The Trouble With Anti-Elitism

The other day, Jonah Goldberg was complaining about the left's alleged long history of anti-American sentiment:

The Nation ran a famous series then called "These United States," in which smug emissaries from East Coast cities chronicled the "backward" attitudes of what today would be called fly-over country. One correspondent proclaimed that in "backwoods" New York (i.e. outside the Big Apple): "Resistance to change is their most sacred principle." If that was their attitude to New York, it shouldn't surprise that they felt even worse about the South. One author explained that Dixie needed nothing less than an invasion of liberal "missionaries" so that the "light of civilization" might finally be glimpsed down there.

The trouble here, as Jon Chait points out, is that sometimes sneering condescension is warranted: "despairing about the political culture of the South in the 1920's, where disenfranchisement, lynching, and even slavery were routine practices, is a sign of insufficent patriotism? If that doesn't show the deficiencies of the right's style of patriotism, nothing does."

Now that's not to say that sneering condescension is always and everywhere a good thing. Even specifically on this point, it turned out in later decades that northern whites were a lot more interested in lecturing southern whites about the need to treat African-Americans better than they were in improving their own standards of conduct. But still, the real limits to the kind of sentiments Goldberg is complaining about mostly highlight the need for more self-scrutiny not, as he would seem to have it, more obliviousness to very real problems.

Comments

NBCSports.com news services
updated 11:21 p.m. ET, Wed., July. 2, 2008
One of the first challenges for No. 1 NBA draft pick Derrick Rose has nothing to do with a basketball court.

The Chicago Bulls' rookie point guard will head to court next week for a hearing on a speeding ticket incurred on April 29, two weeks after declaring his early entry into the NBA Draft. Rose was cited for allegedly driving 106 mph in a 65-mph zone on Interstate 88 in Kane County, Ill. at 2:58 a.m., the Chicago Tribune reported.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Too bad for sports and NBA fans in Chicago. I'm sure they thought passing on Beasley avoided the pitfalls of dealing with "character issues", a factor in drafting Rose. 106MPH at 3AM? No doubt blunts, hookers, guns, bar fights, missed practices, tantrums when benched and pleas of merely being a misunderstood victim of racism and blingophobia will follow. Oh well, it was a nice pick. Until he walked to the podium.

Posted by steve duncan | July 3, 2008 9:09 AM

Oh, and STFU. As Dwight Howard so eloquently put it, "We all smoke it, what's the big deal?"

Posted by steve duncan | July 3, 2008 9:15 AM

Of course these jokers are also raving hypocrites. For example, is Goldberg complaining about people on the Right who, say, denigrate Americans living in the Northeast and West Coast (e.g., "Howard Dean should take his tax-hiking, government-expanding, latte-drinking, sushi-eating, Volvo-driving, New York Times-reading, body-piercing, Hollywood-loving, left-wing freak show back to Vermont, where it belongs.")? Because those people in Vermont and even--gasp--HOLLYWOOD are Americans too, so by Goldberg's logic he should be calling these people on the Right "anti-American".

Posted by DTM | July 3, 2008 9:17 AM

Goldberg's an ass, but he's right to note that "the Left" seems to have an odd relationship with patriotism. Look around. The Right/Republicans have, by dint of the screwups, offered up their greatest treasure--the ability to run on nationalism--and the Left/Dems just cannot manage to convert the opportunity.

For gawd's sake, the Republicans find their base--40% of their vote, if George Will is to believed--in the only region of the country to commit wholesale treason. The Republicans have spent eight years violating the basic norms of this country. Exactly how hard is it for the Left to pick an internal enemy--Southern conservatives, neocons, whomever--and get on with the demonization? And yet there is almost no chance this will happen. Because, it seems, the decent Left is uncomfortable with nationalistic claims. Which is what Goldberg is getting at. And while he's evil and an ass, we're pathetic on this score.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | July 3, 2008 9:26 AM

As a Southerner whose roots go back in Dixie soil for many generations, and one who moved his butt to New York two decades ago to preserve his sanity, I'm always amused when folks like Jonah yammer on about a history and culture that they know precious little about.

It's true that Southerners bear an enduring antipathy against Northerners, whom they view as condescending on everything from race relations to creationism in the schools to the separation of church and state (probably because deep down they know the Yankees are basically right on these issues). It's equally true that the antipathy between North and South has festered since long before the Constitution was written; and as Sean Wilentz and other historians have suggested, it may well be the central tension in American history.

The South has a complicated and troubled place at the American table, and warrants a tremendous amount of criticism for its regressive politics as well as praise for its treasures, such as literary giants like Faulkner and O'Connor and Morrison and Welty, peerless among American writers. Too bad Jonah doesn't get it.

Posted by BryklynLibrul | July 3, 2008 9:28 AM

I think one of the worst problems in America today is that it is taboo to proclaim the most painfully obvious verity: Americans are stupid. If you focus on something besides the family, Lindsay Lohan, fashion, American Idol, and so on, you're an elitist or, at the very least, a nerd. In what other country can you hear people proudly brag about not knowing much about math and science? The worst form of pollution in America today is brain litter.

Posted by RoboticGhost | July 3, 2008 9:31 AM

‘The trouble here, as Jon Chait points out, is that sometimes sneering condescension is warranted: "despairing about the political culture of the South in the 1920's, where disenfranchisement, lynching, and even slavery were routine practices, is a sign of insufficient patriotism? If that doesn't show the deficiencies of the right's style of patriotism, nothing does."’

Therein lies the rub. It sums up so much of what went wrong in the Civil Rights movement in the last forty years.

The real question is not whether it is “warranted” but rather: what is your ultimate goal? Is your goal to bring about an end to said “disenfranchisement, lynching, and even slavery” or is it to make yourself feel better (i.e. smarter, more tolerant, more “progressive”)? Sneering condescension is a really good way to accomplish the latter, but a really crappy way to bring about the former. In fact, it almost guarantees that the object of your condescension will only harden their resolve and hold more firmly to their way of doing things.

By the way, Chait’s argument is somewhat clever, but it ultimately turns back on itself and neutralizes whatever point he wants to make.

Posted by jrleonard | July 3, 2008 9:47 AM

where does Jonah live? what does he do for a living? how did he get that job? has he ever had to do anything but sit on his ass and type out his opinions ?

and he has the balls to lecture anyone else about "elitism" and "fly-over country"?

Posted by cleek | July 3, 2008 9:48 AM

Using 80 year old articles from The Nation to make a point about liberals today? It's a good thing for Jonah there isn't anything embarrassing in The National Review's archives...

Posted by mantooth | July 3, 2008 9:50 AM

"The worst form of pollution in America today is brain litter."

Brain Litter - I am so stealing that.

The thing I find so funny is that the people yelping about DemLiberals being "elitist" are themselves the product of exclusive prep schools, legacy admits to Ivy Leagues, live in hi-rent districts of NYC/Beltway, blah, blah, blah.
I don't see any of these guys bowling, hunting, fishing, mowing their lawns, driving the family for a 3-day weekend to a national park, clipping coupons, or eating at Applebee's.
Wankers.

Posted by CParis | July 3, 2008 9:53 AM

"I don't hate it," Quentin said, quickly, at once, immediately; "I don't hate it," he said I don't hate it he thought, panting in the cold air, the iron New England dark: I don't. I don't! I don't hate it! I don't hate it!

Goldberg's insufficiently American to appreciate America.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | July 3, 2008 10:00 AM

As Dwight Howard so eloquently put it, "We all smoke it, what's the big deal?"

Um. Josh Howard. Dwight Howard has braces and loves Jesus. I don't think you need to worry so much about him.

Posted by Jake H. | July 3, 2008 10:05 AM

As someone who was born and raised in "'backwoods' New York," I think I'm more qualified to speak about it than some elitist bastard who went to a Manhattan prep school. Jonah Goldberg should stop posing as a defender of the little guy and just shut his pseudo-intellectual mouth.

Posted by Howard | July 3, 2008 10:08 AM

I have no idea what the Nation was like in the 20's, but the two leading backwoods bashers of that era, H L Mencken and George Jean Nathan (Lillian Gish's boyfriend, if that makes a difference) were anything but political liberals. On another level, T S Eliot was a conservative who pushed the limits, while Ezra Pound didn't know there were any.

And, RoboticGhost, if you're focused on Lindsay Lohan (whoever she is) and American Idol, you are by definition not focused on the family.

Posted by Gene O'Grady | July 3, 2008 10:15 AM

By Instapundit standards of analysis, I think Jonah just revealed himself to be objectively pro-lynching.

Posted by Dr. Victor Davis Handjob | July 3, 2008 10:16 AM

Does Jonah consider liberals being condescending towards racist terrorists in the KKK to be a form of liberal fascism? I wouldn't be surprised if he did. What a joke of a human being.

Posted by Reality Man | July 3, 2008 10:21 AM

The trouble here, as Jon Chait points out, is that sometimes sneering condescension is warranted

I think there is a crucial difference between "sneering condescension" and "substantive criticism." Criticism can be extremely useful and persuasive, while sneering condescension serves no purpose more than self-congratulation on the part of the sneerer for being so enlightened.

The truth is most people who have relatively backward views on things like race, trade, immigration, gays, etc do so simply because of where they were raised, and the same is true for people with the opposite views. To the extent we can make moral judgments about one set of views versus another, we should help change minds and culture, but the way to do that is not through condescension.

That said, Goldberg's examples are a little bit nuts.

Posted by right | July 3, 2008 10:43 AM

But wait a minute...didn't we actually see an "invasion of liberal missionaries" like 40 years after that article? And don't modern conservatives at least pretend to believe that the South of the 1920's had the wrong idea about race relations? (I mean, listen to them next time Martin Luther King Day rolls around.)

It's always funny when the mask slips a bit.

Posted by Craig | July 3, 2008 10:47 AM

sometimes sneering condescension is warranted

Is what's warrented smug, often hypocritical sneering condescension or actual constructive engagement? As my dad always says "you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar".

In general, I find it odd that we liberals have such wonderful and clear ideas about constructive engagement, containment, etc., in our foreign policy yet we've never been able to apply how we (plan to) deal with enemies abroad to our political adversaries (and in some cases, real, internal enemies of American civilization) at home. OTOH, the GOP often uses tried, tested and true liberal methods for dealing with its political enemies at home whilst, fundamentally being more interested in waving around its collective dick than actually doing anything in re our enemies abroad.

Posted by DAS | July 3, 2008 10:49 AM

OTOH, the GOP often uses tried, tested and true liberal methods for dealing with its political enemies at home

You mean labeling them "appeasers," or "anti-American," or "traitors" or even just "kooks"? I'm totally in favor of doing the same to the Republicans, and I'd bet a fair number of Dem or Dem-leaning folk feel the same way. So have hope.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | July 3, 2008 10:54 AM

That fat cheeto eating fuck thinks FDR and Hitler were ideological soul mates and wrote a full book about it.

Fuck him and what he thinks.

Posted by calipygian | July 3, 2008 11:03 AM

Did Goldberg bother to read "These United States"? Or did he just google it?

Yes, many of the authors in that series attacked the homogeneity and backwardness of their states. But some of them also displayed nostalgia and pride: Sinclair Lewis (MN), Theodore Dreiser (IN) and Willa Cather (NE). Lewis and Dreiser are usually thought of as acidic, anti-bourgeois writers, so their pieces are very surprising.

I recommend that Goldberg (and anyone else) pick up the book collection of these essays. It's interesting to compare them to the series that "The Nation" published in the early 2000s by the same title. The newer volume IS often smug, especially the pieces on WI and VT, which equate decency and superiority with merely disliking Bush.

It's revealing to see how politicized the newer volume is, compared with the older one, where Coolidge gets one passing reference. The older volume also downplays women's roles, and most of the writers (even the Northerners!) assume that blacks can't get anything right unless whites step in.

But both books have a continual sense that something wonderfully regional is passing, that society is becoming colorless and impersonal.
Even with an 80 years' difference! You'd think a "conservative" would pick up on that.

Lesson of the day: never refer to an article/book unless you're prepared to address the subleties/unexpected ironies of it.

Posted by some guy | July 3, 2008 11:05 AM

"Using 80 year old articles from The Nation to make a point about liberals today?"

Posted by mantooth | July 3, 2008 9:50 AM

OK, how about last year's book "What's the Matter With Kansas?" In which, the author laments how there must be something wrong with these poor enlightened souls who live there because they fall for Republican propaganda and fail to vote in their own self-interest by voting against liberal policies, which we all know would be much better for them.

Posted by Chicounsel | July 3, 2008 11:18 AM

Good point, Chicounsel.

Rick Perlstein had an interesting idea in a recent interview. He argued that Democrats do the same thing--they promise to protect Roe v. Wade and then do nothing about health care; they rail against Bush and then take huge gobs of Wall Street cash.

I swallowed Frank's argument whole when I read that book a few years ago. Now, I start see the one-sidedness of it.

Posted by some guy | July 3, 2008 11:27 AM

The real question is not whether it is “warranted” but rather: what is your ultimate goal? Is your goal to bring about an end to said “disenfranchisement, lynching, and even slavery” or is it to make yourself feel better (i.e. smarter, more tolerant, more “progressive”)? Sneering condescension is a really good way to accomplish the latter, but a really crappy way to bring about the former. In fact, it almost guarantees that the object of your condescension will only harden their resolve and hold more firmly to their way of doing things.

Who said anything about a goal? People defending the heartland or whatever against condescending coastal elitists are simply defending them against the personal opinions of people they have never met. When Rep. Welch, D-Vt., proposes a resolution titled the Southerners Are Inbred Assholes Act, you would have a point. Until then, you're asking people to not just tolerate what they think is wrong, but agree with it. Or as someone else put it: "We must not only let them alone, but we must somehow, convince them that we do let them alone. This, we know by experience, is no easy task. ... what will convince them? This, and this only: cease to call slavery wrong, and join them in calling it right. "

By the way, Chait’s argument is somewhat clever, but it ultimately turns back on itself and neutralizes whatever point he wants to make.

I don't even understand this part. What do you mean?

Posted by Cyrus | July 3, 2008 11:38 AM

OK, how about last year's book "What's the Matter With Kansas?" In which, the author laments how there must be something wrong with these poor [un]enlightened souls who live there because they fall for Republican propaganda and fail to vote in their own self-interest by voting against liberal policies, which we all know would be much better for them.

Lots of people on the Dem side thought at the time and continue to think that Frank overstated a bad thesis. My recollection is that there were at least a couple of pieces by left-of-center authors that took apart a piece of Frank's premise: that Kansans were particularly bad off economically.

Are there idiots on our side who match up with Goldberg's caricature? Probably; it's a big group. Are they a large part of the coalition? Uh, no.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | July 3, 2008 11:47 AM

Lindsay Lohan (whoever she is)

Oh, come on.

Posted by John | July 3, 2008 11:56 AM

SomeCallMeTim: do you remember the names of those articles? Or the authors?

Posted by some guy | July 3, 2008 12:02 PM

I honestly don't know who Lindsay Lohan is, and I suspect my kids wouldn't admit it if they did. I believe she gets headlines for substance abuse, or psychiatric problems, or something, but that's not knowing who she is -- I don't know if she's supposed to be an actress or a singer or whatever.

On the other hand, I am old enough to have seen Ronald and Nancy Reagan in their one film together on its initial release -- at a drive in theatre, no less.

I think "some guy" raises a far more interesting point than anything Goldberg is likely to say. Unlike his brother who wrote On the Banks of the Wabash, Dreiser is impenetrable to me, but it seems to me that Lewis and Cather (both of whom really were liberals, unlike people like Mencken) may be a good deal less acidic critics of the small town bourgeoisie (is that a contradiction in terms) than they have typically been taught in English departments. But perhaps I am influenced by having seen more of the movies made of his books than I've actually read of the books, and having read (much of) Main Street rather than Babbitt.

Posted by Gene O'Grady | July 3, 2008 12:09 PM

Wiki suggests that I might have been remembering the critique by Larry Bartels (or a discussion of it). That said, apparently there is a criticism that more closely mirrors my description from a Manhattan Institute (i.e., not a Dem) guy named Malanga. In any case, suffice it to say that not everyone who leans Dem finds Frank's thesis compelling.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | July 3, 2008 1:08 PM

Sneering condescension is so ineffective as a basis for persuasion that I don't think it is ever warranted. Write what you really mean, Matt — that's what we're here for.

Posted by JimB | July 3, 2008 2:25 PM

Cyrus,

What Chait wants to do is to simultaneously disarm the conservative argument and turn it around and use it against them. something like: not only are conservatives wrong about liberals being unpatriotic, but they're actually more unpatriotic themselves.

i think his first impulse is correct. arguments over who is "more patriotic" are usally nothing more than meaningless pissing contests. it's much better to just briefly point that out and move on rather than pulling out the old 'well, they do it, too'.

and, as for goals, i'm assuming that the ultimate purpose of getting into any sort of political conversation is to come up with ways of improving political and social situations. and that's my point. being smug and condescending just isn't very good at accomplishing that.

Posted by jrleonard | July 3, 2008 2:35 PM

>Now that's not to say that sneering condescension is always and everywhere a good thing.

When discussing Jonanism, yes. Yes, it is.

Posted by bartkid | July 3, 2008 4:43 PM

Sneering condescension is a really good way to accomplish the latter, but a really crappy way to bring about the former.

Are you joking? Or are you just completely ignorant of human interactions?
The desire for social acceptance is the single most powerful motivational force there is.
Nobody wants to be associated with objects of scorn and derision.
Even small children know this, ask a child what his favorite sports team or popular entertainer is and I guarantee that it will be the same one that his friends like and defiantly not the one his friend make fun of.

In fact, it almost guarantees that the object of your condescension will only harden their resolve and hold more firmly to their way of doing things. .

Who cares? You don’t change policy or social attitudes by changing some goober’s mind. You do it by making that goober’s views unpopular. When he spouts off some nonsense you want his peers not to say “that’s right” but to awkwardly look around hoping nobody thinks their together.

Let Goober harden his resolve all he wants, it just drive him further and further into “drags your social standing down by being seen with him” category
His peers will go from making excuses (Oh, that’s just ole Goob, he don’t mean nothing by it) to denying any association (Goob? Never liked the guy) to joining it the mocking and sneering condescension

Posted by Jeff452 | July 3, 2008 7:57 PM

Sneering condescension is a really good way to accomplish the latter, but a really crappy way to bring about the former.

Are you joking? Or are you just completely ignorant of human interactions?
The desire for social acceptance is the single most powerful motivational force there is.
Nobody wants to be associated with objects of scorn and derision.
Even small children know this, ask a child what his favorite sports team or popular entertainer is and I guarantee that it will be the same one that his friends like and defiantly not the one his friend make fun of.

In fact, it almost guarantees that the object of your condescension will only harden their resolve and hold more firmly to their way of doing things. .

Who cares? You don’t change policy or social attitudes by changing some goober’s mind. You do it by making that goober’s views unpopular. When he spouts off some nonsense you want his peers not to say “that’s right” but to awkwardly look around hoping nobody thinks their together.

Let Goober harden his resolve all he wants, it just drive him further and further into “drags your social standing down by being seen with him” category
His peers will go from making excuses (Oh, that’s just ole Goob, he don’t mean nothing by it) to denying any association (Goob? Never liked the guy) to joining it the mocking and sneering condescension

Posted by Jeff452 | July 3, 2008 7:58 PM

The truth is most people who have relatively backward views on things like race, trade, immigration, gays, etc do so simply because of where they were raised, and the same is true for people with the opposite views. To the extent we can make moral judgments about one set of views versus another, we should help change minds and culture, but the way to do that is not through condescension..

So what if they were raised that way, are the not adults? Or are they still children living in adult’s body. I can think of no one so pathetic and deserving of condescension then someone who uses the “it’s just the way I was brought up” excuse. If you don’t want to be treated like a 5 year old, (patted on the head “don’t you worry your pretty little head about it, mommy and daddy will tke care of everything) you have to take responsibility for your own attitudes and actions

You cant hold it against some one if they were born face down in a dung heap. But by the time the reach their mid 20’s or so they have had plenty of time to stand up on 2 legs like a man and start to clean off the muck.
On the other hand, if they prefer to wallow in the filth like an animal, cooing about how warm and soft the manure is ….. Well that’s the choice they made.
No excuses
No blaming the parents
They have no one to blame but themselves for the fact that they are not fit human society

Posted by Jeff452 | July 3, 2008 8:41 PM

I grew up in Massachusetts, in a very blue-collar, working class town…perhaps one shade from a real ghetto. I now live in a somewhat more affluent medium sized city in the Midwest.

What I think merits noting, the elitism of many so-called “Heartland” people. Growing up in MA, we didn’t go around thinking we were so great and better than everyone else. Sure, some Bostoners can be rude, like any big city denizen but that’s not representative of the entire region. And yes, the Southern hillbilly jokes exist there, just as they exist in the rest of the country including the south. But we never really thought the whole south was like that.

Maybe, it’s actually not so much Heartland people, as it is people using the term “Middle America” as a political weapon against so-called coastal elites. But my point is, what is more elitist than thinking your better solely on the geographical location of your birth?!? I think it’s laughable to assume that some rich businessman from Kansas City, MO is more representative of the average American than some fisherman from Glouster, MA, risking his life to support his family.

Posted by Raindog | July 4, 2008 2:11 AM