In defense of elitism

I know that a few of you may be confused at the overtly political nature of this blog--that you clicked here or you come here thinking you're going to read about race in America or mixed-race issues, and instead you get these clips about Sarah Palin sketches, discussions about the 2008 Presidential election, and nostalgia for a defunct TV drama.

I am a political junkie. But beyond my personal preferences (should I say obsessions) right now, I think that the current presidential race is a great topic for a blog called "Mixed Race America." And I don't just say that because we have our first openly mixed-race Presidential candidate (and first African American candidate of a major party) but because race and politics have gone hand in hand from the time this country was first established. So OF COURSE I should be talking about politics.

[Of course, perhaps I could be drawing out the racial implications more concretely...I think I've tried to do that, but I will ponder this more for future political posts.]

But what I really want to talk about relates to the title of this post: in defense of elitism.

Let me begin with the disclaimer that I am being deliberately provocative. Because there really isn't anything about elitism that I think needs defending. But the charge of elitism that comes up time and again against Democrats, specifically certain Democrats like John Kerry and now Barack Obama, this is what I want to tackle.

Because it's not elitism in the sense of power or money (although it might be couched in those terms). The elitism that is being leveled at Obama is one that has definite racial connotation but it has larger educational overtones. In other words, he's elite because he's smart.

So really, this post is in defense of being the smartest kid in the room (or thinking you are the smartest kid in the room).

THIS, I have some experience with.

I have often been or thought I was the smartest kid in the room. I have often aspired to be the smartest kid in the room. I am told that I am a smart person. And I do believe that I am smart.

Do I seem conceited? Elitist perhaps?

That last sentence--I believe I am smart. That was a hard sentence to write. Because there are so many messages that I get that tells me that even if I believe this, I should never say this out loud. That to do so is to brag or to demean others or to overstate the case.

Why? I am a college professor. I am SUPPOSED to be an expert in my field, even if I know that "expert" is relative to my students (truthfully, I doubt that as an assistant professor I can claim expertise compared with my colleagues who have been doing this for over twenty years). But if you have a kid in college, you want and expect that his/her professor is going to be smart, right? And we expect our doctors and dentists to be smart--to have expert knowledge in his/her field. And the same is true for our auto mechanics and plumbers and electricians--fields not typically associated with formal education but which none-the-less have intelligence and expertise embedded in their specializations.

So why don't we want the president of the United States to be smart? And not only to be smart, but to say I AM SMART. To declare, forcefully,

"Hey, you know why you should elect me to be President? Because I'm a very intelligent guy. I went to some of the best schools in this nation, and our colleges and universities are among the best in the world, and I didn't just stop at getting a BA, I was so smart that I got into law school, and not any law school HARVARD, that's right--the best university in the world (according to some, especially those of us who went to school "in Boston"), and I was so smart that I got to teach law -- that's right, I was so smart that I became a professor. And I DO have an elite education and I AM often the smartest person in the room, and damn it you WANT the smartest person in the room to be the President of the United States because we have complex and difficult issues facing us. The current financial crisis? It's complicated--it's not as simple as saying we don't want to give free hand-outs to the Wall Street folks. Because Wall Street and Main Street are intimately connected and although I use this simple rhetoric, the truth is, what happens in our nation's economy has transnational ramifications--banks are now closing in Europe and Asia's market looks like it will also take a tumble. And we haven't even started talking about foreign policy. Or the environmental and energy crises. Or education. We NEED smart people and we should DEMAND that our leaders also be smart people and that the head of state, the President of the United States of America should be 10X SMARTER THAN YOU AND SMARTER THAN ANYONE YOU KNOW and NOT the person you want to drink a beer with. Because that's not going to solve the complicated and hard problems that face us."

I'm also not saying that a single type of intelligence is going to get us out of this mess. But I know this: complex times and complicated issues call for complex and complicated cognition. Who do you think is more capable of nuance and complexity? John McCain or Barack Obama? My vote goes to the liberal elitist.

A Movie that will hopefully never be made...

Head of Skate:

See more funny videos and funny pictures at CollegeHumor.

[Honestly, I'm not trying to pick on Sarah Palin--this was just TOO FUNNY to pass up.]

West Wing -- my fantasy alternate reality

I was (and still am) a HUGE West Wing fan. I own the entire series on DVD and used it as a fantasy media narcotic to cope with the Bush administration.


[CJ Craig played by Allison Janney was my favorite--Janney is BRILLIANT]

In a recent New York Times editorial, Maureen Dowd contacted West Wing creator Aaron Sorkin to ask him what a conversation between Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama and fictional Democratic president Jed Bartlett would look like. This is what he imagines (click here).

I can't resist copying an excerpt from this fictional exchange because it captures so much of the ANGER I have also felt over the past decade, especially the last seven years of this Republican administration:

"OBAMA The problem is we can’t appear angry. Bush called us the angry left. Did you see anyone in Denver who was angry?

BARTLET Well ... let me think. ...We went to war against the wrong country, Osama bin Laden just celebrated his seventh anniversary of not being caught either dead or alive, my family’s less safe than it was eight years ago, we’ve lost trillions of dollars, millions of jobs, thousands of lives and we lost an entire city due to bad weather. So, you know ... I’m a little angry.

OBAMA What would you do?

BARTLET GET ANGRIER! Call them liars, because that’s what they are. Sarah Palin didn’t say “thanks but no thanks” to the Bridge to Nowhere. She just said “Thanks.” You were raised by a single mother on food stamps — where does a guy with eight houses who was legacied into Annapolis get off calling you an elitist? And by the way, if you do nothing else, take that word back. Elite is a good word, it means well above average. I’d ask them what their problem is with excellence. While you’re at it, I want the word “patriot” back. McCain can say that the transcendent issue of our time is the spread of Islamic fanaticism or he can choose a running mate who doesn’t know the Bush doctrine from the Monroe Doctrine, but he can’t do both at the same time and call it patriotic. They have to lie — the truth isn’t their friend right now. Get angry. Mock them mercilessly; they’ve earned it. McCain decried agents of intolerance, then chose a running mate who had to ask if she was allowed to ban books from a public library. It’s not bad enough she thinks the planet Earth was created in six days 6,000 years ago complete with a man, a woman and a talking snake, she wants schools to teach the rest of our kids to deny geology, anthropology, archaeology and common sense too? It’s not bad enough she’s forcing her own daughter into a loveless marriage to a teenage hood, she wants the rest of us to guide our daughters in that direction too? It’s not enough that a woman shouldn’t have the right to choose, it should be the law of the land that she has to carry and deliver her rapist’s baby too? I don’t know whether or not Governor Palin has the tenacity of a pit bull, but I know for sure she’s got the qualifications of one. And you’re worried about seeming angry? You could eat their lunch, make them cry and tell their mamas about it and God himself would call it restrained. There are times when you are simply required to be impolite. There are times when condescension is called for!"

Why do people hate Sarah Palin?

OK, maybe this title needs some more nuance. Why do liberal Democrats hate Sarah Palin? And is hate too strong a word? Should I qualify even further and say, why do liberal-progressive Democrats dislike the things Sarah Palin seems to stand for/represent?

You know what? This is one of the problems with being a liberal-progressive person who recognizes complexity. Saying "I hate Sarah Palin" is so much more pithy a phrase than, "I am not in agreemet with the political stances that Sarah Palin has taken while she has held public office in Alaska." Really, the first phrase: catchy. Second phrase: not so much.

But the truth is, I don't hate Sarah Palin. I don't know the woman, why should I hate her? I do, however, feel VERY UNCOMFORTABLE with the idea that she may become Vice President, and I'm even more disturbed by the idea that she may become President one day.

What I'm intrigued by is why she is pushing so many buttons among us liberal-progressive Democrats (especially those of us feeilng the Obama love). And I'm equally intrigued by why so many Conservative-Evangelical Republicans seem to ADORE her. Why the hate and why the love? Why does she rile emotions in us that polarize into feeling she is the downfall to Democracy or its savior?

Among responses I've seen in liberal progressive circles are:

*Tim Wise's essay on white privilege that really focuses on Sarah Palin
[I think its on the money, but I do find it interesting that Wise concentrates so much on Palin vs. John McCain, who certainly seems like he could be a posterboy for white male privilege]

*An email message that has been circulating asking folks to vote on-line through a PBS/NOW poll on whether or no Sarah Palin is qualified to be Vice President. The message reads:

PBS has a poll that asks: Is Sarah Palin qualified to be VP?

The Right is having people vote that Palin is qualified.

Let's turn this around..... You don't have to give your name or email
address in order to vote. It's very simple. Five seconds is all it takes.

Here's the link: http://www.pbs.org/now/polls/poll-435.html

*Another circulated email message asking people to make a $5 donation to Planned Parenthood in Sarah Palin's name as a protest to her anti-choice stance. The text reads:

Here's a fantastic idea. For a mere $5 you can let the McBush folks know what you think. Here's all you do (if you don't believe in Palin's platform):

Make a $5 minimum donation to Planned Parenthood in Sarah Palin's name. A Planned Parenthood donation is tax deductible, while a political donation isn't. And when you make the donation in Palin's name, they'll send her a card noting that the donation was given in her name.

Here's the link to the 'in honor of' donation link on the Planned Parenthood website

Fill in the address to let Planned Parenthood know where to send the 'in Sarah Palin's honor' card. Use the address for the McCain campaign headquarters:

McCain for President/Sarah Palin
1235 S. Clark Street, 1st Floor
Arlington, VA 22202

So what is it about Sarah Palin that inspires such strong emotions in people?

The message vs. the messenger

Last week Wednesday I asked an unanswerable question, namely why we don't call more things "racist" (aside from people--I'll get to that in a minute) or say that "such and such is part of the legacy of racism" (thanks for those who have already commented!).

Right after I wrote that I had the opportunity to see this in action. What I mean, is, I saw an instance of what it looks like when someone says quite forcefully, "This IS racist. This IS racism. This IS white supremacy."

And it was not pretty.

Let me explain. I attended an evening film screening at Southern U.--a series of 3 short films actually. The theme of all three was race; in obvious and subtle ways, all three films addressed issues of racism and discrimination and stereotypes, even while they also handled themes of romance, friendship, and career opportunities. There were two discussion facilitators, one the director of one of the short films, the other a community activist (yep, one of THOSE, an ORGANIZER!). Both were men of color and one of the men, the community activist, claimed to want a real discussion and conversation, but what followed after the very long film screening was the CA going into what I can only describe as a rant.

Let me also take a moment and tell you the demographics of the room. Because of the nature of the films being screened, it was a truly multicultural mix--I'd say over half the audience were undergraduate students of color (predominantly African American and Asian American) and the other half were white undergraduate students. There were at least one-hundred people, with a few older staff/faculty also in attendance (and perhaps a few graduate students as well). But the audience was overwhelmingly of color, and my guess is that the white students in the room were probably of the white ally/interested in race variety (although perhaps a few had been forced there by one of their professors, who knows--although that probably holds true for a few of the students of color as well).

Getting back to the rant. We were lectured at for a good twenty minutes. People began to leave as discretely as they could. Students of color were told that they were being marginalized and oppressed, and white students were told that they were racist. That by virtue of being white they were all racist, and that some of them could become anti-racist through hard work.

Let me pause and say that there was almost nothing that I disagreed with in the abstract. In other words, I agree that white people have internalized racism. But I also think that people of color have internalized racism too. And it's hard to generalize about the kinds of racism that both groups have internalized because individual people are complex so it really depends on other factors such as ethnicity, class, region, religion, and family background/peer network.

What made me distinctly uncomfortable, perhaps mostly as a teacher who works on issues of race was the strident tone and the judgment I felt coming from the CA. I mean, we had just spent an hour and a half watching these films. The flyers all said that the speakers would be facilitating discussion. What followed was the CA lecturing all of us about the evils of racism in this country--which no one disagreed with--but when he culminated by calling half the audience racist, I think that's when he really lost people. Because no one wants to hear that they are racist. It just wasn't the right message for this event. The films themselves did not have the tone which he took. They were more complex and nuanced than just "racism is bad and white people have caused marginazliation of all people of color and we need to band together to end white supermacy." And the CA's message wasn't delivered in a way that made people really listen to him and hear what he had to say. Because his message--that there is white privilege and white supremacy that has guided U.S. policies over the last few centuries, is one I think most of us would agree with. But what do we do NOW. And more importantly, how do we see these films reflecting that, and how can people do anti-racist work in coalitions across racial divides TOGETHER (because that certainly was one of the themes of the films, especially getting African American and Asian Americans to work together on issues of race/racism).

Perhaps the CA was trying to shake up the complacency of the students, especially the white students. Perhaps he meant to be provocative--to get into a debate and argument with some students about these topics, because oftentimes tension helps generate progress in certain controversial areas. Perhaps he's an old school activist from the 1970s who still uses a language of third world coalition buildling that emerged out of the late 1960s and anti-Viet Nam war organizers.

All I know is that as a pedagogical strategy for getting people to hear your message, it didn't work. In other words, the message got lost in the rhetoric of the messenger.

I'm not saying we don't call people on their B.S. But it was supposed to be a film discussion and not a lecture on racism and not a time to tell half the audience that they were part of the problem and not the solution (the brief allusion to the possibility for white people to become allies not withstanding, because he really didn't spend a lot of time on that issue and spent a lot more rhetorical energy emphasizing white racism and white supremacy). And I suspect that the fact that the white students were even there in the first place means they were open to the discussion that was going to follow.

[aside: Many of the white students continued to stay even after the rant--probably because the director's remarks and comments were more measured and interesting. When I wrote above that people left, I mean people of various ethnic and racial backgrounds beat a path out of the auditorium, and after I heard the CA take two more questions in which he chose to lecture rather than engage in dialogue/discussion, I also beat a hasty retreat because life is too short to be continually annoyed by someone who you think is doing a bad job]

I suppose this is why I've tried not to get into ranting in this blog. I mean, I've had my private moments. We all have. We say things in the privacy of our homes that we'd never (hopefully) voice in public. But as a teacher--as someone who wants to really have open discussion and dialogues about race, I found the CAs strategy to be a real failure in education.

Live from New York...

SNL's Sarah Palin-Hillary Clinton skit:



[for some reason, it keeps showing triple clips--guess NBC wants to triple their promo]

Wednesday morning unanswerable question

So I've got a question for the blogosphere:

Why don't we call more things instances of racism?

Want more?

This is what I mean. Someone recently left a comment for me on my Hancock/Hellboy movie review post and in the comment noted that Hollywood had once again failed to note the obvious racism that was a plot pivot in the film Hancock.

[Spoiler alert: if you want to read the Hancock post and subsequent comments, click here, but I talk about the film's ending and the big "AHA!" element of the film]

And there are other moments too--for example, recently a Georgia Congressional member called Senator Obama "uppity" -- coded language used for centuries against African Americans in The South (and elsewhere). This is veiled racist language--it's intent is to disparage Obama racially.

I'm sure everyone can think of other instances of things that happen of a racist nature that aren't called out as such. And I have some ideas about why this happens--because I do think that we have to be careful in applying the term "racism" as accurately as possible. And I'm not talking about calling someone a racist. There are a lot of reasons not to do this, even if someone is blatantly being racist or saying racist things--again, I'm going to plug Jay Smooth for the third time in this blog because he really breaks down in a concise and eloquent way, why it's best to not call people a racist and instead address the racism.

[For more on definitions of racism, click here to a previous post]

But I am curious--what do you think? Why don't we say that "such and such" was an example of racism? Or used racist language? Or that this "thing" was an example of the legacy of racism in this country?

Matt Damon on Sarah Palin

I've really resisted giving a laundry list or rant about all the reasons I think that Sarah Palin is a bad V.P. pick and would be an even worse de-facto President in the *hopefully* unlikely event that McCain wins and in the sad event of his passing during his first term in office (which I would say unlikely, but the truth of the matter is, while I certainly in no way wish Senator McCain's early demise, it is not an unlikely scenario that he may die while in office given his age and his health history with cancer). The truth is, this race isn't about Sarah Palin. It's about choosing between Barack Obama and John McCain. Or more abstractly, it's between making a choice about who you think our country would be in better hands, governance wise. Who seems to be the best leader to take us solidly into the 21st century? Who has the best ideas about tackling the complex problems that face people living in the U.S. and around the globe? Who has a vision of leadership that can give back some moral authority to the U.S. as a global leader while still attending to the many domestic problems facing our country?

But really, thinking about McCain's running mate is valid because any President, regardless of age or health, runs the risk of dying in office, through natural causes of assassinations (and we know Barack Obama has received numerous death threats already). So critiquing the V.P. picks for both candidates seems to be a logical thing to do. And I think Matt Damon has some smart things to say about this. You can think of his opinions below as the "average educated" citizen's perspective (if by average you discount the millions of dollars he makes in his profession). This isn't about politics (although in some ways it's always about politics). It's about governance. And on a global scale. While I wouldn't want to see McCain in the White House in any incarnation, picking Romney or Ridge or Huckabee would at least have ensured picking someone whom you could envision as president--someone you could at least feel was capable of handling the difficult task of transitioning from Vice President into President of the biggest and most powerful nation on the planet.*

So listen to Mr. Damon. Aside from the comment about book banning at the end (which Fact Check.org has discredited--scroll down for the "book banning" section) I think he raises some good points. And one he doesn't raise that I'm most concerned about is her environmental record, ie: being someone who does NOT believe that humans are responsible for global climate change and who doesn't put certain animals on the endangered species list for fear it will interfere with oil interests.



*I put an asterisk next to this sentence because I do think that there is going to be a global fight over the top dog spot, with China being one of the nations in contention for "richest" and "most powerful." Which is even MORE reason you want to have the strongest and dare I say SMARTEST political team put together to tackle MAJOR international issues in the most innovative and creative and confident way possible.