Arnold whiffs.

Do they fit the stereotype of being white, small-town, uneducated racists? Not much racism, but otherwise I would say they fit the stereotype enough to make me skeptical that this is an important political movement. This country is becoming more urban, less white, and more educated. . .

I think the long-term significance of what is going on, both at the progressive end and at the Tea Party end of the political spectrum, is an open rupture. In the 1960's, a Hubert Humphrey or Robert Kennedy could connect with uneducated white voters. The idea of blowing them off was unthinkable, if only because they were such a large majority of the voting population at the time.

Now, the elitism of President Obama and his supporters has reached in-your-face levels. They have utter contempt for the Tea Party-ers, and the Tea-Party-ers know it.

I wouldn't want the Tea Party-ers at the faculty picnic, either. But my sense of class solidarity with Obama and other educated progressives does not make me want to see them exercise power. If anything, being a member of the educated elite and knowing knowing them as well as I do makes me share the Tea Party-ers' fears.

The "elites" are not so well educated as they claim. They are posers for the most part, as is Obama. They have a trade, and some general knowledge appropriate to their class - the soft handed scribes - but their ignorance and lack of raw intellect is plain to see and hear when they act or speak. The best they can claim is that they are fashionable by the current standards of their class and know the secret handshakes. Otherwise they are ordinary, which explains why they are so adamant that they are elites.

One could argue that this country is on the verge of a crisis of legitimacy. The progressive elite is starting to dismiss rural white America as illegitimate, and vice-versa. I see the chances of both sides losing as much greater than the chance of either force winning.

It's not about winning. That ain't the test. It is important to speak out about the illegitimacy of the "progressive elite" because they are illegitimate, are not progressive, and are not elite except in their own eyes. This is just a high school clique impressed with itself but of no real relevance.

The objective of every would-be elite is to gather power, wealth and fame to itself. It doesn't matter whether their claim to fame is military prowess, industrial prowess, or merely being fashionable. It is by definition a minority that seeks to elevate itself above others by any means necessary.

We see how this is playing out in new democracies, which were at one time based on an urban merchant class, the traditional advocates of democracy since it was in their interests. However, elites saw an opportunity to gain power by promising treats to the poorer but more numerous rural populations. In older democracies the pendulum has swung back to the urban areas since they are now more populous.

Part of the genius of the US political system was to anticipate and thwart the predations of power elites through subsidiarity and a legislature based in part on geography and in part on population. This limited oppression by making it more difficult for any faction to gain exclusive power. If we are to maintain legitimacy those realities should be understood and enhanced as appropriate to current development levels. Otherwise, the government is illegitimate for some part of the population, and that ought to trouble every one reasoning in good faith.

The crisis is that so few, especially in the self-described elites, are reasoning in good faith. That can fairly be attributed to their lack of intelligence and education. They fail at their own game.