I think you make an interesting point that the expectation that prosperity will lead to the social benefits of freedom under law, social tolerance and intellectual openess may be just as condescending as Sen Obama's recent bitter-gate remarks. I agree it is condescending when applied to other's cultures for example China or Iran. That it is interestingly points to the defect in the vulgar-Marxist analysis of people's thought process. Prosperity does not itself bring any of the social benefits. History certainly records many wealthy civilizations that lacked them. In that sense vulgar Marxism is wrong, the level of prosperity does not determine the social climate.

However, it is a defensible proposition that in the world today people can see the prosperity of those who display these attributes and decide that acting likewise would be in their interest. There is nothing condescending about assuming that most people will act in the way they believe will benefit themselves.

I guess I am elitist enough to think that anyone who paid attention in college would know that applying the term 'marxism' to anything Obama ever said is just ignorant.

timeforsanity -

Exactly.

And don't you find it amazing how many words (both written and stammered, er..spoken) were used to explain to us how explaining things is so condescending!

Surely this is all irony at its most delicious, right? Surely the press realize that in the world of Condescending Comments it is the Press who reign supreme. Right? They get that, don't they?

timeforsanity: i guess i have to admit that i'm in that league myself. but when i hear anybody. mickey or hillary, describe somebody's world as a "culture" i know they just don't get it and aren't going to. the people i come from don't refer to their world as a "culture" - they refer to it as their life.

how many more multi-millionaires or grossly overpaid journalists are gonna pontificate about obama? if these guys are so smart, why don't they read the polls which show quite clearly that NO ONE CARES. hillary is going to win PA and the polls haven't shifted because of all this baloney about obama.

Flash back to that electrifying cinematic moment in All the King's Men, when Broderick Crawford reconnects with his populist roots and shouts, "Listen up, you hicks." Now that's condescension! In the movie, it didn't cost him any votes. Red herring, I know. The discussion just brought it to mind.

It would be condescending if Obama were lecturing people with this sociobabble in his stump speech. But he isn't. A bunch of West Coast fundraiders were asking him, "How come you're not breaking through in Pennsylvania despite all this money we've given you?" Obama is supposed to be this political genius (and he is, by the way), so he knows that "Beats me!" won't do for an answer. But he's a law professor, not a poli-sci prof, and this bit of Vulgar Marxism recalled from his undergrad years seems to meet the demands of the moment. Does he actually believe that economics structure culture this rigidly? Who knows? Who cares? He isn't building policies around this kind of theory.

The "gaffe" could have been far worse, BTW, since he started out by saying downtrodden voters were cool to pie-in-the-sky promises -- especially from a politician with a name like his who looked like him.

If he'd stopped right there, Hillary and her goons would have been calling him out not as an elitist but as a racist -- or at least as someone who had called the good people of Pennsylvania a bunch of racist goobers who would never vote for a black guy. The defence that it is essentially true would hardly have got Obama off the hook.

Fortunately, Obama rambled on, into the thorny bushes of guns and religion, prompting Hillary to go for even lower-hanging fruit. Looking for a hook, her campaign pounced on "bitter," which was probably the least controversial word in that now-infamous sentence. Most voters saw the hyped-up controversy as a desperate ploy, and the rest -- much like Hillary's overall campaign -- is history.