I disagree with the Bartel study's conclusion (found in item No. 2 of this article) that culture doesn't play a big role in lower educated voters. Well, actually I disagree on the grounds that lower education isn't the issue, but that geography is.

Bartels statistically seems to prove that lower education does not correspond to caring more about cultural issues (as opposed to economics) when voting. I won't argue with that. But keep in mind that lower educated people can be found in cities as well as rural areas, and he doesn't seem to take this into account.

In the 2004 election, the only counties to vote blue were surrounding Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. Everything else in the state was Red except for Scranton. James Carville was right, but its the geography, stupid. Just look at the national map; the urban areas trend liberal, and rural areas trend conservative. Suburbs vary depending on the wider trends of the area.

So what? I would argue that the less cosmopolitan and urbanized your environment is, the more likely you are to vote based on values issues. No, I don't have the statistics to prove it, but I wish that Bartel would redo his study twice - once in Philadelphia and once somewhere in the rural\suburban areas in midstate pennsylvania. I have a hunch he would find that where you lived makes you a values voter.

So Obama was, if anything, being to generous when he said that economic issues caused people to retreat into paranoid fears of cultural conservatism. There's no economic excuse. People are simply more bigoted and closeminded because they have been exposed to less, and are used to living in a simpler world.

There's no economic excuse. People are simply more bigoted and closeminded because they have been exposed to less, and are used to living in a simpler world.

Alternately, living in the squalor of cities - where even the wealthy have to deal with the good block/bad block bunker mentality that is the natural byproduct of cramming a lot of people into a relatively small space - dislocates the moral compasses of those that dwell there, discourages self-reliance and instead encourages a cavalier attitude towards work and the boundaries of other people's property (what's yours is ours, for the good of all, of course).

I'm not sayin', I'm just sayin'...

"So Obama was, if anything, being to generous when he said that economic issues caused people to retreat into paranoid fears of cultural conservatism."

Do you know what Obama actually said? Not the little ten second clip -- the entire conversation?

He was responding to question regarding political strategy. Volunteers who wanted to work in Pennsylvania were asking him how to reach these people regarding economic issues.

Obama's response was basically that these people vote based on these other issues because they have lost faith in the federal government to actually do anything to help them with their economic plight. He didn't say that they were paranoid or that that was why they considered religious issues, gun control or immigration to take priority over economic issues. They simply have no faith in the government to resolve their economic problems. They have good reason to believe this. They have good reason to be bitter about it.

That the Republican party has been so successful recently in promoting social wedge issues, all the while turning out legislation that is very business/owner friendly at the expense of the wage earners who line up to vote for them based on these wedge issues is truly ironic.

You would think that these folks would become bitter with the GOP over their continued inaction in actually implementing the legislation that they promise these "values voters". The GOP had a majority in all three branches of government after the 2004 election.

They didn't pass an amendment banning gay marriage. They didn't outlaw abortion. They didn't get a flag burning amendment. They didn't pass legislation requiring Protestant Christian prayer in public schools. They didn't mandate a Ten Commandments monument in every courthouse. The list goes on...

Why didn't they do any of these things?

They need the issues to still be there for the next election.

So we'll fall for the same old line again.

They didn't pass an amendment banning gay marriage. They didn't outlaw abortion. They didn't get a flag burning amendment.

So now Republicans are hypocrites because they didn't possess the 2/3 majority required to pass a Constitutional Amendment? Are you aware that there's a whole fucking universe that exists outside of your skull?

I know the context of what Obama said, but since people have decided to expand the conversation outside of what he actually said\meant, and discuss the merits of whether or not the larger idea of "bitter" voters is legitimate, I thought I would join in.

I don't think Obama intended to say anything like I was saying. Obama was intending to say that he would provide substantive economic solutions for those people, rather than cultural red meat talk that tends to energize voters but leave them in the same destitute position. He just used the worst possible phrasing to say it.

What he said wasn't elitist, but what I said certainly was. And I'm fine with that. I long ago realized that advocating for liberal policies in non-liberal areas would brand me as an elitist, so whatever.

Man I remember when Elite used to be a good thing.

Elite is a good thing. An elitist is not. An elitist is a person who believes they are intrinsically better than those around them, that they belong to a higher class of humans. Elitism gets you things like white and black drinking fountains, or why everyone that lives in the city assumes that everyone born in rural areas are inbred, and such publications as the New Yorker. Elitism, is not a good quality in a president (or a holder of any political office) because they believe that they are superior to those they represent. Elitist does not necessarily equal elite and most often does not. Think Abe Lincoln, elite for sure but not elitist. Think Woodrow Wilson and Jimmy Carter, elitist but not elite.

Right, because PhD's and nuclear engineers are obviously not among the intellectual elite of society.

No, that's "racism". "Eltist" is word created for stupid people to feel better about themselves (probably in order to gain their votes). People who seem to think that when someone is smarter, richer, or better at something than them, that those people somehow think they are more deserving of life, but what is really just a projection of their own shame, ignorant fears, and insecurities on to these so-called "elites."

I tend to agree with Screwjack. Elitism can mean whatever you want it to mean, and you can twist it into a spiteful or benign concept depening on your choice of example.

But take a look at the other end of the spectrum. There is, I believe, a growing embrace of anti-intellectualism in this country. We can see it in the lowered standards of news reporting (at least in the msm) and in the "personal" characteristics we want to see in our politicians. Which candidate would you want to have a beer with?

Ironically, I think that it is a side effect of a more culturally liberal society (which we are moreso than we were in, say, 1950). Generally, the social mores in America have loosened up, and you no longer need to be an uptight and prim dandy to be considered an authority figure. We are currently more attracted to folksiness and people who remind us of ourselves - personal image - than in actual policy details than we used to be.

thus, "Elitism" as the term is used pejoratively, is the choice insult to put down anyone who breaks from that mindset. Its not a great word anyway, and I wouldn't want to try and reclaim it or anything, but it seems apparent to me that when someone uses it, its because they are unwilling to part with a pastoral view of American society.

Way to make me look like an asshole! Kidding. Naturally I agree and your explanation was much more polite than mine. It has always astonished me, from grade school on, that so many people actually seemed offended or threatened to the point of open hostility by intelligence and smart people. Of course now I often feel the exact same way about dumb people. If I don't keep my eye on them one day they are gonna kick in my door and take me away for thinking too much.

Just because someone is a PhD doesn’t mean they are superior to their fellow man or that they would make a good president. Take it from me, I’m a PhD student now, and I don’t see myself as any better than someone working at a fast-food restaurant. I grew up working on the roof for my dad with ex-cons and migrant workers, and you know what? A lot of them are smarter and better people than those rub elbows with at national immunology meetings.

You guys are missing the point. Elitism wasn’t created so that us dumb-asses can hate educated people. Elitism is a term describing the privileged, who feel that they are superior to their fellow man. Those guys (and gals) whom had their parents got them into Harvard and Yale regardless of their lack of intelligence and/or talent, private country clubs and all of that. And, racism is a form of elitism, “my race is intrinsically better than your race” is not much different than “my upbringing and education is intrinsically better than yours”. I am a member of the highly educated group (although not private school, only the finest in public education for me) but I find nothing more repugnant than the snobbery and psuedointelectualism that most of my peers exhibit on a daily basis. A good education does not a genius make.

Yes split, that is one way that "elitism" is used. However, if you apply that to the Obama situation, you're definition is nowhere to be found. Yes, obama is Harvard educated. But by your way of viewing things, you could say that anyone who is Harvard educated has no right to suggest anything simply because they're from Harvard, and thats an upper crust institution, so you must think you're better than me. That's ridiculous.

Obama is saying that cultural issues (of little real consequence) have replaced economic concerns among many Americans, and that this is bad for those very people's pocketbooks. You can say he is factually incorrect (though I disagree), but you can't say that his reason for saying so is that he believes his "upbringing and education is intrinsically better." There's no connection there... that is, unless you want to assume that that is the reason, which many people do because they are unwilling to consider the possibility that Obama might be right.

Also, its not credentials or social status or titles that make someone "smart". Its just a question of who is rational and open-minded to different solutions, and who isn't. Its not about being a better person, its about having a better plan. The term "elitism" can mean whatever you want, based upon your choice of example.

People who aren't willing to admit that their plan might not be all that great often criticize those with different plans, and claim that that other person is just trying to be "better" than them. If it were not for the bitterness, perhaps they would realize that being rational often means not taking things so personally.

Uh, and isn't your assumption that everyone who lives in a city reads the New Yorker and thinks people living in rural areas are inbred ALSO elitist?

What you are describing is parochialism, not elitism.