For years we've heard conservatives label their liberal rivals "elitist." And who can blame them, considering how politically effective it has been. The electorate wants a president who is down to earth and in touch with their everyday lives -- someone who will fight for their interests. With this in mind, let's take a moment to examine who the real elitists are.
Merriam-Webster defines elite as "the socially superior part of society" and "a group of persons who by virtue of position or education exercise much power or influence." An elitist politician, then, is one who caters to this stratum of society.
Since the Reagan era, Republicans have been the party of the elites, by the elites and for the elites. Their core philosophy of giving tax cuts to the wealthy and deregulating business activity has fleeced the middle class out of a fair shake. In addition, they've led the charge to bust unions, derail consumer protections, oppose universal health care and fight minimum wage increases. Unsurprisingly, the beneficiaries have been the economic elites.
In 1980, the CEO-to-worker pay ratio was 42 to 1; by 2005 it rose to 450 to 1. In 1980, the richest 1 percent earned 8 percent of the nation's income; since 2005 they've made over 20 percent. By 2007, the top 0.1 (yes, zero point one) percent of Americans owned as much wealth as the bottom 150 million.
For decades, there has been a redistribution of wealth from the working class to the ruling elite. Surely we can all agree that wealth is created, but workers (not merely executives) are vital in creating it. While earnings for the rich have exploded, middle class incomes have been declining for decades, despite longer working hours.
Granted, there's nothing wrong with reaping the fruits of one's labor -- it's the American way. But the wealthy elite have a habit of using their swagger to take advantage of regular folks. Government should keep this power in check, not encourage it. Even Adam Smith, the father of free-market capitalism, declared in The Wealth of Nations that "the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."
The psychological term projection describes a "defense mechanism that involves taking our own unacceptable qualities or feelings and ascribing them to other people." If you think about it, this thoroughly explains why Republicans have cohesively worked to assign the "elitist" label to their Democratic nemeses.
In 2008, John McCain, who married into a $100 million fortune and couldn't remember how many houses he owned, leveled the "elitist" charge against Barack Obama -- the African-American who was raised by a single mother on food stamps. Equally incredible was watching George W. Bush, who received tickets to Yale and Harvard on a silver plate before inheriting a country, cast the same label upon John Kerry in 2004.
The GOP's other challenge, beyond having weak policies, is that modern Democratic leaders are more intellectually accomplished than their Republican counterparts (think Obama, Kerry, Edwards, Gore and Clinton vs McCain, Bush 43, Palin, Quayle and Reagan). To conceal this, strategists have morphed intelligence into snobbery.
So why, then, do Republicans get elected, if their agenda only aligns with the few? Two big reasons: First, they're typically far more organized and better at selling their product, flawed as it may be. Second, they've cleverly shifted their campaign focus toward trifling wedge issues like abortion and flag-burning amendments in an effort to distract working Americans from their waning livelihoods.
By deflecting their elitism onto their rivals, the party of plutocrats has for decades held the trust of millions of Americans while simultaneously swindling them. It's a strategy tactfully designed to obscure inferior policies. Democrats, whose ideals recognize the needs of the working class, have unfortunately let them get away with it.
Social conditioning is a powerful thing. It takes adroit mental gymnastics to believe that Democrats are elitists while Republicans are commoners. Thomas Jefferson famously declared that "if a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." For the good of the country, liberals must step up and educate people on who the real elitists are.
Over 70% of the people have woken up to the repubs fraudulent tactics. If the current president had been of a different race he would have gotten over 80% of the popular vote.
You brought up some good points on how reality differs from the labels that have been used in Politics. Sticks and stones may....Ect. Yeah Right. But they sure hurt in politics.
If Joe Mc Carthy accomplished nothing else , he made Communist, Leftist, Soialist, Liberal, REALLY bad words.
Joe never found a communist, but to the American public; Communist were AGAINST the USA=If you differ with the US government you are a Communist! It stuck.
Civil Rights era split the Democrat party the Christian right poor Refused to be idendtified with the Hippies, Anti War demonstrators,unions, and the label of Commie stuck. Democrat/Liberal/Commie.
So today we have we have a large part of the workforce who identify with the ? patriotic/rightwing/anti commie/god in school/Republican Party.
The Republican party who with Some of our Dems, are working furriously to reduce them and us to worker/serfs Ruled by an ELITE Globalist NeoLiberal Oligarchy.
There are two main reasons, I think, that the "elitist" label sticks so fast to Democrats.
1. Most Democrats are confident that government decision makers have the capacity to make judgments about what is best for the citizens. As a result, they are quick to advocate a system of government in which elites (Congress, regulatory agencies) have the power to make laws and regulations that constrain ordinary people.
2. Many affluent and highly educated Democrats express contempt and disrespect for those of lower socioeconomic standing. The vitriol directed at Sarah Palin and her family (including her minor children) on the Huffington Post is a sad example of this behavior. Democrats will have a hard time convincing voters they are not elitist when so many look down on ordinary people.
You have it all wrong on point #2. To say that "Many affluent and highly educated Democrats express contempt and disrespect for those of lower socioeconomic standing" is wrong because they elected Barack Obama, to represent their party last year. For this to be true, they would have had to elect someone who did not get their start as a community organizer. Also, Sarah Palin has lots of money and therefore is not an example of this disrespect. How else did she go on a shopping spree buying designer clothing while campaigning last fall? Wrong again.
My degrees are quite similar to Obama's, and I spend a lot of time with individuals who have high positions in law, finance, and academia. And I am telling you that the contempt heaped on Palin would curl your toes. Her low prestige schools, her excessive fertility, her husband's blue collar jobs, her daughter's public pregnancy...
And don't think that non-elites do not pick up the contempt in which the elites hold them. Just before the election, my secretary came into my office, upset at what she had overheard two of my colleagues saying about Palin. "They think rural type people aren't real people," she said. I could only agree.
2. You can't really use what is a political shouting match between Democrats taking on the Gov. of a State , as beating up little folks.
The Dems in the past, have represented the common working man, the auto worker, the farm hand, the Police Fire/officers, The School teachers.the Unemployeed, the old .
The Reps, represent AIG, Big Business.Big Oil, Big Money,Exporting Corporate/Serf governments worldwide.
Who's elite, the people who represent Saudi Oil or those who represent the unemployed guy sleeping under the bridge?
2. The Democratic Party does have a fine tradition of respect for working people. But today's Democratic Party movers and shakers do not show much respect for the knowledge, values, and analytical skills of working people. Contrast Hubert Humphrey or Bill Clinton with Obama/Pelosi/Reid.