I felt the need to reflect on something I just heard on C-SPAN a few minutes ago. I was watching the tail end of a Q&A interview with Michael Gerson, Bush's former speechwriter. He and Brian Lamb were discussing Bush and his reading habits, and and the conversation led to a point in which Gerson commented the Bush was not anti-intellectual, but anti-elite, and opposed to the contempt elites have for the common man. Bush was lauded as a regular guy, with a common man's disposition. Now, some may accuse me of predictable Bush-bashing, but I find that declaration dubious. Bush is a man born into the patrician elite, and has reaped many of the privileges of his wealthy upbringing. He just hides it better than say John Kerry, who is actually less wealthy, but still gets painted as a Brahmin (which he is). What is it about Bush, who is just as much a product of wealth as Kerry and Gore, that allows him to pass as a regular guy? Is it because he's legitimately more likeable, as those who've met him attest? Kerry comes off as an emotional black hole, and Gore has his issues, but how is Bush any less of an elitist? Keep in mind, that I'm not suggesting that there's anything wrong with wealth.
Take a guy like John Edwards, who started off from poverty, and worked his way up to wealth, and now wants to give back through policies he believes will help the poor. Truly, many may disagree with his policies, but what is it about Edwards that garners so much contempt from some? What I'm asking is, why is wealthy Bush the everyman, while wealthy Edwards is a self-righteous elite?
Am I missing something? What I'm asking is, how is Bush different?