David Seaton's picture

    A short statement of basic principles

    By David Seaton on Mon, 09/06/2010 - 2:13am |

    One person who wrote to me the other day accused me of being "elitist".

    The problem with your point of view is that it exposes a fundamental hypocrisy in the minds of people like you. And I do mean to use the words "people like you". You like to cloak your condescending attitude towards the working class to give the appearance of compassion. And Palin and Republicans swoop in and take advantage of it.

    First I am very interested in a stable society of healthy citizens living in peace, and that means taking care of people who are not exceptionally talented or motivated (the vast majority).

    I don't consider this "elitist" -- although I don't much care -- because most of the ancestors and descendants of the exceptionally talented or motivated were and will be just average to below average. I would call these people "the salt of the earth" and I dare any "born again" to challenge the source of that term.

    I believe that the exceptionally talented or motivated are more than able to take care of themselves and that society's true role is to "uplift the masses", which means to give the "salt of the earth" a comfortable life with the possibility of enjoying fully the simple pleasures of peace, a family, culture, health and leisure. Simple genetics plus a peaceful and healthy society will take care of producing the exceptionally talented or motivated.

    I believe that this will also provide a better background for the exceptionally talented or motivated to make their contribution and to also enjoy with a peaceful heart the benefits of that contribution.

    If that is elitist, I would say that anyone or any group that could put that program into effect could wear the title "elite" with some justification, certainly with more justification than the sorry assed crew that passes for "elite" today.

    At the heart of the problem, as I see it, is that Americans, although mostly ordinary people, descended from ordinary people, and likely to beget ordinary people, in fact, despise ordinary people and to the extent that they find themselves ordinary, they despise themselves. For me this explains most of the hostile and violent behavior associated with our country.

    This text was originally posted at http://seaton-newslinks.blogspot.com

    Comments

    David, I find this interesting on a number of levels. First, as a defense against an accusation that you are elitist. Second, as an insight into your thinking in general. And, finally, as an interesting discussion.

    As to Seaton-as-elitist, I've always found your writing to be a bit paternalistic, sometimes bordering on condescending. I don't think that should come as a surprise to you, because I've mentioned it on your TPM posts before. Further, I hope you don't take it as openly hostile, because I am very glad that you are cross-posting at Dag. Your writing is top notch and you bring a new perspective here. But I do find your style, and often times your arguments, to be a little bit preachy and stubbornly impervious to warranted criticism. It could be our age difference or our gender difference. I certain recognize that other readers might interpret, and have interpreted, you differently.

    As to your thinking in general, while I understand the point that you are making and definitely agree that there are people of great talent that exist among us, I find the whole "society exists to take care of the dummies" argument to fall smack under my read of a paternalistic attitude from you that I mentioned above.

    As to the main point, I half agree and half disagree. I think that, while certainly the vast majority of us are ordinary, you are selling ordinary short. We are all capable of moments of clarity and genius, even on the tiniest scale. I prefer to think that society's role is to protect the ordinary from the deviant--the sociopathic, greedy, can't-play-well-with-others folks that would take more than their share and screw the rest of us. I think I'm a socialist at heart, though I don't see that our natures would allow us to succeed with socialism on any greater scale than in the odd commune.

    Anyways, once again, a warm welcome to Dag and I look forward to arguing in the future!


    by Orlando on Mon, 09/06/2010 - 4:35am

    I should be perfectly clear right off the bat, I am a democratic-socialist, I believe in what is derogatorily called the "nanny state".

    Having said that let me clarify:

    "Average" means exactly that, average, the mean number you get when you divide the sum of the data  by the number of units in the group you are averaging. The average height in a family of circus dwarfs is different from the average height of, say, the LA Lakers. The USA has an estimated population of 310,178,000, the average ability to sing on key, ability to wiggle their ears, do crosswords, draw, run fast, do calculus, or tell jokes, has to be "averaged out from that". This all tends to even out... with the occasional appearance of what geneticists call a "sport" or mutant like Mozart, whose talent is inexplicable and doesn't seem replicable (we haven't heard much from the Mozart family lately, have we?). What we would like to avoid is that someone like Mozart could die without proper medical care and be buried in a potters grave, and that goes for Mozart's garbage man and the drunk pissing in the alley behind Mozart's house.

    It is important to understand that no single individual in her/him self is "average" in all categories. And even those with exceptional talent and abilities can be very "below average" and extremely vulnerable during critical periods of their lives in important areas, such as housing, health or child poverty. Taking care of the "average" is what this means... making sure that, short of providing dwarfs with elevator shoes, nobody falls below that common denominator at anytime in their lives, with a special emphasis on childhood and old age, when people are most vulnerable.

    Is this paternalistic? Not if the community democratically decides to conduct public affairs this way. As to the "paternal" thing,  a Christian might talk about the fatherhood of God leading to the brotherhood of man, who knows?  Like the Irishman said: yez payz yer money and yez takes yer cherse.

    Is it elitist? Like I say in my post, "I would say that anyone or any group that could put that program into effect could wear the title "elite" with some justification, certainly with more justification than the sorry assed crew that passes for "elite" today."

    Again, part of the problem in today's America is the "winner fetish", this worship of movie stars, champion athletes, or even people like Paris Hilton.

    Making life a "race" is a sure recipe for unhappiness: in every race there is one "winner" and all the rest are "losers". Part of the dangerous appeal of demagogues like Sarah Palin is that so many Americans feel like losers and they resent it. There is very little in American media celebrating what the French call "le petit bonheur" or "small happiness", the simple pleasure in "average" modest life itself, lived taking care of the small details of happiness.  I think making people unhappy so that they go out and spend money to ease the pain is the secret of America's economy. It is hellish when you come to think of it.


    by David Seaton on Mon, 09/06/2010 - 5:31am

    In reference to your last paragraph, I prefer to compare life to the Highlander Complex...In the end, there can be only one. So if there can only be one winner, that makes everyone else a loser.

    It might be good having a race to see who is the best playing fun and games, but life isn't a game and shouldn't be treated as such...you can't start over or come back to it tomorrow or another day. Perhaps that's the key to understanding the seriousness of treating social problems as gameplans with winners and losers.

    Too many people look at real world problems in terms of a game to play. And as with all games, intrepret the rules and position themselves to be on the winning side regardless if the winning side solves the issues at hand...they just want to be a winner because the spoils belong to the victor.

    A good example of gamemanship being played out in real-time are elections...it's not so much about who has the best ideas for resolving serious issues, it's more about us vs. them. So instead of the people making an intelligent decision that has meaningful impact on their lives and those around them...their community, they resort to a gameshow mentality to take a chance of winning what's behind door number two...whatever it is...they just have to have it because if it's good enough for them, then it's good enough for everyone else too.

    That's why Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin have such avid followers...they preach the myth their followers want to hear even though the myth is just that..a myth that was never real in the first place. In fact, the message intertwined in the myth now says the followers have been right all along. It's those of us they label as elitiest who have been wrong and have run the country into the ground, and ruined her honor. Subtle, but effective...note how well tea-baggers upsetting the rank and file of the GOP in their primary races.

    So I sit back and wonder what has happened to our basic principles. I went into some depth and slide a little off topic, but it was necessary to point out the mutually exclusiveness of the American public to themselves and their government. Your initial blog and subsequent post to the Oh-cubed One kicked in a need to get this out of my system.


    by Beetlejuice on Mon, 09/06/2010 - 7:38am

    I should have said that I don't necessarily think there is anything wrong with being classed as "elite", especially when it comes to intellect and the ability to solve problems. I think elitism and paternalism are separate phenomenon. And, when you restate your point in terms of setting a standard for meeting basic needs which no individual is allowed to fall below, I agree with you absolutely and with no caveats.

    As Beetlejuice mentions below, the winner/loser/everthing's a game mentality is as destructive as it is immature. There is something healthy in competition, but, as with most things, taken to extremes it becomes toxic. Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck are case in point.


    by Orlando on Mon, 09/06/2010 - 10:09am

    So are these ordinary people your "basic principals?"


    by Donal on Mon, 09/06/2010 - 10:02am

    Haha. Good catch. I have to think it was intended and is, therefore, very clever!

    by Orlando on Mon, 09/06/2010 - 10:12am

    Yes, taking good care of the ordinary people is at the heart of my basic political principals.


    by David Seaton on Mon, 09/06/2010 - 10:21am

    Hi David, Orlando. Your conversation reminds me of an email story I got a while back:

    An American tourist was at the pier of a small coastal Mexican village when a small boat with just one fisherman docked.

    Inside the small boat were several large yellowfin tuna. The tourist complimented the Mexican on the quality of his fish and asked how long it took to catch them.

    The Mexican replied, "Only a little while."

    The tourist then asked, "Why didn't you stay out longer and catch more fish?"

    The Mexican said, "With this I have more than enough to support my family's needs."

    The tourist then asked, "But what do you do with the rest of your time?"

    The Mexican fisherman said, "I sleep late, fish a little, play with my children, take siesta with my wife, Maria, stroll into the village each evening where I sip wine and play guitar with my amigos, I have a full and busy life."

    The tourist scoffed, " I can help you. You should spend more time fishing; and with the proceeds, buy a bigger boat: With the proceeds from the bigger boat you could buy several boats. Eventually you would have a fleet of fishing boats. Instead of selling your catch to a middleman you would sell directly to the processor; eventually opening your own cannery. You would control the product, processing and distribution. You could leave this small coastal fishing village and move to Mexico City, then Los Angeles and eventually New York where you could run your ever-expanding enterprise."

    The Mexican fisherman asked, "But, how long will this all take?"

    The tourist replied, "15 to 20 years."

    "But what then?" asked the Mexican.

    The tourist laughed and said, "That's the best part. When the time is right you would sell your company stock to the public and become very rich, you would make millions."

    "Millions?...Then what?"

    The American said, "Then you would retire. Move to a small coastal fishing village where you would sleep late, fish a little, play with your kids, take siesta with your wife, stroll to the village in the evenings where you could sip wine and play your guitar with your amigos."

     


    by mageduley on Mon, 09/06/2010 - 1:00pm

    First of all those in the upper socio-economic strata as well as those more intelligent have always looked down their noses at those below them to one extent or another.  Judging those beneath or above them is as common as a case of the sniffles.

    Second I believe this phrase applies. Noblesse oblige

    That those who are better off have an obligation to those who are not seems to gotten lost some how and even acquired a negative connotation in some circles.


    by cmaukonen on Mon, 09/06/2010 - 2:24pm

    I'm going to do a post on this sometime soon, but just a note about two friends of mine who (separately, they don't know each other) have just returned from the USA, where they took commuter trains and shuttle flights and they said the conditionsof the planes and the delays were like the third world... and of course their impression was that Americans were even fatter than ever, if that were possible... whole families riding around on little electric scooters, eating from huge bags of junk food, too huge to walk. Depressing.


    by David Seaton on Mon, 09/06/2010 - 3:35pm

    They especially noted how much worse white working class people looked than five years ago.


    by David Seaton on Mon, 09/06/2010 - 4:23pm

    David, just curious, do you plan on living, or see yourself coming back to live, in the US again?  Do you vote in Spain, the US, or nowhere?  What prompted you to move to Madrid? 

    You probably answered those questions at the cafe awhile back but I didn't see what you wrote on that.


    by AmericanDreamer on Mon, 09/06/2010 - 9:24pm

    I don't think I'll  ever live in the USA again. I have my life here. When I vote, I vote on an absentee ballot. As to why I live here, that is too long a story to get into now, it was brought about by a problem in the family ages ago.


    by David Seaton on Tue, 09/07/2010 - 1:41am

    Latest Comments