Posted on 01/12/2011 9:34:06 AM PST by Kaslin
It’s healthy, even natural, for Americans to feel populist resentment against elites that base their status through inherited wealth and family connections. But it’s toxic, misguided and profoundly stupid to focus public hostility on leaders who achieved their positions through education, diligence and ability.
Recent sniping between Sarah Palin and Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist Charles Krauthammer highlights the crucial distinction between rebellious attitudes that attack unfairly arrogated power and privilege and a trendy neo-populism that attacks brains.
When Krauthammer dared to suggest that the former Alaska governor looked less than “presidential” while shooting caribou with Kate Goselin on her hit TLC reality show, Palin told Bill O’Reilly: “Well, bless his heart, he’s probably used to those in the political beltway who perhaps aren’t out there workin’, but they’re talkin’ and they’re meeting people, and they’re out there doin’ their ‘strategery,’ whereas I’m workin’ and havin’ a great time doin’ it.”
The irony in this attack involves the fact that Governor Palin is currently “workin’” in precisely the same way Charles Krauthammer does—by writing and making media appearances. The key difference is that Palin earns many times Krauthammer’s income by focusing on her own ebullient personality rather than policy and ideas.
Yes, Krauthammer would have to plead guilty to what Palin would deride as “high-falutin’” educational credentials: he studied at Oxford and earned his MD at Harvard Medical School. But in what sense does this paraplegic, Canadian-raised son of struggling Eastern European immigrants qualify as representative of some perceived establishment that excludes a former governor, Vice Presidential nominee, certified TV star and number-one-bestselling author? Only in terms of intellectuality, not wealth or influence or celebrity status, could a Krauthammer qualify as more “elitist” than a Palin.
Former White House speechwriter David Frum (another Canadian-born US citizen with Ivy League credentials) makes the interesting point that “American populism has almost always concentrated its anger against the educated rather than the wealthy.” He classifies contemporary politics as “a class struggle between those with more education than money against those with more money than education.”
Unfortunately, this sort of battle over brains undermines the most potent and valuable thrust of traditional populism: the opposition to an arrogant, hereditary establishment that closes off access to money and power to even the most gifted products of ordinary American families.
Consider the often-expressed (and misguided) discomfort over the fact that every one of the nine current justices of the U.S. Supreme Court holds degrees from either Yale or Harvard. Far from indicating the domination of our most powerful legal institution by members of an American aristocracy, the background of the reigning justices demonstrates the effective operation of an educational meritocracy. Not one of the jurists on the high court (with its six Catholics and three Jews) arose from the old-line, blue-blood, WASP establishment; two of them (Clarence Thomas and Sonia Sotomayor) grew up in abject poverty, while most of the others came from modest circumstances and immigrant families. They attended Yale and Harvard not through family connections (a charge that could accurately be lodged against presidential candidates Al Gore, John Kerry and George W. Bush) but due to academic excellence and scholarship aid.
No one can question the reality that the nation’s most prestigious educational institutions opened up to “unconventional” but able applicants in the ‘60’s and ‘70’s (prominently including Barack Obama), and reserved far fewer spaces to legacy students and prep school products. This means that populist rage focused on Ivy League degrees now amounts to resentment of educational achievement, or even intelligence, rather than inherited privilege. In that context, Sarah Palin’s well-advertised battle against various elites has more to do with her carefully-constructed and distinctive “Going Rogue” persona than with her position as a self-annointed outsider, her religious faith, or educational background.
No one, for instance, questions the presidential qualifications of Mike Huckabee – despite the fact that the former pastor’s Evangelical Christian commitment is every bit as fervently outspoken as Palin’s, and his undergraduate degree (from Ouachita Bible University) is no more prestigious than Palin’s communications BA from the University of Idaho. Huckabee, however, served 10 years as Governor of his state (and three prior years of Lieutenant Governor) and in his eight books, weekly TV broadcasts on Fox News and innumerable public debates he demonstrates a mastery of public issues and political ideas that impresses even those who disagree with him.
Huckabee’s example indicates that the populist instinct is correct in disregarding the idea that a Yale or Harvard education is a necessary pre-requisite for national leadership, but it goes wrong if it suggests that blue chip academic credential should count as a disqualification of any kind.
Most Americans can agree that elitism that favors well-born, powerfully connected individuals counts as hateful and undemocratic. But an elitism that favors those who are smart, capable and impressively trained is reasonable and, to some extent, inevitable.
When Krauthammer dared to suggest that the former Alaska governor looked less than “presidential” while shooting caribou with Kate Goselin on her hit TLC reality show.
did Krauthammer really make this statement.
I watched that show and Palin was with her Father and a fam friend.
Gosslin was no where near that segment. Krauthammer could be a little more fact based. but then he feeds the elitist persona that he cultivates.
You can have Krauthammer. I don’t care what he writes from time to time. He has an agenda and that is to make sure the Republican party is not a Conservative one. He worked for Carter, Mondale which may have left him in his columns but not his intentions and ideology.
Did he find himself with no movies to review? He’s irrelevant.
I still like Mr. Medved - been reading his stuff for 20 years or more. But he’s like many in his social stratum: he confuses “credentials” with “ability.” It’s like the old Chinese system, where memorizing the Confucian classics “demonstrated” a person’s capacity to fill any government position. Only it didn’t.
Academic credentials do not demonstrate competence for elective (or appointed) office. These days, academic credentials often don’t even demonstrate academic achievement. What was Zero’s GPA, again? His SAT and LSAT scores? *crickets*
I still dont get why this is an issue. Jean-Fraude Kerry and Romney bent over backward to present themselves as hunters even though they are no such thing.
The Washington inside-the-beltway elites never let facts interfere with a good sound bite. You’re right, Gosslin showed up for one episode and never made it past lunch. Krauthammer should apologize for that erroneous comment but hell will freeze over before that hapens.
His radio show never is turned on in this house, and his columns I never read anymore. I am sick and tired of RINO’s preaching to the base.
Its like Obama over and over again, except on our side. Tune out. Yea, that's the ticket.
Don't miss him in the market I live in, not a bit.
And this is why I change the radio channel when Medved’s show comes up...
Krauthammer says some things I like. OTOH, I’d never vote for him. He’s pro-choice and also, iirc, pro-gay agenda.
He’s good on economy and foreign policy. He did a passable job on a psych profile of the Az shooter last night on O’Reilly. I would have liked a little more digging into Loughner’s known behavior.
I agree with you.
LOL! The Smithsonian is full of stuffed critters shot by Teddy Roosevelt.
Imagine the leftist applexy if Sarah offered to expand the museum’s TR collection.
“But he’s like many in his social stratum: he confuses “credentials” with “ability.”
A very perceptive comment.
And I suppose Teddy Roosevelt didn’t look “Presidential” when he was hunting? What stupid nonsense.
These elitist RINOs are pathetic.
Medved is such a tool, and such a fool. We’re stuck with him, it seems, for three hours on our only conservative station here in the Puget Sound, where he’s a local boy.
His whole schtick is to support a rather statist, elitist stand with own debate club style - Making some proposition at the end of a monologue, followed by, “And if you disagree with me, then give me a call.” This then leads to a long string of callers representing the most insane, strident, and inarticulate Leftist idiots that he can then shine against in “debate” and “dialogue”. Ultimately failing that, he then mocks them from on intellectual high, and then cuts them off. It’s a pathetic spectacle, and grows very tiresome - both from having to listen to the ramblings of Leftist idiots yet again, and from having to listen to Medved.
A true waste of precious conservative air time. “And if you disagree with me, give me a call.” Moron.
“Most Americans can agree that elitism that favors well-born, powerfully connected individuals counts as hateful and undemocratic. But an elitism that favors those who are smart, capable and impressively trained is reasonable and, to some extent, inevitable.”
Read this. I mean really read this! inevitable? Mike must not like my ‘anti intellectualism’.
The factor that seems to elude us and that is wisdom and common sense.
Medved obviously didn't watch the show, or he'd have his facts straight. She had a picnic with Goselin; she hunted caribou with her dad.
For those who don't know, she took several shots and missed using a rifle that had been dropped and had a mis-aligned scope. She borrowed another rifle and hit it first shot.
I was impressed that they didn't edit this out. She is perfectly at ease letting people see some of the imperfections and silliness. I have noticed on several episodes that things that would be edited out, if she had a more sensitive ego, have been allowed to remain. That to me speaks volumes.
It's like Clinton going to church, carrying an enormous Bible. The Left eats that stuff up. They know it's insincere. Clinton is not a believer. Kerry is not a hunter. So what? The Left just laughs to itself, thinking that the rubes are falling for the joke, but the Left is so much smarter than everyone else: they know it's just an act.
The problem with Palin, of course, is that she's the real deal. Therefore, the Left is outraged that she believes in Christ and also hunts. That woman has some nerve!!! Decent people don't really behave that way!
I like Krauthammer a lot, and I think he consistently comes up with profound insights into the political scene, more so than just about any other commentator.
But I don’t agree with him on everything, and his obsession with the lack of pedigree among some of the more populist and Tea Party types is one place we part company.
I remember during the Christine O’Donnell / Mike Castle imbroglio when he appealed to Bill Buckley’s dictum that one should vote for the most conservative candidate who could win. I wished I was there so I could remind him of another line of Buckley’s: that he’d rather be governed by the first 500 names in the Cambridge phone book than be governed by the Harvard faculty.
For all intents and purposes, Castle was the Harvard faculty. And of course O’Donnell essentially would be just a name in the Cambridge phone book.
In terms of the standards of the elites, so is Palin - and I’d rather be governed by her than all the Ivy League pinheads who’ve put us in the bind we’re in now.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.