Obama's Elitism Problem, Continued

Barack Obama, out of touch with the working man as usual, has an aggressive program for carbon emissions reductions and has spoken of the need for such frou-frou measures as increased investment in transit infrastructure, intercity rail, and even bicycling. The McCains, by contrast, dole out such homespun wisdom as "in Arizona, the only way to get around the state is by small private plane" and understand that in this crazy modern world where the typical family owns eleven homes and spends hundreds of thousands of dollars per year on household staff, you can't possibly expect transportation alternatives to gain popularity.

Not since John demonstrated that he was a true "man of the people" by riding first class on the Acela has his family's fundamental in touchness been so underscored, and the fundamental elitism of the Obama's been laid bare so clearly.

Comments

Elitists always stir up class envy and class warfare by pointing out that the rich have a lot of money to buy fun stuff. Folksy people like McCain just enjoy the fun stuff but empathize with the poor souls who could not find a rich spouse to marry.

Posted by gregor | July 15, 2008 9:50 AM

And yet people accuse Obama of being "condescending" and of being to focused on political gain? Of course when a rich, reactionary says the same sort of things, they are "a voice of morality in an amoral world" and, since they are to the manner born, they are "naturally capable of leadership".

The real question, IMHO, is why does neo-feudalism have such traction among so many people? Do they want to be serfs? Or do they just figure that if we turn back the clock 1000 years they would end up, pace Rawls, as knights or gentry?

Posted by DAS | July 15, 2008 10:01 AM

DAS, the magic of America is that we all believe we will eventually be the ones on top, and thus want the laws to support us when we get there. (If not true in particulars any more, still largely reflective of our national attitude as a whole.) It's something I often hear from Europeans, contrasting the attitude toward wealth.

We hear "commuting around the state by small private plane" and think "that would be fun."

Posted by Deborah | July 15, 2008 10:17 AM

The real question, IMHO, is why does neo-feudalism have such traction among so many people?

Many people are just dumb as rocks. They are low information by choice. They know what they know, and no actual facts will change that. Decisions are made from the gut. Guess who else makes decisions from the gut? That's right, GW ... our current Pinhead-in-Chief.

Posted by LFC | July 15, 2008 10:23 AM

Of course, part of the issue is subtleties in communication. Conservatives simply tend to be better at really seeming folksy (in particular not faking it). Of course, that, in itself, betrays a certain class superiority (is it ever said of an actual commoner "he has the common touch") and the idea that we should elect "someone we want to have a beer with" is, frankly, an attitude unbefitting a citizen of a democratic republic (the idea is to elect someone to steer the ship of state -- and frankly I want a captain who knows what s/he is doing rather than someone who's main accomplishment is being amicable in spite of being to the manor born -- pardon my earlier mis-usage, btw).

But still -- does Obama have to wag his finger like this?

I betcha he'll also get flack for essentially "accepting the nomination" outside of the party convention. Conservatives might have a very Pauline (in some cases very insightful about human nature, albeit in a way that contradicts the "rational self interest" economic theories they hawk) critique of legalism underlying (or perhaps merely providing an excuse for) their opposition to Progressive legislation and to due process protections, but (or perhaps better, "and") they also have a strong commitment to mores (hence social conservatism ... assuming that conservative views are bona fide, which they are for the rank and file if not for the leadership -- of course, this "assumption" of a difference is itself "condescending", eh?) ... and Obama's "acceptance" of his nomination will certainly be seen as "arrogant" and "bad form". Of course, if Obama was more careful in his language, it'd trigger the anti-legalistic impulses of many Americans (raised on what others have pointed out to me is a misreading of Paul's Epistle to the Romans) against "those slithery liberal trial-lawyer types" ...

I wonder what terminology McCain will use? I bet he'll use language that's ultimately very lawyer like in his carefulness, but (c.f. Bush's 'non-lying' to Clinton's "it depends on what the definition of 'is' is") it'll not be perceived that way by either "the masses" (that I say "the masses" of course, means that I am condescending, ya know) or "even the liberal media".

Posted by DAS | July 15, 2008 10:25 AM

Matt, drive 30 miles north to Columbia, MD. Once there, please tell us how you would implement a transit system for those of us who live here that was useful in any way, shape or form. Consider while you're pondering that:

-- people are dispersed widely across Howard County
-- They don't, en-masse, go to Baltimore or Washington to work
-- Many of them have kids who have activities that are themselves widely dispersed, and not in the same places as work

Once you've considered all of that, then ponder the fact that far more people in the US live in places like Columbia than do in the place you live.

Now explain why that majority should be funding rail systems for young, single elitists with no kids who have a fixation on trains.

And don't make me laugh with your talk of bicycles. Unless your work location has shower facilities, riding to work is a non-starter. Never mind the various other difficulties (carrying a laptop, kids, etc, etc).

Your problem is that you assume that everyone wants to live the urban single lifestyle. Here's a hot tip: People differ.

Posted by James Robertson | July 15, 2008 10:33 AM

I'm sure glad that Obama isn't flying around in the country in a private plane, telling people to take rail.

Oh, wait: http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/07/obamas-campaign.html

Posted by American Hawk | July 15, 2008 10:34 AM

Shorter Jim-Bob: bow down to my glorious suburban lifestyle!

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | July 15, 2008 10:37 AM

Jim Bob-son has a point here though. For better or for worse, and for various reasons, people do live in suburban lifestyles and want to live that way. How do we build public transportation to fit their needs?

Furthermore, going forward (to use a phrase that PIs in science seem to love to use -- since I'll be independent soon, I'll need to get used to using this phrase? ;) ), how do we ensure new development and redevelopment gives people what they want in the suburban lifestyle (ability to move around kids, and all the stuff that goes with kids, without having to schlep everything so far in order to get to public transportation points or even where you have the room for your car) within an ecologically friendly framework?

Also, even assuming everyone wants to live the urban lifestyle, cities are expensive for a reason -- there simply isn't enough room in cities.

I suspect solutions are possible (there'll always be cases where she works in Brooklyn, he was finally able to get a job, but in Jerz, and they've lived in Queens forever and don't really wanna move, so long commutes and his driving are inevitable), but to simply say "Jim Bob-son ... ya gotta move to the city 'cause it's more sustainable" is just gonna turn off the Jim Bobsons of the world (of which there are many), who'll gladly live even more unsustainably, even if it means that the Earth would be destroyed in 10 years (thus proving those "dirty hippies" right), just to spite the dirty hippies that are telling him what to do.

Of course, the real irony is that, for all their commitment to "liberty", the Jim Bobsons of the world view liberty as a kind of zero sum thing (they take kashas from civics class about "what do you do when his freedom exercize of religion interferes with her right to live without established religion?" to be the norm rather than kashas that could come up) -- so their "liberty" depends so much on actively denying "those people" liberty that, once a "good, strong leader" asks people to give up a few rights in the name of security, contra Ben Franklin, they gladly give up their rights ... even if they still can't stand dirty hippies telling them what to do, they'll still be happy to give up essential liberties, if only to rankle dirty hippies!

Posted by DAS | July 15, 2008 10:52 AM

"Now explain why that majority should be funding rail systems for young, single elitists with no kids who have a fixation on trains."

I would question your use of the word "majority" here.

Posted by brewmn | July 15, 2008 10:55 AM

According to the 2000 census, (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/census/cps2k.htm) 58% of the American population lived in urbanized areas of over 200,000 people.

Tell me again how more people live in small non-commuter cities than in major metropolitan areas?

Posted by Karl | July 15, 2008 10:56 AM

Urbanized != "city". Large parts of suburbia count as urbanized, but that doesn't lessen the problem.

Columbia, for instance, is a suburban city of 100,000+ people. It's one where transit systems that are useful to a non-trivial proportion of the population is pretty much impossible. You can dislike suburbs all you want, but too many people live in them to just say "trains!" all the time like Matt does.

Posted by James Robertson | July 15, 2008 11:08 AM

though some sort of bussing across county lines would be great. I tried, but it wouldn't work w my schedule, so I gotta take those kids 2 miles to the nearest stop, to have a driver refuse to accomodate my disabled kid because its against the rules... (and, yes, I did call to complain so I'm sure he got a lesson in ADA)

And why do I do that? Because my kids have needs that require I be picky about their school and because the house I'm in is the only one I could afford, which allowed them to remain in their current programs. So schools of choice, with bussing (yes, a lot of us come from similar areas so it is doable) for special ed kids and not just typical ones, and affordable homes would also help, but repubs and dems would never agree on both

Posted by navi | July 15, 2008 11:48 AM

It's one where transit systems that are useful to a non-trivial proportion of the population is pretty much impossible.

Really? I'd think that better commuter rail service to DC and Baltimore would be useful to a "non-trivial" portion of Columbia. In particular, creating a line with a couple of stations in Columbia would surely be helpful to many people. Also useful would be extending MARC's schedule, so that it didn't only run at rush hour.

I would also note that so far as I'm aware as a Maryland native, and from looking at available data, a lot of Jim Bob's description of Howard County is just innacurate. People are not dispersed all that widely in Howard County. The western portions of the county are mostly rural. The population is heavily concentrated in the I-95/Route 29 corridor. My sense is also that a pretty large percentage of Howard County residents work in either Baltimore or DC, although obviously many do not.

I don't think that anybody is really proposing that improving transit would allow people to live in places like Columbia without a car, so most of Jim Bob's argument seems moot anyway. Of course you need a car to live in outer suburbs. The question is whether you can lessen people's need to use their cars. Making commuting by train from Columbia into DC and Baltimore more feasible would obviously not eliminate people's need to own a car. But I don't see how that makes it useless. I grew up in Montgomery County, within walking distance of Grosvenor Metro (and also of the Garrett Park MARC station). We owned one car, but my dad commuted/commutes to work by public transit (initially on MARC, and then on Metro after the red line expanded out to Grosvenor). Obviously, going most places in Montgomery County requires a car, but we would pretty much always take Metro to get into the city. Occasionally we'd use Metro to go places along the Red Line, especially downtown Bethesda, where the station is fairly centrally located and parking can be annoying. The existence of the Red Line didn't eliminate the need for a car in the suburbs. But it certainly was not simply a useless boondoggle. I'm not sure I understand why more extensive commuter rail for Howard County would be a bad thing. The MARC system is pretty pitiful compared even to mediocre commuter rail systems like SEPTA in Philadelphia, expanding it, both geographically and in terms of number of trains in service, could hardly not be of use to a decent number of people in places like Columbia.

Posted by John | July 15, 2008 12:06 PM

James, I grew up in Columbia - OMHS represent! - and it's functionally non-navigable without a car, you're certainly correct. But ColumBus is a pathetic joke; improved bus service would certainly help for intracity travel (and would have made my life better as a 15-year-old, to boot). Because of how Rouse envisioned the city, Columbia could probably benefit more than most suburbs from improved bus transit, given the hub-and-spoke-ish neighborhood layout in Columbia's master plan.

And it's not at all the case that public transit wouldn't help a significant number of residents (my father, for instance, took a park-and-ride bus to Greenbelt for the last ten years of his career); I'd wager that if not an actual majority, at least a large proportion of residents work a) somewhere Metro accessible like downtown DC or Bethesda b) at the Social Security building or c) at Fort Meade, so I'm not at all sure why you think that improved MARC service throughout the state, especially one that connected to the DC Metro, would be so pointless. The goal is not to obviate the car in America but to make a car less mandatory (and, incidentally, get some commuters off the road and make life easier for people who prefer to or need to use a car; anyone stuck on 270 during morning rush hour would surely benefit from a 20% reduction in the number of cars on the road).

Posted by steve | July 15, 2008 12:20 PM

11 houses? I thought he only had 8. I'm relieved to find out that McCain is solidly middle class. I was afraid that his public service as a senator had cut into his income potential. Too bad his wife has to work though.

Posted by An Outhouse | July 15, 2008 12:43 PM

Your problem is that you assume that everyone wants to live the urban single lifestyle. Here's a hot tip: People differ.

And the problem with you and Mixner, et al, is that you assume that everyone wants to live the suburban family lifestyle. Here's a hot tip: People differ.

Also, confidential to DAS: you were right the first time with "to the manner born." It's in Hamlet.

Posted by Adam Villani | July 15, 2008 1:15 PM

Jim-Bob's unspoken problem is that he's too poor to afford to live in Bethesda, but doesn't think that Columbia could be given the same access to transportation infrastructure that Bethesda has.

Many of us would like to live in Bethesda and think that if we can't make enough money to get a house there, should support the creation of more places that have the same accessibility that Bethesda has.

Posted by Tyro | July 15, 2008 1:28 PM

"I would also note that so far as I'm aware as a Maryland native, and from looking at available data, a lot of Jim Bob's description of Howard County is just innacurate. People are not dispersed all that widely in Howard County. The western portions of the county are mostly rural. The population is heavily concentrated in the I-95/Route 29 corridor. My sense is also that a pretty large percentage of Howard County residents work in either Baltimore or DC, although obviously many do not."

A tremendous number of people in this area work for the Dept of Defense, many of them not near DC or Baltimore. The liklihood of getting a bus system to that location (never mind rail) is slim.

A lot of the rest work outside DC. I commuted to a job in Arlington for awhile a few years back and yes - rail was a theoretical possibility. However, I could either take MARC to the center of DC and then hit the metro (expensive), or connect to 3 trains (down to 2 now, but not much faster). I drove, because - even with DC traffic - it was faster.

As to Bethesda, that would make no sense. It would triple my wife's commute (I work from home), and that would be stupid. I chose to live here for three reasons:

-- Proximity to my wife's work
-- Proximity to airports (I travel)
-- good schools
-- safe neighborhoods (and no, that doesn't mean "all white". This neighborhood is hardly homogeneous)

Bethesda misses all of those (possible exception, airport)

Posted by James Robertson | July 15, 2008 1:41 PM

Also, confidential to DAS: you were right the first time with "to the manner born." It's in Hamlet. - Adam Villani

Oops ... maybe my knowledge of Hamlet took over my brain when I wrote that first comment. And here I thought the expression was "to the manor born" (as in born in the manor house). Perhaps "manner" and "manor" are related words?

Anyhoo, following up on Tyro's comment ... again we see the effects of class resentment causing people who have less money to side with the moneyed interest out of jeolousy of those with slightly more money? Jim Bobson can't afford to live in Bethesda, so he views their public transport as a sop to people who are richer than he and opposes it (and the "lifestyle" of Bethesdites he wishes he had) ... so out of spite to what he cannot afford, he sides politically with the moneyed interests that, for various reasons, also oppose the Bethesdite crowd?

Of course, if you mention this sort of thing and use the word "bitter", they'll try to crucify you for it ...

Posted by DAS | July 15, 2008 1:42 PM

DAS - see my comment, just above yours. I don't live in Bethesda because it's further away from my wife's work (and a fair bit further away from BWI as well).

Also, at the time we were house shopping, schools in that area were more varied in quality than Howard county (not unlike Anne Arundel, which we also looked at. Schools there varied more than Howard schools).

Posted by James Robertson | July 15, 2008 2:37 PM

Ah, yes. John McCain, living the "elite life" of a carrier pilot. Then marries into money in his mid-40s.

Vs. private school, affirmative action into the Ivy Elites Obama...and his not that bright Princetonian, Harvard Law wife who stuggled to pass the Bar Exam then dropped her Bar license after 4 years back in 1993...

Posted by Chris Ford | July 15, 2008 4:59 PM

And the problem with you and Mixner, et al, is that you assume that everyone wants to live the suburban family lifestyle. Here's a hot tip: People differ.

And the problem with you is that you don't listen. Or, rather, that's one of your problems. I have never said or suggested that "everyone" wants to live the suburban family lifestyle. I merely point out that Americans in general overwhelmingly prefer the car-oriented surburban lifestyle to the transit-oriented urban one, that there is no serious evidence of any large-scale shift in this preference, and that our land-use policies will continue to reflect this overwhelming preference for suburbia. The exodus of people and jobs from dense urban areas to sprawling suburbs is likely to continue indefinitely into the future. Rising energy costs may slow the trend, at least temporarily, but the idea that they're going to reverse it is just typical eco-liberal wishful thinking.

Posted by Mixner | July 15, 2008 6:06 PM

The main thing is, we have this "installed base" of suburban living now. It's not going to be abandoned, and the kinds of transit systems that work in a place like NYC are just useless in most suburbs. You can wish the last 50 years had gone differently all you want, but they didn't. There are now tens of millions of people living in the suburbs, and that's not going to change. Deal with that reality.

Posted by James Robertson | July 15, 2008 6:21 PM

Since Lyndon Johnson politicians have been campaigning by air in the big Western states.

Are you insulting our intelligence or are you just stupid?

Or is it dishonest?

Posted by PrestoPundit | July 15, 2008 8:39 PM

Since Lyndon Johnson politicians have been campaigning by air in the big Western states.

Are you insulting our intelligence or are you just stupid?

Or is it dishonest?

Posted by PrestoPundit | July 15, 2008 8:40 PM

Since Lyndon Johnson politicians have been campaigning by air in the big Western states.

Are you insulting our intelligence or are you just stupid?

Or is it dishonest?

Posted by PrestoPundit | July 15, 2008 8:40 PM

Since Lyndon Johnson politicians have been campaigning by air in the big Western states.

Are you insulting our intelligence or are you just stupid?

Or is it dishonest?

Posted by PrestoPundit | July 15, 2008 8:40 PM

Thing is James Robertson is kinda right, the current layout of the way many people inhabit the land is simply not conducive to just trains.

Where James Robertson is wrong is his childish notion that just demands an outcome 'just because.' JR just 'wants it all to work.'

What if it doesn't work James? What if the way that you and many others have inhabited the land is simply not sustainable except for the very wealthy? What should we do?

Posted by mike | July 16, 2008 2:22 AM

Mike,

If you assume that electric/hybrid cars will only get better, then the only issue is power generation. Nuclear power solves that problem nicely. All that has to be solved is a raft of non-technical problems - the enviro-lefts uninformed opposition.

Posted by James Robertson | July 16, 2008 9:55 AM

Re: points made by James Robertson. Yes, transit is a challenge in sprawling suburbs with multi-directional travel the norm. You lost me however when you argued against tax dollars going to transit 'for single elitists'. Those of us who have made life choices that allow the use of transit often do so in the public interest, but all along we have been subsidizing your life through supplying roads, traffic cops, tax breaks to oil companies and a war machine that in part at least helps to assure future oil supplies in the face of declining options. Indeed the entire nation is going bankrupt keeping this system going and we are also getting tired of funding living arrangements and transportation systems that are no longer possible.

Posted by Robert Paehlke | July 16, 2008 11:35 AM

We hear "commuting around the state by small private plane" and think "that would be fun."

Intelligent people think, "out of touch elitist jerk."

Posted by Michael | July 16, 2008 11:41 AM

Interesting how people like Mr Robertson and the other sub-urbians want the majority to subsidize the lifestyle they have chosen. Perhaps they can tell us when someone held a gun to they're heads and forced them to live in the 'country'. Then they can tell us why we should pay for the roads they use but not for more mass-transit.

Posted by Darren | July 16, 2008 11:57 AM

The son of a Kenyan immigrant and an office worker may get into an Ivy League school via Affirmative Action. That may be the only way, in fact. But it doesn't propel him to preside over the Harvard Law Review.

Meanwhile, the families of USN admirals, like those of US Army generals, have a pretty good situation. A form of AA - the good-old-boy network - apparently CAN get the son and grandson of admirals into Annapolis. And get him into flight school (a plum assignment during peacetime) even though he graduates 894th out of 899. And protect his flight status even after he prangs 3 expensive USN aircraft. And that's all before he throws his wife over for a beer heiress gazillionaire.

Now which one is the elitist?

Posted by Dave Abbott | July 16, 2008 12:41 PM

If you assume that electric/hybrid cars will only get better, then the only issue is power generation.

And the fact that over 40,000 people get killed each and every year in auto accidents.

Posted by Sue | July 16, 2008 12:46 PM

What the JRs of the world fail to comprehend is that their "country-gentleman-lifestyle-on-an-office-worker-salary" way of life has no future. Or, as James Kunstler puts it, "the greatest misallocation of resources the world has ever seen." It is all based on one thing: abundant, cheap gasoline. Take that away and you have no exurban-McMansions-in-a-cow pasture model for development. The fact that many people seem to like it is irrelevant.

To further quote Kunstler:

'We are not going to run Wal-Mart, the Interstate Highway system and Walt Disney World on any combination of solar, wind, nuclear, biofuels, ethanol or used french-fry potato oil. The bottom line is that we will use all these things but we will be very disappointed in what they will actually do for us. The problem is too big. The design of our living arrangement is simply inconsistent with the energy realities of the future. But Americans are just not able to process this.

If you look hard enough at America, what you discover is a shockingly infantile belief system, with two fundamental ideas that are deleterious to our future. There's a widespread belief in America that it's possible to get something for nothing, and that mentality has been very destructive to our society. The other idea that has become normative is that when you wish upon a star your dream comes true. These two things have become the basis of the new American ideology.

'More than half of the American public live in the suburbs. There is going to be a very strong expectation that they will be supported and that their troubles will be attended to. But what we're seeing with the mortgage crisis is that people who have made their stand in the suburbs are being hung out to dry, because there's nothing that can be done for them without bankrupting the nation.'

Discuss.

Posted by Neoserf | July 16, 2008 1:21 PM