Elites Span the Political Spectrum
One more quick note on the “Sarah Palin versus elites” narrative: although it captures the fact that she’s garnered considerable elite criticism — a lot of it unfair — it misses the fact that far from “pulling herself up by the bootstraps,” her rise to national prominence is largely the doing of another group of elites who’ve done their best to advance her career and laud her every action. Our political discourse often seems to presume that “elite” and “liberal” are concepts that are inextricably bound to one another, but the fact is that Bill Kristol is a political elite, Fox News is every bit as much a part of the elite mainstream media as any other cable news outlet, and Rush Limbaugh is as much a coastal elite commentator as Maurene Dowd. And I say that as someone who doesn’t think there’s anything inherently wrong with rising to elite status.
Did Kristol and Fox News get Palin elected governor of Alaska, Conor? I’m not saying you don’t have a point, but nevertheless …
— John Schwenkler · Jul 6, 05:31 PM · #
Nope, Survival of the Prettiest did, Schwenkler.
In looks at least, Palin IS an elite.
;)
— matoko_chan · Jul 6, 05:32 PM · #
Lets face it, we elect elites.
That is the American way.
Sadly, the only l33tness Palin apparently has is her looks.
That is Dr. K’s “she’ll be back” scenario is implausible.
Palin will wrinkled and post-menopausal by 2024.
Looks don’t last.
— matoko_chan · Jul 6, 05:36 PM · #
I think you’re conflating ‘elite’ with ‘politically potent’. Under some forms of government — autocracies, oligarchies — they’re the same. In a democracy, however, they can be distinguished.
— Kristoffer V. Sargent · Jul 6, 05:37 PM · #
Good rule of thumb to distinguish them: elites talk to elites about the masses; populists talk to the masses about elites.
— Kristoffer V. Sargent · Jul 6, 05:43 PM · #
“Good rule of thumb to distinguish them: elites talk to elites about the masses; populists talk to the masses about elites.”
That test is mighty convenient for elites who want to disguise themselves as populists. A better test: the actual policies you support.
— Conor Friedersdorf · Jul 6, 05:48 PM · #
Paging Dr. Riddick, paging Dr. Riddick…..do you think its time yet?
— matoko_chan · Jul 6, 05:51 PM · #
A better test: the actual policies you support.
I’m not sure how that’s a better test. John Edwards was a populist who supported Maureen Dowd’s agenda. Kristol is an elite who supported Hannity’s agenda. “At who, about whom” is a much more reliable test for elite status.
— Kristoffer V. Sargent · Jul 6, 05:56 PM · #
Point to Sargent on both the original thrust and on the parry/repost to Conor’s counter attack.
— Tony Comstock · Jul 6, 06:00 PM · #
But if policies are the test, then elitism and populism aren’t incompatible. Ross was talking about cultural and intellectual elites, and it’s indisputable that Palin is neither of those.
— John Schwenkler · Jul 6, 06:00 PM · #
No Schwenkler, Palin IS a cultural elite IN LOOKS.
Just like a hollywood actress with political views.
The problem is looks don’t last and she has nothin’ else.
— matoko_chan · Jul 6, 06:03 PM · #
Sorry matoko, but good looking =/= cultural elite. Palin doesn’t talk like a Hollywood actress, nor is she from, you know, Hollywood.
— John Schwenkler · Jul 6, 06:07 PM · #
“Our political discourse often seems to presume that “elite” and “liberal” are concepts that are inextricably bound to one another, but the fact is that Bill Kristol is a political elite, Fox News is every bit as much a part of the elite mainstream media as any other cable news outlet, and Rush Limbaugh is as much a coastal elite commentator as Maurene Dowd.”
This.
Also, I have to make a comment in re: Palin’s supposedly “unfair” treatment by the elites. Let me stipulate that there obviously was some sexist commentary that came her way and that there’s almost always been a bias by elites against those they don’t consider in their league.
But Sarah Palin is not the first female politician to be hit by sexist remarks (Hillary Clinton was routinely called a bitch, a shrew, cold, calculating, etc) nor is she the first politician to have to deal with coming from a non-elite background (Bill Clinton and Barack Obama both come to mind, as does the person who Palin most reminds me of, Dick Nixon).
That said, I know people are saying that, “yes, Palin made mistakes, but…”. Well, one thing that bothers me about this is that the elite opinion on Palin didn’t really turn negative until after she was exposed as a charlatan and a mean-spirited attack dog, both things of her own doing (though the later may have been encouraged to some extent by the McCain campaign). She was a darling until she damaged herself (or because her background finally got a close going over). There was no great conspiracy to bring her low and that’s why I can’t take her victim pose seriously; she doesn’t seem to be able to acknowledge her own role in her demise.
— Mike P · Jul 6, 06:13 PM · #
It’s semantic, right. Conor is completely correct that for some definitions of elite, there are elite populists. (Or, that among the populists, some populists are elite.)
Does that mean that the “elites vs. populist” distinction that Ross and Reihan like is meaningless? No, it just means that R&R are applying a different connotation to the word than Conor.
— J Mann · Jul 6, 06:42 PM · #
John,
If we’re talking about culture and intellect as markers of elites, what distinguishes Sarah Palin from Joe Biden?
— Conor Friedersdorf · Jul 6, 06:59 PM · #
Schwenkler…. “not equal” is != in mathspeak.
And Palin is an elite in looks. Beauty queen.
Try not to be so stupid, please.
That is obviouso.
— matoko_chan · Jul 6, 07:09 PM · #
“If we’re talking about culture and intellect as markers of elites, what distinguishes Sarah Palin from Joe Biden?”
One of them rides the train and has a better wink than the other?
— Mike P · Jul 6, 07:16 PM · #
Well, Biden does have a law degree, and he’s spent most of his adult life in Washington. But I wouldn’t call him an elite, either.
It’s =/= in logicspeak, dear, and I never denied that Palin was “an elite in looks”.
— John Schwenkler · Jul 6, 07:21 PM · #
Dear American Scene bloggers: while I find many of the recent posts about Palin interesting and persuasive, I nevertheless propose a moratorium on the topic. It is driving some of Palin’s detractors to comment with serial febrility, which I find rather distracting.
— Blar · Jul 6, 07:26 PM · #
“Sorry matoko, but good looking =/= cultural elite”
So…..beauty queens aren’t cultural l33ts?
ummmm…….cough cough…carrie prejean….cough cough.
— matoko_chan · Jul 6, 07:27 PM · #
“I nevertheless propose a moratorium on the topic. It is driving some of Palin’s detractors to comment with serial febrility, which I find rather distracting.”
Another example Bush Derangement Syndrome, huh? Yeah, those people were crazy to get so het up. Totally unwarrented.
— cw · Jul 6, 07:29 PM · #
Hey, Blar, this has been a long time coming.
I demand satisfaction.
Last year, before the untimely demise of that elegant decarian Math, Culture 11, Dr. Manzi promised meh a post on why Palin wouldn’t be where she is if she had looked like Janet Reno.
En guarde!
— matoko_chan · Jul 6, 07:30 PM · #
≠ Unicode is a wond’rous thing.
— Daniel Dare · Jul 6, 07:33 PM · #
“Elites span the political spectrum” has all the precision and truthiness of “child abuse knows no class.”
The fact that there are conservatives here and there among the cultural elite proves little. Furthermore, the implicit claim that Kristol and Fox News are not liberal is not exactly uncontroversial.
— Bill · Jul 6, 07:34 PM · #
Ummm … the point is that not all good looking people are cultural elites, which is all that’s required for the two classes not to be equivalent (you know, “≠” and all).
Substrate, matoko. Substrate.
— John Schwenkler · Jul 6, 07:36 PM · #
lol, so…Schwenkler will now advocate the position that Palin could have accomplished her achievements if she HAD (IPOF) looked like Janet Reno?
Pardon, I am going to go fetch my epee.
;)
— matoko_chan · Jul 6, 07:40 PM · #
No, that doesn’t follow from what I said either, unless the laws of free association have magically displaced those of logic.
— John Schwenkler · Jul 6, 07:42 PM · #
C’mon, John….admit it.
Palin just exposed the Great Lie at the heart of the GOP.
All men (and women) are created !=.
Joe Sixpack with boobs can’t be president.
Evah.
lol!
— matoko_chan · Jul 6, 07:47 PM · #
Being neither a Republican nor an egalitarian, I have no beef with any of that free-associating.
— John Schwenkler · Jul 6, 07:50 PM · #
“what distinguishes Sarah Palin from Joe Biden?
Umm, Joe Biden doesn’t drop his g’s? Joe Biden isn’t an evangelical Christian? Joe Biden doesn’t have any illegitimate grandchildren? There are lots of characteristics that Joe Biden shares with both the average Maidstone member and the average Harmonie Club member, that Sarah Palin doesn’t.
— y81 · Jul 6, 08:00 PM · #
So just what are you, Schwenkler?
Another crack-dealin consevative pimp?
— matoko_chan · Jul 6, 08:15 PM · #
What I want to know is would Barack Obama be where he is today if he looked like Janet Reno? Or if he had boobs? Or if he thought all men were created equal — which apparently he doesn’t? Has he gone on record with that one? Probably not, because he’s a Macchiavellian pragmatist with mega-substrate — just like you, John, except that you use your powers for evil, in the service of conservative failmyths like “all Joe Six-packs are created equal.” Come to the good side, John, and work with the rest of the upper right tailers for the the ultimate and absolute defeat of all sub-sapient Joe Six-Packs and their retarded babies.
— Kate Marie · Jul 6, 08:31 PM · #
Elites are superior, and only elites are elected to office.
So Palin is another superior elite.
But other elites are too jealous of their status to accept her in their club. That’s why the unwashed are indignant about these thin-skinned hypocrites. Substantive criticism of her policies and statements aren’t really why so many start grumbling about the arrogance of the elites. It’s the lame assertions of their own superiority and insistence that there is a clear distinction between true elites (those who have jumped through the older, coastal, traditional hoops of accomplishment and those from the woods and trailer-parks).
None of the Palinites take issue with the elite’s inegalitareanism. They are perhaps more sophisticated and less insecure because they seem comfortable in praising her as exceptional and superior and “Reaganesque” (a term of praise). It’s the bulk of her shallow critics who seem obsessed with the issue of inequality and insisting that some our simply better and we can dismiss those they disapprove of as simple and uneducated because they say so on the basis of their superior educations and sophistication.
But this insistence betrays their insecurity. Deep down they know their superiority isn’t so obvious to everyone because they really aren’t that superior. Most are just lucky dolts who would be toothless rednecks themselves if they had just been raised in a trailer park rather than born with the unfair advantages of affluence and access. These are the elites (right and left) that the masses despise, and I’d say rightly so. They are the worst – those who lack any class except the class they were born into and have failed to do anything but keep class distinctions more hereditary and rigid.
It boosts the esteem to paint the issue as a matter of sophisticates versus the polloi, but it’s really not. It’s about the oligarchs who want to pretend to be aristocrats versus the meritocrats. Is Palin the best America can do? I sure hope not. But to presume Biden, Boxer, Pelosi, many of the Kennedys, or even the esteemed real estate genius Mr. Frank are of another species is so patently ridiculous that most inferior of the masses see right through. To pretend there is any obvious difference between elites in DC and elites in Alaska in terms of competence is funny to some of us, but I can understand how it would be infuriating to the people who never had an option to write, read, and talk all day. Especially in a democracy that tolerates these elites and their privileges they claim as rights, while at the same time denying their basis lies in equality.
— Saul Onus · Jul 6, 09:59 PM · #
Yeah……what she said.
;)
— matoko_chan · Jul 6, 09:59 PM · #
Dude, Saul, we ARE different species.
She is a self-styled talking dog with lipstick and I am a human grrl.
hahahah!
— matoko_chan · Jul 6, 10:01 PM · #
KM, all men are created equal ….. under the law.
But no men (or women) are created equal under the genes.
Can’t fake the substrate.
— matoko_chan · Jul 6, 10:16 PM · #
Mak,
“no men (or women) are created equal under the genes.
Can’t fake the substrate.”
Really? Which genes are better? Can you name them? Which led that populist T. Jefferson to write otherwise? Just a liar? Or could it be that genes don’t mean anything until they are put to use?
Genetic inequality was all the rage 100 years ago. But before that, and even now, at least in trailer parks, people are ranked according to accomplishments and abilities. Yes Palin lacks your unparalleled wit, but how does that wit gene make you superior to any governor?
Would genetic testing be a better test for office than election? That’s pretty funny. How do you select the people who get to rank the genes?
The ones born with the advantage of knowing and identifying them, or should we maybe expand the pool to everyone and promote those who are pure enough but lack any resources, education, or accomplishments? What if they are selfish sociopaths? Are those genes defective somehow. I just don’t get it. I’d defer to your superiority, but I just can’t shake the suspicion that old TJ was more elite than you.
Or maybe you meant there is a deeper essence, “beneath the genes” themselves – a soul perhaps that only the spiritually chosen can see? Is that elitism, or a claim of a theocrat? I don’t see much difference.
— Saul Onus · Jul 6, 10:31 PM · #
“Elite” allows the Right to talk about class while convincing themselves they’re not talking about class as well as allowing them to keep accusing the Left of being obsessed with class politics as if they, themselves, are not.
— andrew e · Jul 6, 11:34 PM · #
Wow. This blog: all Palin/Sullivan/Matoko, all the time.
No, really. All the time.
— y81 · Jul 7, 12:24 AM · #
Yes, well it makes for unending bloggy drama, doesn’t it?
— John Schwenkler · Jul 7, 12:44 AM · #
It is today, y81.
Saul, dude….. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.”
The unalienable rights (endowed by the creator) are “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”……not, for example, the right to be elected president as a terminal dumbshit in a meritocracy.
/giggles
— matoko_chan · Jul 7, 01:05 AM · #
I’m waiting for Dr. Riddick to ‘splain this to meh.
/taps foot impatiently
The rest of you seem to be useless braindead whankers as far as Palin is concerned.
Think with the big head, mmmkay?
I know its hard.
lol
— matoko_chan · Jul 7, 01:22 AM · #
John,
I think the “not republican not egalitarian” formula may become my new calling card. excellent as usual.
Also, is there a baseline philosophical standard for egalitarianism? like, swearing allegiance to John Rawls? or is he too right wing?
— brendan · Jul 7, 02:16 AM · #
Is there anyone who would care to explain how this is a meaningful sentence? Maybe Conor?
Because I’m just beginning to think that maybe there really aren’t people in Washington and New York and Hollywood who think they’re smarter and better than the rest of us. Maybe we’ve been wrong to think that there were ever elitists who deserve their God-given talents and therefore deserve to make decisions for the rest of us.
No wait,that can’t be it because even us mindnumbed robots swear allegiance to our elites like Rush and Hannity and Bill Kristol.
I don’t know. Maybe there are elites for the really smart people who can’t think for themselves and do for themselves and then there are elites for the really dumb people who can’t think for themselves and do for themselves.
It’s too confusing.
Well, maybe there just aren’t any elites.
No, that can’t be right, because then Conor would have no one to look down on.
I wish I had a group of elites to largely pull me up to national prominence. Sure they would have to overlook a few foibles, like thinking I could see Russia from my home state, or that I sat in the congregation of an anti-Semite for 20 years, or that I think the Warren Court didn’t go far enough in changing the Constitution. But elites have that kind of power. They can take an empty suit and make him (or her) President.
Unless they’re the wrong kind of elite.
— jd · Jul 7, 03:31 AM · #
Good question. Rawls strikes me as as good a touchstone as you can ask for, though sadly this isn’t my AOS.
— John Schwenkler · Jul 7, 03:37 AM · #
Also, is there a baseline philosophical standard for egalitarianism? like, swearing allegiance to John Rawls? or is he too right wing?
Well, Christian love, for one.
— Freddie · Jul 7, 03:44 AM · #
“christian love”…..
wtf is that Freddie?
— matoko_chan · Jul 7, 04:10 AM · #
A reason to believe in egalitarianism. Not my reason, and as I’m sure to be excoriated by John, not one that he can respect. But a reason.
Every life is someone’s “my life.”
— Freddie · Jul 7, 04:17 AM · #
Of course it’s a reason that I can “respect”; it’s just that I’m not persuaded by it.
— John Schwenkler · Jul 7, 04:52 AM · #
‘The unalienable rights (endowed by the creator) are “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”……not, for example, the right to be elected president as a terminal dumbshit in a meritocracy.’
Was that a reply somehow? Who are you, Mark Levin? Since when did dumbshits not have the right to pursue election if they are native-born citizens? Is reciting the basis of democratic law supposed to prove there is some truer standard that trumps legal equality?
Is that how elites avoid facing the absurd vulgarity of their own fanatic faith in fantasies like genetic superiority when faced with the fact that genes cannot be categorized as superior and inferior? Because it sounds a lot like a belligerent prole when he’s told there is no dignity in working with his hands.
Of course there is a sort of natural standard for judging genes that you seem to dismiss as readily as you accept the gospel of genetic inequality: their fitness. Palin seems to have surpassed most elites in this regard too. How many kids do you have? Shouldn’t we listen to the testimony of nature and let the mothers and fathers who have bred the most rule us all? Their genes won out, shouldn’t we defer to the substrate creator when it actually does make itself so clear?
Or maybe Jefferson, a true elite with truly elevated perspective of all of humanity beneath him really thought you are equal to Palin in some other more fundamental way than your genetic or socioeconomic background.
I wouldn’t worry about it though, Mak. He couldn’t have possibly have known as much about genes as you do. If he did he’d understand you don’t need to actually make any arguments or think or persuade anyone like elected officials have to do if you’ve got the right parentage.
I just can’t get on board though, because I actually accept the ruling principles of my country as the bedrock truth and don’t see how your ideas don’t lead you to call for absolute monarchy of the one who is actually superior. But for some reason you talk of elites as if they were an actual separate species of equals. Is that right? Are the monied elites as elite as the academic elite? Do you think Conor is equal to you? Schwenkler too? Are you ready to obey your superiors as readily as you demand we recognize inequality? Because you seem to think you and others who fall short of the best still deserve more respect and rights than rednecks and soccer moms. I just wanted to know how that works. Surely you can explain it, if you tried.
— Saul Onus · Jul 7, 05:18 AM · #
I can’t tell what Schwenkler is arguing here.
Sarah Palin’s election as Alaska governor was probably not ordained by national political elites (I’m afraid I can’t say I followed the 2006 AK gubernatorial with much alacrity), but her entry into national politics certainly was an elite affair. That is pretty much always the case with VP candidates who didn’t run in the primary; they’re plucked from the family bed and put on the national stage by the nominee and a small cadre of advisers.
Depending on your view of Palins virtues, her selection by John McCain and his inner circle is more or less crass and scandalous, but it never fails to be an elite selection.
— southpaw · Jul 7, 05:22 AM · #
Saul, dude, it all comes down to the bellcurve.
The l33ts, man, all upper right tailers…be it IQ, charisma, pulchitrude, monies, athletics, w/e.
reproductive fitness doesn’t count, because, like I says to AllahP when he says “all your children will be atheists”……only the smart ones.
It is genetic and memetic inheritence.
And the middles, the averages, the medians, the means?
Nope, not in a meritocracy.
Like Dr. K said, Palin could only fake it so far with buzzwords and slogans.
She average.
And that is the Great Lie of the GOP.
That the Noble Yeoman Farmer could actually become president.
;)
— matoko_chan · Jul 7, 05:42 AM · #
I think the problem is that the GOP simply chose the wrong Palin.
— Daniel Dare · Jul 7, 05:42 AM · #
And yes, Thom Jefferson, polymath, would have said Palin and I were equal UNDER THE LAW……but never under genetic and memetic inheritance.
— matoko_chan · Jul 7, 05:46 AM · #
“I agree with you that there is a natural aristocracy among men.
The grounds of this are virtue and talents. “
Sarah Palin seems neither virtuous, considering honesty a virtue, nor talented, in that she seems unable to even make a speech.
— matoko_chan · Jul 7, 05:57 AM · #
Mak,
Do you think that not answering questions is a sign of superiority?
You have said people don’t perform at equal capacities. Again. And you then merely assert Palin is not an elite, again. But you seem to assume that there is some objective standardized test that actually proves true superiority.
Again, if there were, why don’t you just find the top scorer and back him or her as our rightful leader and stop pointing out the irrelevant difference between the average and the large group of second-raters others think are so clearly superior to Palin? Is the great lie of the GOP that we should not have a monarchy based on quantifiable tests? I don’t see why that is such a “great” “lie.” Why be so dramatic? Maybe these things just aren’t always reliable gauges of superiority. Maybe your assertions of absolute truth just isn’t so clear or practical in the real world.
A more clear test, of course, is life. In politics winning is success. Sure Palin lost to Barack. But she has won elections. Why are your tests more accurate than actual success?
You seem to want to be some bestower of eliteness because then you could claim some expertise that puts you on par with them, or even above them, as their rightful chooser and auditor, but I’m afraid your science falls short. In the only bell curve that matters, Palin is in the top .001 percentile and you fall short (unless you too are a governor). And yet you want to deny this. How could inferiors rule those who know more? I say they can’t. I think you owe the woman the same respect you owe all those who have surpassed you. Perhaps you can learn something from her.
Of course, if you want to say she’s an average elite, on par with the likes of Huckabee, Arnold, Pelosi, Frank, Sanford, and Spitzer, I see no point in arguing such a claim (just as I don’t really have an opinion on which cheap beer is best), but, again, why keep saying farmers aren’t good enough to rule you and not start saying something more constructive like we should all fall in line and follow he who is the most outlying outlier of them all. I could at least respect your consistency as an inegalitarean.
But, again, I’m not saying there aren’t statistics and differences in performance. I just don’t get the pettiness of always focusing on those beneath you, when you could be offering me an example of a clear superior we should be following. I mean, if there are inequalities.
My issue with you is that you don’t sound like someone who believes what he’s saying. You just sound like the other “elites” who see Palin as the boy who is dumb enough to reveal none of you are actually wearing clothes, and who reveal their own insecurities by their obsession with putting her in her place (you are average, not barely above average like us real pseudo-elites. go back to the trailer park).
M. Jackson would fail all your tests by the way (IQ, charisma, voice talent, dance moves – there are millions better than he was in all these areas). But there is only one King, no matter how much the pretenders to the throne whine about being better than Debbie Gibson. Don’t be a whiner, be a praiser of greatness. Respect your betters.
— Saul Onus · Jul 7, 06:25 AM · #
“Self evident” is not “UNDER THE LAW.” And why do you think she should be equal to you under the law, if genes are the truth? Do you just respect the power of the gun that enforces it? Are you saying the law is unjust, but you still respect it for some reason? How is it relevant if it isn’t true or right. It sounds like the “Great lie” isn’t the GOP’s but the USA’s. Either we’re equal or not, why all the distinctions?
And is honesty really a virtue? Was TJ being honest when he wrote something so unequivocal and without qualification as all men being equal?
And are giving speeches a talent? Give me a teleprompter, and obey me then.
Granted, I’ve never actually heard a whole speech by the woman (can’t take the accent), I do recall pictures of large cheering crowds. Sure, they were a bunch of hillbillies, but if you can’t move the majority you aren’t really a good speaker, no matter how the elites parse, interpret, and swoon over it.
And, again, I can make assertions too: there are no great orators in politics today. Obama only stands out because of the lack of competition. And I don’t think you could seriously contend any of our political elites possess any real virtue, let alone honesty.
I just don’t see the strong lines of distinction you are claiming. I guess I’ve never been that impressed by any of these clowns and the impressive knowledge and expertise of their staffs, managers, and handlers, genetically or otherwise, so I fail to see how Palin falls so far short. She’s better at commanding an audience and getting elected than I am at least. That I can see and admit. But genetics, IQ, charisma. Come on, why not just talk about auras.
Is it just the accent? You can tell me if it’s just the accent. I could at least empathize with you on that.
— Saul Onus · Jul 7, 06:44 AM · #
Lol!
Palin is the one who is naked.
Do you know the story of Kylon of Croton?
You see, the advent of Sarah Palin on the electoral landscape summoned an ancient unkillable demon from the dawn of history— Kylon of Croton and the myth that all men are created equal. You might remember Kylon as the pissed-off plutocrat that raised a mob of local farmers to protest his failed attempt to get into Pythagoras’ school for rulers by chopping up the teachers with scythes and burning down the school.
The selection gradient for Palin is the public eye.
She can’t answer questions, can’t give a speech…..so she is rejected.
I am an elite, and she is my enemy.
It is good to know your enemy, and see them clear.
Palin is the 21st century version of Kylon, and I am a spiritual heir of Pythagoras.
I catch a strong wiff of pitchfork and torch-reek off her.
— matoko_chan · Jul 7, 06:53 AM · #
Accent?
Palin speaks in Heartland Pageant Speak….pushing buzzwords around in a mess of fluffy verbage while searching desperately for an answer, or stream of conscious rambling with tortured sports metaphor enhancement.
— matoko_chan · Jul 7, 06:57 AM · #
Oh okay. I get it now. Pythagoras. But if the demon is unkillable….nevermind.
Keep fighting the never-ending cult war. Populists are bound to lose a round someday, somehow, because of the gods or spirits of history or something.
— Saul Onus · Jul 7, 07:01 AM · #
We have already won.
Number is the ruler of forms and ideas and the cause of gods and daemons.
;)
— matoko_chan · Jul 7, 07:14 AM · #
“I am an elite, and she is my enemy.
It is good to know your enemy, and see them clear.
Palin is the 21st century version of Kylon, and I am a spiritual heir of Pythagoras.
I catch a strong wiff of pitchfork and torch-reek off her.”
You are an elite what, exactly? I’m not sure if self-designated elite status really counts for much. If you are saying you support elitism regarding political leadership, therefore you are an “elite”, I suppose I understand this, but simply claiming you are an elite is pretty funny. Hating populists like Palin doesn’t necessarily make you an elite, just someone with an elitist attitude.
— mike farmer · Jul 7, 11:11 AM · #
It continues to amaze me that populists cite Jefferson as their idealogical patron, when “natural aristocracy” is a clear reference to genetic (talent) and memetic (virtue) inheritance.
Douthat’s Jackson reference is riddickulous as well….Andy Jackson would have told Palin to go home and take care of her children and he would have shot Glenn Beck on sight as a dirty treasonous seccessionist.
The founders and framers were all elites.
They had to be.
— matoko_chan · Jul 7, 02:03 PM · #
Matako;
Drop the crystal meth habit; its got the best of you
— C3 · Jul 7, 02:06 PM · #
C3, allow me my joyous celebration.
The chimpanzee is nevah going to get to fly the passenger jet now.
O frabjous day!
;)
— matoko_chan · Jul 7, 02:08 PM · #
“Rush Limbaugh is as much a coastal elite commentator as Maurene Dowd.
Is there anyone who would care to explain how this is a meaningful sentence?”
Uh, they’re both catty big mouths who live in protective bubbles of wealth and privilege? They both make a buck by selling a particular brand of snark to a particular audience? They both think their own opinions are much funnier and insightful than they really are? What, you think the fact that Rush and Dowd mouth different slogans makes a real difference between them?
Mike
— MBunge · Jul 7, 03:39 PM · #
What I was arguing, which is what Ross was arguing, is that Sarah Palin is not an intellectual or cultural elite, and that her reception among many of the people who are was met by a remarkable degree of classist and sexist sneering. That’s not at all incompatible with its being the case, as Conor argues, that Palin’s selection as a VP candidate was due to the influence of a different set of elites; nothing in what Ross or I said was meant to dispute that.
— John Schwenkler · Jul 7, 04:07 PM · #
But Schwenkler, Palin is a cultural elite in one segment, a beauty queen.
And while there are negative stereotypes associated with that segment of elite culture, like the perception of low IQ, it is indesputable that Survival of the Prettiest contributed to her political successes.
I think a better way to frame the division is elitists vs populists, or “natural aristocracy” vs Noble Yeoman Farmers or even aristoi vs commoners.
This is an ancient division, and has little to do with regional or cultural classes.
— matoko_chan · Jul 7, 04:33 PM · #
For the dozenth time, having a single elite characteristic (or few such) is not a sufficient condition for being a cultural elite. Please try again.
— John Schwenkler · Jul 7, 04:34 PM · #
Well…Palin is certainly gifted as raw material for comedic parodies.
That truly is a talent.
kk, there is nothing elite about Palin. Unfortunately for Palin, we only elect elites in this country, even if they are studiously pretending to be NYFs, like GW.
The NYFs don’t have the substrate to lead.
— matoko_chan · Jul 7, 04:45 PM · #
And so we come back fullcircle to Shorter Douthat.
You can’t fake teh substrate.
Palin isn’t a flawed candidate that was destroyed by unfair media criticism…..she simply didn’t have the chops to ever be Elle Woods.
Palin blew up the conservative myth that all men are created equal and so any man or woman could be president.
Because she is the realdeal, a NYF without the intellectual, cultural, educational substrate that is unfakeable.
All she had was looks.
And looks don’t last.
Please….someone that says something so deeply and profoundly ignorant?
Should be president???????
“But as for whether another pursuit of national office, as she did less than a year ago when she joined Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., in the race for the White House, would result in the same political blood sport, Palin said there is a difference between the White House and what she has experienced in Alaska. If she were in the White House, she said, the “department of law” would protect her from baseless ethical allegations.“I think on a national level, your department of law there in the White House would look at some of the things that we’ve been charged with and automatically throw them out,” she said.
There is no “Department of Law” at the White House.”
Schwenkler, you are right.
There is not a nanoparticle of elite in the whole Palin package.
— matoko_chan · Jul 7, 05:12 PM · #
Saul Onus, you fought the good fight here. I salute you.
— Kate Marie · Jul 7, 05:17 PM · #
But I still won.
Touches bell-guarde of epee to lips in mock salute.
— matoko_chan · Jul 7, 05:20 PM · #
“But I still won.”
— Ah, but as with so many things, Matoko, I don’t think that word (“won”) means what you think it means. Now, go back to that little world you live in and congratulate yourself on your genetic superiority. I’m sure there are very few TAS readers who don’t have a little bit of pity in their hearts for you, despite your capacity to annoy (that is one quality, at least, in which you excel).
— Kate Marie · Jul 7, 05:34 PM · #
“But I still won.”
Matoko, you didn’t win poop. For all that we frequent the same blogs and share many (most!) of the same views, you drive me frigging nuts. You don’t debate or reason, you argue by assertion in this… this… I cannot even begin to describe your ouevre other than to call it completely annoying. You then claim that your assertions are unassailable and patently obvious. The hell of it is that I suspect that you are truly intelligent and if you weren’t so invested in this performance art of yours, you might have real contributions to make.
— Erik Vanderhoff · Jul 7, 05:46 PM · #
lol, don’t shoot teh messenger!
Palin is totally revealled as a jokey horrorshow, and now everyone can seeeeeee!
Everyone above a certain IQ gradient, that is.
hahaha!
“….your Department of Law!!!!”
ow ow ow my sides hurrt from laffing!
;)
And please, as if i care what what n/e one thinks.
I am going to gloat and celebrate and salt wounds.
Your tears are delicious.
— matoko_chan · Jul 7, 08:03 PM · #
Consider this bloggingheads where Althouse tries sooooo desperately to equivocate Palin with Obama.
One of these things is not like the other.
The difference is lack of substrate, both genetic and memetic.
Watch Althouse’s face when Goldberg says Palin (based on her speeches and writings and thoughts that we have seen) doesn’t have the qualls to be a middleschool principal.
— matoko_chan · Jul 7, 08:29 PM · #
“What I was arguing, which is what Ross was arguing, is that Sarah Palin is not an intellectual or cultural elite, and that her reception among many of the people who are was met by a remarkable degree of classist and sexist sneering.”
Yet, Palin confirmed and justified those classist and sexist sneers through her own non-elite bahavior.
Mike
— MBunge · Jul 7, 09:00 PM · #