It surprises me that I am quoting our former President George W. Bush in this blog title. He used the phrase “soft bigotry of lowered expectations” in reference to No Child Left Behind and education reform. However, I suggest that today it can have a different meaning. This is the phrase that came to mind while I read the variety of opinion pieces on Sarah Palin’s key note address at the Tea Party Convention in Nashville: “How’s that hopey-changey stuff workin’ out for ya?”
Bigotry means “stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one’s own.” How can lowered expectations in the political realm be equated with bigotry? I am not talking about bigotry based on race or ethnicity, but rather the “soft bigotry” that classifies education with elitism, that denounces the understanding that complex problems don’t always have simple solutions, and embraces low expectations that suggest the public cannot understand nuanced policy discussions.
Mrs. Palin’s speech was important because it shines a spotlight on the increasing popularity of flash-bang politics rather than substantial conversation. A piece of dialogue from political dramatist Aaron Sorkin comes to mind: “We’ve got serious problems, and we need serious people.” Sarah Palin’s so-called populist message is not a serious message for these serious times. Instead, it panders to the baser instincts of American’s. She suggests that a lack of simplicity implies deceit. The fundamental assumption underlying Mrs. Palin’s message is that lil’ ol’ John Q. Public just can’t grasp what’s happenin’ and therefore must be spoon fed sound bites and easily digestible morsels of rhetoric. Palin’s message is not intended to propose solutions or seek the commonweal, instead it embraces intolerance as political belief.
It is possible to explain the complex problems that America is facing in commonly understood terms without coarsening the conversation. But it’s hard. It takes a lot of work and concerted effort to first understand the issues fully and then break them down so that a non-economist can digest the information. (For a wonderful example of this, check out NPR’s Planet Money podcast. Brilliant!) It is far easier to talk about “common sense” and distill a global economic meltdown into corporate fat-cats getting rich at Jane Doe’s expense. That kind of hyper-simplification takes no intellectual rigor only a tongue adept at allegory.
I believe we can set higher expectations of the American public. I have sat with those on the opposite end of the political spectrum face to face and discussed, in fairly nuanced terms, controversial subjects. I have learned from them and I hope they have learned from me. It is not because I am the most learned or wise, or even the most persuasive. Rather, we met as individuals, with respect for the intelligence of the other and discovered much common ground. Those conversations cannot and will not happen on a national scale when one group is cast as an ignorant savage and the other as a brutal elitist.
It can be hoped that the common ground found between individuals can be parlayed into a genuine national conversation, respectful of the listener and the speaker alike. I am not hitching my wagon to that particular star. But one can continue to hope, and speak, and say, come, let us reason together.
