If you don't know anyone who likes Donald Trump, is it 'Pauline Kaelism'?

When the famed New Yorker film critic quipped that she only knew of one person who had voted for President Nixon after his 1972 landslide, she made her name a synonym for living in a bubble.

John Minchillo/AP
Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump meets with attendees during a campaign stop at Farmington High School, on Monday in Farmington, N.H.

“Pauline Kaelism.” A criticism named for the longtime New Yorker film critic and directed at those who make bad political judgments because they’re seen as living in a bubble.

When it comes to movies, Kael – who died in 2001 – is known as perhaps the most influential essayist of all time. But when it comes to politics, she’s remembered for a statement she made about Republican President Richard Nixon’s landslide 1972 victory – she only knew of one person who had voted for Nixon.

An admirer of Kael’s, James Wolcott, said her remark should be understood in context. Writing in Vanity Fair in 2012, Wolcott noted that the critic – a resident of Manhattan and Massachusetts – also said, “I live in a rather special world … Where [Nixon voters] are, I don’t know. They’re outside my ken.” As a result, he said, “Rather than showing out-of-touch insularity on Kael’s part, the quote actually shows Kael is perfectly aware of that insularity and is in fact making light of it.”

But political observers have used the term to describe how supposed know-it-alls can be completely misinformed. In many cases, those know-it-alls are left-wing elites. After last month’s terrorist attack in San Bernardino, Calif., National Review’s Jonah Goldberg looked at why arguments in favor of gun control haven’t resonated with the public at large.

“The absence of guns in urban liberal environments leads to a kind of Pauline Kaelism … Many urban liberals only hear about guns when they’re used in crimes, and simply can’t imagine why anyone would want one. As a result, they’re tone-deaf in their arguments,” Goldberg wrote.

And earlier this week, the Washington Examiner’s Byron York talked to numerous New Hampshire GOP activists and found that many didn’t know anyone who supports Donald Trump.

“Given Trump’s big lead in the polls,” York wrote, “if so many politically active Republicans don’t know even one Trump supporter, either the polls are wrong or there is some serious GOP Pauline Kaelism at work in the nation’s first primary state.”

The criticism has been applied to other Republicans as well. After President Obama’s emphatic 2012 reelection, Jonathan Martin – then of Politico – examined how some younger Republicans blamed the party’s “self-selected media universe” for being so startled at the result after it had expressed so much confidence in challenger Mitt Romney’s chances.

“GOP officials have chalked up their electoral thumping to everything from the country’s changing demographics to an ill-timed hurricane and failed voter turn-out system, but a cadre of Republicans under 50 believes the party’s problem is even more fundamental,” Martin wrote. “The party is suffering from Pauline Kaelism.”

Chuck McCutcheon writes his "Speaking Politics" blog exclusively for Politics Voices.

Interested in decoding what candidates are saying? Chuck McCutcheon and David Mark’s latest book, “Doubletalk: The Language, Code, and Jargon of a Presidential Election,” has just been released.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.