On Barack Obama's elitism and George Bush's subversion of elitism.

Elitism (American Heritage Dictionary): "The belief that certain persons or members of certain classes or groups deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority, as in intellect, social status, or financial resources."

It's interesting that the definition of elitism doesn't capture the idea of the criticism leveled at Barack Obama. Obama's not accused of believing that certain classes or groups deserve favored treatment, but that some people are less enlightened, less inclined to see things as they really are. Specifically, in now infamous remarks in San Francisco, he has implied that working-class voters cling to religion and the right to bear arms out of a displaced resentment of their economic plight.

It seems important to distinguish Obama's brand of elitism from the elitism that would favor the rights and privileges of a privileged group over those of the masses. One couldn't say that Obama sets the concerns of the smart or wealthy over those of the average American. Obama's elitism rests on the concept of "knowing better."

But hasn't Obama pursued political office and now higher office because he believes he has the insight, vision and personal resources to improve people's lives? Without wanting to split hairs, anyone who seeks to put himself into a position of authority or power for the right reasons must be, to some degree and in this sense, an elitist.

George Bush (son of a president, connected, wealthy, ivy league educated) subverts elitism by presenting himself as a common man, at one in his world-view with working class Americans (and we have been given no reason to doubt the presentation). His unsophisticated approach to leadership and analysis seems to win him adherents with those who want to see the world as a place of simple absolutes — good against evil, right and against wrong, oppression versus freedom, free market versus regulation.

Two urgent questions arise:

1. What makes someone elitist (in the sense of "knowing better")?

2. Do we went to be governed by an elitist or by someone who sees the world more concretely?

For conscious creatures, such as we are, the world has two distinct aspects — the concrete and the conceptual. Everyone understands and feels the weight of both aspects. But the degree to which we feel them differs from one person to another. Some people, such as Bush, tend to feel more comfortable with the physical, tangible aspect, and distrust concepts that require complex abstraction and sophisticated thinking. Other people (like Obama) tend to feel more comfortable and sure-footed with the conceptual aspect.

Plato and Aristotle may have approved of Obama's unfortunate remarks, but as much as us elitists might want to impose our concepts on others, leadership and government can't be successfully executed without an appreciation and respect for both. Too much of one or the other results in missteps.

Bush has screwed up because he's eschewed the sophisticated analysis needed to anticipate problems and develop nuanced solutions. Obama, it seems, if he's to be elected, will need to be careful to engage more with the tangibles of life and living, and, when necessary, keep his conceptual view of the world in perspective.

An elitist has the capacity to govern well if he or she can stay in touch with and not disdain or devalue the concrete aspects of life. A non-elitist can only govern well if he or she does not disdain or devalue the conceptual aspects of life. The flaws of a lop-sided approach to government have been only too clearly demonstrated over the past eight years.

On cell phones for Cubans and bailouts for homeowners.

As I walked through Manhattan this morning I watched as some buffoon on a cell phone began to cross the street just as the "don't walk" sign blinked from flashing to solid. He didn't realize that he was blocking traffic until he was half way across the street. With his phone still glued to his ear he first stopped in his tracks, then loped ahead to the far corner without so much as looking back.

Oh, to live in a world without cell phones! Even Cuba, my last hope of refuge from the cursed devices, has relented to the cell phone tide. Raul Castro — Raul The Reformer, we may as well call him — has declared that ordinary Cubans will be permitted to get cell phone contracts going forward (a privilege previously reserved for key state employees or workers for foreign firms). But since the cell phone contracts will be too expensive for most Cubans, who earn an average of a little less than $20 per month, perhaps it will take a while until cell phones cause traffic accidents in Havana.

But this snippet of communist party friction (Raul's brother Fidel had held fast to the no cell phone policy for years) got me wondering about whether Raul should be classified as a liberal, allowing for progressive ideas, and Fidel a conservative. And if Fidel is a conservative how does that jive with him being one of the foremost and staunchest communist leaders of all time? Could Fidel Castro and his nemesis George Bush perhaps be sitting on the same side of an ideological fence? And if so, how?

As the current presidential hopefuls put forward their proposals (an odd phenomenon, this, since they're just running for something, not running something) on fixing or mitigating the mortgage crisis, the stark differences in approach provide a lens through which to examine Democratic ideology versus Republican ideology.

This is a subject that fascinates me. For there to be such a clear division along political lines on so many issues, it seems that the roots of these divisions must live in a fundamental philosophical difference of perspective.

With some differences Obama and Clinton endorse proposals that would provide help to homeowners facing forclosure. McCain (and Bush) oppose any plan for homeowner bailout.

To paraphrase the liberal perspective "let's help people stand on their own two feet."

To paraphrase the conservative perspective "let people stand on their own two feet."

As ideologies, both are rational and consistent. Where and why do they differ?

McCain has made it clear that he believes that homeowners deserve some blame if they've bought themselves into an unaffordable mortgage. His perspective is founded on personal responsibility, the freedom to succeed comes with the freedom to screw up. You make your choice and live with it. This same perspective underpins the conservative view on all manner of subjects, such as gun ownership and the death penalty (by all means get a gun, but if you shoot someone you shouldn't you'll pay for it with your life).

The conservative philosophy rests on the concept that the individual should have more control over his life and that government should not meddle.

The liberal philosophy rests on the concept that for the good of society, and the good of the individual, government should be ready to step in and provide protection or support.

Obama believes that homeowners need protection from banks eager to foreclose to stem their loses, for instance. While some may get help when they don't deserve it. Many unwitting victims will be spared. And on gun control, a liberal may say that having the right to bear arms is all well and good unless innocent people are getting hurt by that right.

Is this just a difference of perspective without any deeper significance? I think not.

The roots are evolutionary: As social animals, human beings developed an awareness that while acting for themselves could lead to short term gains, acting for the good of all could lead to long term gains. Sharing your food might make you less well fed in the short term, but when you're short of food, you'll be happy for someone to share his food with you.

This is all very rational and common sensical, but even thoughtful people in a well ordered society still feel the pull of self preservation and self-satisfaction. We all experience impulses that lead us to want to act for ourselves, and we all experience impulses that lead us to want to help others. Whether we come out liberal or conservative hinges on the degree to which we believe it's right and feel the rightness of balancing our own needs with those of others.

(For those who are interested, LIFE! Why We Exist… And What We Must Do To Survive explores a deeper philosophical basis for this line of reasoning by working from the principles of space and time.)

But what about Fidel and Raul?

Fidel Castro exhibited a deep conflict between his personal feelings about individualism — in which he was a conservative (how could a man who led a revolution and took firm control of a country not be convinced of the power and independence of his individual spirit?) — and his intellectual conviction of the benefits of a collaborative, equalized society, communism after all is liberalism on steroids.

This is perhaps why so many of us have a soft spot for the old guy (Fidel) despite his serious flaws and failings, despite his human rights abuses. We empathize with his internal conflict. We see the numbskull stopping traffic while he gabs on his cell phone and we want him to be delivered a comeuppance not a helping hand. But presented with the intellectual idea of helping those who took on too much mortgage debt (numbskulls, most likely, some of them) we easily fall on the side of assistance.

For more rational, science-based explanations of life's meaning and purpose, please refer to my book: LIFE! Why We Exist… And What We Must Do To Survive.

Paul Krugman writes today that Barak Obama is naive for believing that he can bring industry leaders and big insurance companies to the table to help reform health care. Krugman's reasoning is both pragmatic and cynical. Obama isn't realistic about the battle ahead, Krugman says, and isn't listening to the populist outcry for reform. He therefore won't win the same kind of majority as an Edwards or Clinton, who understand that people are hungry for a knock down drag out fight over health care reform and that such reform will only happen over the dead or doubled-up bodies of the industry lobbyists.

And Bush today spoke of a sound economy in much the same way that the Cuban news media these days speaks of Castro's health. "The underpinning is good," Bush said to a quiet crowd. And followed this up with the old chestnut — "I'll veto any tax increase," which drew a notable lack of applause. To whom was Bush speaking? Members of the Rotary Club of Stafford, the Fredericksburg Rotary Club, the Rappahannock Rotary Club and the Fredericksburg Regional Chamber of Commerce. Where was he speaking? Yak-A-Doo's restaurant in a Holiday Inn. Could Bush's populist agenda have run afoul of circumstance and reality?

And in a related story, researchers in a remote Indonesian jungle have discovered a rat "five times the size of a typical city rat." The rat apparently betrayed no fear of the human intruders. (In this much at least, he resembles the rats of New York City.) ''It's comforting to know that there is a place on Earth so isolated that it remains the absolute realm of wild nature,'' said expedition leader Bruce Beehler. ''We were pleased to see that this little piece of Eden remains as pristine and enchanting as it was when we first visited.''

But, reference to Eden notwithstanding, how does the third story related to the first two? Well, I found myself bridling at Krugman's dismissal of Obama's ingenuous call for a new approach to politics. Sure, populism gets the vote. Sure, that's what's worked. Sure, industry won't roll over and beg. But doing things because they've been done, limiting ourselves by history, doesn't that doom us to repeat history?

In his first campaign, Bush touted his ability to bring both sides to the table, but we now know that for Bush the function of speaking and the function of communication haven't yet been brought under the administration of a central mental bureau. Nor do we hold our breath for that miraculous event.

There's an oft-repeated myth that George Washington invited Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson into his first cabinet in order to bring both sides to the table. It's a myth because there was no formal or informal opposition at the time. Washington wanted the best minds and hearts in the country at his table. Hamilton and Jefferson developed partisan divisions over the course of their tenure in Washington's cabinet. Washington over time veered toward Hamilton's Federalism, but truly wanted and valued Jefferson's more democratic counsel.

Obama's ideas about the path to health reform may be naive and impractical, but so what? At least they're new. At least there's a chance that they won't leave us in four years time with a tired and tiresome repeat of the current roll call for populist opinion.

Obama then could well be the big rat appearing at the edge of the camp, strange and fearless and larger than life. You bring big business to the table and you tell them you'll be happy to listen to their opinions so long as they'll be happy for you to bite them in the ass if they don't play along. Government should prevail, whether you start at a big table or a small table. The idea is surely to bring them to the big table so that you lay the cards out all the more clearly.

Of course, the Indonesian researchers also discovered a tiny possum, one of the smallest marsupials in the world. Krugman would doubtless liken Obama to that diminutive possum before he'd liken him to the massive rat. But couldn't a possum win the hearts of big business, just as his brother rat would nip at their ankles?

The AP reports on the success of a Japanese team in making genetically modified mice that show no fear of cats. This demonstrates that mice fear cats instinctively, upsetting the more commonly held view that the fear is learned.

The scientists from Tokyo University found that the modified mice quite happily cosied up to the unmodified cats and played with them.

I've been reading a fascinating biography of Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson is getting a lot of play at the moment because of his role in insisting on the separation of church and state as America was being constituted. Jefferson, a Virginian, saw and felt the unfairness of a system in which religion gets forced on people. Fortunately for the country he was a persistent and forceful person who carried forward this conviction even when others would have been OK allowing some degree of intermingling.

Roger Cohen invokes Jefferson's ideas in an opinion piece that counters Mitt Romney's vapid criticism of European Secularism, echoing to some degree my own response the other day. Jefferson was an enlightened man. His father read the classics out loud to his family. He had a classical education at home and then at university. Jefferson had great sympathy for the enlightened movements of Europe, and considered anything short of a rational grounding for society unacceptable. In his native state, he reformed the laws of inheritance, for instance, because he thought them inherently unfair.

Jefferson, one can imagine, must be turning in his grave. As Europe has marched on to become widely secularist and for the most part enlightened, America has slumped into a nation riddled with weird zealotry and faith-based fervor, where politicians either make it in part because they genuinely appeal to the religious community or are cowed into pandering to that community. As I sit here, I can think of several reasons why this gap has opened up — the sheer size of America, isolating far-flung communities from the influence and challenge of rigorous thought, the psychological composition of the people who populated America — people came here seeking peace and prosperity trusting largely in their faith that God would provide, the long, lingering influence of slavery and segregation, which was propped up by the idea that whites were somehow better than blacks, a very irrational proposition. I'm sure there are many other potential explanations.

But, as I see it, the point is less how did this happen, and more, how will this change.

The NY Times reports on a new study that indicates that human evolution accelerated rapidly in the last 40,000 years. There's debate about whether that acceleration has continued over the past 10,000 years, but the study brings with it some hope that we're not done yet.

Back to those mice…

If mice are genetically programmed to fear cats, this tells us two things: First, that while environment can affect our thoughts and behavior, we start from a predisposition toward a certain psychology and physiology. (My fear of spiders, for instance, may have been influenced by my mother's fear of spiders, but it was probably also an inherent fear.) Second, that mice evolved their fear of cats.

And if mice can evolve a fear of cats (which seems self-evident to my mind), then human beings can evolve to become more enlightened.

Did I skip a step or two? I fear I did.

1. Is it evolutionary progress to become more enlightened? If you question the answer to this, you're probably reading the wrong blog.

2. What evolutionary pressure will cause the human race to become more enlightened?

Again, I can come up with several theories in answer to the second question, and I'm sure you'll find your own. All other things being equal, I think that women are more likely to find enlightened men attractive and vice versa. Who wants to be married to a cave-man? An enlightened man will also be more helpful around the house and with the kids, prompting the woman to be OK having more kids with him. And enlightened people are probably less likely to die stupid, meaningless deaths.

As I argue in my book we'll one day look back on religious fundamentalism as an anomalous blip in the history of America. The Japanese modification of mice to fear no cats gives me fresh hope that American genes will adjust over time to fear no smiting from on high. At which point the Bushes and the Huckabees and the Romneys of the world will disappear from the political scene with a puff of enlightened smoke.