date unavailable
Ask any ten people – correction: a cross section of the American consciousness – what makes this country so prosperous, and nine of them will probably answer, “Freedom” (the tenth may or may not come up with some smart crack like “killing most of the natives”). Give a little prompting: “No, it’s more basic than that,” adding, according to the degree of dumbfoundedness, “What was here already that the settlers built upon?” and two or three may get it, including the creative wiseguy who actually knew all along. The answer, of course, is rich farmland. I learned this in Social Studies, circa 7th grade, and believe me, Social Studies was my worst subject. But it was only because I wasn’t popular and had no social life that I was paying attention. I also learned how to diagram sentences, simultaneous (algebra) equations, and rudimentary French, all taught during the Junior High School years, hence the reason nine of ten people years later make a face and claim they “couldn’t learn that,” as opposed to “wouldn’t,” because they were engrossed in passing notes to their classroom cohorts.
Rich farmland is the spoke to the wheel of American affluence as “Do unto others…” is to the Jewish Torah. It is the basic principle, or most common denominator, of all other aspects of a concept, which, in turn, extend from it. Put another way, it is the almost but not quite simplistic direct cause of a result. Rich farmland is what enables a handful of the populace to feed the masses, freeing them to devote themselves to curing cancer, inventing air conditioning, writing jokes for David Letterman, and playing computer games. It is what allows for such professions as political pollster, comedian, stock broker, and makeup artist. Most fundamentally, it is the heart of the formulation of an idealistic government, if not the ideal one.
I enjoy reducing an arguably complicated phenomenon to one simple statement: The British monarchy still exists because Britain has a huge inferiority complex. (In a related matter, a fire broke out in Buckingham Palace during the celebration of Queen Elizabeth’s 50th year reign because the Church of England’s God has a wild sense of humor.) FOX is the top rated cable news network because most Americans are fairly vapid. George Bush is president because his father lost to Clinton. (In a related matter, had Bush been born to Clinton’s circumstances, Bush would never have risen above them.) Clinton’s Narcissism drove him to carry on an affair while being prosecuted for sexual harassment because his mother and grandmother competed over who could tell him he was more special. The country is becoming more conservative because it is more complacent. It is more complacent because there really is such a thing as too much technology. Julia Roberts testified before Congress because she wanted a chance to wear glasses that make her look smart. If this last example seems too cynical, let me point out that cynicism is the healthy response to less-than-altruistic human nature. Altruism is a rare commodity because none are born with it and few develop it. Thus the phrase: cultural elitism.
“Cultural elitism” used to confuse me. It strikes me as a charge leveled by the rich, and those who aspire to be rich, against those who see the Greater Good. It smacks of resentment and fear of being exposed but it also seems sincere. The self-absorbed, which is most of us, self-aggrandizing, and self-preserving cannot fathom, and therefore presume ulterior motives, to those who would step back and say, “Wait a minute. Your interests work against their interests. A zero-sum game cannot benefit civilization. Furthermore, your short-term gain is also your eventual loss. If my focus on the Big Picture renders me an elitist, better that than to wallow in materialism and escapism.”
Better yet, turn it around. My college roommate, once accused of being “crazy,” replied “Thank you” without a hint of sarcasm. Similarly, some are told they “think too much.” Instead of becoming defensive, they might say, “Really? I think there’s no such thing.”
I think that society hardly flourishes but limps along. At least it never comes to a grinding halt, in spite of enormous setbacks in the forms of atrocities, wars, and misguided causes I’ll never understand because I don’t want to. It proceeds, haltingly, while not actually advancing. Which brings me to my own dilemma. I want more people to be smarter, which is purely selfish. I want to relate to more people on a cerebral level which would threaten society. How? Consider the job market. 90+% of all jobs are what I call “slots.” This should be self-explanatory. If the vast majority of all jobs are slots then the vast majority of job holders must be willing to run the machinery put in place by the less than 1% who conceive of, design, and build the machines. Undoubtedly, some portion of the slot fillers will be overqualified for their jobs; by keeping them to a minimum society guards against too many empty slots and too many rabble rousers. The “quietly desperate” will propel the Spiderman movie to a box office record (aptly demonstrating the obscene disparity between the standard of living of show biz big-shots and the farmers who stuff their bellies), content enough to fill the slots. Content enough to maintain the status quo.
I object to the term “cultural elite.” It is almost an oxymoron since few intellectuals are snobs. If educated, intelligent, esoteric, or artistic people would rather see In the Bedroom than Spiderman, who should care? If they like classical more than rock and jazz more than country, what’s it to anyone? If the fictional President Bartlett attends an opera while his would-be opponent attends a baseball game, whom are the voters more likely to support in the next election? Nevertheless, it occurs to me that dumb people are suspicious of smart people to a far less degree than the rich and powerful – particularly those who inherited richness and power – seek to silence those who consider it their civic duty to afflict and inconvenience authority. Often the rich and powerful resort to projection: superimposing one’s own behavior/motivation onto someone else. “You’re making a fool of yourself,” I once heard Rush Limbaugh declare to a “token liberal” caller who had just made a fool of Limbaugh. Deflect or be exposed. Fool the foolable. Label the kingdom a democracy. Stack the deck. “Elect” George W. Bush the ultimate Naked Emperor. Legislate fundamentalist Christianity. Don’t read this essay because this publication is way, way out of the mainstream.
If you ask me, which you didn’t, since I don’t know anything you don’t, the true elite are those who with to deceive, not enlighten, you. The true elite bristle at being challenged. The true elite don’t take kindly to being held accountable. The true elite are truly indignant.
