Lee Siegel begins his essay with a somewhat confused analogy about an out-of-control wisteria. In some ways, that could be a metaphor for the uneven quality of the essay. Siegel is arguing that those sometimes known as “limousine liberals” have alienated the middle-class from the Democratic party and the liberal agenda. It brings to my mind Tom Wolfe's Radical Chic. But I am not sure that he entirely understands either the middle-class or the elite. A few well chosen statistics would have helped make his case stronger.

Although I am solidly middle-class (and proud of it), I am nowhere in this essay. Apparently the middle class consists of “the white ethnic children of working-class and lower-middle-class parents, themselves the offspring of European immigrants.” Along with African Americans, Asians, and various other people, I don't fit in. I'm white, but when I looked up all the family names I could think of, I found that I belonged to five ethnic groups, while some relatives belong to at least eight ethnic groups, spread across two races. Forget preferring “tribal homogeneity,” we're the people that Barbara Ehrenreich called “the tribe of none.” We don't fit into the salad bowl metaphor of groupings, unless perhaps we're the dressing. I could go on, but let us progress to the beliefs of the middle-class.

Siegel seems to be particularly adamant that liberalized abortion is a peculiarly elite cause, but I'd have to see some figures. In this state, two-thirds of the voters, in an election with a very high turnout, approved a moderate abortion law. This was considered to be a pretty definitive defeat for the anti-abortion forces who opposed it. But perhaps Siegel would see that moderation as a disgusting example of “the liberal elite reflex to compromise and appease,” but I thought it was an outstanding example of getting people to come together over what they can agree on. It is also difficult to reconcile his approval of the Tea Party because “acting on your principles and losing was more honorable—and more inspiring” with his excoriation of “Professor Stone” for expressing his alienating opinions.

In other ways, though, I agree that some people, including elites, are often in favor of having someone else do the right thing and take all the risks. His recounting of his conversation with “Lucretia” about her yoga-instructor son who isn't holding up the elite banner, and her ridiculous volte face is priceless. Likewise with “Professor Stone” who idolizes the black underclass that he has nothing to do with and despises the middle-class. I thought his characterization of a “moral vanity” that far outstrips mere hypocrisy is a brilliant observation. I know an extremely liberal person who embodies that quality, although she isn't an elite in Seigel's sense.

Siegel sees the liberal elite as a self-perpetuating class, which makes it a bit odd when he includes Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. They are certainly not from elite backgrounds, even if they have imbibed some of the ideas that Siegel attributes to the elite. Perhaps that shows the pernicious effect of co-option, or perhaps it shows that one needs to be a little careful in making generalizations.

I find his take on the Republicans surprising. I don't think of them as the party that speaks the truth, but rather as a collection of people with a mixture of bizarre and ruthless ideas whose leaders and pundits “moral vanity” far outstrips the liberal elite. I would agree with him that “they do not possess the vocabulary or the idiom to make sense of contemporary reality”, but I don't see how he can argue that they “are finished as a viable political entity.” So who are the people whose are alienated by the liberal elite, and whose “emotions have taken over reason” voting for?

I found the essays interesting and worth reading, if seriously flawed. E. J. Dionne's book Why Americans Hate Politics covers some of the same issues in greater depth and, I think, more insight. ( )