to influence politics and how human rights and the UN human rights charta ought to determine foreign policy.
This is why education (based on facts of course, not beliefs) for everyone is the most important duty of any state. This is the only way the populace can become enlightened enough to be able to fulfill the role democracy requires of them.
Thank you for your patience in reading this (if you should chose to do so).
Respectfully,
-MikeB
P.S.: As a prime example of dangerous anti-scientific, irrational propaganda born of anachronistic religious beliefs that are contrary to human rights I should mention Pat Robertson - for example his 700-club comments on the book “The Professors”, where he warms-up old anti-communist propaganda worthy of McCarthy (denouncing as dangerous, even as “killers” people who simply don’t share his extremist political views), where he (alongside that named book of course) displays his disregard of truth in favour of mentioned political and religious beliefs.
That he and other radicals like him have such an amount of influence, such a following is what concerns me. Fundamentalism is the most dangerous mindset of all - it is a disregard for others who don’t share the opinion of the fundamentalist, even a personal hatred which Robertson has definitly displayed. Furthermore - a complete disregard of rationality. This is the kind of mindset that led to taking away liberties and rights of people because they had a different political or religious opinion or because they have a different race. In its most extreme, the fundamentalist mindset led to genocide.
This is why fundamentalism, why irrationality and a disregard for human rights ought to be eschewed.
Mike, again thanks for your thoughtful response. A little too much for me to absorb after a few weeks of surgery and a vacation but I’ll try to say a few things about it later.