Well, OK, but the question of which side caused this situation is by the by. The simple fact, which I find quite amazing, is that somehow “elitism” has come to be demonstrated by how one speaks rather than eg to what extent the ultra-rich minority is favoured. The article I mentioned puts it well: Cultural elitism has become the deciding factor, which one must avoid at all costs, while economic elitism is tolerated, even condoned, by the electorate. So, for George to heap massive rewards on the nations richest 1% is cheered for because he speaks like an everyday Texan (even though his background is utterly privileged), while a leftist who proposes mimium wage increases or draws attention to the plight of the poor in verbose and articulate English pushes the electorate away.
I have no dog in this fight - I am merely a Brit providing an outside perspective. And what the US electorate has accepted is somewhat surprising from this side if the pond.
Clinton openly blamed gun deaths in the US on the NRA.
Meanwhile, in order to get elected, Bush had to downplay abortion. He said he would not use abortion as a deciding factor on picking supreme court justices.
Also, there are 30,000 gun control laws in the US right now. How many abortion control laws are there?
Clearly, the right to bear arms is at greater risk than the right to choose.
Just like to add this Economist article… a little bit drawn out. Check out the stats on the side… and within the text it says the US is conservative and religious.
"To Europeans, religion is the strangest and most disturbing feature of American exceptionalism. They worry that fundamentalists are hijacking the country. They find it extraordinary that three times as many Americans believe in the virgin birth as in evolution. "
God, who are they asking? All the religious people I know believe in evolution. Sheesh.
And don’t churches in Europe get state subsidies, and isn’t there a giant statue of Christ over Rio, and crosses in every German and Italian classroom, and isn’t the head of state in the UK the head of the national church (!) and isn’t the Pope’s sovereign state in Europe, and…aw, forget it. Sentence first, trail afterwards.
As for the first statement, give us the freedom and we’ll take care of our own welfare, thanks all the same.
Elitism has no political dimension. The left has already been thrown off this high horse enough times, you’d think they would learn not to get back on. You are neither smarter nor richer.
Soros comes to mind, from yesterday. A $1,500 a plate (of hot dogs) dinner is SOP for US politics. Nobody ever raised money like Clinton, until Bush.
“nor richer”… Point being, your political affiliation – alone – tells me almost nothing about you from a useful information standpoint. There are plenty of rich “liberals” that act pretty “conservative” when push comes to shove.
No, no, that line (about the punishment, trial and crime in that order) comes from Through the Looking Glass (Red Queen and White Queen), not Alice in Wonderland (Queen of Hearts).
Posted by Beagle:
Of course elitism has a political dimension. In fact, it is a political dimension in its own right. See the analysis in Up from Conservatism, by Michael Lind. It’s not that elites are more likely to be liberal or conservative, it’s that each political position has its populist form and its elitist form, and there are significant differences between them.