On supposed liberal elitism

Often heard is the accusation that liberals form an "elite," a sub-stratum of society wholly antithetical to the values of "real Americans." Characteristic of this elite are their personal choices regarding reading material, residency, transportation and other affinities. Rarely is the Internet not laden with charges that "Volvo-driving, wine-sipping, NYC/SF-dwelling, gay-loving, college-graduating, Europe-worshipping, subtitled-film watching agnostics look down on 'real Americans'."

How is this any more elite than a truck, an SUV or a Hummer?

If one is to look closely at the elements so scorned by so many of these "real" Americans, one may find that they are hardly elite at all, just different from the mainstream. To begin with, a frequent generalization concerns the mode of transportation favored by these "elites." This, of course, would be the Prius or the Volvo. The Prius starts at just over $23,000, according to the Toyota website: http://www.toyota.com/sem/prius.html?srchid=K610_p312826639 while a Volvo can fetch for between $25,000 to $40,000. Either way, purchasing a Volvo or a Prius firsthand can incur considerable expense, but so can the purchase of a Hummer or a pick-up truck with the latest accoutrements from an American car company. While some could argue that the purchase of a hybrid car can induce a smug feeling of moral superiority on the part of the owner, so could being wholly reliant on public transport, something that is considered decidedly "non-elite" by much of mainstream America.

Despite rumors to the contrary, most subtitled films do make sense!

As for entertainment, it is often generalized that this "elite" would rather spend hours being entertained by the likes of Fellini or Bergman or Truffaut than NASCAR. To many, foreign films, particularly those bearing subtitles, are considered impenetrable and thus only appealing to a small sector of our society. Undoubtedly, some of the works of Fellini and Bergman may have limited appeal; however, several of these "elite" directors have made works that are easily accessible to the masses. Fellini films such as "I Vitelloni" and "Nights of Cabiria" offer no serious obstacles to the ordinary viewer and treat universal themes. So do many of the films by Kurosawa, Herzog and Bergman, particularly "Scenes from a Marriage," and "Wild Strawberries." An affinity for foreign film is not automatically exclusionary. The presence of subtitles does not necessarily indicate that the work is only accessible to those with a background in Jungian psychology or an MFA in film studies.

With color pictures, easy-to-understand vocabulary and entire sections dedicated to the trivial, how is this publication "elitist"?

As for reading material, the New York Times is often held up as the pinnacle of elitist journalism. Although the vocabulary level of the New York Times of today is nowhere close to what it was in, say, 1960, many believe that the Times utilizes a style that excludes the multitude. The Times is hardly impenetrable. As for the charge that it is "elitist," this would be valid if the editors began charging hundreds of dollars for a single copy, but as it stands, the New York Times, for all its flaws, is a very accessible publication that can be had for the same price as its competitors.

In my own lifetime of 37 years, these "elites," these individuals who show a fondness for foreign films, the New York Times and hybrid cars, are often not of the monied class, but are often academics who earn an income that is hardly staggering. The studio-dwelling San Franciscan with a boxed set of Ozu films and posters of Tosca and La Traviata on his walls is hardly an elite who poses a threat to the values of real Americans. The real threat comes from those who see exploitation, greed and violence as the necessary staples of our society.