Throughout 2016, both preceding the U.S. presidential election and subsequently, countless op-eds spilled from a variety of journalistic outlets—ranging across the political spectrum—all focused on a single idea: a pervasive elitism infecting the American left. Conservatives lambasted their counterparts across the aisle, especially after the election, for not recognizing their own flaws, and liberal publications alternatingly confirmed the accusations and denied them viciously, claiming that making such claims was simply passing the buck for a Republican error. That error, of course, being the election of Donald Trump to the office of president.
Regardless of whether Trump’s presidency is a mistake that was allowed to occur or the greatest thing to happen to American politics in a hundred years, though, the conversation surrounding liberal elitism definitely has teeth on both sides. But first, the question must be asked: what does it mean to be part of the liberal elite?
All the way back in April of 2016, long before Trump was even the official Republican nominee, Emmett Rensin wrote an absolutely scathing essay for Vox Media entitled “The smug style in American liberalism.” Rensin posits, with no few words, that the American left has allowed itself to abandon the working class citizens that were once the bread and butter of its supporters, shifting throughout the second half of the 20th century to act more in the interest of urbanites and the university crowd. Rensin also claims that the left has changed the nature of their politics, replacing moral belief with a supposed appeal to what Rensin sardonically terms ‘Good Facts.’
Essentially, Rensin says, the left no longer believes its political opponents are wrong, but rather that they are simply criminally uninformed on the topics at hand. He calls leftism “A politics that is just the politics of smart people in command of Good Facts. A politics that insists it has no ideology at all, only facts. No moral convictions, only charts, the kind that keep them from ‘imposing their morals’ like the bad guys do.” The conclusion of liberal elitists, he says, is that the “dumb hicks” that make up the opposition believe what they do because they’re too dumb to put two and two together and come up with four like anyone in the know would be able to. (Knowing, italicized, is another term Rensin uses often in describing his perspective on how liberals posture themselves above conservatives. They know the Good Facts, so they have the right opinions, because no other conclusion is possible once you know the Good Facts.)
Rensin sounds relatively liberal himself, but minces no words tearing into the ‘smug style’ he finds so disdainful and disrespectful. He takes special care to criticize the social media and journalistic trends that have turned mocking conservatives into something of a sport while simultaneously dismissing claims that it’s all just “private entertainment of elites blowing off some steam,” saying at one point: “Twitter isn’t private. Not that anybody with the sickest burn to accompany the smartest chart would want it to be. Otherwise, how would everyone know how in-the-know you are?”
His conclusion is essentially that regardless of whether the liberals projecting this smug style are actually correct in their worldview or not, approaching the conversation with such a twisted perspective of the other side will only ever create more problems and widen the social gap between political perspectives. He does not ask for liberals to “compromise their issues for the sake of playing nice,” but fears that if not put in check, the smug style will continue to alienate potential allies or beneficiaries of liberal perspectives, will continue to create people with less and less empathy for political others, and will continue to perpetuate itself through need for more people to find disdain for.
Rensin’s definition of “liberal elite,” then, finds that the elite are elite because they smugly believe themselves to be morally superior to their political others, grounded not in belief or creed but in simple facts and logic.
On the other side of the debate, Eric Alterman penned a column for The Nation in May of 2016—a month after Rensin—firing back at conservatives who attempted to blame Donald Trump’s then-recent rise to political legitimacy on liberal media. Alterman described the conservative perspective as demonizing “coastal cultural gatekeepers” in the media, turning them into elitists whose enforcement of the “tyranny of political correctness” was responsible for Trump’s pulling ahead in the primaries.
Alterman concludes that the concept of ‘liberal elitism’ is a simple myth invented by conservatives to foist the blame of architecting Trump’s popularity onto a body of people they already dislike—liberals. From his perspective, conservative fearmongering played easily into the minds of Trump supporters, who Alterman notes—referencing several polls and other articles—to be poorer, white, less educated, and generally “resentful of the recent political and economic gains being made by female and LGBT individuals.” This data does conflict with some more recent information on the demographics of people who actually ended up voting for Trump, but it was definitely a popular view of the body politic supporting Trump in the earlier months of 2016.
Countless other authors made their voices heard across a variety of publications, each offering their own perspective on what exactly liberal elitism is and what it entails—or whether or not it exists at all. I will continue to investigate this pattern of trending thoughts in subsequent blogs, but for now: what do you think of the basic premise? Is liberal elitism real, or is it an excuse? What of Rensin’s ‘smug style’? Do you feel there are perspectives from the beginning of 2016 that are particularly unheard here?
First of all, thank you. Thank you for introducing me to a topic that had been virtually unheard in my mind and providing a bit more education on a concept that I never really had thought ever had a title: “liberal elitism.” The major part that got me thinking here, and consequently the bulk of my response, revolves around this entire characterization of the liberal elite. The title is fascinating to me. After reading this post, I decided to do a little bit more of my own research, wondering to myself, well, who really are the liberal elite? First I searched only on a character-type basis, which coincided directly with the piece in your post referencing “urbanities and the university crowd.” In response to your question, yes, I do believe the liberal elites exist, and yes I do believe liberal elitism is a thing, but that this “thing” is an excuse to characterize the opposition in demeaning ways solely to better the liberal’s own views, in the context of your blog post and in the context of the articles that I sought out myself.
In response to the predominant demographic in the left wing party being the “urbanities and the university crowd,” a semi-recent article (Nov, 2016) was written by a Yale graduate, now living in Silicon Valley, making statements such as, “My friends and I use words like ‘intersectionality’ and ‘positionality ‘(I still have no idea what this word means), we repost ‘woke’ pieces by Junot Diaz, and we ask for summer research grants to go help the sick in Africa instead of Alabama, but at the end of the day, the vast majority of us all come home from jobs at Goldman, McKinsey, or Google. We are the epitome of the ‘liberal elites’ that Trump supporters hate so much.” This quote in itself matches with the characterization in this blog post, and really hit home to me that this characterization is not dramatic, and it is not made up.
Finally, I did some research on the conclusion of liberal elitists that you mentioned, with the “dumb hicks” line in the post. I know am able to more clearly see the root of the divide between the two parties, and that it really truly could be due to the lack of ideology, the notion that one party is inherently lesser than the other. For me, this concept was validated in an article from The Nation, in which a vehement liberal violently attacks the right wing party, with direct lines such as, “some key characteristics of the average Trump voter are ignorance, poverty, bigotry, and a desire to turn back the clock on what most Americans consider to be social progress.” Now, I would just like to clarify that I absolutely understand that this liberal elite concept is a sweeping generalization of the entire left wing, and I personally do not feel that way about the liberal party as a whole. However, both of the articles that I decided to research in response to this blog post were very direct regarding the demeaning ideals held by the left wing regarding every single person that voted for Trump, which, again, is a sweeping generalization.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/the-hypocrisy-of-the-liberal-elite_us_582a3be6e4b057e23e3148e3
https://www.thenation.com/article/trumpism-and-the-liberal-elite/
Jack!!!! I can’t see any of the comments!!!!!
Your topic reminds me of a scene from my favorite show on television, Bojack Horseman. It is a Netflix Original about a world mixed with humans and anthropomorphic animals, and is about the life of an aging horse named Bojack who was in a popular sitcom in the 90’s. Through this rather bizarre the show actually taps into many prevalent and important topics such as the trappings of fame, depression, mental illness, and addiction. It is truly amazing. However, what made me think of this is a scene late in the third season with an important character and one of Bojack’s friends, Diane. She rants about the fact that the waitress is serving water to patrons of a diner in California without them asking for it, even though that is against the law because of the drought. She champions this position as a way to reach outside herself and not have to think about if she is in the wrong, or what her true motivation and feelings are. She rants about this until she stands up in the diner and raises the glass above her head, and someone asks her to sit down because they are all thirsty. She says “It’s like people never think of anyone but themselves” before realizing she has know idea where her friend even works anymore. She does not really care about others, but instead feels good about herself if she is in the know about things. She must be a part of the liberal elite.
I believe there has always been a rather simple model that represents the point you are trying to make. There are many people in big groups, and it is not possible for all of their voices to be heard. So while there are moderates saying things to each other that make sense and are reasonable, there are radical groups on both sides that say drastically different things from even those in their party. But who does the opposing group hear, the moderate or the radical? Of course it is the radical. Their position and their words are that much more infuriating, that much more enraging that they must be responded to. These things that only a minority of the party is saying are brought to the forefront of the discussion. They become the topics that you see on the news, on blogs across the internet, and people fighting about in the streets. So while the large group of moderates on both sides are arguing with the small group of radicals that they oppose, the majority standpoint is lost in the constant battle of making others see how bad the “opposition” really is. Of course, this “opposition” is no more than the radicals, so it is pointless. It is not indicative of the majority. If there is any hope for the state of discussion in this country, people must realize that there is no point in arguing points that are not important to the majority of the whole. If by some stroke of luck, we could have the majority on each side see the majority on the other side for what they are, and not for the radicals that intentionally provoke, civil conversation could again exist. In the end, it is the same problem and argument as the fact that the majority of Muslims are not radical, but that is all most people see. I believe people realize that now. And the sooner they realize it is likewise for in-state parties, the better.
https://reason.com/archives/2012/08/16/what-democrats-mean-when-they-say-radica