Still, the term "elitist," is a particularly curious one that is used so often by the more reactionary members of the American right. What is curious is that the term "elitist" can apply not only to those on the left, but to those of a rightist bent for so many reasons.
Gross generalizations have a way of undermining rational discourse. To say that all people who identify with the more conservative element of the political spectrum share the same exact religious beliefs, for example, is a simplification; however, it cannot be denied that certain commonalities are pervasive among this side of the divide. What is seen most frequently among today's right is a widespread adherence to fundamentalist Christianity and a monopoly on what constitutes a "real American." This does not apply to every single member of the current right, but it applies to millions, millions who have made their voices heard thanks to protests and everyday exchanges on the Internet.
Addressing these individuals, who have achieved increasing prominence, one such matter that deserves regard is their frequent use of the term "elitist" towards their opposites in the political divide. The term "elitist" is a dismissal of those who do not share "real" American values. "Elitist" is the term used to denounce those who reside in major cities such as New York and San Francisco, get their information from periodicals such as the New York Review of Books and The Nation, hold advanced degrees, have Europhile tendencies and are skeptical of organized religion. These habits, along with a tendency to question the status quo supported by the more traditional, earn them the charge of "elitism." Yet, what is not discussed frequently enough is how the term "elitist" can be used against the original accusers. Disdain for the provincial is an easy way to earn the title of "elitist," yet elitism can be found quite easily enough by the same "real" Americans who denounce these cultural elites. Let us take a look at two examples.
Among the more aggressive members of the right, fundamentalist Christianity is a common bond. This is not to say that every person who embraces the ideology of the Tea Party, for example, belongs to the Christian Right. What cannot be denied is that a large number of today's right wingers are Bible literalists who are increasingly vocal about their beliefs. The frequent denunciation of religious skeptics as "elitists," who "look down upon" the God-fearing is a curious one when one considers where an even greater form of elitism resides. To believe that one is saved from eternal torture owing to an accident of birth (i.e., being born into the "right" religion) or through choosing the "one, true religion," is quite a demonstration of elitism. Even more indicative of elitism are those who maintain that not only is there one true religion that will facilitate salvation, but there is only one true denomination within that religion that leads to a Heavenly kingdom. To buttress their claims, proponents demonstrate that their Holy Book has the one true message. This is a blatant form of elitism. The reason for this is that Holy Scripture is taken on faith, not reason, not scientific analysis, but whether or not one "feels" that this is the truth. To believe that one's gut feeling is better than the other man's gut feeling is as true a form of elitism as one can find. The obstinate evangelical Protestant will meet equally obstinate Catholics, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Jews, Muslims, Hindus and several others who believe that they are the bearers of the truth. What differentiates the Evangelical from the other groups is that in American society, his voice is the one most often heard. Believing oneself to be part of a special elect who are the only ones who deserve something other than eternal torture is a genuine form of elitism, far more offensive than any other on display.
A second form of elitism often displayed by "real" Americans is the very definition of what is a real American. Holding themselves to be the true heirs apparent of the Founding Fathers, the right have often gone to absurd lengths to discredit their adversaries. It is not unheard of for those on the right to bring up how long their people have been in this country. What this amounts to is nothing. Having ancestors born in the nation does not make you a better American. Timothy McVeigh and Lee Harvey Oswald were multi-generational Americans yet they were hardly quality Americans. One's status as a good citizen is determined by his actions, not his ancestry. Pointing out that you have been in this country longer than someone else owing to the immigration patterns of your forefathers hardly makes you a better American than the loyal first-generation American. This form of "reasoning" is brought out repeatedly. It has seen its uglier side manifest itself in the Birther Movement where not only Obama is discredited partly because of his parentage, but others have their American identity called into question via their family background.
In closing, what one may also find ironic about the frequent use of the term "elitist" by the more reactionary elements of the American right is that the very same term was often used as part of a legal indictment in the societies they routinely denounce. One such example would be the former Soviet Union, where opposition to the standard party line often led to charges of "elitism," charges that sometimes had deadly consequences. To see the American right co-opt a term used to assail political enemies in totalitarian societies is a bitter irony worthy of further attention.
No comments:
Post a Comment