Reply #107: You make good points - I agree with them, mostly.

[jonestonesusa]

I think there are some distinctions between conversation that is polite, sincere, and interpersonal, and more sophisticated discussions of policy. The fact is that most Americans, I would venture, are not sufficiently prepared to engage in sustained, specific conversation about challenging political issues, nor is there consistent respect for people of high educational attainment, leaving a space for the MSM and calculating politicians to pretend to be populists, like Reagan. This is why elitist works as a focus group term turned against Democrats whose policies are better for low income people than Republican policies - because there are deficits in how well all Americans are informed about politics, and in mass culture at least, people are often resistant to the suggestion that this knowledge deficit exists.

All the bashing of wimps, schoolboys, nerds, etc. is a part of this - it is sexist as well as anti-intellectual.

Being from an African American background, it is unfortunate that some of this affects our community as well, and I have seen changes over time in the intensity of the anti-intellectual sentiment. As a "smart" kid, I received a lot of reinforcement from teachers and peers on high achievement, along with some teasing and testing of my ability to defend myself. However, as a whole, the community affirmed the importance of intellectual work and in fact, no one in the community got higher respect from all social segments than people of accomplishment who stayed in the community to work for change. I don't think that all of this has changed, since even when I have spoken as a guest in a prison or a school, I still feel strong appreciation for both my educational attainment and my willingness to stay connected to the community. But I don't always see that reflected in the snarky MSM attitude toward, for instance, Obama's education - attended Harvard, stayed close to the community, accomplished a great deal as a professor of constitutional law and a civil rights lawyer, but due to the pervasive anti-intellectualism in American culture and calculated fake populism, he's criticized because he eats arugala or because he has a big house. Same with Rev. Wright. It's selective, disingenuous outrage that deployed by the HC campaign at its convenience, and is especially convincing to people of any ethnicity who haven't acknowledged their subconscious racism, because it's a way that they can criticize Obama and feel that the criticism is legitimate: according to them, Obama hasn't earned anything, doesn't have legitimate merit based on his accomplishments, and he's a latte-drinking snob, like his supporters.

Enough - I'm ready for a latte myself!