Ever since Snobamagate, I’ve been thinking about the degree to which I’m a snob… and whether Northfield has more than its share of snobbish people.
Twenty-five years ago, I worked for the Faribault Public Schools as a school social worker and it struck me how frequently the snobbishness of Northfielders came up in conversations among faculty and staff who I worked with. It really grated on them. Since then, alarm bells always go off in my head whenever I hear a fellow Northfielder make a snide remark about Faribault, Dundas, or other towns nearby.
The snide remarks are nearly always made by someone with at least a college education and the target of their remarks is the one of main demographics that Clinton and Obama are fighting over for this week’s primary in Pennsylvania – the white, working class with a high school education.
In one of the comments I added to my January blog post, Why do you love Northfield? Why should people move here?, I wrote:
I often tell people that one of the neat things about Northfield is its social diversity. Most small towns with a college or university are dominated by its presence. They become a 99% latte town as described by David Brooks in Bobos in Paradise. Northfield is 50% a latte town. Half the population aren’t bobos, and I like that. Lots of conservatives and libertarians. Lots of blue collar, working class people. Lots of religious folks. Lots of people who volunteer in ways that bobos don’t.
I think many of us Northfielders who could be seen as bobos, especially the progressive liberal elites (which, as an Obama supporter with a Master’s degree, I’m arguably one, my support for Ray Cox, Tom Neuville and appreciation of the commentaries by David Brooks not withstanding), don’t recognize our own arrogance when we deal with others in the public sphere who are ‘not like us,’ especially ‘not smart like us.’
I think Obama is less of a snob than I am, but there’s probably a tendency in all of us to get a little condescending when talking about others who you don’t hang out with much. Once you’re a Senator, your circle of social contacts gets pretty limited, no matter what your roots.
I drink coffee most often at GBM and the HideAway, not the Quarterback or Perkins. I drink beer most often at The Cow and Froggy’s, rarely at the L&M or Corner Bar. When I go bowling at Jesse James Lanes with my kids, I don’t usually know anyone else there. I loved the Adult Spelling Bee. I don’t watch NASCAR events. I go to art gallery openings. I drink a lot of white wine in the winter.
But most of the guys I play racquetball and ride motorcycles with hang out in a totally different circle. They’ve never even heard of Locally Grown. I’d hate to think I’d be condescending in a conversation about them but I can see how it could happen if someone asked me why none of these guys frequent LoGroNo. I could easily make the same mistake as Obama did and slip into a little psychoanalysis that could be seen as patronizing.
I really like the PBS special, People Like Us: Social Class in America, because it touches on all these class issues and opens your eyes. I think it should be shown yearly in a ‘Social Class in Northfield’ event at The Grand, even though ‘my types’ would be the only ones to show up for it.
While I’m at it, who has read the “Beans of Egypt, Maine”? There’s an eye opener. You’ll never look at classism or elitism the same, again.
Allow me to expound. I come from one of the most successfully integrated neighborhoods in the country, and the military also housed their 5th Army families there, with a major 20,000 employee univeristy with students from just about every country in the world. We never got into this kind of discussion because where there is openess and community, there is a space for everyone. No one complains of getting choked out. And although there were probably ten times the population there, the crime rate was extremely low…and except for the daytime buses, it was very quiet.
Holly, your comment about “Beans” made me think of another book about class, “Limbo”, by Alfred Lubrano.
Bill Ostrem (#28), after reading your comment about your experience at Princeton, I bet you’d appreciate this book.
http://www.amazon.com/Limbo-Blue-Collar-Roots-White-Collar-Dreams/dp/0471714399/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1208958513&sr=8-1
“Limbo” looks interesting. Thanks, Curt.
Here’s a brief interview with Lubrano on NPR:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1479369
Curt,
Interesting piece. Thanks.
Curt,
Thanks for the link to Lubrano’s book on “straddlers” -- people who are between two worlds. In my case this was as much regional as it was class. Midwesterners feel this in the Northeastern U.S., Southerners probably even more so.
One thing that can foster a sense of superiority is having traveled or lived somewhere else, especially somewhere else that claims to be superior in some way to where you are now. I fall into this trap myself, having lived in Chicago, New Jersey, and California, besides Minnesota -- also having traveled in Europe.
The challenge is to share with people who live here what you’ve seen elsewhere, then see if agreement can be reached to make improvements or changes here. But one problem is that people don’t have access to the same experiences of having lived in place X or Y.
Griff presented this definition of elites in comment #30: “people who sometimes act as if their views on a matter are to be taken the most seriously or carry the most weight because of their intellectual and/or educational status.” Webster’s defines elitism as “1. leadership or rule by an elite; 2. the selectivity of the elite, esp. snobbery; 3. consciousness of being or belonging to an elite.”
I think Griff’s definition of elitism is too narrowly defined by “intellectual” or “educational status” elites, though this does plague Northfield. What other elites are there? Elites of race, money, profession, status, power, ancestry, property, violence, nationality, language, etc. Let’s not forget those too, and don’t be too beguiled by those who tell you to beware of “elites” without recognizing the elites they belong to themelves.
Perhaps some of the frustration certain people have with the educational status/intellectual elites in Northfield is that those elites lay claim to power and influence that other elites want to leave for themselves.
Finally, it might be interesting to have a community meeting with a skilled facilitator that poses some of the questions that Scott brought up in comment #44. Don’t laugh at that idea too quickly. It might be very helpful; it would certainly help a group of people to get to know each other better.
It would also be interesting for people to read and discuss “Main Street,” by Sinclair Lewis, his story of Gopher Prairie, Minnesota. In what ways is Northfield like and unlike Gopher Prairie? What characters do we identify with and why? You see the old English teacher in me coming out.
Man, I really wish I would have started to read this when it was first posted.
Funny enough, I had a discussion about this in my politics class this morning, because about 80% of my class came from small towns in the midwest, some of which were offended by Obama’s comment, some of which were completely uninformed, and some of which understood this comment as one made on stereotypes that a lot of city folk have.
I personally have lived in all different types of living situations. I have spent a good third of my life in the city, a third of it in the suburbs, and a third of it in small town northfield.
I wish I started reading this earlier because I found myself skimming the 57 very intelligent comments on it, because I simply don’t have time in the hour between my classes.
But I would, however, like to commend Anthony Pierce on his short and simple, but convincing comment.
“I wanted the best doctor to repair my knee, am I elitist? I want the best person to be president, not someone that would have fun with my at a BBQ. (I stole that from bill mahr
)”
I watched that part of Bill Mahr as well…
And I agree 100%.
I think the problem is that we are not elitist enough because Americans are getting so concerned with being “politically correct” and always wanting to be somewhere in the middle. You know.. “I want my steak and eggs with the steak medium, and eggs over medium, and I’m going to pay a medium price, leave a medium tip, because I am an average joe in the middle class that drives moderatly above the speed limit.”
I don’t think it would hurt us to have someone smarer than the rest of us in office. I also don’t think it would hurt us to have someone that has more money. Since if they have a lot of money and started out with very little (such as Obama’s family), they obviously know how to handle money which would be really useful in our receeding economy.
The main reason I remain an Obama supporter despite all of the mud on his face thrown by Hilary (mud created by the Republicans GIVEN to Hilary), is because he’s a radical and because he’s willing to make some changes that have been needed for years.
As far as Northfield goes…I’m not going to worry about offending people from Dundas and Faribault by saying I’m better than them in some ways. There’s a little bit of truth to stereotypes, otherwise people wouldn’t use them.
Just as Apple Valley probably says they’re better than us.
Maybe people just need to get some thicker skin.
that was quite a bit longer than I inted on writing.
whoops.
[...] the residents of small towns, our local blog extraordinaire, Locally Grown Northfield, hosted a discussion about snobbery and elitism Northfield-style. In the comments, see my own take on class and elitism [...]
Does anyone except a snob debate the definition of snobbery? (Yours truly included.)
David…sheer genius. Thank you.
(“Am I a snob?” seems to be the intellectual version of “Do these pants make me look fat?” The person asking usually wants reassurance, not truth.)
Great conversation! It’s making me recall my experience coming from a lower-middle-class family and neighborhood and lucking into the opportunity to attend a wonderful private high school with kids from the wealthiest neighborhoods in San Francisco, which was exciting but pretty intimidating. When I talked with my old friends about these new classmates, and mentioned where they lived because that seemed new and different and kind of interesting, I was accused of becoming a snob. So I stopped talking about them.
Then I went to an Ivy League university, and quickly and forever learned not to talk very freely about that unless it was particularly relevant or when with others from a similar academic milieu, because it became clear that just by mentioning where one went to college, one was seen as bragging, or name-dropping. (Never mind that I’d received major financial aid and worked for the college food service, unloading dishwashers and flipping burgers, all the way through school.) That phenomenon was even true in a different form while we were in college: I remember kids from Beverly Hills who said they were from L.A., because they knew otherwise they’d immediately be judged.
Having different experiences and even just learning new vocabulary changes your perceptions and your interpretations and the way you express both. You can try “keeping it real” with the folks in the old neighborhood, or the folks in your new town that are like the folks you grew up with, and you can understand where they’re coming from, and maybe some of them are still your very best friends, but it can be harder to be in the same mental place. And they, quite naturally, will find it harder to be in your mental place.
And that’s not snobbism (not that snobbism doesn’t exist, of course it does, but it’s not inherent in the situation I’m describing), that’s just the reality of the fact that we are all shaped by our experiences and environments — but it seems quite a few people insist that it is snobbism, and I think that insistence can be a psychological defense mechanism that is quite understandable: “I feel that society judges me to be in some way inferior to this other person or group who has XYZ experiences or credentials that I don’t have, so I assume that this other person or group thinks that they are superior to me, which allows me to call them snobs and thus dismiss their views, along with any implication of inferiority.”
But on the other hand…
While it may be hard for anyone from either side of the aisle (Faribault/Northfield; working stiff/”boho”; white collar/blue or pink collar; college educated/high school educated; financially struggling/financially stable; etc. etc. etc.) to be in the same mental place as their counterpart on the other side, we do well to try to connect with each other across those divides, and learn from each other, and explain our own perspectives and try to understand others’ differing perspectives, and be kind to each other, and try not to label and judge each other (even though that is a universal human instinct, as other commentors have discussed), because making that effort makes for a cohesive, livable society.
I was saddened by the story of the talented student who didn’t feel that pursuing a skilled trade was an acceptable choice for him in this community. That kind of elitism I do see around here — reading the graduation supplement each year to see what everyone’s plans are (college or not, what kind of college, etc.) reveals the socioeconomic and educational divides in this town pretty darn well.
Hey, why am I a cabbage again? I used to have a picture here…
Whatever the textbook definition, it seems the word “elitist” has become an easy way to disarm an argument — amazingly, even if the argument was made by a black man raised by a working-class single mom in 1960s America — without judging its merits.
As others in this thought-provoking discussion have pointed out, Americans seem leery of (even antagonistic toward) people who are smarter than we are. Unfortunately, this is most evident when we’re deciding whether a person is fit to lead the country. Consider how Al Gore was pejoratively portrayed as the “smartest kid in school” in 2000. Consider how much attention the Obama “bitter” bit has gotten versus, say, issues that matter.
We should be civil and respectful to all people, regardless of class, race or education. No doubt. Something I need to remind myself. Yet I think it’s important to accept that some people are smarter than we are. And I don’t think we should embrace the idea all opinions are equally valid — even if many people share them. Because there is a lot of evidence that we in the masses should raise our game rather than demand that the smartest among us lower theirs.
As author Susan Jacoby has pointed out, more than three years into the Iraq war, only 23 percent of those with some college education could locate Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Israel on a map.
As author Bill McKibben has pointed, some 85 percent of Americans consider themselves Christians. But only 40 percent of them can name any five the Ten Commandments. And twelve percent of Americans think Joan of Arc was Noah’s wife.
Being president is the most demanding and complex job in the country. Shouldn’t we elect an obscenely smart person to do it?
I know I expect the person on my ballot to be several degrees smarter than I am.
Regarding socio-economic factors that might supply some basis for Northfield’s sense of superiority over neighboring communities (based on CNN/Money’s ‘Best Places to Live’ index):
Northfield has higher family income than Faribault and Owatonna but lower than Farmington. Higher levels of ‘some college’ than Faribault and Owatonna but lower than Farmington. Its racial diversity index is higher than Farmington and Owatonna but lower than Faribault. Northfield student test scores were higher than the other three communities.
So it seems that what Northfield can be ‘proud’ of is the test scores of its children. Then again maybe Owatonna should be proud of itself in this regard as well. With a ‘some college’ level 15 percentage points lower than Northfield, their test score index is only about 8 per centage points lower than here. Maybe even Faribault has cause for pride…test scores slightly above the state average with an immigrant population well above the state average.
Taking a new tack: Rochester has a ‘some college’ percentage number essentially the same as Northfield. In raw numbers they probably have 5 times as many B.A. and higher degrees. Do they get accused of snobbery by neighboring communities? Maybe…but I don’t think they have the reputation in that regard that Northfield seems to have. Why is that? Could it be that people who hold technical and engineering degrees are less likely to be snobs than those holding liberal arts degrees? Without any proof of that point, I’ll say, nevertheless, that is my experience. Maybe it stems from knowing a little about a lot, opposed to a lot about a little. Maybe it’s the nature of study of subjective versus objective realities. Or is it that holders of liberal arts degrees tend to be liberal politically? I don’t think that liberals are necessarily snobs/elitists, but let’s face it…they sure get accused of it a lot.
Taking another tack: Maybe Northfield’s snobbishness is historic. I can well imagine the town’s uptight New England, and dour Norwegian settlers looking down their noses at Faribault’s fun loving, hard drinking Frenchmen…not to mention the Irish in Farmington.
All that being said I’ll admit to being born and raised in Faribault…so don’t take any of this too seriously.
Tom- You said, “… know I expect the person on my ballot to be several degrees smarter than I am.” I can understand your expectations with this statement, but consider this perspective. Is there a difference between educational accomplishments and wisdom? I believe there is. I’m most impressed with a person who readily admits that he doesn’t know everything, but he’s willing to learn. I define that as wisdom.
It reminds me of the story about a boyscout, an old priest and the smartest man in the world who went on an airplane flight in a small plane. The plane developed engine trouble, and the pilot said they had to bail out. The problem was that there was only three parachutes. The pilot said he had a wife and five kids, so he needed one to save himself to take care of them. He grabbed one and jumped out of the plane. The smartest man in the world said he needed one because he was going to a very high level meeting to solve the world’s problems. He grabbed one and jumped out, leaving the priest and the boyscout with one parachute. The priest, being magnanamous, told the boyscout to take the parachute. He said that he had had a long productive life and that the boyscout had his whole life ahead of him. The boyscout replied, “Don’t worry, monsignor. We will both live. The smartest man in the world just grabbed my napsack and jumped out.”
I guess it doesn’t matter how much you know, so much as how to use what you do know. I have met people who are educated beyond their intelligence.
We have a motto where I work that says this- “A customer does not care how much you know until they know how much you care.” I still believe that snobism and elitism are a matter of attitude which is then acted out by the bahavior. And I would go so far as to say there is no justification for the attitude.
When it comes to voting for intelligent people, I am against it. Now, I guess I will have to explain why I said that. Once a man or woman or politician gets to Washington, DC or the state level, they better be ready to throw aside their smarts and get to work on getting along with the powers that be, or no pet program is going anywhere fast.
I would love to hear someone disagree with that. I truly wish it were not true.
Bright, I’m not sure I follow your last (#67) comment. I think we need to send intelligent people in office. However, we do not always do that. What we do not need are rubber stamp party hacks. If a politican cannot quickly give 4-5 examples of good ideas from the opposing party, and examples when they voted in support of them, then they either are not doing their job properly, or they are not smart enough to give thoughtful analysis of legislation. The third possibility would be that the other side doesn’t have any good ideas….but that leads back to the beginning, and a failure to recognize reasonable plans and policies from the other parties.
Regarding snobs in Northfield, I concur with David L’s thought (#60)..when you have to ask….
Thanks for your reply to my comment, John. To clarify, in that case I intended the word “degrees” as a synonym for “levels” or “standards” — not diplomas earned. I think the country deserves an intellectually curious and exceptionally bright president. Makes little difference to me whether the person, like Obama, was president of the Harvard Law Review or like Lincoln, self-taught.
I disagree with your statement that “it doesn’t matter how much you know …” Especially if you’re the president. Hasn’t the current officeholder taught that much?
What I meant was that Obama is going to get his toes run over in DC.
He is new, he has ideas, but no friends. He hasn’t made any real allies.
Who has come out for him besides Richie Daley?
Anyway ideas don’t power make. Anybody can have an idea. It’s more about patting each other on the back and watching each other’s backs and backing each other in the clinches…it’s about the money. Follow the money trail.
If I am in DC and my constituency back home wants to stay on the say,
being paid for not growing rice, and the other party wants to propose a
bill to take away that subsidy, what do I do? If I vote against my home town people’s wishes or needs, no one will work with me on my good ideas later on. If I vote with the other party, I loose my next term in office to one who promises to work to keep the subsidy or get it back. A magical third
solution might work, but who will take the chance?
And this thread has drifted so that it really needs to be in the Presidential candidates thread.
Bill Ostrem: “But one problem is that people don’t have access to the same experiences of having lived in place X or Y.”
Agreed. A lazy parochialism is killing this country.
I heard someone yesterday assert that the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay are lviing better than they ever did in their homelands.
You would never hear such a comment from a cosmopolitan, unless it was a calculated lie.
Regarding snobs, I realize I am an anti snob snob. And as such, I apologize if I ever made anyone feel bad for being so snobby. : )
.
I had dinner last night with a 74 year old who grew up here, left, and came back for retirement. He told a story about about when he was a high school hurdler he came up against a faster Faribault boy who always beat him. That is, until the district meet when they were seniors. The Faribault boy went out drinking the night before the meet and performed poorly because of his hangover…this allowing my dinner companion to win. He completed the story with…”But you know how those Faribault guys are…” That was 1952.
Tom- I’m not sure you have connected with what I was saying in my post. I think you are refering to the motto about knowing and caring. Take a look at it again, “A customer does not care how much you know until they know how much you care.” I believe this delineates between elevating yourself above others because of your knowledge rather than showing people you really understand them (or are at least willing to put in the effort to try to understand them). There is a scripture that says knowledge makes arrogant while love edifies. I think this is evident in human behavior. As I have observed arrogant (snobish) people, I have seen this characteristic demonstrated. And those people who have to interact with them usually feel they do not care. This is the point I was trying to get across. Am I understanding your reaction correct;y?
Or, was it my other reference to knowledge? Either way, I’m still making the same point. I believe that empathy and understanding are invaluable in applying knowledge, and I think you are making the same point in your reference to the President.
Sometimes anti-intellectualism arises out of a rejection of complexity. I think it’s important for both leaders and everyday, Main Street citizens to be able to handle complexity, because many issues are not simple, though we would like them to be. Uncritical application of “common sense” and gut reactions may simplify decision-making, but the results can be far from ideal, as I think has been amply demonstrated. For thousands of years it was “common sense” that the sun rises and sets around the earth. Now we know that the earth’s revolutions in its orbit around the sun cause the sun to appear to rise and set — and now that model of the solar system strikes most people as common sense, because they’ve grown up with it.
What strikes people as common sense, in other words, is very much based on what they’ve experienced and been taught and how they understand the world. Some of that “wisdom” is truly universal (e.g., “if I touch that hot stove, it will burn me”), but some of it is not. If I’ve been raised by people with a particular political, philosophical or religious outlook or world view, whether conservative, liberal, or somewhere in between, their ideas will probably strike me as common sense, and differing ideas may strike me as misguided or silly or even evil. And the same is true for others raised in families and communities with differing world views. It behooves us all to try to be aware of our blind spots and to be open to the possibility that we may be wrong, or that for some problems there is no one right answer.
“Elites” or “ivory tower intellectuals” who claim to understand the world but who lose touch with or dismiss the real concerns and perspectives of “ordinary people” can justifiably be criticized. But likewise, “ordinary people” who dismiss the real insights to be gained from careful, critical study as elitist claptrap or contrary to common sense are probably not doing themselves or their communities a favor.
Beautifully said, Penny.
Bright, regarding comment 67 where you are against electing smart people to office. I guess the difference is in electing smart people or electing people who think they are smart. It is up to us, the voters to figure out the difference.
Also, I have know many “smart” people who are not practical, and that is not the same.
However, I do think we have a large group of not very smart people in our country who know they are not smart and resent people who are smart and I also think they cling to their radical ideas about religion or guns or immigrants or abortion as they find other not so smart people who cheer them on and some very smart people who goad them on.
I think Obama spoke the truth and nobody has the guts to point out he is right.
The manipulation of the intellectually UN curious masses has been the success of the Republican party.
Jane and Penny: Some great insights. Thank you.
‘“Elites” or “ivory tower intellectuals” who claim to understand the world but who lose touch with or dismiss the real concerns and perspectives of “ordinary people” can justifiably be criticized.’
I put “Condi” Rice in that category. How exactly did having served as provost at Stanford prepare her for the decision to invade Iraq?!! What a sick joke.
Jane & Chris- I think your comments demonstrate very well what Penny is saying in her second paragraph.
Bright- I echo your sentiments on Penny’s comments in your post #76.
Chris Schons: Are you in Chicago-- Did you just like the discussion?
I agree that Condi Rice seems the epitomy of an elitist. Not so sure about the “out of touch” part, but I know I wouldn’t like her job.
Maybe you could explain the Guantanamo Bay comment and how that relates to the concept of elitism. I don’t like the assertion you might be making that we (US citizens) all miss the big picture… thanks a lot.
On a more general note-- Of course we want someone smart in office. Of course!
Good point about needing a healthy alliance to get things done. Probably both Obama and Clinton have the alliance they need as neither fits the “true renegade” mold.
It seems the more I know about Obama, the more I think he was born to run. Of course, that might make Hillary more interesting-- she’s a true intellect, and wasn’t “born to run.” She’s worked hard her whole life, I think.
As for elitism-- Money isn’t the only factor. Comparison is everything.
Off for some milk so I can get to sleep.
Jane said…
“However, I do think we have a large group of not very smart people in our country who know they are not smart and resent people who are smart and I also think they cling to their radical ideas about religion or guns or immigrants or abortion as they find other not so smart people who cheer them on and some very smart people who goad them on.”
Might someone who is religious, opposes abortion on demand and open borders, and supports the right to bear arms, find that statement just a little bit elitist? Isn’t it possible for a member of the ‘masses’ to reach an opinion based on thoughtful analysis?
I do not think it does progressives any good to denigrate the mental abilities of those who disagree with them. And yet intellectual snobbery seems to be something of a common thread among liberals. Disdain for the very class that liberals purport to represent does not go unnoticed. Time and again it is seized on by conservatives to move voters away from the party that best represents their economic interests.
So let’s admit it:
Right to Lifers are just as smart as abortion advocates.
Gun owners are just as smart as gun controllers.
Immigration control advocates are just as smart as open border advocates.
There is nothing about holding those beliefs, on either side, that makes one necessarily smart or stupid. The sooner liberals can come to grips with that…the sooner they can start winning more elections.
Holly, maybe what I really mean by not having a smart person elected or in any leadership position is based more in the fact that most deals fail, most new businesses fail, and many good ideas have consequences down the road that undermine the earlier intent by tenfold. Many smart ideas are merely repeats of old ones in a new coat…sans faux fur.
I want to see the new smart which means not only using the head, but the heart. What is good for the people, the environment AND future generations. I still don’t hear enough of politicians or designers coming from those viewpoints. Too many are calling “cleaning up the environment” whenever they paint a fence white, too many think making healthcare affordable for the poor will make any difference to the really poor who need it most. Too many smart people think that the future will take care of itself.
In the meantime, we have already too many laws, so that only the well healed will be able to buy their justice at the expense of the rest of us, because we can’t make hide nor hair of it all. So that is why I say, let’s
not elect anyone too smart, qualiftying it with unless they get what I
just said and will work willingly and convincingly to make the world
spin nicley instead of sputter and spew.
I see-- I guess it takes a lot to make the world spin nicely, now that you mention it. Yes, less sputter and spew.
But someone smart in many ways, and practical, is a must. A must!
Yes, practical. Good idea, Jane.
Political leanings and smarts-- are they associated? That’s a good question. I guess don’t think so, myself. I’ve heard rumors of polls showing liberals to be more educated, but I don’t put much stock in polls, lately.
And I find it interesting that William seems to think all people are equally smart. That’s not the case. And, there are several different types of smart, while I am at it.
I wish Jane didn’t use specifics as she talked about the not-so-smart being led by the not-so-smart and the smart. in general, educated citizens make better decisions, which I think is the point she was trying to make?
Blah blah blah. Off to Econofoods to get food for daughter Ruth to cook. Kids have to cook nowadays in the class that used to be called home economics… goodie! I say more power to that class.
Holly…I don’t think that all people are equally smart. I just don’t think we can presume people are ‘not so smart’ (or bitter) because of their beliefs.
As to educated citizens making better decisions than uneducated…I would tend to agree…But remember William Buckley’s (a man who was nothing if not elitist) famous quote: “I’d rather entrust the government of the United States to the first 400 people listed in the Boston telephone directory than to the faculty of Harvard University.”
William- I suppose Buckley might have something there, especially if the first 400 people might be Andersons. Now, there! How’s that for Scandanavian elitism?
Sometimes, in these types of discussions, I think we are all probably guilty of taking ourselves a little too seriously. I know I am. That is why I like to discuss issues with people who do not always see things as I do. It really helps me recognize my own blind spots, and gets me to really analyze why I believe some of the things I believe in. Diversity of viewpoints can be healthy as long as we do not use the differences to create division. And that goes back to my opinion that we are resposible for our own reactions to people/situations/ideas, etc.
From comment No. 75: “For thousands of years it was ‘common sense’ that the sun rises and sets around the earth. Now we know that the earth’s revolutions in its orbit around the sun cause the sun to appear to rise and set — and now that model of the solar system strikes most people as common sense, because they’ve grown up with it.”
Well said, Penny, and much appreciated.
I keep thinking of what it would be like if our current political tags had been applied during other events from the past.
Many bloggers think he looked down his nose at thousands of Americans when he freed the slaves. Is Lincoln an “elitist”? We’ll talk to people on both sides of that debate. Next on Hardball.
Is the “elitist” tag being applied to John McCain after he said he did not support equal-pay legislation because women really need is more “education and training”? If not, why not?
Mr. Siemers (Post #84): I am guessing that the late Mr. Buckley would say the same of Northfield, and that his opinion would be in the majority.
“I’d rather entrust the government of the United States to the first 400 people listed in the Boston telephone directory than to the faculty of Harvard University.”
I would rather entrust the government of the United States to either group than to the bunch of people who’ve actually been elected!
The problem is we have NEITHER ordinary people NOR well-educated people running the country. Buckley’s statement is a subterfuge.
Chris Schon, you are irritating me with your factless statements and your BS. Can I write that, Ross?
I am going to be blunt. I believe that there are more ignorant and “not smart” people than there are informed and smart, or, in other words, there are more people that do not care to learn and be informed and educated than there are those that work at educating and understanding their world.
And, thus, these less educated people tend to cling to religion or guns or anti-immigration not because of an understanding of the complexities of an issue, but because of an overriding decision to follow their church or their neighbor. In other words, like the Taliban, they want to make their religious beliefs the law and impose that religious belief on society.
Most of the people in the United States cannot identify Iraq on a map of the world.
My pessimistic view is that a majority of the citizens of the US are uninformed and don’t even know it. The repbulican party has capitalized on this by making guns, abortion and immigration the issue when we should be worring about corrupt politicians, a war where we pay more for mercenaries and bribes than we do to our army, and an economy that is decimated by the same war spending.
Funny thing is, even the uneducated have figured out that the economy stinks and that this administration has fed them a bunch of hooey.
Recognizing that most of the people in the United States are not too bright is not elitist, it is realistic. Somehow thinking that intellectual ability translates into having more rights is elitist.
And I really don’t think that it is limited to Northfield or Faribault or Kansas or Chicago or New York. I think you would find the same proportions throughout the nation. (OK, maybe Mississippi and Arkansas would be a little different, and you gotta wonder about California.)
What I am saying is that even if I believe that only 25% of the population is smart, I am not an elitist. If I believed that the said 25% were entitled to more rights, resources, etc. then I would be an elitist.
So, William Siemers, I don’t agree with you, as I think that if you looked at intellectual ability and a position on the issues you listed, you will find that, statistically, “smarter” people tend to being “liberal.” That does not mean that ALL people who believe one way or another are smart or stupid-Just that I do not care to argue an issue with people who are unable to form a complete thought, and merely parrot someone else’s idea.
Someone said, and another someone approvingly quoted,
“Now we know that the earth’s revolutions in its orbit around the sun cause the sun to appear to rise and set — and now that model of the solar system strikes most people as common sense, because they’ve grown up with it.”
Erm, no. The earth’s revolution in its orbit, in conjunction with the tilt of its axis, causes the *seasons.* It’s the earth’s daily rotation about its axis that causes the sun to appear to rise and set.
It would be elitist to draw a moral.
Jane…I agree with your statement, “…thinking that intellectual ability translates into having more rights is elitist.”
Then you go on to say “… statistically, “smarter” people tend to be “liberal.”
I might be wrong, but your definition of ‘liberal’ does not seem to include room for those who have conservative views on abortion, immigration, and gun ownership. But there are millions of people who have deeply felt, ‘conservative’ views on one or more of those issues who also embrace lynchpin progressive positions on the war, the environment, and many issues of social and economic justice. There is no point in alienating them by demeaning their intelligence for ‘worrying’ about issues that are important to them.
Many union members are NRA members and anti-immigration, but also economic progressives. Many in the religious community are, anti-war, socially progressive and anti-abortion. These issues are not mutually exclusive. Liberals need these voters.
Anyway…I guess all I’m saying is that liberals need to get over this ‘statistically smarter’ attitude. Because what is more important…getting elected, or thinking you’re smarter than the next guy.
That was my quote, Linda, and I agree I may have muddied the waters by saying “in its orbit around the sun.” Those words were extraneous to my meaning. It was the revolutions (or rotation, as you put it) on its axis (which happen to occur while the earth is simultaneously traveling around the sun) that were the core of my meaning. I did not think that “revolutions” would be equated with the orbit itself. I apologize for any confusion.
William; I am not saying that there are not anomalies. I said that statistically smarter people tend to be more liberal (you can say progressive or whatever.) This doesn’t mean that they are all bleeding heart tree hugging pasifist gay cross dressing liberals.
When I use statistics, I am making broad statments. I stand by my statements. I know many intelligent, well-spoken COMPASSIONATE people who disagree with me on abortion and religion. Fewer who disagree with me on capital punishment.
People are all different. The problem is when we JUDGE everyone ELSE by some definition. People have a right to different opinions. I tend to respect and learn from people who are able to communicate their opinon based on reason. I tend to dismiss opinions from people who are unable to communicate their basis for their opinion. The diffence is sometimes intelligence.
I still think the majority of Americans are not too bright. I didn’t say I don’t like them or want to deny them any place in our world.
I also find it difficult to have a reasonable discussion with someone who is not informed or educated, but clings to their belief because it is their belief while they are unable to articulate a reasoned support.
I am a CPA. My own brother came to me with a cockamamie scheme where he wouldn’t have to pay taxes anymore since wages are not income under the internal revenue code--or at least that is what somebody told him. My brother is not stupid, but he sure was stupid about this. He HEARD what he wanted to hear from someone intent on affecting a large group of people to his way of thinking. (That someone is in Federal prison for tax evasion.)
There are fools born every minute, and people who will capitalize on their foolishness. I tend to not be persuaded by fools.
There are many types of intelligence, for those of you who have not yet had a chance to think about this topic, or who don’t really do this kind of thinking…
some people have intelligence for details,some have the ability to understand broad and far reaching ideas, some have intelligence in thier muscles, and many are far superior to me and you in their body awareness and still others are very keenly aware of their envronment, while some are walking into walls on a daily basis. There are many kinds of abilities that people use to survive, to make decisions, and to get along in the world.
That is why diversity of plant, animal, two leggeds and bacteria and virus and insects are so important to us all, and why none should be put off or down or under.
I wouldn’t necessarily equate “smartness” with good decision making ability, wisdom and especially not with virtue.
I’d guess that all the great despots of history were “smart” in some way.
David Halberstam’s book “The Best and Brightest” explains how America’s elite got us involved, and kept us involved in Vietnam long after the smart thing would have been to disengage.
This customer review from Amazon says it way better than I can:
“Nothing so brilliantly crystallized and clarified the epic true story of how the American people were led into the tragedy of Vietnam better than did this classic book by David Halberstam. Already famous for his journalistic overview in “The Making of a Quagmire”, Halberstam riveted the nation with his absorbing, literate, and very detailed account of how the arrogant, insular, technocratically well educated, and affluent sons and daughters of the Power Elite in this country led us into the unholy miasma of Vietnam. This is a classic story superbly told by a journalist with impeccable credentials.
Halberstam already had a wealth of personal experience as a correspondent in Vietnam before initiating the research for this book, and he draws a number of fascinating, intimate, and quite absorbing in-depth portraits of the major figures involved in this fool’s errand formerly referred to as French Indochina. From the feckless and perhaps clueless Robert McNamara to McGeorge Bundy, brother William Bundy, former Oxford Scholar Dean Rusk, George Ball, William Westmoreland, Maxwell Taylor, and Presidents Kennedy and Johnson, all these alumni of the best schools and best families (with the single exception of LBJ, an accidental president) pranced their pseudo-macho way toward the single most disastrous series of military decisions this side of Pearl Harbor.
Unlike those of us who actually saw the jungles of Vietnam up close and personal, these men were neither ignorant, nor provincial (at least not in the ordinary use of that term), nor poorly informed; rather, they both considered themselves and were considered by others to be the most outstanding, capable, and effective members of the contemporary “Power Elite” i.e. the best of the then contemporary ivy League graduates Kennedy could lure from the bastions of the academic, business, and corporate world into the magic and presumptuous world of Camelot. In essence, these guys were seen as the best and the brightest of their generation. Just how their elite educations, presumptuous world-views, and de-facto actual ignorance and lack of what we would now refer to as “street-smarts” led them to conclude it was in the nation’s interests to fight what others have called “the wrong war in the wrong place with the wrong foes at the wrong time” is an epic tale of arrogance, insular thinking, and mutually sustained delusions.
Through their efforts they embroiled us in an unwinnable war, a conflict that the rest of us paid so dearly for in blood, sweat and tears. They led a nation then so singularly blessed with affluence and peace into a bottomless cauldron of dissent, inter-generational strife, and almost pitched us off the precipice of social and political revolution. It is important to better understand what kind of men they were, and why they led us so carelessly into such sustained disaster. Why did they react to defeats by escalating, even when the evidence clearly indicated (as McNamara has recently admitted) doing so was futile? Who led whom down the primrose path in the meetings in which these decisions were repeatedly argued, hammered out and finally refined?
All these questions and many more are answered in this wonderfully documented and exhaustively detailed account of how it is that so few individuals engaged in a series of such disastrous policy decisions that led America into the quagmire of Vietnam. By the way, after carefully re-reading the book I am more convinced than ever that McNamara and Westmoreland (among others) should be indicted and tried as war criminals. Let them spend their dotage in federal prison. After all, there is no statute of limitations on conspiracy to commit murder, and I have dozens of friends gone too soon based on nothing more than the deliberately callous and reckless decisions made by these men as outlined in this book. I highly recommend it.”
“Maybe you could explain the Guantanamo Bay comment and how that relates to the concept of elitism. I don’t like the assertion you might be making that we (US citizens) all miss the big picture… thanks a lot.”
Only an ignorant person could claim that the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay are better off there than in their homelands. And recently I did hear a guy claim this. I’m afraid his view, along with his ignorance, are all too common.
“Chris Schon, you are irritating me with your factless statements and your BS.”
Like what, for example?
Jane- Your comment, smarter (I’m assuiming you mean more highly educated) people tend to be more liberal, raises a question in my mind. What other writers have you exposed yourself to? If you only follow writings by current accademia, you will probably come to that conclusion. I suggest you try the writings of C. S. Lewis and Francis A. Schaeffer. These men write so far above me that it takes me a day or so to figure out what they are saying on one page of their writings, but they have been highly instrumental in reinforcing my Biblical world view. It is good to be challenged to rise above our own existential experiences and listen to some learned viewpoints now and then. We are all entitled to our own opinions, but we are also responsible for them. If we can not, in a discussion, defend them based on sound reason rather than accusations and emotional outbursts, then perhaps they are not worth having.
‘Does IQ matter in politics?
Published May 20, 2004, St. Petersburg Times
“So Democrats really are smarter,” teased the small headline in the latest issue of the Economist, a London-based news magazine that closely follows U.S. politics. That piqued our curiosity, so we read on.
The magazine, using as its source IQ and the Wealth of Nations by Richard Lynn and Tatu Vanhanen, found that Al Gore carried nine of the 10 states with the highest average IQ in the 2000 presidential election, while George W. Bush swept the 10 states at the bottom of the list.
We’re not sure what this means, if anything, but Democrats may find some consolation in the fact that Gore won not only more popular votes than Bush but also more smart votes.
Gore won Connecticut (113), Massachusetts (111), New Jersey (111), New York (109), Rhode Island (107), Hawaii (106), Maryland (105), Illinois (104) and Delaware (103).
Bush carried only one of the high-IQ states -- New Hampshire (105).
However, he blew Gore away in the 10 states with the lowest average IQ -- Alabama (90), Louisiana (90), Montana (90), Oklahoma (90), South Dakota (90), South Carolina (89), Wyoming (89), Idaho (87), Utah (87) and Mississippi (85).’