Elitism Lost 2024

While I believe that a multitude of factors led to Trump’s win, I cannot help but see how elitism set the tone. I saw it in little moments throughout classroom discussions: the sly chuckle and eye roll as you speculated about the absurd reasons why Trump’s campaign talked about sex changes for inmates. These small gestures and quips add up to a clear message– ‘Oh, you silly Republicans, what an absurd belief you have! I can’t believe you’d fall for their messaging about trans rights.’

But the issue is not really about trans people for Republicans. And if you understood Republicans, you would know that it's about women and children. It’s about women’s safety, women’s health, and women’s opportunities. It’s about undue influence on children, preserving innocence, and shielding them from lifelong consequences. 

Of course, you can disagree with every single one of those concerns. But my point is that you won’t be able to engage in any conversation if you think it is laughable for someone to be genuinely concerned about the issue. Time and time again, people usually default to one of two positions when talking about the Republican stance. Either Republicans are fueled by plain stupidity or blind vitriol.

To those that claim plain stupidity, i.e. “Dumb Rednecks!”:

You are actively sowing the seeds of resentment and driving people away. Nobody likes being talked down to. Nobody likes being told they are stupid. Maybe it’s because I’m a conservative in a largely liberal environment, but the condescension is everywhere. So easily a conversation about the failings in the Democratic Party’s strategy devolves into a conversation about how uneducated voters are and how we can better ‘educate’ them. This argument usually brings up the statistic about how Democrat voting blocs are more likely to hold a degree and therefore “know better.” There are a few false equivalences here. Holding a degree does not mean you know politics. I’m confident that being a chemistry major does not help you understand tariffs. Further, having knowledge does not mean you are more intelligent. And lastly, we are all susceptible to biases from our political associations. In fact, according to this study, being more intelligent makes you more likely to fall prey to your own political biases and interpret data more incorrectly than your intelligence would predict. It turns out the Ivory Tower is not infallible.

Even if you maintain the Republicans are just stupid, it is certainly against your best interest to let that slip into your messaging. Many thought it was a problem that Harris initially refused to release a policy plan. Why? Because it tells the voter: “Hey, don’t worry about the policy, I know what’s best.” When people share their concerns, asserting you know what’s best without justification implies that they don’t know what they are talking about or couldn’t understand. The blanket response of “the economy is good!” when people mention their grocery bills is not soothing anyone’s concerns. If you give people the benefit of the doubt and assume they can understand complicated concepts, they probably will be more open to your argument. Saying that “one marker of the economic health, the inflation rate, is going down” is a much better response than asserting the economy’s health despite the high grocery costs that people face. Especially to the ‘silent majority,’ the worst thing you could do is make them feel more unheard and talked down to. You play straight into their elitist fears and Trump’s populist campaign strategy. 

To those that claim blind vitriol, i.e. “Bigoted Transphobes!”:

You are closing your mind to their perspective and thereby losing the vote. Most political debates are about trade-offs. This discussion requires understanding what we gain, what we lose, and who is affected. To assume Republicans come from a place of hatred is to immediately disregard them as irrational. To give your fellow Americans the benefit of the doubt in their genuine motivation will allow you to understand their fears. Then you can begin to debate the trade-offs and workshop your messaging.

For example, a lot of Republicans understand why liberals say abortion is a human right. It is a claim to privacy over one’s own body and future. But they disagree. A lot of conservatives interact with your declaration of a human right, they just believe that the right to life trumps the right to bodily privacy. I think this interplay is a good example of disagreement with understanding of the other side. I have my own thoughts on abortion, but I understand why both sides deeply, and sincerely, care about the issue. And I would severely limit my understanding of the world to assume that people were only pro-life because they hate women or pro-choice because they hate babies. Nobody should boil down the opposition to baby-killers or misogynists. And neither should we characterize an entire party as hateful for hate’s sake.

I also find it hard to believe that half the country could be motivated by hate. It is such a bleak outlook on humanity. I think it serves the country, and our political dialogue, to appreciate where people come from and how they view the situation, even if you disagree with it. 

I don’t think elitism was the driving force behind the entire election outcome; rather, it was a significant factor in Kamala's loss, while Trump and his base were motivated by other concerns and dynamics. A lot of people looked at their grocery bills and saw not only the impacts of a struggling economy but also the consequences of an ideology that failed to represent them and seemed to look down on them. Dismissing their concerns as absurd won’t stop them from showing up at the voting booth.

Author: Bellemy Morgan

The views expressed are the author's alone and do not represent the official position of the GWCRs.