Great comment(s) Old Fart, but I think you should append to the statement above that this singular characteristic has been waning for some decades.

I’ve decided that one of the main reasons Europe is baffled (horrified?) by America is that we really DO think the government belongs to us, rather than vice-versa. Never had a King (the only guy offered the job turned it down), and are proud of being citizens as opposed to subjects. I can’t speak for others, but I would aspire to be a guy who forgets how many houses he owns. And married to a rich, big-breasted blonde.

But all that has little to do with leadership ability, nor governing philosophy. Obama is a full-on nanny-stater, McCain only slightly less so. We (I think I can speak for most) are mainly pissed off that these are our only available choices of job applicants right now.

isn’t that the point of being president [...]?

No. Americans can’t stand Presidents who think that way. Read up on Adlai Stevenson for the archetype of that.

the nature of his military and political achievements have long since removed him from the realm or ordinary guyness

You misunderstand my point. Others can believe that about McCain. He is not allowed to believe it about himself. He is very specifically not allowed to think it makes him deserving of being President. To think that is to take the decision away from the citizenry, who alone decide who is deserving of holding that office. McCain can go on about how he is qualified, but to me that’s a very distinct thing.

The fundamental nature of Western democracies is that through the democratic process we basically put our future safety and wealth in the hands of an elite

Not in America. We put our future safety and wealth in our own hands. The government is a tool we use to help us with that, and the people who serve us in government better do a good job or they’re fired. You may think of elected officials as rulers, Americans think of them as the equivalent of contractors hired to take care of things we’d rather not do ourselves. For that same reason, we like to hire people we can think of having a personal relationship with, not someone who thinks we’re idiots who need their expertise. And that goes right back to the previous point, which is people don’t mind contractors who are up front about their qualifications for the job, but can’t stand ones who presume they’re entitled to it.

I suppose what i’m trying to say is that you’d have to be a fool to believe McCain’s [...] schtick

Quite possibly. But the subject wasn’t whether McCain’s technique would work, or work on non-fools, but (1) why it would be effective if it did work and (2) why it has very little to do with how much money or how many homes McCain has. Beyond that, even a cynical recognizes hypocrisy as the tribute vice pays to virtue. McCain at least cares enough to fake it. If a candidate isn’t even willing to do that or is so out of touch that he isn’t even capable of faking it, that’s a very bad sign.

Err … isn’t that the point of being president ergo McCain is an elitist. I mean, the nature of his military and political achievements have long since removed him from the realm or ordinary guyness – as I believe Benji pointed out above.

The fundamental nature of Western democracies is that through the democratic process we basically put our future safety and wealth in the hands of an elite whom we like to believe are competent to manage them. In other words, we abrogate the right to run large parts of our life in a manner of our choosing.

I suppose what i’m trying to say is that you’d have to be a fool to believe McCain’s “aww, shucks, I just speak it like I see it” schtick as though he were some schmo down the local boozer you’d be happy to hand control of the nation’s finances and military to.

[I]f Barack Obama is elected president with a significant popular mandate, a number of Democrats riding his coattails to the House, and enough senators to scuttle the filibuster of his legislative agenda — all of which seem entirely possible — he will inherit a historical opportunity to civilize the United States in ways not seen in a generation.

Perlstein goes on to recommend that, basically, Obama lie about his actual policies by governing like an Old Labor leader despite his campaign rhetoric. Why should he do that? Because it’s for our own good as Americans and we’re too stupid to figure it out so our “betters” need to lie to us to get it done.

One may argue about the acuracy, morality, and efficacy of such a policy, but arguing it’s an attitude that is popular in the USA is ludicrous. And that’s what Senator McCain’s charge of “elitist” means, and why it’s an effective charge that doesn’t work against McCain. It’s re-enforced by the McCain “Straight Talk Express” vs. the Obama’s campaign’s excessive document security, exemplified by the whole birth certificate imbroglio, which gives credence to the “Obama knows best what you little people need to know about him”. Anyone who projects an attitude that is compatible with uttering “little people” is going to find winning elections a hard uphill struggle.

Elitism is a state of mind. Acquired wealth is a material state that may have a greater or less impact on one’s state of mind.

Equating the 2 seems to be a desparate ploy by practitioners of the politics of envy and resentment to neutralize what they fear may be a fatal weakness in their favored candidiate.

I’m not sure that people necessarily think that intellectulism is a bad thing (except to the extent that it is often asscoiated with condescention); the issue is whether or not ordinary folk are going to relate well to someone they percieve to be so much of an intellectual that they can’t trust such a person to have a good feel for what matters to them.

Americans, to a substantial extent, want leaders that they can feel are sufficiently like them as to understand what matters to them in a non-theoretical way. That’s why the drinking in the bar thing is significant – is there even a comman language ? To relate this in UK terms, this isn’t all that different to the way that many Scots do not relate well to English leaders, and southern English voters could feel comfortable with Blair – even though they may have disagreed with him.

Ahhh, that clears it up. You should have been a talmudic scholar. The distinction is lost on me.