When Barack Obama lost heavily to Hillary Clinton in the West Virginia primary, the question was raised of whether the senator from Illinois is able to connect with the working class of America and whether he is, in the words of the media, an elitist.  Adding to Obama’s previous description of “un-American,” this latest label is supposed to strike fear and distrust into the minds of voters who know little about his character or policies—which largely means those in poor regions who have reason to be skeptical about someone with a funny-sounding name who preaches to a hope of changing the system.  Why should we shrug off “elite” as we have done to “un-American”?

            Perhaps you have noticed who it is calling Obama an elitist—mainly those in the media who spend hours each day controlling the one-way flow of information and opinions to millions of Americans.  A common depiction of the media operates under what is called the agenda-setting model.  As its name implies, the media are said to control not what we think, but what we think about.  This works well in cases of moral outrage, when you have a Rodney King or Walter Reed incident to account for.  But in the age of twenty-four hour news networks, when there are no mountains to cross, molehills will be just fine.  From flag pins to bowling scores, reporters have shouted across desks at each other to debate how this will affect Obama’s candidacy instead of investigating why, for example, in the words of the campaign’s sacrificial lamb Jeremiah Wright, Jr., Wright’s congregation “feeds over 5,000 homeless and needy families every year while our government cuts food stamps and spends billions fighting” in Iraq.  It would seem that the media’s agenda here is to sensationalize trivial topics.  And who decides which news gets sensationalized?  The media also.  Some would call it circular; but in describing small group of unelected talking heads who attempt to control the mindset of America, others may call it elitist.

            Media yammering aside, the main point here is this: what is so bad about being elite and being in charge?  Americans today, as products of affirmative action and the civil rights movement, like to think that our society operates as a meritocracy where working hard gets you ahead.  We disdain the idea of class and privilege (hence the contempt for Paris Hilton whenever she pops up in the news) and equally despise the poor for not finding a job—any job—quitting drug habits, and getting off the streets.  Just as some people are born into perpetual wealth, some spend their entire lives in poverty (and occasionally vice versa).  Obama should be an example of a happy medium: now a rich man who attended elite universities but once lived in the third world and was involved with urban politics.  It seems odd to call him out of touch with the working man simply when he referred to small town Pennsylvanians as bitter.  He was referring to the feelings of nativism and antipathy that can arise when blue collar jobs disappear, although if the interviews given by West Virginians who said they would never vote for a black man as president are any indication, those people have more than bitterness brewing inside.

            Looking back over our presidents of the past two hundred-odd years, the office has included lawyers, generals, businessmen, and a professor—all positions of prestige and wealth.  Prior the founding period of America, the Baron de Montesquieu, an eighteenth century French nobleman and philosopher whose writings influenced the thinking of James Madison and Thomas Jefferson, wrote that the idea of a democracy is not that everyone should be equal; rather we should obey and be commanded by our equals.  Some people are more able to lead but in the end everyone has to follow the laws of the republic and the laws of nature.  The structure of our government was made to recognize that inequality: although the Senate was intended to be the wise and steady branch of the legislature in order for the landed few to guard against the tyranny of the landless majority, checks and balances would prevent the unconditional domination of the wealthy.

            So if “elite” for our Founders meant being educated, experienced, and wise, I do not see how being labeled as an elitist is a smear, especially if the job includes knowing the formalities of international relations, inspiring the American people to get behind government initiatives, and appreciating the need to serve socioeconomic justice to the working class while ensuring the prosperity of the middle and upper classes.  Whatever explanation is suitable for his lack of support among poor, rural whites, it is unfortunate that whatever these people cling to is not the candidacy of Barack Obama.

 

5/20