The Paradox of Conservative Populism and Class Warfare

Since the great debates and struggles in Congress to pass health care reform there has been a very vocal and visible conservative opposition to not just health care reform but the entire progressive agenda. The group that galvanized this so effectively was the Tea Party, with their Colonial garb and tea bags and angry slogans. They voiced their opinions by gathering in Washington and using signs that denounced President Obama as a totalitarian dictator, a fascist, a Nazi, a tyrant and a foreigner. They invited the leadership of people like Sarah Palin, who was more than happy to turn her notoriety as a political nobody prior to the 2008 election and her quirky average American-ness into a potent force. Because of the anger and general ignorance of the members of the Tea Party, the message they formed around, protesting taxation and overreach of government, has been subtly and sometimes overtly overtaken and changed to suit the Republican leadership who seized control.

Amidst all the rhetoric about government involvement in the private lives of citizens and their general anger at the lack of representation for their political views by Congress and the White House, there have been many instances of outright contradiction and hypocrisy that is either conveniently ignored or aggressively denied. First is the assertion that the majority of Americans are sympathetic to the message of the Tea Party, namely political revolution against a perceived class of political elites. Second, and this is something that Sarah Palin has always used in her rhetoric, that somehow 'common sense' solutions will stimulate the necessary recovery of our economy, and that if we got the 'elites' out of Washington and put some people with 'common sense' and 'traditional values' into the role of government, then everything would be okay. And third, and this is central to the identification of the 'elites' versus the average/normal American, is the demoniaation of educated people, hence the other part of that title of those dastardly 'educated-elites'.

The rhetorical device of 'educated elites' and class warfare isn't unique to Palin's speeches, and isn't even really unique to this election cycle. Class warfare has been around for as long as there have been struggles to form government and the distinction between economic and political classes. Sometimes this type of political manipulation is done with race, by fusing race, ethnic background and economic status together to form generic profiles of a people on whom to place the blame for the political and economic woes of a given time period. This happened in Germany with the Jews, often a target of adding race to class warfare in Europe. It's happened to the Irish, to the Polish, to the Russians, and often, as we saw in the states of the former Yugoslavia, this has often come to violence and civil war.

One of the key objects of concern that is listed off by those talking about their concerns about the economy and their own financial future is how to send their kids to college, how to educate their children, how to leave their children with a more optimistic future. There is a fundamental problem with the rhetoric when one of the goals, it seems, is to vilify education and those who are educated as being 'out of touch' or somehow diminishing the legitimacy of their policies and legislative efforts while at the same time recognizing the importance of education. Education does more than just give people earning potential, it improves the intellectual capacity and knowledge level of individuals. Education expands an individuals ability to understand the world around them, to be able to think deeper than the vague, provocative slogans some use to try to shape the minds of this country. Even among people who have advanced educations there are political issues so complex that they take years to understand. Our economy is one of those issues.

Unbenounced, perhaps, to people in the Tea Party, this is not the economy of the eighteenth century. The protests at that time were more than just about taxation, but illegal search and seizure, and the lack of due process. When people like Joe Miller argue for legislating strictly by what's written in the original framework and the Constitution, he purposefully ignores the fact that at that time there were no voting rights for women or recognition of citizenship for African Americans. Beyond that, there were, at that time, nothing like the multi-national corporations of today. Even the holding and trading companies of the British Empire at that time pale in comparison to the predatory and consciousless policies of the modern corporation.

Candidates like Christine O'Donnell use explicit class warfare to explain the discrepancies in her education background. She claims she did not get her degree right away because she 'didn't have a trust fund' to pay for school and because she had to pay her student loans back before they'd give her her diploma. Anyone who has gone to college knows how ridiculous that claim is. But by setting up the distinction between her and her opponent, who was Harvard educated and holds advanced degrees, she plays to the element of people who are willing to outright deny the serious allegations of campaign fraud and contradictory statements about political positions and experience level. Even the famous commercial where she denies being a witch, she says 'I'm you.' That effort at populism plays successfully among those who have little understanding of our political system or even care about issues other than acting out on their rage against the political process.

When Sarah Palin plays to the 'average American' element within the Tea Party, she's trying to legitimize her own candidacy for president. She's trying to paint a picture of a government filled with sneering elitists from Boston who went to Harvard, advancing the party message of anger against the government for a variety of reasons that all revolve around their party losing. They're dissatisfied because they didn't want Obama to win, they don't want this country to move forward with a progressive agenda that they feel infringes on their lives by stealing their money and giving it to poor minority people. Surveys of the Tea Party found that the vast majority of them were middle class and middle aged or older. They also were largely educated people, at least with college degrees.

So what about having an advanced education disqualifies you from governing? What about it indicates that you would govern badly? We live in a representative government for a reason, our system was set up for a reason. Even back at the founding of our nation there were geographic and cultural differences that required a diverse representative body. While there is no required level of education in our country, in any other career path there is a meritocracy that favors those with advanced educations. Politicians surround themselves with staffers with advanced education. Even though there is a stereotype of educated people being elitist, is that any more true than stereotypes of black people being uneducated or Jewish people being cheap?

The fact is that when someone like Sarah Palin seeks to legitimize her own possible campaign for the presidency, she does everyone in this country a disservice. Not only does she create an atmosphere that discourages the youth in a segment of society from seeking educations but she also brings that rhetoric to the mainstream through her media exposure. The honest truth is that there are no 'common sense' solutions to our economic troubles. There is no easy answer to how to deal with financial regulations and manage energy policy in a way that promotes private sector job growth. This is not the kitchen table or the household budget for a family in Alaska, this is a matter of dealing with innumerable variables with effects both nationally and locally.

We should want people who are educated and capable in office and running this country. It's not just a matter of having someone who you agree with ideologically. It is also a matter of having someone who doesn't need basic civics lessons to understand the responsibilities of the offices in the Executive Branch, who has a proven ability to manage sensitive and difficult situations like natural disasters and economic crises. Whoever is president should be able to communicate economic policy or discuss issues facing the nation either legislatively or judicially with a sense of command and expertise, providing Americans with the appearance of being a confident leader, if not actually truly being a confident leader. Someone who wasn't just sure of their religious or conservative social positions, but someone who seeks to truly represent all people and not just a small slice of the far-right political fringe.

This isn't Alaska, this isn't the household budget of a Midwestern family, this is a varied and diverse nation with just as diverse of an economy and position in the international community. Anyone who can't proceed with confidence and authority, armed with knowledge and understanding, should not be taken seriously as a candidate. Someone who can't name even important heads of state, who doesn't have even a cursory understanding of other cultures and who can't inspire the confidence of foreign leaders and the potential investors from other nations, should not be seen as anything more than a media side-show.