The Real Snobs

Two weeks ago New York Times columnist David Brooks wrote a piece entitled "The Heyday of Snobbery," arguing that the Democrats, in taking back control of Congress, were gloating with unprecedented force. Further, he claimed that popular culture acts as an enforcer of snobbery, noting that movies like Borat cater to liberal-elite audiences (in his words, those who shop at Whole Foods) by making fun of mainstream Americans. Neither could be further from the truth.

When it comes to snobbery, no other group comes close to the arrogance displayed by the Republicans after the election of Bush in 2000. And no sub-group of Republicans has a more troubling history of "holier-than-thou" than the religious right. Here's a letter I wrote to the Times in response to Brooks:

On the subject of snobbery, what could be more arrogant than believing, “My sacred book is the absolute truth against which all others are false?” What could be more judgmental than believing, “I will go to paradise but you will go to hell?” What could be more intolerant than believing, “It’s not enough to follow my own principles--you must be forced to follow them too?” I may feel a sense of pride when buying organic produce, perhaps even a sense of superiority. But this is a far cry from the grandiose conceit of the religious right, a group of super-snobs David Brooks conveniently fails to include in his rigged, unfair fight. Intolerance is truly intolerable, especially when it rests on blind faith and superstition.

Concerning Borat, I wonder if Brooks even saw it. His description bore scant resemblance to the movie I watched. In it, Sasha Baron Cohen's character made fun of almost everyone, beginning in--of all places--liberal New York. How, for example, did playing an anti-semitic prank on a bed-and-breakfast owned by a Jewish couple cater to the liberal sense of humor?

Brooks can't see that labels like "liberal elite" and "people who shop at Whole Foods" are at least as snobby and judgmental as the attitudes he is trying--and failing--to criticize.

Indeed, does David Brooks believe that people living in rural areas think and act with the same tolerance and acceptance as people living in cities and forced daily to interact with others of vastly different backgrounds, customs, languages and appearances? This is a question of social science, and its answer rests on observation and statistics. But given his description of Borat, I'm not confident a response from Brooks will include accurate observation.

- JT Compton