The week’s theme in the Obama campaign, prompted perhaps by Michelle’s comments about the unfairness of characterizing her husband as an elitist, is that the real wealthy man, and hence elitist, is in fact McCain. As evidence, they cite how he is married to the multi-millionaire Cindy and supposed resident of some eight (sometimes characterized as nine or ten) houses. But the left misses the point which is twofold:
1. Even adroit spinners and handlers can’t manufacture elitism; it is not necessarily connected with wealth. The very wealthy Bush no doubt was brought up in greater splendor than was Kerry; but fairly or unfairly, he was more at home at NASCAR and Texas than wind-surfing. And the people sensed that even without Karl Rove’s ads. John McCain in a wet suit seems unimaginable.
In Obama’s case, it is not a matter of matching his run-of-the-mill mansion against McCain’s numerous homes, but ensuring that he doesn’t whine about the price of arugula or feel more at home with journalists, academics, and writers rather than those of the working classes. In that regard, again compare his disastrous ‘clingers’ sermon — its content, tone, and audience. Again, fairly or not, McCain looks like an old torn-cat pilot that doesn’t much care what he eats, and Obama tip-toes down a plane’s steps as if he is in a Ralph Lauren ad.
2. Liberals and progressives are far more vulnerable to charges of elitism, since they are prone to the additional charge of hypocrisy. Right-wingers, as the catastrophic election of 2006 showed, are more easily exposed as hypocrites when they preach family values and are caught in Rev. Haggard-like positions, or abuse drugs and drink. But liberals, ‘two-nations’ men and women of the people, who rail against the unfairness of an uncaring system and the perniciousness of wealth and privilege, far more readily suffer charges of elitism when their populist rhetoric is contrasted to private jets, 30,000 sq ft. homes, or 11 mansions.
Those are the normal perceptions that are hardly new. Bill Clinton, as the left-wing hipster, was given enormous leeway in his personal life as child of the ’60s. Yet the boy from Hope was not forgiven so easily when we learned of his astounding money-grasping and fondness for the high life, circling the globe in search of quick millions and the lifestyles of the rich and famous. The end of the old crusty Humphreys and Scoop Jacksons, replaced by blow-dry John Edwards millionaires, was a public relations disaster for the party of the people. The change is sort of suicidal, as if one were to make a Larry Craig or Mark Foley the Republican masthead.