Intellectual Elitists See Red All Over

Writing in The New York Times, author Gary Wills made this observation about the inhabitants of the nation he calls home: "Can a people that believes more fervently in the Virgin Birth than in evolution still be called an Enlightened nation?"

Since the re-election of President George W. Bush, several members of the chattering class have complained about the boorishness of their fellow citizens. More specifically, they have bemoaned the voting habits of religiously motivated dolts -- that group whose moral convictions foster such civility as still exists in our country.

These red-state rubes, it seems, have the temerity to ignore the advice of their intellectual betters -- men and women trained in elite institutions and groomed-to-PR-perfection in Manhattan studios. How yahoos who have never appeared on national television, starred in a movie, recorded a top-10 hit or written books reviewed by The New York Times could defy the insight of such celebrated egos is a question worthy of contemplation.

Perhaps the answer to this query lies in the litany of ideas endorsed by Wills' Enlightened chums -- ideas in addition to the incredible efficacy of random mutations.

Most conspicuously, Gary's pals believe (despite biological "hints" and 5,000 years of civilized history to the contrary) that a family comprised of two mommies or two daddies serves kids quite as well as one in which children derive their most intimate portrait of family relationships from a mother and a father -- a domestic unit within which marital vows have actual reproductive consequences.

(Thirty years ago, Bi-Coastal Cosmopolitans dogmatically declared that divorce was no big deal and that the biggest problem facing kids born out of wedlock was the bigoted stigma attached to them.)

Elite Starbuckeroos also believe, regardless of the facts, that underfunding is the real reason public education so miserably fails minority students. With blind faith, they cling to the doctrine that bureaucrats are more trustworthy than a child's parents and that "more of the same" is vastly preferable to options that might undermine political allies.

Smarter-than-thous are also convinced that dismembering a fully formed baby in its mother's birth canal is a woman's choice, while protecting kangaroo rats from extinction is a sacred obligation.

They believe that "Sex and the City" entertainment is morally insignificant, whereas a dramatic presentation of "The Passion" is a cinematic crisis meriting serious editorial response.

They believe that a cross exhibited in a jar of urine is a mark of open- mindedness, but a tiny version of the same figure displayed on Los Angeles' county seal constitutes an intolerant imposition of faith.

Mental Incredibles hail Nicole Kidman's liquid tryst with a 10-year-old as "pushing the envelope," but find the motto "In God We Trust" an international embarrassment.

They declare that Howard Stern's broadcasts are constitutionally protected, but deem it prudent to monitor certain pulpits for hate speech.

They believe that deficits are "generational warfare" when they arise from tax cuts, but "investments in the future" when produced by expanded government programs.

Secular savants believe that SUVs constitute a greater threat than MTV, that minuscule increases in air pollution merit more vilification than a gang of corporate pimps who've been corrupting children for more than two decades.

They believe that secondhand smoke is more deadly than sexual promiscuity, that politics trumps personal morality and that political correctness provides absolution for chronic narcissism.

They think that having three sets of children by at least as many partners isn't nearly as reprehensible as failing to support the Kyoto accords.

They believe, above all else, in the superiority of elite opinion, and in the cultural prestige that attends membership in this mutual veneration society.

That ordinary citizens should veto such advice -- ignoring the enlightened voices that denounced Ronald Reagan and touted the admirable idealism of Marxist regimes -- is hard to understand. Perhaps it's just impenetrable ignorance.

Richard Kirk is a freelance writer who lives in Oceanside. Write to him by e-mail him at kirkrg@nctimes.net .

Mental Incredibles hail Nicole Kidman's liquid tryst with a 10-year-old as "pushing the envelope," but find the motto "In God We Trust" an international embarrassment.

This is way too much in an overly personalized "them vs. us" confrontational mode. Assuming for a minute that his description of Kidman's movie is accurate, how many people have actually seen and liked it? And if we substitute some other, better-known "envelope pushing" movie for it, how accurate is the assumption that people either like the movie or support "In God We Trust" but not both or neither? Why not both? Or neither? Are people heavily into movies always the same as committed secularists? Aren't some film aficionados rather indifferent to politics? Might some actually like having the existing motto on our coins?

Kerry country is SUV country, at least if you're talking about affluent liberal East Coast suburbs and the Kerry-Heinz household. But why is it necessarily one or the other? Plenty of Kerry voters drive SUV's and worry about MTV. That in itself doesn't make them good or bad people. And some Bush voters have no love for either mass culture or massive personal transport. Indeed, some young Bush supporters probably have much familiarity with Music Television in all its atrociousness than is good for them.

They believe that secondhand smoke is more deadly than sexual promiscuity, that politics trumps personal morality and that political correctness provides absolution for chronic narcissism.

Up to a point, yes, but in questions like environmental pollution, purely personal morality may not be enough. And Kirk does seem to be doing substantially what he attacks in liberal elitists: he's raising a political banner and arguing that it makes him a better person. He's claiming greater virtue because he cares about what's really important. It's likely that he is closer to what is really important, at least in words. But it's deeds and achievements that count more, and so often they're harder to accomplish than speeches and poses, and less visible to outsiders.

Pornography and promiscuity are wrong, but it's a mistake to try to turn morality into a political party or faction, whether it's done by liberal environmentalists or conservative anti-elitists. Much of what's moral comes through conversation and self-examination, rather than from throwing down a provocative gauntlet at the opposing party.

Politicizing virtue, and saying that the right or good in some areas matters because it suits one's political outlook and doesn't matter in other things because they belong to the "other side" is usually the end of real virtue, whoever does it. So yes, if someone tells you that caring about whales or Kyoto makes them superior, they're wrong, but beware since personal morality and chronic narcissism aren't fixed properties of right or left.

Live in the United States and take its economic advantages one should adopt the culture and language.

Absolutley, there is no moral obligation on the majority not to offend minorities, and nothing says that the minority has a right not to be offended. The society used to handle these offenses on a personal level, "do you mind if I smoke" and group pledges of alligence were all acceptable. To those offended, "Get over it" is the best policy. We need a severe cutback in laws designed to force political correctness and impeachment of judges who enforce such cr*p. What holidays are celebrated in the classroom are up to the teachers, and what is sung at the school winter assembly should be up to the music department. People with different religious ideas should go to religious private schools or agree to let programs go on without objection. The society needs a lot of tea thrown in the harbor.

Hi Richard-

I didn't even notice your screen name of "kirkrg" and the name "Richard G. Kirk" on the byline of the story. I simply thought I was passing an observation to a third-party fellow FReeper about a published article. It wasn't meant to be a insult. My mind used to be like a steel trap!

Well, now that I've gotten the shoe polish out of my mouth and I'm speaking directly with the columnist, I clearly owe you my sincere apology.

I'll send you the article about which I speak by FReepmail and you'll get a laugh out of it. For all I know, you could have authored that one as well. Again, sorry.

~ Blue Jays ~

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.