David supports his hypothesis with several observations and assumptions that I, as one of those "anti-elitist" rural Americans, would like to examine and respond to.
First David opines that the "anti-elitists" selected, and then elected, an "elitist" - a billionaire real estate tycoon who happens to live in a coastal city.
While this is true on the surface, David's overly simplistic evaluation of the irony fails to consider several glaringly obvious facts:
"We" did not select Donald Trump; not directly. The fact of the matter is that our primary process is somewhat lacking in finesse. There were a number of candidates for the Republican nomination, and the vote was split several different ways. The fact that Trump received the nomination does not indicate he was the majority choice.
Once Trump had the nomination, other factors come into play, most significantly our "two party" system. While it is technically true there were other candidates on the ballot, and a write in is always a possibility, we "anti-intellectuals" were smart enough to figure out that if we didn't pull together, Clinton was going to win. So we chose to take a risk on Trump, rather than allow Clinton to gain the White House. This is the primary thing, I think, that the left cannot fathom: that Hillary was so loathesome to most of heartland America that we were willing to vote for ANYONE else to be the next POTUS.
Next David introduces the term "coastal elite" - a term referring to the liberal leaning strongholds found primarily along both coasts of the United States, and concentrated in the major metropolitan areas. David self identifies as an "elitist" which, according to him, refers to "anyone who demonstrates expertise or excellence in analytical intelligence." David includes himself in this group because he has a college degree (and is therefore presumed to be "intellectual") and he actually teaches at the university level (a career that seems to lend itself to both left-leaning political persuasions, and "elitism".) David attempts to present himself as an "everyman", however, by explaining that he pays a mortgage, goes to work, and has a family, just like many of "the rest of us."
That fact is, however, that David's definition is not too far out of sync with reality, it's just his interpretations that are slightly prejudiced.
I also have a college education; but I find it interesting that most of the panic, angst, destructive behavior, and anti-american fervor that has gripped the left in the wake of their astonishing and resounding defeat, is centered on college campuses. This is NOT because those who are intellectual understand what it really means to be an American; on the contrary, much like the coastal cities David references, college campuses have become virtual hotbeds of anti-constitutional, anti-american indoctrination. THAT is what "the rest of America" opposes, and David practically admits that it is what he and his peers aspire to.
David references our "Democracy." I grow so very weary of trying to explain to my lefward leaning acquaintences that we do not have a Democracy, we have a REPUBLIC - and that is what the "rest of America" is defending.
I'm sorry that David believes that anyone who can't see the virtues of socialism is "anti-intellectual" but the fact is, I like free markets, I like living in a Republic, I believe in personal freedom, and I value our Constitution.
David did make two statements in his article that I can agree with:
"It has become painful to participate in political discourse, because rather than arguing over different interpretations of historical fact and statistical data, the disputes revolve around the denial of truth." I agree with this statement, but of course, David believes that he and his elitist peers have the very definition of truth, and they are the ones who have the right to define "truth." If the "intellectual minds" don't agree with it, then it must not be truth. This assumption ignores many subtle forces that come into play here as well, including the incredible pressure on scientists, researchers, educators, and other members of the "elite" to conform or face professional excommunication. Just because a majority of the "educated" espouse a particular view does NOT necessarily make it so.
The other statement in David's article, the one that really gets to the heart of the election issue, is this: "The "real America" knew that Hillary Clinton was Lucifer's mistress seeking to transform America into the pit of hell." That really was the glaring possibility that drove most of us, with no joy and with grave misgivings, to cast our lot with Donald Trump.
David implies that we poor, rural, un-intelligent conservatives are simply not enlightened enough to understand why it would be in our own best interest to give up our freedoms, lay down our arms, rip up the Constitution, and just go with the flow of socialism. He also implies that he has great sympathy for the flag stomping and burning, sit through the national anthem, rioting and looting crowd because, after all, they have the "intellectual minds" that the rest of us despise.
Please. I guess I'll just go on loving God, loving my country, defending the Constitution against all threats, foreign and domestic, and holding on to my personal liberties. If that makes me "anti-intellectual" David and his kind will just have to deal with it. It is a Republic, not a Democracy, and the difference is that the mob doesn't always get its way.
No comments:
Post a Comment