« The Trouble With The Bush Doctrin | Main | The Wages of Anti-Intellectualism »
The Moral Elite
I've been a bit puzzled by some of the Lakoff-related commentary I've been reading, in which a lot of people don't really seem to grasp the difference between a slogan and a frame. John Holbo, however, puts together a good one -- the moral elite.
There's a fascinating point in their about the modalities of the term "elite." On the one hand, given the grand US tradition of populism and Jackson/Toqueville democracy, an elite is a bad thing to be for political purposes. Americans (rather oddly) rebel at the notion that anyone is better than anyone else or should have any ability to claim superior wisdom about anything than anyone else. At the same time, however, when "elite" is thrown at you as an accusation, you can hardly deny it. America lauds achievement, accomplishment, etc., so when someone castigates the "intellectual elite" you're hardly going to turn around and say, "no, no, you've got it all wrong -- I'm an idiot!" You're stuck in a weird American cultural void, unable to deny that you think you're better than others, but unable to admit it either.
At any rate -- Down With the Moral Elite! Down with Brent Bozell and the Parents' Television Council! Who are they to look down at us, sneering at our morals, our shows, our board games and comic books, our less-than-perfect families! This is America!
December 10, 2004 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8345160fd69e200d8346c994269e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The Moral Elite:
Comments
What about "Moralist Elite" instead? I think it gets across the idea that they are interested in controlling others' morality more than than they are themselves moral.
Posted by: LizardBreath | Dec 10, 2004 10:20:28 AM
I'll take either - although I think the right would make a case that "moral elite" would be the same "intellectual elite" they denigrate now.
I think there's a more fundamental problem (or two) - "intellectual elite" underlines how anti-intellectual this country really is. It's not that you can't turn around and say "I'm an idiot," it's that there's no way to say "I'm educated and that is something of value." The second is the faux-egalitarianism of the whole concept - that is, that we don't have an elite in this country, or that we shouldn't because class distinctions don't matter. Not to be too Ayn Rand about the whole thing, but perhaps it's okay to be somewhat elitist. But whether or not it is, to pretend that we don't have an upper class or that they don't see themselves as somehow elite is a fallacy that helps the people who want to give the rich more and more through tax cuts and corporate giveaways. Better, it seems to me, to say "yes, we have an elite, and with one's elite status comes certain responsibilities to the rest of the community." And that, frankly, is a real tricky wordplay problem for Democrats.
Posted by: weboy | Dec 10, 2004 10:39:03 AM
This is why the frames just don't seem to work. The thing that these guys want to be called IS "moral". Call them "censors" or something with a much more negative connotation.
Posted by: Oliver | Dec 10, 2004 10:40:14 AM
Good point, LizardBreath!
The initial post gave me a kooky idea that I can't wait to see get ripped apart. Playing devil's advocate, what if progressive types created their own group counterweight to the Parents' Television Council. The group would probably have some similar goals (for example, maybe wanting only kid=appropriate content on broadcast networks in the 8:00 hour, or opposing commercials for violent movies during kids' shows) but based on a more progressive definition of values. For example, while religious groups opposed Will and Grace for having gay characters, this group might oppose demeaning or stereotypical portrayals of homosexuality in popular culture. It might also work to tamp down the rampant consumerism and mindless vulgarity that mass media and advertising peddle to kids. It could stand up for shows that are thoughtful and entertaining but criticized for not meeting "moralist" standards, and it could raise money to spark production of interesting, entertaining shows by real talents that put forward the positives of a progressive worldview, for example shows featuring diverse family structures, people from a variety of backgrounds, workplace dramas/comedies about people working on progressive priorities (rather than just more cop shows....), TV shows that treat women's sexuality as more complex than just being lust objects. The point is to meet some of the legitimate concerns parents have about today's pop culture and their kids, show that serving kids and parents needs doesn't require moralist elite type values and pandering, and also use pop culture to get progressive values into people's daily lives and thoughts to advance progressive ideas.
Posted by: veruca | Dec 10, 2004 10:47:57 AM
the moral elite: Not exactly a new concept, is it? Holier than thou, puritanical, bluenose, goody-goody, etc.
Even during some very conservative times in this country, it used to be fair game to express disdain for such people, so I'm not sure that the current problem is a matter of phrasing. For some reason, enough Americans have now bought into the idea that declining "morals" (meaning personal behavior) has reached the level of a crisis.
Posted by: Paul Callahan | Dec 10, 2004 10:49:16 AM
I'm really beginning to hate "frames." Just call these people the "American Taliban" and get it over with. They're right-wing fundamentalists, the kinds of people who would join al Qaeda if they were born in Saudi Arabia. Cut the crap and get straight to the point. These are not people we should be engaging with--these are people whose bigotry and fundamentalism we should condemn. Anything else is just being cute.
Posted by: Christopher | Dec 10, 2004 10:51:28 AM
What if Dems simply infiltrated certain churches in large enough numbers to subtly (at least at first) affect local church policy?
I'm not suggesting Dems convert church members into raging satanists or whatever but rather that they attempt to "guide" rhetoric and tone down the excesses, maybe in the same way that wise and effective therapists indirectly influence recalcitrant patients.
Posted by: Blue Iris | Dec 10, 2004 11:23:35 AM
Class status in this country is determined, not by wealth, but by the relationship between your level of academic achievement and your level of professional success. So a very wealthy businessman isn't necessaily a member of the intellectual elite, even if he has a Harvard MBA, because the business world has a reputation (deserved or not) for dividing its rewards up on the basis of something other than academic accomplishment. This means that the wealthy businessman, like the Walmart employee, can say that he didn't get where he is just on account of his fancy-pants education, and thus doesn't think his fancy-pants education makes him better than anyone else. The professor can't say that. The lawyer can't say that. Writing Fellows at the American Prospect can't really say that either.
The irony, of course, is this makes modern conservatism, not just anti-intellectual, but anti-meritocratic as well. If you think about it, though, this actually makes complete sense, the debate over affirmative action notwithstanding. The conservative coalition consists, on the one hand, of financial elites who built their success through personal relationships and connections -- not the manipulation of quantitative data or the written language -- and stand to lose the most from America's becoming more meritocratic, *and*, on the other hand, the white working class, who stand to lose the most psychologically from being forced to understand their status in meritocratic terms, and would naturally find appeal in the notion that values, not smarts, are what really matter. Hence, then, George W. Bush as this movement's patron saint: the ultimate anti-meritocrat. Indeed, by all accounts, the defining event in Bush's life was when he got to Yale in the late '60s and realized it was no longer an Old Boys' Club, but was filled with strivers who looked down on his lack of intellectual ability and ambition.
Posted by: pjs | Dec 10, 2004 11:30:17 AM
To parse "intellectual elite", we need to identify what "intellectual" means in this context.
Americans don't automatically resent people who are just smarter than they are. Americans typically have no trouble with very smart engineers, inventors, or entrepreneurs - even those who are not at all humble, and carry with them a clear sense of their superior intelligence, and who are impatient with the fools around them. I'm sure we will see a new wave of Hughesmania, for example, following the release of *The Aviator*. The brainy technocrats who run much of our world always a target for resentment - sometimes they are objects of popular adulation.
What many Americans resent is the cultural elite, those who have the polished manners, sophisticated cosmopolotan tastes and refined critical judgment and a visceral aesthetic and intellectual contempt for the crude, provincial, ignorant and unrefined that is one of the fruits of an elite university education, life in an important metropolitan cultural center, or especially both.
It would be better to call this the "cultural elite" rather than the "intellectual elite." There is a confident sense of moral superiority - not entirely undeserved - that comes from belonging to the cultural elite. Americans who don't belong to the that elite detect that sense of superiority and resent it.
As you say, the thing that rubs against conventional American beliefs and values is the suggestion that educational advantages could actually make someone not just a better chemist or a better writer, but a better person overall. Americans like to believe that being a "good person" is open to all, at all times, without regard to educational or other cultural advantages. So they are constantly looking for evidence that confirms their prejudice that members of the cultural elite are in fact worse people, and morally inferior to themselves.
Posted by: Dan Kervick | Dec 10, 2004 11:36:10 AM
I wrote:
The brainy technocrats who run much of our world always a target for resentment - sometimes they are objects of popular adulation.
That should say:
The brainy technocrats who run much of our world are not always a target for resentment - sometimes they are objects of popular adulation.
Posted by: Dan Kervick | Dec 10, 2004 11:39:41 AM
The old formulation was "self-styled intellectual elite" or "self-appointed" in order to escape the problems of meritocracy.
"Self-appointed moral elite" includes several forms of arrogance. What will Bush say, that no, God appointed him?
Posted by: bob mcmanus | Dec 10, 2004 11:39:51 AM
> What many Americans resent is the cultural
> elite, those who have the polished manners,
> sophisticated cosmopolotan tastes and
> refined critical judgment and a visceral
> aesthetic and intellectual contempt for the
> crude, provincial, ignorant and unrefined
> that is one of the fruits of an elite
> university education, life in an important
> metropolitan cultural center, or especially > both.
This has been a fairly standard position in US politics since, oh, 1700 or so. But to take it today you will have to explain George W. Bush, who has all the traits of obnoxious elites that you mention but who (a) lies about it (b) is very successful marketing to his base with those lies. You can't at the same time argue that the sons of the sod (of which I happen to be one) are filled with deep intuitive wisdom, and that George W. Bush is "one of them" when his entire life history shows the opposite.
I have met a few university people and New Yorkers who have a "visceral ... contempt" for those not like them. But only a few, and no more percentage-wise than I have met small-towners with an unjustified visceral contempt for educated city dwellers. That sword cuts both ways.
Cranky
Posted by: Cranky Observer | Dec 10, 2004 12:04:35 PM
Criticizing the "self-styled moral elite" won't work as long as Democrats point to their own moral elitism (hello civil rights!) as a recruiting tool.
And in any case, why do you think they voted for Bush in the first place? Because he's a self-styled moral elitist, and so are they--because they're the ones going to heaven. Don't you get it? These people are God's chosen people, the very textbook definition of the moral elite. You're just reinforcing their current attitudes.
Posted by: Christopher | Dec 10, 2004 12:15:57 PM
Gentlemen, Ladies,
On the narrow subject of manners, just my personal experience -
"Red" people tend to have better manners, in personal dealings, in ceremonial behavior, etc.
You can of course point to x or y incident, or some subset in rebuttal, but in the fields of gracious thoughtfulness and personal consideration, the "red states" are outstanding.
On intellectual elitism - I think most of you don't have an accurate view of the issue. The US "intellectual elite" is not concentrated in either party. The last few elections voting behavior shows that people with college degrees tend Republican, and those with post-graduate degrees tend Democratic, but this last group is only a small portion of even the Democratic vote.
And it is skewed badly by the inclusion of the very large number of school teachers, most of who have a teaching credential based on a pro-forma degree, and who are more or less the "bottom of the barrel" of most univerities intake, and who skew very heavily Democratic. And, in fairness, this post-graduate group includes MBA's, etc., who may skew it the other way as well.
If one wants to exclude school teachers, MBA's, and other "vocational" degrees such as engineering graduate credentials, one is left with an extremely small number of people, and I don't think anybody at all knows how they vote as a group.
The only certain thing is that, out of this remnant group of academic intelletuals, a minority that take academic or media jobs tend to be very liberal. I don't think there is any serious basis for calling these very few people the US intellectual elite. The US is not really a credential-driven society, most smart and influential people do not need a given degree to make their mark.
The "intellectual elite" seems to me to be an illusion. There is a social milieu that controls an important part of US mass media, that presents itself that way, to itself as much as to its audience, but the impressions of those within the milieu as well as those outside it are inaccurate.
Posted by: luisalegria | Dec 10, 2004 12:24:01 PM
On Goffman/Lakoff framing: Couldn't we ask Aaron Sorkin to write one for us? If he'd just write every appearance the next Democratic candidate appears at, we'd have our noble West Wing frame.
Posted by: Kriston Capps | Dec 10, 2004 12:27:24 PM
I'm not suggesting Dems convert church members into raging satanists or whatever
I know you mean this facetiously, but why on earth would liberals want to convert people to Satanism? It's just another religion--a tiny one largely confined to red states where I'm told there are people who believe Satan exists--that it would establish a theocracy if given the slightest chance.
Is there any chance of sending missionaries to the hinterlands, restoring their faith in the social contract, and converting them into good citizens of a secular state? That sounds like a better approach: setting up competing churches.
I think part of the problem is that evangelicals can't make a distinction between Satanism and the very boring Epicureanism that typifies social liberalism: seek pleasure in moderation: don't hurt yourself, don't hurt others, and don't worry about angering your favorite deity.
The above has never been a proselytizing religion, maybe because that in itself would be immoderate. On the other hand, it has been the practice of many of the most successful people throughout history, mainly because it works. You don't kill yourself with excess, and you don't drive yourself crazy with guilt.
I believe that a lot of people turn to evangelical faith because their life is out of control, and these churches give them structure. Maybe if secular liberals put more time into help real, troubled people get their sh*t together according to secular principles, then we could make a credible case in practice that faith based programs are a load of claptrap. I agree that they are, in theory, but in practice they might be the only thing going.
Posted by: Paul Callahan | Dec 10, 2004 12:35:24 PM
The US is not really a credential-driven society, most smart and influential people do not need a given degree to make their mark
Can anyone seriously get anywhere these days without at least a bachelor's degree?
Posted by: ScrewyRabbit | Dec 10, 2004 12:37:26 PM
> "Red" people tend to have better manners,
> in personal dealings, in ceremonial
> behavior, etc.
>
> You can of course point to x or y incident,
> or some subset in rebuttal, but in the
> fields of gracious thoughtfulness and
> personal consideration, the "red states" are
> outstanding.
It "cracks me up" (to use the popular Repub blog troller phrase) to hear people say this. In my experience, "red people" have a surface veneer of "good manners" which they use to browbeat others, but in fact are either no more mannerly or actually less so than your typical Chicagoan (say).
If nothing else, people with "gracious thoughtfullness" don't make a habit of pointing offensively at people who disagree with them and don't specialize in making up cutting nicknames for their foes.
That they have mangaged to worm this meme into the media and national belief system is however a triumph of marketing and a very powerful force.
Cranky
Posted by: Cranky Observer | Dec 10, 2004 12:39:57 PM
I think moral elite is great. The point of framing is that it changes the perception of an existing paradigm. Intellectual elite works because, even though people would never admit they think it is bad to be educated, nobody likes a know it all. There is bad underneath the good. Yes moral is a 'good' word so it seems wrong to use it against republicans. However, that misses the point. 'Correct' being a good word in no way detracts from the power of 'politically correct'. Nobody would ever say there is anything wrong with being moral, but nobody likes being told how to live. It taints the good of morality with the bad of intolerance. Once that happens, it is hard to salvage the good.
Posted by: TJonBergman | Dec 10, 2004 12:44:27 PM
even though people would never admit they think it is bad to be educated,
They wouldn't? I think most Americans would accept literacy as an important skill, but beyond that, there is plenty of open disdain for learning.
Posted by: Paul Callahan | Dec 10, 2004 12:53:17 PM
have a surface veneer of "good manners"
Of course--that's very the definition of manners. It can be confusing for people not used to it to start dealing with Southerners, and to assume that they're being made love to on the first acquaintance. Clinton was good at this, but W., having strong New England roots, is not.
Posted by: Christopher | Dec 10, 2004 12:56:14 PM
I hope the Intellectial Elite is real and if it is, it must rule the society. So-called 'democracy' doesn't work anymore, the world has gotten too complex for a person with IQ=100 to comprehend. The morlocks need to be driven underground or they'll eat us all.
Posted by: abb1 | Dec 10, 2004 12:56:37 PM
>> have a surface veneer of "good manners"
> Of course--that's very the definition of
> manners
My mother's definition of manners was to treat people decently all the way to the core and to avoid false facades. I guess that is just a Yankee thing though.
Cranky
Posted by: Cranky Observer | Dec 10, 2004 12:59:30 PM
BTW, on the whole subject of morals, I want to comment on a pet peeve of mine, namely the use by conservatives of the term "moral relativism" and particularly the idea that it is associated with the 60s social climate.
From my warped perspective, it seems that 60s activists were practicing a form of moral absolutism: E.g., civil rights are absolute and apply equally to whites and blacks, the right to life is absolute and applies equally to an American pilot and the Vietnamese villager he just napalmed. I've never met a self-proclaimed "moral relativist". They are rarer than self-proclaimed "secular humanists."
Today, I had an insight. The distinction is not moral relativism vs. absolutism, but morals vs. customs. A lot of what red staters call morals, I call customs. I am absolute and unyielding when it comes to morals, but I save my energy by not attempting to impose my customs on others.
Posted by: Paul Callahan | Dec 10, 2004 1:06:37 PM
A lot of what red staters call morals, I call customs.
Primitive customs integrated with primitive tribalism.
Posted by: abb1 | Dec 10, 2004 1:40:09 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
