DURING this century, the so-called eastern establishment has produced some of America's greatest national leaders. Most notable are the two Roosevelts who served as U.S. presidents -- Theodore and Franklin -- a Republican and a Democrat, respectively.
Both men were raised in a world of private schools and summer homes. Both had certain habits and manners that were peculiar to their class. But they also had the ability to raise their eyes above their class and discern mankind at large.
This is what helped to make them great national leaders. Both Roosevelts could peer into the minds of Western cowboys, European immigrants and Southern farmers and thoroughly understand them. They knew how people from different backgrounds might think and feel.
They were also excellent judges of people, knowing not to attach too much importance to advanced degrees, eclectic tastes and refined table manners. They understood that fashion and virtue were not synonymous.
Theodore Roosevelt, in particular, alluded to the difference between cultural refinement and true nobility in many of his speeches. It is an insight that helped both men become leaders, not just of their class but of all Americans.
Unfortunately, as a group, the eastern establishment has lost these special capacities. It has grown insular, self-conscious and incapable of empathizing with those who might think and feel differently.
The last member of the eastern establishment to win the presidency, George Bush, was not re-elected precisely because people thought he had lost touch with the average man. This disconnection with the common man is most glaringly obvious in the way many members of the eastern establishment view social conservatives and devout Christians.
When the subject of politics comes up, some prominent members of the eastern establishment are quick to despise Christian conservatives, calling them "whackos," "crazies" and incipient totalitarians. Some, both Democrats and Republicans, will complain about having to associate with such people socially.
Yet it would be quite helpful if these people tried to see things from the Christian conservatives' point of view. Such an act of empathy would not force them to embrace the conservative agenda. But it would be illuminating.
Christian conservatives believe they are not the attackers but, rather, the attacked. They were minding their own business, raising children in towns not visited by the eastern establishment, when government came in and turned their world upside down: Condoms were distributed in their schools; explicit sex-education classes were taught there; they were told how to discipline their children; their children received textbooks that insulted their religion. To their minds, government drew first blood, not them.
But, of course, it's difficult for those in the eastern establishment to grasp this resentment because they can't see the world through others' eyes.
This is glaringly obvious when many politicians address religious conservatives at political functions -- generally, their manner is not frank and open but formal and constrained.
Often they listen to arguments but do not really learn anything because they cannot identify with the struggles of Christian conservatives.
In private, some eastern establishment pols have told me that they object to children being taught creation science in home schools and they think teen-age girls should have access to proper birth control. All Americans, they believe, should be forced to march on the same track, including Christian conservatives.
This lack of empathy reveals a serious defect. Christian conservatives often read different books, wear different clothes and have different ways of raising children than do most members of the eastern establishment.
But, as Rudyard Kipling once said, nobility knows no border, nor breed, nor birth. If one peers into the minds of Christian conservatives, at the lamp of the spirit within, one will just as frequently find traits that all humanity admires -- courage, honesty, steadfastness and perseverance. The Roosevelts saw this. European aristocrats like Alexis de Tocqueville saw this, too.
Some members of the eastern establishment may also see this. But their world has become rigid and defined by fixed rules. And it has become parochial. One must read certain journals and newspapers, such as those concerning certain kinds of post-modern culture, and espouse certain opinions on religion and sexual freedom, otherwise one cannot be a full-fledged member. The eastern establishment is no longer defined by a vigorously independent spirit, like that of Theodore Roosevelt, but by a checklist of customs.
Some cling to these customs with such a tenaciousness that one wonders if they are the wellspring of all confidence. Perhaps some dare not express sympathy with the Christian conservatives lest they be thought not members of the establishment but something less.
New York is the state where both Theodore and Franklin Roosevelt began their political careers and entered national politics. The two most recent governors of New York, the Democrat Mario Cuomo and the Republican George Pataki, also have been considered candidates for national office. Interestingly, neither of them is from the eastern establishment. Both are sons of Italian immigrants.
These men are considered possible presidential or vice presidential candidates at least in part because they easily relate to different groups.
They can calmly assimilate the differences to build political coalitions. Their sensibility is perhaps not greater than current leaders of the eastern establishment, but it extends to more people.
Hence, the special capacities once possessed by Theodore and Franklin Roosevelt have not disappeared into the obscurity of the past. They live on in America, but not in that class that was once their greatest repository.
Ronald W. Dworkin writes from Baltimore.
Pub Date: 3/09/99