Tuesday, November 04, 2008
The Captains of Illusion and Self-absorbsion; Leftist Elitism In High Gear -- 2008
Barely a day goes by now where I don't read an e-mail, facebook comment, or direct statement praising the left's new secular messiah -- Obama -- and savagely insulting the values and lifestyle symbolism of Sarah Palin. Palin affords a caricature of everything the left hates. She's liked by the right for her commonness – "Joe Six pack" – and despised by the left for precisely the same reasons.
It would certainly be an accurate appraisal of current political debate to accuse the Democrats and "progressives" of arrogance and elitism. All that defines common citizens is held in contempt by the snooty control freaks of leftland. I don't read many (actually zero) facebook comments prodding people to vote for McCain Palin, not because there are no people of such political persuasion but because conservatives still have some basic manners left when interacting with a mixed-view crowd. The same decorum is why, if Obama wins, conservatives won't be protesting and rioting about a "stole election" (when, indeed there is plenty of evidence of massive voter fraud from the Obama side). If McCain wins, we can of course expect all hell to break lose because leftland didn't get their way.
In addition to the phony superior morality argument uttered so often by the left, we'll continue to hear just how "curious," intellectual, and refined these pompous snobs are.
To them, it's all about "reading the right books," and "speaking French." (I've actually seen those attributes listed as requirements for a "qualified presidential candidate" ).
This clique' of elitists hates Sarah Palin because she's "common folk." The left has always hated common folk – except in their dreams, where they are the champions and chosen leaders of everything common (and everything they perceive as beneath them).
On a personal note, I've actually read plenty of books on a wide range of subjects ('personal preference – so what) and the more I learn from them and common sense observation, the more I trust common people (whether they read plenty of books or not) over the elitist snobs that have captured American society through a thousand channels of communication (public education being the most abused channel).
Given the leftist snobs' excitement for intellectuals its no wonder that they are so equally enamored with Lawyers, journalists, and other assorted con-artists that pretend to be intellectuals.
Do we really need another intellectual who's read lots of books making decisions for individuals in some collectivist scheme they fancy – another Pol Pot, Mao, or Lenin? Even the upper tier of the Nazi party was full of intellectuals. Hitler was the classic "artiste" intellectual with a "new vision." There is nothing and nowhere in history that indicates that intellectuals make better or more democratic leaders and those of simpler lifestyles make worse. To the contrary, the historical record is one of intellectuals who have caused incredible damage to their own societies, and to others when they sought to expand their domination (as they always do). Even those intellectuals of blander passion and less utopian vision have hardly been the epitome of wisdom. The intellectuals that advised President Johnson made Vietnam a quagmire. How many brilliant intellectual economic advisor's has history seen that sparked or lorded over recession, inflation, and unemployment?
Zimbabwe's Robert Mugabe has an impressive list of schooling but he's created a famine-ridden waste case out of Africa's former bread-basket. Bill Clinton was a "Rhodes Scholar" and the only positive legislative action his presidency can truly be noted for are programs a Republican congress initiated.
I've met auto mechanics that would be better leaders and decision makers than some of the "intellectual" rabble that 's been pawned off on the public in the name of "superior intellectual leadership." In the end, this whole issue relates to events no more than the age-old jealousy that intellectuals have shown as they have sought power over others, and the ignorance of those who follow and adore superficial traits over substance of character
The issue of intellectuals' role in politics and history is well addressed in Eric Hoffer's "The Ordeal of Change" and Paul Johnson's "Intellectuals," two books I'd highly recommend to fully understand what intellectuals have done or helped to create (in a dystopian sense). Both books offer wise speculation as to what motivates people to not simply learn for their own sake but to impose their will over others on the pretense that their bookish knowledge justifies their authority.
It's odd that just a couple of years ago we constantly heard of a simple mill-workers son qualifications to be president (John Edwards), now a strong intelligent woman with executive experience is considered unqualified because she's basically, "too common" to suit the arrogant snobs of leftland.
Let them eat Brie...and leave others to their "sixpacks, guns, religion"...and common sense.
