Friday, October 17, 2008
CULTURAL POPULISM
Is there no class anymore? This query came from a lady who has been showing class for 61 years to the personal knowledge of this writer. It reflects a question now raised by many in our common generation. It does appear that there is little or no class to be found in many aspects of our lives.
Our television commercials are a good place to start. Does anyone else tire of the ads for erectile dysfunction, women’s hygiene, or laxatives during our lunch or family viewing times? Are we tired of the boorish hamburger ads featuring unsavory characters, unsavory food, and unsavory dialogue? Do we tire of the incessant harangue of pharmaceutical ads, listing side effects in all their shocking nakedness, and costing funds companies should spend on research or in reducing the cost of medicines?
How about class in the styles we see? Are we tired of baggy pants worn so as to show underwear or lack thereof? Are we tired of T-shirts with offensive slogans and wording? What about provocative clothing? Then there is the grungy attire in the public workplace, and the T-shirts and jeans on teachers in the classroom? Legitimately, the question: Does no one now have class?
This year the political advertisements and the political rhetoric from the stump leave much to be desired.
Some scholars and editorial writers have referred to the political strategies of the season as “cultural populism.” Just what is this?
Populism refers to “the people,” of course. Therefore, “cultural populism” must refer to the culture of the people. Well, that sounds like a good thing, but is it? Which people?
Republicans have adopted “cultural populism” in their advertisements and in their stump speeches. Strangely enough, democrats (who consider themselves the “populist” party) have for the most part taken a higher road. In some instances, they are now making a deliberate effort to re-cast their appeal to reach the ordinary blue collar workers.
One should consider that fans of the comic, “the cable guy,” may indeed represent a segment of the worker group. Fans of the vulgar night club comics, now being allowed on cable channels, may represent the tastes of some of us. And, what about the Toby Keith fans? Maybe we shouldn’t even mention Howard Stern fans or those of Don Imus, nor should we mention Rush Limbaugh or Fox News.
Evidently “cultural populism” means appealing to the tastes of these same people in one’s political rhetoric. These are the people of the populist culture in America today. This is that low common denominator within our society. Sad to say, these represent a large voter block in our elections.
In general, “cultural populism” has no class.
We should question political candidates who say that they are just one of us, since that is trying to say they are cultural populists. Anyone self characterized as a “Hockey Mom,” and who runs around with a “Joe Six Pack,” may be acceptable as an associate -- but not as the leader of our country. Our last experiment with “cowboy” style government and diplomacy has not worked out so well.
The appeal of cultural populism may be quite strong to the voters during an election, but it does not work out well in governance during complex times.
One should hasten to declare that elitism, which is the other side of the coin from populism of any sort, should be equally unwelcome. To question appeal of the marketing of products or politicians on the basis of the lowest common denominator in culture is not to imply that anyone is any “better” than somebody else.
Elitism is inappropriate whether on the basis of culture, wealth, education, or intellectual attainment.
Most of our better national leaders of recent decades have been those with class, who had popular appeal without necessarily going there. They have been a cut above the common element among us, and they have demonstrated not only culture but competence.
Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt had class, although they were totally dedicated to changing the terrible conditions of the poor during the Great Depression. There was a great revival of the arts and of intellectual pursuits during the years of JFK and Jackie’s Camelot.
We had an actor who showed class, and he governed in that manner, even though his economic philosophy eventually brought us financial chaos. And, we had a Rhodes Scholar, with humble beginnings and popular appeal, who showed intelligence and class in leading the world and restoring fiscal constraints in government.
None of these were elitists. Although the best in governance must appeal in some way to all of us in order to get elected, it is not necessary for would-be leaders to take their own characteristics or behavior to the level of that lowest common denominator.
On contemplation, most voters recognize that neither they nor their buddies are really ready to lead at the higher echelons of government. Most do not expect their leaders to share their everyday behavior and pastimes. Most expect something higher from their policy makers, executives, and judges.
In short, thoughtful voters expect their leaders to be a cut above the ordinary. They expect them to be competent, knowledgeable, and to have class. God help us if this is not so.
Dr. Edwin E. Vineyard, AKA The Militant Moderate
Our television commercials are a good place to start. Does anyone else tire of the ads for erectile dysfunction, women’s hygiene, or laxatives during our lunch or family viewing times? Are we tired of the boorish hamburger ads featuring unsavory characters, unsavory food, and unsavory dialogue? Do we tire of the incessant harangue of pharmaceutical ads, listing side effects in all their shocking nakedness, and costing funds companies should spend on research or in reducing the cost of medicines?
How about class in the styles we see? Are we tired of baggy pants worn so as to show underwear or lack thereof? Are we tired of T-shirts with offensive slogans and wording? What about provocative clothing? Then there is the grungy attire in the public workplace, and the T-shirts and jeans on teachers in the classroom? Legitimately, the question: Does no one now have class?
This year the political advertisements and the political rhetoric from the stump leave much to be desired.
Some scholars and editorial writers have referred to the political strategies of the season as “cultural populism.” Just what is this?
Populism refers to “the people,” of course. Therefore, “cultural populism” must refer to the culture of the people. Well, that sounds like a good thing, but is it? Which people?
Republicans have adopted “cultural populism” in their advertisements and in their stump speeches. Strangely enough, democrats (who consider themselves the “populist” party) have for the most part taken a higher road. In some instances, they are now making a deliberate effort to re-cast their appeal to reach the ordinary blue collar workers.
One should consider that fans of the comic, “the cable guy,” may indeed represent a segment of the worker group. Fans of the vulgar night club comics, now being allowed on cable channels, may represent the tastes of some of us. And, what about the Toby Keith fans? Maybe we shouldn’t even mention Howard Stern fans or those of Don Imus, nor should we mention Rush Limbaugh or Fox News.
Evidently “cultural populism” means appealing to the tastes of these same people in one’s political rhetoric. These are the people of the populist culture in America today. This is that low common denominator within our society. Sad to say, these represent a large voter block in our elections.
In general, “cultural populism” has no class.
We should question political candidates who say that they are just one of us, since that is trying to say they are cultural populists. Anyone self characterized as a “Hockey Mom,” and who runs around with a “Joe Six Pack,” may be acceptable as an associate -- but not as the leader of our country. Our last experiment with “cowboy” style government and diplomacy has not worked out so well.
The appeal of cultural populism may be quite strong to the voters during an election, but it does not work out well in governance during complex times.
One should hasten to declare that elitism, which is the other side of the coin from populism of any sort, should be equally unwelcome. To question appeal of the marketing of products or politicians on the basis of the lowest common denominator in culture is not to imply that anyone is any “better” than somebody else.
Elitism is inappropriate whether on the basis of culture, wealth, education, or intellectual attainment.
Most of our better national leaders of recent decades have been those with class, who had popular appeal without necessarily going there. They have been a cut above the common element among us, and they have demonstrated not only culture but competence.
Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt had class, although they were totally dedicated to changing the terrible conditions of the poor during the Great Depression. There was a great revival of the arts and of intellectual pursuits during the years of JFK and Jackie’s Camelot.
We had an actor who showed class, and he governed in that manner, even though his economic philosophy eventually brought us financial chaos. And, we had a Rhodes Scholar, with humble beginnings and popular appeal, who showed intelligence and class in leading the world and restoring fiscal constraints in government.
None of these were elitists. Although the best in governance must appeal in some way to all of us in order to get elected, it is not necessary for would-be leaders to take their own characteristics or behavior to the level of that lowest common denominator.
On contemplation, most voters recognize that neither they nor their buddies are really ready to lead at the higher echelons of government. Most do not expect their leaders to share their everyday behavior and pastimes. Most expect something higher from their policy makers, executives, and judges.
In short, thoughtful voters expect their leaders to be a cut above the ordinary. They expect them to be competent, knowledgeable, and to have class. God help us if this is not so.
Dr. Edwin E. Vineyard, AKA The Militant Moderate
