Alamo Drafthouse South Lamar
Cultural Tastes Contribute to Perception
RECEIVED Tue., Jan. 4, 2005
To the editor,
In his Dec. 31 "Page Two" column, Louis Black, lamenting how the Democrats have been labeled with the charge of elitism, reduces elitism to mere wealth. Were it only so simple.
While the two qualities often overlap, they're not necessarily connected. For better or worse, elitism in America is fundamentally a cultural phenomenon. It trades in irony, cleverness, cultural – not economic – superiority, and the world of ideas more than material goods. Consider contemporary art. Why is contemporary art often perceived as elitist? Not because rich people buy it, but rather because most people don't immediately understand it. It revels in ambiguity. That's the point – to be exclusive by way of calculated confusion – and the elites, whether rich or poor, like it that way. I like it that way.
Democrats are labeled elitist more often than Republicans because we tend to appreciate things like contemporary art. Embracing the spirit of ambiguity inherent in contemporary art, we do edgy things like perform exorcisms on Starbucks cash registers (performance art), form ironic clubs like "billionaires for Bush" (public art), and, yes, we are more likely to support cultural expressions that are experimental rather than romantic (a sure sign of our strong cerebral nature). Beyond the art analogy, we are also more likely to buy organic food, worry about trans-fat, breast-feed in public, hug trees, support homosexual rights, save mutts at the shelter, read The New Yorker, shave less often, and swear that David Brooks has devolved since the Times hired him.
Of course this portrait sounds like parody, but American politics is nothing if not parody. And while I have no clue why any of these stereotypes has a grain of truth, I am certain that it has little to do with wealth.
Here's the real problem, one that I think Louis Black downplays: the fact that Democrats are more likely to support policies that value economic justice over crass cronyism pales next to our predilection for cultural judgments that casually dismiss Clint Black, AM radio, and the Hummer as grotesque abominations.
And sure, they are grotesque abominations. But until the Democrats – or at least the opinion-making forces within the party (i.e., Louis Black) – acknowledge that our cultural tastes – genuine or parodied – contribute considerably to our perceived elitism, then popular perceptions are unlikely to change anytime soon.
Certainly not before 2008.
In his Dec. 31 "Page Two" column, Louis Black, lamenting how the Democrats have been labeled with the charge of elitism, reduces elitism to mere wealth. Were it only so simple.
While the two qualities often overlap, they're not necessarily connected. For better or worse, elitism in America is fundamentally a cultural phenomenon. It trades in irony, cleverness, cultural – not economic – superiority, and the world of ideas more than material goods. Consider contemporary art. Why is contemporary art often perceived as elitist? Not because rich people buy it, but rather because most people don't immediately understand it. It revels in ambiguity. That's the point – to be exclusive by way of calculated confusion – and the elites, whether rich or poor, like it that way. I like it that way.
Democrats are labeled elitist more often than Republicans because we tend to appreciate things like contemporary art. Embracing the spirit of ambiguity inherent in contemporary art, we do edgy things like perform exorcisms on Starbucks cash registers (performance art), form ironic clubs like "billionaires for Bush" (public art), and, yes, we are more likely to support cultural expressions that are experimental rather than romantic (a sure sign of our strong cerebral nature). Beyond the art analogy, we are also more likely to buy organic food, worry about trans-fat, breast-feed in public, hug trees, support homosexual rights, save mutts at the shelter, read The New Yorker, shave less often, and swear that David Brooks has devolved since the Times hired him.
Of course this portrait sounds like parody, but American politics is nothing if not parody. And while I have no clue why any of these stereotypes has a grain of truth, I am certain that it has little to do with wealth.
Here's the real problem, one that I think Louis Black downplays: the fact that Democrats are more likely to support policies that value economic justice over crass cronyism pales next to our predilection for cultural judgments that casually dismiss Clint Black, AM radio, and the Hummer as grotesque abominations.
And sure, they are grotesque abominations. But until the Democrats – or at least the opinion-making forces within the party (i.e., Louis Black) – acknowledge that our cultural tastes – genuine or parodied – contribute considerably to our perceived elitism, then popular perceptions are unlikely to change anytime soon.
Certainly not before 2008.
Yours truly,
James E. McWilliams
James E. McWilliams
