Squishy Right publications obsessed with being "elite opinion makers"

I know there's a lot going on today but I wanted to pass this along. I read this article at The Atlantic about the Ft. Hood shooter by Jeffrey Goldberg. In his article he describes the opinions of his collegues regarding the Nidal Malik Hasan, and I cringed when I read these lines:

But I do think that elite makers of opinion in this country try very hard to ignore the larger meaning of violent acts when they happen to be perpetrated by Muslims.


Elite opinion makers do not, as a rule, try to protect Christians and Christian belief from investigation and criticism.

It instantly reminded me of this line posted at NRO by Anthony Dick on July 8, 2009:

It is not enough for conservatives simply to be intelligent or sophisticated. They have to project these qualities, conspicuously and convincingly, in order to get past the visceral prejudices of elite opinion-makers, who generally regard conservative ideas as some combination of boobish, evil, backward, boring, dangerous, and simplistic.

The Atlantic and National Review are examples of the elite establishment of the Republican party. It's not surprising to me that they use the same language to describe what they aspire to be - elite opinion makers. They simply cannot get passed their prejudices of the common American citizen. They strive for a leader to tell them what to do and how to think. Even an assessment of Hasan's character leads to a discussion on what the "elite opinion makers" need to do and say instead of discussing the monster that he is.

I say, speak from your heart and don't try to gain the elite's approval. That's why Palin has been so successful and why The Atlantic and NRO have relegated themselves into niche markets.