As far as character, well, your Gramps would never have voted for someone like Obama with his shady background. He’d know him for the scoundrel he is. Too bad he’s not around to set you straight. He’d tell you about the hucksters who promise a chicken in every pot.

Once again, you miss the point. I don’t think you’re stupid. I think you’re arrogant. So is Obama and so are many of his supporters.

Again, this isn’t about the factual content of anyone’s statements. I don’t care if rural people really tend to love guns and Jesus. I care that Obama and many of his supporters are contemptuous of rural people BECAUSE they love guns and Jesus.

The attitude is all over this comment section: “They’re just hicks. They didn’t go to college like WE did. They don’t know anything about critical thinking or logic or multiculturalism. They can’t possibly understand all the complexities in the world today. Only we are qualified to make important decisions. I don’t know why we even let them vote.”

I’m saying that this is a profoundly anti-democratic attitude. Democracy is based on the idea that people should have a say in decisions that affect their lives. Every citizen gets to speak and every citizen gets to vote. I know that in reality this ideal has seldom been attained – elites are always figuring out ways to ensure that only the “right people” get to make the decisions. Despite this tendency, the United States has been moving steadily toward opening the political process to more of its citizens. Believing that this trend has been a mistake – that some of those citizens aren’t really “qualified” to participate because of their education or cultural background – is truly anti-progressive.

Similar beliefs, in fact, kept women and African Americans locked out of the political process for most of this country’s history. I think elitism belongs in the same category as racism and sexism – it’s just a form of bigotry.

We can argue objectively about Obama’s qualifications. Yes, he may be “the smartest kid in the room.” But smart has nothing to do with character. Obama’s offhand contempt for certain of his fellow citizens – and his past association with people and organizations who share that contempt – do not bode well for democracy in this country.

I’ve twice stated my criticism about Libs wanting to talk about “the issues”. You defended the practice, claiming that wanting to talk about the issues, doesn’t mean we don’t care about character. You simply missed my point, and thus, the whole point of this overall article. So, I’ll try again, because this is what it all boils down to.

They don’t simply prefer to talk about “the issues”, nor do they just want to change the subject to “the issues” and talk about character at another time. They simply dismiss the character and values issues.

The first clue is calling them “the issues”. Emphasis on “the”. That simple definite article excludes the values issue. Sometimes they use the phrase “the real issues”, which is more observably indicative of the fact that they simply don’t values the values issue as a legitimate issue, nevermind the overarching one.

This is the divide. I feel that the character and values issues are simply priority #1. Without them, nothing else matters. Right and wrong simply come first.

If you can’t accept that, then you’re one of those elitists who are enchanted by all these “new ideas”, these ideologies. It’s the idea that human ideas come before God’s ideas that I find so offensive.

It’s no coincidence that the attendance of church/temple is much, much higher on the conservative side than the liberal side. It comes down to the conservatives’ celebration of God versus the liberals’ celebration of Man.

How much of this Hanson “elite” definition relies on believing one knows what others think and feel? Because judging by much of this post and its comments I’m starting to wonder . . .

If I didn’t care why would I write numerous long comments about Mr. Hanson being a hypocrite? Is hypocricy not an issue of character? Are you not the one talking politics while nearly all of my comments have almost exclusively spoken of issues of character? The immediate dismissal of and assumptions of those who appar unlike you or to disagree with you is not in my view fair or producive (if communication is your goal at least).

Additionally comments like “If the elite educated simply show some common sense and values” again shows the hypocricy. As you know those terms are subjective and clearly most of us belive we posses both values and common sense. Again, the exclusivity and sense of superiority you and Mr. Hanson speak of is eveiden here, in that you seem to think you are the determiner of subjective values and terms.

I agree with another commenter that here in this post Hanson has redefined elite apparently to fit what he thinks are liberals (and Obama) are but not the wealthy Rep. elite. He also seems to wants to separate elitism from anti-intellectualism in the letter but not spirit of his definition.

You say ” Barry’s comment of “bitterly clinging to their guns and religions” was classic elitism. He stated right there his contempt for our traditional values.” But again you state it’s okay to judge by values, seems that you think it’s okay to judge by yours and look down on and exclude those who have different values, but not for others to judge by theirs and make those same distinctions. That was my point, Hanson critiques what he calls elites for the same behavior he himself displays–and none of it has to do with what can be afforded by all or not.

In the end, as your comment noted above shows, it’s about looking down on those who are different, but hating it when it is done (or you think it is done) to you. My point is many of us liberals aren’t even thinking that way yet we are accused of it as well as treated with the disdain we are accused of holding for conservatives. You don’t seem to be able to recognize any of that at play and have lashed out at a few commenters who have tried to explain it.

Hanson (and many of the commenters on this post, yourself included Mr Malone) has shown the same behavior in his post, judging–not on values as you claim but on superficialities and empty stereotypes–that he derides within it and attributes to others. If you say you really don’t see any of this, then I feel there is no more I can say as I feel, as you claimed to in some of your comments to liberals, to be talking to myself, to a wall, etc. Good night.

(Btw, please go back and read the accusations, generalizations, mockery etc. of the left here just int he post and comments, and please reconsider your accusations clearly intended toward the left of exclusiveness, not understanding, snobbery, and so on. How’d you like to be talked about this way, here are just a few excepts form this comment section, with some of my reactions or interpetations of the comments in all caps.

If people don’t like others doing it to them or what they think is being done even if it isn’t, you’d think they’d refrain from engaging in that which they themselves criticize and dislike when directed toward them. Seems to not be the case and that is the hypocricy I’m trying to point out here, seemingly to no avail. I’m not here to fight or argue, but I do take great offense at the double standards as well s the refusal to acknowledge the hypocricy in them.)

Comment exceprts from this post below, take a look at some of the comments which are by Handon’s definition, are actually quite elitist. A few are pro lib. but most attack and stereotype liberals in a way I think reps. would cringe at if directed at them. Try subbing cons/Reps. for liberals/Dems in these comments and welcome to seeing how it feels to be liberal for a few seconds and have your own countrymen hate you for know reason that are not even true and worse somehow find a way to blame and accuse you of hating THEM!:

–Those backpacking American students in France spend the bulk of their time in cafes speaking English to each other. On mommy and daddy’s dime no less.
YOU HAVE SEEN ALL THEIR BANK STMTS, I GUESS?

–to the elitists, the most annoying point of this election campaign is that so many appear to refuse to vote as instructed by those who know better?
DEMS AREN’T UPSET AT NOT GETTING THEIR BELIEFS VOTED IN, ONLY BY HAVING OTHERS NOT VALUE WHAT THEY THINK IS THEIR SUPERIOR OPINION, BUT THAT OF COURSE IS IN NO WAY TRUE FOR REPS WHO ALSO WANT THEIR “SIDE” VOTED IN

The Democrats have an elitist mindset derived from their vaunted Life – read educational – Experiences. This has led to an arrogant view which prevents them from seeing any other manner of learning as worthwhile.
DEM HAVE NO LIFE EXP. FROM WHICH TO LEARN AND DISRESPECT ALL MDOES OF LEARNING BUT FORMAL EDUC.

Liberals think they’re a rarefied group whose opinion is better/smarter s
AND YOU KNOW WHAT OTHER PEOPLE THINK BECAUSE . . . ?

Only this: the living proof that they are not needed. Not needed to govern, not needed to influence and guide, not needed to lecture us on our intellectual and moral failings which are visible only from the heights of Manhattan skyscrapers or the palaces up on Mulholland Drive. Not needed. We can do it — and do it better — without all of them.”
WOW ALMOST SOUNDS LIKE CALLING FOR DEATH OR SECCESSION OF LIBERALS. LOVELY.

supporting Obama is a means to assert one’s moral superiority over other Americans.
RIGHT, AGAIN HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ACTUALLY SHARING SOME OF HIS POSITIONS OR BELIEFS, ALL DEMS VOTE BASED ON SNOBBERY.

pragmatic working classes are generally less odious, since they value people (and their labors)over ideas.
DEMS VALUE IDEAS OVER PEOPLE

The Northeastern/California elites, have lost the ability to see value in, and hence to respect, the rest of the country and the values that inform our daily lives.
THE REVERSE ISN’T TRUE AT ALL, AND OF COURSE WE KNOW WHAT IS IN OTHER’S MINDS AND WHAT THEY DO AND DON’T RESPECT

There are genuine elites based on performance, such as in the military. For example, there are several hundred thousand soldiers in the US Army. There’s a much smaller number, perhaps 12,000 or so who are paratroopers. There’s a much smaller number who are Rangers, with smaller still numbers of Green Berets and Delta Force. Each of these levels requires a level of commitment, skill, and dedication beyond that of other soldiers. Those are elites of achievement, not of where they went to school.
GOING TO SCHOOL AND DONG WELL REQUIRES NO LEVEL OF COMMITMENT, SKILL, AND DEDICATION, THAT OCCURS ONLY IN THE MILITARY AND OTHER “NON ELITE/SNOBBISH” ENDEAVORS

–Simply depressing to see such a great mind caught up in petty resentments. You show your hand in mentioning what kind of lettuce Obama likes, or how he looks in a bowling alley.
EXACTLY WHAT I MEAN ABOUT HANSON DOING JUST WHAT HE RAILS AGAINST IN THIS VERY POST, THANK YOU FOR THIS POINT!!!

–the grade inflation in the Ivies, particularly Harvard, is stunning in comparison with what I saw at the state university: the elites from the Ivies over time rest on their own laurels and think there is not much else they need to learn.
I KNEW A FEW PEOPLE AND THUS KNOW THAT ALL IVIES USE GRADE INFLATION AND ALL IVY LEAGUERS REST ON THEIR LAURELS WHILE NON ELITES WORK MUCH HARDER AND ALWAYS GROW AND IMPROVE

–Almost every person I’ve met from those schools is woefully ill-equipped with knowledge about Islam – its scriptures, its theology, Sharia Law, and the fourteen hundred years of jihad against the kafir world.
AND THAT IS THE BE ALL END ALL OF NECESSARY, IMPORTANT KNOWLEDGE, AS DETERMINED BY NONELITES OF COURSE, WHO ELSE SHOULD DETERMINE SUCH SUBJECTIVE MATTERS

–This intellectual sloth and moral torpor, given the positions these people get after school, are dangerous things. We ordinary citizens are, in some ways, helpless before their habits of mind.
WOW, JUST, WOW

–Dang, these elitists are dense.
SPEAKS FOR ITSELF, OR MORE LIKE TO ITS AUTHOR’S CHARACTER, IN MY OPINION

–First off, where does this “She doesn’t regard half of her fellow citizens as ignorant peasants like you” come from? Why is it that if I think differently than you, you think I’m talking down to you?
VOICE OF REASON, AGAIN

– being judged by achievement rather than effort ultimately reminds them of why they prefer the collective.
AH, DOUBLE WHAMMY, TWO ASSUMPTIONS, MISCHARACTERIZATIONS IN ONE, HOW NICE.

Obama famously asked a grocer for some arugula. The grocer didn’t know what it was. In Philly, Obama went into a grocer looking for some fancy cheeses. They only had run of the mill stuff. In 2004, Kerry was in Philly and ordered brie on his cheese steak or something like that. Actions speak louder than words.
THIS DOESN’T REEK OF JUDGING OTHERS BY SUPERFICIAL PREFERENCES BY ANY MEANS, ARUGULA AND CHEESE ARE HALLMARKS OF ELITIST VALUES DONT YOU KNOW

–Saying “We are the change we’re waiting for” – isn’t elitism, that’s just a campaign slogan. It’s self empowerment. It’s “We can do it.” Is this really the best example you have of something Obama has said that tells you he thinks he’s better than the rest of us?
THANK YOU!

–Character does not matter to these people. Trust me
ANOTHER NON ELITE COMMENT, NOT THE LEAST BIT STEREOTYPICAL, UNFOUNDED, AND RIDICULOUS, NOT AT ALL.

But you don’t see any of that wrong sort of litmus test used in this very post itself? That was my original point. The writer of this post even makes a point that elitism (which is identified here as a negative) is defined in part by looking down on the values and lifestyle of Middle America while he himself (the author) acts (through his own words within this post) as if the reverse behavior (looking down on other lifestyles, such as those that are focused more on arts or urban culture rather than outdoors activities, as an example) is just fine.

That was my point and I haven’t seen it yet addressed. I don’t understand this hatred for, condescension toward, and stereotyping of fellow Americans I’ve encountered so much of lately online. At times there literally seems to be a glee in the plight of others and in mocking, stereotyping, and promoting division and exclusion among fellow Americans. I’m not saying that is all happening here, but this post, to me, represents a nasty perpetuation at division on unfounded reasons. If I understand you correctly, the reasons seem not necessarily unfounded at all to you (and clearly many others).

Sadly, I’ve not even begun to understand any of what is at the root of posts like these. Even if there is a perceived difference in values, lifestyle, and the like, who thought it was a good idea to pit people (especially fellow countrymen/women) against one another, rather than to aim for understanding, compassion, goodwill and the like.

I was taught when you have problems with or concerns about others you talk to them, try to get to know them, exchange ideas and see if you can figure out where each comes from. (That does involve some concession to the fact that you may not have the absolute right and only answer or way of life. Of course if one can’t make that concession, well, I suppose I can see why the need for communication is not recognizes and instead a caricature is made of those with whom talk is not desired. And from the caricatures and stereotypes bloom blossoms of hatred, division, and ill will. How do you think the Naazis influenced public opinion? Sadly division is now the very real state of two halves of this nation and in my view posts like these prey on stereotypes and insecurities rather than on positives, unity and commonality among people, and our nation’s strengths which relies largely upon being unified as a people in many ways.)

In my world you don’t just assume you know what others think, then talk about them instead of with them, and then insist you are so superior that they must respect you while you are at no obligation to do anything but mock, genreralize, and spout hate toward them. I’m sure it may not seem that that is occuring here in this post, and elsewhere, especially to those for whom this post actually makes sense, but it seems quite sad to me that it is not even slightly evident that the author here engages in the exact behavior he rails agianst.

My comment was the only one of the many I read that made any note of the phenomenon I mentioned; you, Mr. Malone did not seem to see any such pattern at play in M. Hanson’s post either (or did not note it in your responses to me if you did), so I think my effort at making my point has been made and I will get no leverage out of remaking it over and over.

All I can end with is that in decades of living among coastal liberals I’ve yet to meet even one person who uses anything like caviar, books, opera, etc. to judge others. Most of us reading posts like this are scratching our heads at how people who don’t even know us can have such negativity toward us (and please don’t say the post is aimed at elites meeting Mr. Hanson’s definition and not those for whom the shoe doesn’t fit. The point is he sets criteria for elitism that he meets himself, such as feeling superior to others for superficial reasons such as one’s hobbies, so it matters little if there are one or two liberals for whom his definition fits as his entire post is set up to praise those he seems to view as salt of the earth and demonize and mocks those who may appear different. Mr Hanson preys on fear and insecurity and differences for his own gain–he’s made a career of it after all– I’ve little doubt of that from the tone and tenor of his writing.)for supposedly doing something to them (though we are not) that they themselves are in fact doing to us instead (i.e. looking down on us for perceived differences and due to feelings of superiority(which by the way often are tied in with insecurity as well)).

Why is it that caviar and its ilk shouldn’t be used as a litmus test (and of couse I and any liberal I know agree it shouldn’t), but that working outdoors, or living in middle america should? Am I really the only one seeing the hypocricy in Mr. Hanson’s post? If so, my goodness, there is truly an even wider division that I realized and a wall that perhaps, sadly, will never be scaled between two halves of the whole of this country. Some, like perhaps Mr. Hanson who seems to take pleasure in mockery of others and division among those who have the potential to come together, may rejoice in that fact. I simply find it extremely disheartening.

On the flip side, there is nothing wrong with using our system of morals and values as a litmus test of whether or not we accept them. Barry’s comment of “bitterly clinging to their guns and religions” was classic elitism. He stated right there his contempt for our traditional values. It’s that kind of attitude that this whole discussion is about.

Palin’s a whole ‘nuther issue, which I won’t address here.