375. Three Versions of Elite Blindness: (1) Coastal Blindness

First there's the blindness of coastal elites to the plight of white rubes in the Heartland — Rustbelt and South.  Liberal bloggers, following Michael Moore after the election, lament it so: "My hat off to the man from Flint [Moore].  He understood the frustration and anger of those in the Heartland.  We out here on the coasts totally missed it" (Daily Kos, 11-8-16).

That's  a failure common in all humanity, blindness to the suffering of others, and though the American version is probably no worse than most, it will be cited more eagerly.  Conservative Americans jump at the chance to hang an Insensitive tag on liberal Americans and liberal Americans would rather blame themselves than assign the blindness to human nature.

Assign incapability to human nature and you're doing what dictators do.  "Can't you see what a mess the country is in?  Common people aren't capable of governing.  They don't have the intelligence.  You need an uncommon person.  Like me."

There's the end of democracy, and any role for the liberal elite.  And there rises the prime fear in any political faction, fear of its own death.  Which becomes fear of germs.  Can't use the word "stupid" for Trump voters.  It'll make us sick of the common man.  They must be "frustrated."  Intelligent people "angry" at an injustice done to them.  By us?  Oh yes, if necessary.  Much better than to have the only cause be inability to control the juices that rise in them at a rally.

So coastal blindness, blindness to the inability of Trump voters to think about what they hear at a rally, to listen to the words in the way schools teach them to listen, that blindness in the liberal elite on our coasts is in large measure a deliberate blindness.

This is not to be confused with professional blindness, another ailment found in coastal regions.  If, within journalism, your profession is polls you want your conclusions from them to be manageable by your readers.  American readers can manage what David Paul Kuhn concludes about the exit polls in last Sunday's Times, that though "much of the white working class decided that Mr. Trump could be a jerk...they supported the jerk they thought was more on their side — that is, on the issues that most concerned them."  They could not manage a conclusion that they supported Trump simply because they were jerks, vague about the issues, unsure about their concerns, and unable to control their juices when he created issues and concerns, honorable, honorable concerns.

It's a contest between two pictures of voters, one as rational weighers of issues and interests, the other as emotional responders to gut appeals.  Accept the second picture and you lose your analysis, and probably your readers.  The first wins not because the second is an insult to the common man but because it's a handicap to your career.

Next: the blindness of humanities elites to science.