I was having a discussion today (with my special someone) about the elitist vs populist issue that came up in the primaries. According to the McCain campaign, Obama is too much of an elitist to connect with the public, and apparently being an elitist is a negative thing. McCain, on the other hand, prides himself on his populist views. Being a communication major, I have encountered this model before in terms of media applications.
Basically, the populist side of the model argues that the media should provide the people what they want, whether that be more episodes of Cops, Flavor of Love, or any other crap that may be produced. If it sells, then it should sold.
The elitist side of the model argues that the media should be used to better the public, encourage intellectual growth, and make the world a better place. The public broadcast channels such as PBS and NPR are perfect examples of elitist organizations.
My issue is with the idea that being an elitist is a bad thing... how is wanting to promote a positive change and better the world a bad thing? Obama was docked cool points and voter ratings for such a thing. In the primary stage, candidates are trying to mold their image, and even still the brand of "too good for the average Joe-six-pack" has marred Obama's reputation.
What do you guys think being an elitist means?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Maybe I am wrong but I think the elitist accusations against Obama began to emerge as a result of the anti-Semitic remarks made by his pastor and spiritual advisor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright. Then,of course, people began searching for other ties and connections. Eventually, they had "connected" him to other "radicalists." I think the connection can basically be summed up like this: Wright gave a lifetime achievement award to Minister Louis Farrakhan for his "committment to truth, education, and leadship." Farrakhan has also been accused of being anti-Semitic for his statements, such as "Hitler was a great man," "Judaism is a gutter religion," "wicked Jews," blaming them for lesbianism and homosexuality, and also saying "White people are potential humans--they haven't evolved yet." Then, the connection between Farrakhan and Obama is that he has lent his support to Obama, who responded by saying that he cannot make someone not support him. I think this is the origin of the elitist accusations against Obama and also a more consensus definition for the term within a political scope. Basically, it is a perfect example of politics at its worst. No party is above this behavior and a desperation for votes can result in a candidate's campaign losing its focus on the issues and instead taking cheap shots at the opposition.
The elitist remarks could refer to the concepts of elite and popular democracy. Supporters of elite democracy believe the people can't be trusted to make decisions for themselves, and that a select few should make decisions in the best interest of the people. Popular democracy believes in the people being more active and making decisions for themselves. That's the two concepts in a general idea. It could be that McCain is trying to say Obama thinks less of the common people and believes he should be making decisions for them.
I agree with kapletcher, at least with the definition given of the elitist vs populist concept. When the McCain campaign says "Obama is too much of an elitist to connect with the public", they mean that Obama doesn't associate himself closely enough with the public to know what they want.
Post a Comment