Posted by
Darrick Johnson on Thursday, April 17, 2008 7:31:37 PM
In the aftermath of Barack Obama’s “BitterGate”, we are reminded that liberalism and elitism have more in common than sharing a suffix. Fellow Democrats complain that Obama’s comments reinforce views that the party is elitist. (His failed attempt at bowling didn’t help…a grown man bowling a 37?)
The haughty John Kerry was pilloried for windsurfing during the 2004 election season. His comical hunting venture (“Can I get me a huntin’ license”) nicely reinforced the image of snobbery.
The words of BitterGate, and these previously mentioned embarrassing attempts at recreating with commoners reveals a far more important pattern. Liberalism attracts elitists, and it fosters elitism. On any domestic policy issue, liberalism argues that government elites make better decisions than the unwashed masses.
For health care, they are confident that a government bureaucrat can engineer better and more economical care than doctors and patients.
On taxes, they argue that the government will spend any given dollar more prudently than the individual who earns it. Liberals fear the bitter serfs may do something ridiculous, like buy some sort of “All Terrain Vehicle”, or groceries at Wal-Mart, as if he’d never even seen a Whole Foods.
In fact, liberals seem to believe that aside from the decisions to have an abortion, use recreational drugs, or purvey pornography, all decisions in life are just too important to be left to the American people. In a liberal utopia, gun ownership would be restricted to Rosie O’Donnell’s security detail. SUV’s would be banned as unnecessary gas hogs, but Al Gore’s private jet would continue to help him conduct his important work. Government (read liberal elites) would choose your doctor, your diet, your school, your occupation, car and home (a nice concrete apartment complex, gotta fight that urban sprawl, but don’t expect to see bull dozers converting the Kennedy compound into low-income housing.) Don’t worry, average Americans would still remain free to choose their IPod playlist.
Not only does a belief in liberalism require you to believe that you are smarter, wiser, and generally better than your contemporaries, it also demands you look down on your predecessors.
Woodrow Wilson, the founder of modern liberalism, articulated the liberal position well:
All that progressives ask or desire is permission — in an era when "development," "evolution," is the scientific word — to interpret the Constitution according to the Darwinian principle; all they ask is recognition of the fact that a nation is a living thing and not a machine.
Imagine John Adams, James Madison and Benjamin Franklin as some sort of political missing links, hunched over, trying to scribble out a Constitution with their newfound capacity for abstract thought.
Liberal belief in political Darwinism dictates that societies always move forward to bigger and better government (except for the Reagan and Bush years, which nearly destroyed humanity itself.). Progress is defined by “Progressives” as the eradication of relics of their 18th century forbearers, like the 2nd Amendment and heterosexual marriage; always evolving to be a better government, as those who interpret it evolve into better people. Never mind that it requires an enormous suspension of disbelief. Jimmy Carter knew better than George Washington? Bill Clinton was wiser than James Madison? Barbara Boxer defeats Daniel Webster in the All-Time Senate Debate Contest?
We shouldn’t be surprised at the enormous overlap of liberalism and elitism. Liberal democrats may claim to be the party of the common man, but the logical extension of their political ideology is unbridled arrogance and elitism.