Wednesday, February 29, 2012

Santorum, OutKast, Punch and the New Left

Another thought on the subject of snobbery. But first, a muscial interlude from a place you might not expect:


I know you'd like to think your **** don't stink
But lean a little bit closer
See that roses really smell like poo-poo-oo
Yeah, roses really smell like poo-poo-oo


-- "Roses," OutKast, 2003

Academe is full of roses. Which might be what Rick Santorum was trying to say, in his somewhat demagogic style.

Sometimes you need to call in someone who is a smidge more, ahem, erudite than your typical politician, to get the message across. Enter Steven Hayward, writing at Powerline:

Instead, we should entertain the idea that in calling Obama a “snob,” Santorum has actually struck very close to the philosophical core of the contemporary Left.  And my witness for this case is a long ago article from the late John Adams Wettergreen titled, “Is Snobbery a Formal Value?  Considering Life at the End of Modernity,” published in the March 1973 issue of the Western Political Quarterly.  (Only available online if you have J-STOR access, unfortunately.)  This very theoretical article surveys the leading thinkers of the “New Left” at the time, including Marcuse, Heidegger, Sartre, Merleau-Ponty, and especially the French Hegelian, Alexandre Kojeve, whose own peculiar gloss on Hegel’s “end of history” became the basis of Francis Fukuyama’s blockbuster book The End of History and the Last Man.
When we start namechecking French Hegelians, we're headed for the weeds, of course. But Wettergreen's point does come into focus, in discussing the career of William Makepeace Thackeray, who edited the venerable British humor magazine Punch in the 1800s. Just to keep track, this passage quotes Hayward, quoting Wettergreen, quoting Thackeray. Pretty meta, but stay with it:

 Now Thackeray’s Book of Snobs was intentionally anti-snobbist and so it seems that snobbery may have had some content, something worthy of opposition. What was it in snobbery that Thackeray opposed? In a perhaps too serious moment, he wrote: “As long as [newspapers publish a "society page"] how the deuce are people whose names are chronicled in it ever to believe themselves the equals of that cringing race which daily reads that abominable trash?” . . .
One might argue that Thackeray's opinion was a bit snobbish, but we'll set that aside. Back to Wettergreen:

According to Thackeray, the footman who grovels before the royal footman is equally a snob with the royal footman (or the royalty itself) that expects such groveling. Today, when all footmen have disappeared, Thackeray’s understanding remains: anyone who thinks that he is superior (in a way that society ought to take notice of) is a snob. In the age when groveling is strictly taboo, in the classless society, only the expectation of groveling can produce a snob. Therefore, in modem times snobbery has progressed from the objective condition of the lower or lowest class to the merely subjective preference for an upper class. This late kind of snobbery, almost the reverse of original snobbery, is what Kojeve hopes will save man’s humanity.
So let's reel it back a bit. Here's Hayward again:

Likewise, today’s leftists have so fully absorbed their own “betterness” over the rest of us that they can’t be bothered with a serious philosophical defense of it.
Based on my experience, there's some truth to this observation, but not enough to be entirely satisfactory. I do pick up on a tone of dismissiveness among many college-educated people, especially from my tribe -- that is, liberal arts majors. Certitude in anything is dangerous. If anything, I'm a lot less certain that I understand the world than I was 20-25 years ago.

Is certitude due to college education? Probably not. I certainly encountered Hegel, Marcuse, Heidegger and Sartre during my college years. And I also read Baudelaire's "The Flowers of Evil." Which brings us back to OutKast.

I suspect that Rick Santorum and many of his critics both believe their **** don't stink. What Santorum's more educated enemies recognize in Santorum is something they often fail to see in themselves, which is certitude. It's no surprise that what often drives Santorum's critics to their greatest rage is his views on matters sexual. It was also no surprise that one of Santorum's greatest enemies, Dan Savage, has turned Santorum's surname into a term for an, ahem, especially nasty byproduct of a specific form of sexual activity. Santorum offers, with his sweater vest and his particular form of piety, a direct challenge that many people had hoped was buried a long time ago.

If you can get by with refusing to deal with someone simply through being dismissive of their concerns, or through ridicule, you're going to come across as a snob, or worse. And Santorum, since he tends to intersperse a measure of ridicule in his piety, throws it right back in a way that pushes people's buttons. This is a populist moment, but not necessarily in an economic sense. Santorum understands this in ways that Mitt Romney never will. In the end, the Santorum candidacy will fail. It deserves to. But by raising these issues, he's giving both sides of the culture war a chance to look at some things that ought to make everyone involved uncomfortable. As Baudelaire said:


Tu le connais, lecteur, ce monstre délicat,
—Hypocrite lecteur,—mon semblable,—mon frère!

10 comments:

Anonymous said...

I have always said that the quintessential requirement for being a liberal is the firm belief that you are intellectually and morally superior to everybody else. This is mostly harmless except in social settings, and even their is largely benign unless someone challenges their belief. Any challenge whatsoever, on any issue, instantly translates to a personal attack, because they are intellectually and morally superior to you, you idiot, and for you to be right their entire personal self-worth would have to crumble. They don't debate, they harangue. Come on now, surely you have noticed?

It is also why liberals are so dangerous and politics, because they believe their superiority entitles them to "rule" over the rest of us, and to tell us exactly how to live our lives, under penalty of law! That there are people who will vote these lunatics into positions of power says that snobbishness is alive and well. Or maybe it's just the foolishness.

Che. Ewing

Gino said...

the snobbery of the Obama camp was evident in the dustup and follow up skewering of a random blue collar voter who had the audacity to challenge then candidate in public with an honest query.

i remember a day or two later, when giving another speech, how obama refered to him in a 'what does that idiot know' tone, he's plumber.

and the audience ate that shit up for breakfast.

Brian said...

If you don't honestly believe that your own opinions and values are the best among a universe of possibilities, why bother to believe anything at all?

I'll revise that a little: I think what I believe is the best reflection of my experience and reality as I understand it at this point in my life. That leaves open the possibility that I could change my mind about some things, given different experiences, more and better information, and a different context. (It's certainly happened before, so why wouldn't it again?)

Maybe that softens the force of my convictions, but only a little. At least for now.

"...because they believe their superiority entitles them to "rule" over the rest of us, and to tell us exactly how to live our lives, under penalty of law!

Ah, now this is an important distinction! But that sentiment is hardly unique (or even universally prevalent) among liberals. Mr. Santorum himself being a clear example of the same from the right.

Mr. D said...

I'll revise that a little: I think what I believe is the best reflection of my experience and reality as I understand it at this point in my life. That leaves open the possibility that I could change my mind about some things, given different experiences, more and better information, and a different context. (It's certainly happened before, so why wouldn't it again?)

That's it, Brian. Things do change and context that isn't available at the time changes, too. For example, I wouldn't have known any songs by OutKast a few years ago, much less quoted them.

Anonymous said...

This "liberals are snobs" BS is all so laughable, I don't know why I am bothering, but here goes: I am a card carrying Democrat. I have voted for Republican candidates for major office (state or Federal) 3 times. So I don't think of myself as entirely rigid on that, but pretty damn close. The reason I am a Dem is because I favor lower tax rates for the poor, higher tax rates for the rich, a social safety net, equal rights and opportunities for people of all colors and sexual orientations, and I want a government that stays out of my religion as much as possible. I do think there should be a hard line between Church and State, AT AN INSTITUTIONAL LEVEL, but to characterize that as meaning that people of Faith have should be excluded from political life is preposterous. And I have no idea why anything I just said leads anyone to believe that I think I am better than anyone else. Far from it. I know I don't have all he answers, but I do believe that, in general, what is characterized as the Liberal approach is better than the Consrvative approach. And I believe the Liberal approach is more inclusive and tolerant of other peoples, cultures and beliefs. In other words, I think my sides ideas are right, or I wouldn't have them as beliefs. So why wouldn't I defend those beliefs, and work to convince others of the same. Thinking that my ideas are right isn’t elitism. But believing it’s not worth trying to convince others is. Are there elitist Liberals? Of course there are. But there are also elitist Conservatives. Remember George W.'s quip in his first term: Here we have the haves and the have mores. Some call you the elite; I call you my base.” He obviously recognized that there are a few elitists in the GOP too.

The notion that I am an elitist for being intolerant of intolerance is, in my opinion, ridiculous. But what is even sillier is to cite defending my beliefs as evidence of elitism. That's a tautology. Just who is the elitist here? What could possibly be more elitist? Getting a college degree and wanting the same for your kids, or thumbing your nose at anyone who isn't white, straight, Evangelical and/or doesn't pay attention to NASCAR. (I ignore the NBA and Soccer too.)

BTW, being white, straight, racist, bigoted, or Evangelical is not quintessential requirement for Conservatism, and for me to say that would be wrong.

Regards,
Rich

Anonymous said...

This "liberals are snobs" BS is all so laughable, I don't know why I am bothering, but here goes: I am a card carrying Democrat. I have voted for Republican candidates for major office (state or Federal) 3 times. So I don't think of myself as entirely rigid on that, but pretty damn close. The reason I am a Dem is because I favor lower tax rates for the poor, higher tax rates for the rich, a social safety net, equal rights and opportunities for people of all colors and sexual orientations, and I want a government that stays out of my religion as much as possible. I do think there should be a hard line between Church and State, AT AN INSTITUTIONAL LEVEL, but to characterize that as meaning that people of Faith have should be excluded from political life is preposterous. And I have no idea why anything I just said leads anyone to believe that I think I am better than anyone else. Far from it. I know I don't have all he answers, but I do believe that, in general, what is characterized as the Liberal approach is better than the Consrvative approach. And I believe the Liberal approach is more inclusive and tolerant of other peoples, cultures and beliefs. In other words, I think my sides ideas are right, or I wouldn't have them as beliefs. So why wouldn't I defend those beliefs, and work to convince others of the same. Thinking that my ideas are right isn’t elitism. But believing it’s not worth trying to convince others is. Are there elitist Liberals? Of course there are. But there are also elitist Conservatives. Remember George W.'s quip in his first term: Here we have the haves and the have mores. Some call you the elite; I call you my base.” He obviously recognized that there are a few elitists in the GOP too.

The notion that I am an elitist for being intolerant of intolerance is, in my opinion, ridiculous. But what is even sillier is to cite defending my beliefs as evidence of elitism. That's a tautology. Just who is the elitist here? What could possibly be more elitist? Getting a college degree and wanting the same for your kids, or thumbing your nose at anyone who isn't white, straight, Evangelical and/or doesn't pay attention to NASCAR. (I ignore the NBA and Soccer too.)

BTW, being white, straight, racist, bigoted, or Evangelical is not quintessential requirement for Conservatism, and for me to say that would be wrong.

Regards,
Rich

Anonymous said...

Gino,
your post is nothing but revisionist BS from the Right. Here is what took place between Joe The Plumber and Candidate Obama. You will have to explain, if you can, what is so elitist about stopping and engaging a guy in a pretty detailed conversation about tax policy.

Let the dialogue speak for itself:

J the P: "I’m getting ready to buy a company that makes 250 to 280 thousand dollars a year," Wurzelbacher said. "Your new tax plan is going to tax me more, isn’t it?"

Obama said, "First off, you would get a 50% tax credit so you’d get a tax cut for your healthcare costs….. if your revenue is above 250 – then from 250 down, your taxes are going to stay the same. It is true that from 250 up – from 250 – 300 or so, so for that additional amount, you’d go from 36 to 39%, which is what it was under Bill Clinton. And the reason why we’re doing that is because 95% of small businesses make less than 250. So what I want to do is give them a tax cut. I want to give all these folks who are bus drivers, teachers, auto workers who make less, I want to give them a tax cut. And so what we’re doing is, we are saying that folks who make more than 250 that that marginal amount above 250 – they’re gonna be taxed at a 39 instead of a 36% rate.”

Responded Wurzelbacher, "the reason I ask you about the American dream, I mean I’ve worked hard. I’m a plumber. I work 10-12 hours a day and I’m buying this company and I’m going to continue working that way. I’m getting taxed more and more while fulfilling the American dream."

"Well," said Obama, "here’s a way of thinking about it. How long have been a plumber?"

Wurzelbacher said 15 years.

Obama says, “Over the last 15 years, when you weren’t making 250, you would have been given a tax cut from me, so you’d actually have more money, which means you would have saved more, which means you would have gotten to the point where you could build your small business quicker than under the current tax code. So there are two ways of looking at it – I mean one way of looking at it is, now that you’ve become more successful through hard work – you don’t want to be taxed as much.”

“Exactly," Wurzelbacher said.

Obama continued, “But another way of looking at it is 95% of folks who are making less than 250, they may be working hard too, but they’re being taxed at a higher rate than they would be under mine. So what I’m doing is, put yourself back 10 years ago when you were only making whatever, 60 or 70. Under my tax plan you would be keeping more of your paycheck, you’d be paying lower taxes, which means you would have saved…Now look, nobody likes high taxes."

"No," said Wurzelbacher.
****CONTINUED****

Anonymous said...

****Continued from previous****

"Of course not," said Obama. "But what’s happened is that we end up – we’ve cut taxes a lot for folks like me who make a lot more than 250. We haven’t given a break to folks who make less, and as a consequence, the average wage and income for ordinary folks, the vast majority of Americans, has actually gone down over the last eight years. So all I want to do is – I’ve got a tax cut. The only thing that changes, is I’m gonna cut taxes a little bit more for the folks who are most in need and for the 5% of the folks who are doing very well – even though they’ve been working hard and I appreciate that – I just want to make sure they’re paying a little bit more in order to pay for those other tax cuts. Now, I respect the disagreement. I just want you to be clear – it’s not that I want to punish your success – I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you – that they’ve got a chance at success too.”

Wurzelbacher said it seemed as though Obama might support a flat tax.

Obama says, “you know, I would be open to it except here’s the problem with a flat tax is that if you actually put a flat tax together, in order for it to work and replace all the revenue that we’ve got, you’d probably end up having to make it like about a 40% sales tax. I mean that’s the value added, making it up. Now some people say 23 or 25, but in truth when you add up all the revenue that would need to be raised, you’d have to slap on a whole bunch of sales taxes on. And I do believe for folks like me who have worked hard, but frankly also been lucky, I don’t mind paying just a little bit more than the waitress that I just met over there who’s things are slow and she can barely make the rent."

Obama said, "My attitude is that if the economy’s good for folks from the bottom up, it’s gonna be good for everybody. If you’ve got a plumbing business, you’re gonna be better off if you’re gonna be better off if you’ve got a whole bunch of customers who can afford to hire you, and right now everybody’s so pinched that business is bad for everybody and I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody."

That’s the key moment McCain is jumping out…"when you spread the wealth around it’s good for everybody."

"But listen," Obama said, shaking Wurzelbacher’s hand, "I respect what you do and I respect your question, and even if I don’t get your vote, I’m still gonna be working hard on your behalf, because small businesses are what creates jobs in this country and I want to encourage it.”

"Guys I gotta get out of here and go prepare for the debate," Obama said, "but that was pretty good practice right there."

***END***

Where is the elitism? They disagree. So what. They see things differently. But WHERE IS THE ELITISM?

Regards,
Rich

Mr. D said...

Rich,

Just so you know, this post wasn't about you. But I do appreciate your spirited defense.

Mr. D said...

In re Joe the Plumber, I would say this. I go back to a post from 2008, when this controversy took place. I wrote this paragraph then and I stand by it today:

But the question remains -- why would so many people fall on a guy like Joe Wurzelbacher like jackals? There is something uniquely disturbing about this incident, something far more disturbing than what happened to Sarah Palin and her family after she was nominated for the Vice Presidency. Sarah Palin willingly stepped into the arena. Whether she and her family deserved the beating they took, they had reason to know it would happen. Joe the Plumber didn't ask for this. He just asked a question and now he gets to stand naked in the public square for his troubles.

Now, to be fair, I took a poke another "face in the crowd," Sandra Fluke, today on this blog. But there was a difference. Fluke was seeking the spotlight by agreeing to testify. She asked to be in the story, while JTP did not.

This is all somewhat afield from the main point of the original post. And I would also think that you, of all people, would understand that I was playing a bit of an intellectual parlor game in writing it. Even the title was meant as a parody of a paper you might see presented at an MLA convention. I write posts like this once in a while just for the hell of it, to get a reaction mostly. And I got over 2000 words from you out of it, which is a pretty good reaction, indeed.

It's one of the reasons why I really value your comments here, Rich, as I do Brian's comments. Smart people who disagree with you are the best friends a blogger can have.

I wouldn't argue that all liberals are snobs, because that would be a straw man argument. And it would also be demonstrably false. But I suspect you know people on your side of the aisle who simply won't deign to consider conservative arguments. Just as I find myself uncomfortable with certain people who might agree with my position from time to time.