Understood and that is certainly not my intention. If we are to debate this I want it to be on my terms. That is, the point in contention being Beagle’s mischaracterization rather than lefist beliefs themselves. I was careful to refer strictly to his action and not to generalize about him. I have never been in the habit of violating the posting guidelines here.
Now then, to debate your assertions.
Cite? Specifically, I would like to see some proof that myself and others like me hate the “productive elements of society”. A definition of this phrase seems a reasonable place to start. And, to save me from quoting you again, please offer evidence that our belief in social justice equates to Communism.
I do study history. Particularly the place and period from which this quote is derived. Please, show some historical examples of how the modern lefitist ideals are the exact opposite of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. A reasonable place to start would seem to be an accurate description of our ideals. Can you manage that?
The example often admired by leftists as a socially just nation is my motherland; Sweden. Assuming you agree that this fits our notions then please offer evidence of death squads and re-education camps there.
A slight nitpick: communists are not liberals; they are socialists. Liberals are leftists who believe in markets; the varying kinds of socialists are leftists that want to replace them with varying economic systems. Every socialist I have met ( or at least every one I discussed this with ) has rejected the label of “liberal” and most look down on us liberals as sell outs. All liberals are leftists but not all leftists are liberals.
Very true 2sense, thanks for the correction.
Personally I do not reject the essential role of markets in a just society, yet I consider myself both a socialist and a liberal. (Olentzero probably would dispute my claim to the socialist label, especially as I have never been Marxist in any sense, but that’s another debate.) To me, “socialism” simply means the idea that a (roughly) classless society is both a desirable goal and an achievable one. The kind of society I have in mind is the background of Kim Stanley Robinson’s Pacific Edge (St. Martin’s Press, 1995), the most plausible utopian novel I have ever read. In this future America, following some kind of political revolution led by the Greens (presumably nonviolent, but no details are given), there is still a socioeconomic pyramid, but the top and the bottom are forced a lot closer together: Everyone is guaranteed an income of $10,000 a year and nobody is allowed to have more than $100,000 a year – any excess is taxed away. This produces a society where all people can feel like they’re in it together, while still leaving plenty of room for energy and ambition to seek greater rewards. As the characters occasionally say, “Everybody wants to be a Hundred.” But this society is not a state-run command economy. Practically all economic activity is done by private enterprises; the state’s only role is to limit their size, breaking up any corporation that grows too large for all its officers and employees to know each other on a personal basis. It’s all based on the idea that all important human relations should be touchy-feely rather than impersonal and bureaucratic.
Class-based politics is mystifyingly notable by its absence in the US. As Paul Krugman puts it, elitism has been redefined solely in a cultural context rather than an economic one. Hence, liberals who propose improvements to the lot of the poor in articulate English are somehow seen as elitist snobs, while conservatives who blatantly favour the very richest are let off the hook so long as they appear down-home and folksy.
This somewhat bizarre situation to the outsider is perhaps best exemplified by $1500 hot dogs.
Robinson creates a similiar economic system in his Red Mars sequence. I can’t recall if the Martian Constitution gets written in Green Mars (which I’m currently rereading) or Blue Mars. In that constitution, basic survival needs (remember, this is Mars: air is not a given) are guaranteed, corporations must be owned by their employees and cannot exceed (IIRC) 100 persons in size. Joint ventures were permitted but there were also restrictions.
Ahh…the classic response of the Left: “You just aren’t intelligent enough to know that I’m right.”
Just as annoying and insulting as the classic response from the Right: “Well, if you just worked a little harder you wouldn’t BE poor.”
Yes, she entertains us all. There are a lot of other scions of inherited wealth who do little or nothing. George Bernard Shaw defined a gentleman or a lady as someone who produced more than they consumed through their personal efforts. Everybody else was a bum.
Lotta bums in America.
Yes, and note that these high taxes for the rich coincided with a period of very high prosperity for all. An important lesson for all conservatives. Whether or not it CAUSED the prosperity is of course debatable, but there’s no arguing with the fact that it didn’t PREVENT the prosperity.
No, the people who represent the working poor’s interests. 
The funny thing about a statement like this is that it is almost a perfect, one would even dare say suspiciously perfect, example of the very sort of out-of-touch liberal elitism that I was asking about. Indeed, the statement is so very elitist that one must wonder if it hasn’t been planted by an anti-liberal provocateur.
But what does that say for the honesty and integrity of a self-styled “party of the common people” when they refuse to represent the interests of so many of the common people? How trustworthy can such a party be at all?
Likewise, what is the fundamental imperative of a progressive? Is it to see to the needs of every single-issue interest group first and then worry about the proletariat in general much later–all the time lecturing that selfsame proletariat on how intellectually inferior they are for daring to not embrace the most cutting-edge social trends? Would it not better serve a progressive organization to reach out to the proletariat and show them who’s really pulling strings–setting one group against the other to keep them all divided? Or is it better to instead latch on to some of the most extremely divisive causes as stridently as possible, thereby aiding and enlarging the very policy of the reactionaries?
I agree that the matter is used as grist for a propaganda mill–but does that mean that there is no such thing as leftist elitism? Does that mean that leftists and liberals do not tell themselves that everybody who doesn’t agree with their agendas is inherently stupid? From my direct experience, I’d say that “elitist mindset” goes hand-in-hand with the modern anti-populist liberal and leftist leadership. If they weren’t elitists, where are the populist leaders in their top echelons?
Your attempt to characterize my question as “gleeful” proves that you are an excellent model of such elitism.
Then what was all that Democrat hand-wringing about how people who made well over the median household income would get left out of the thing?
One of the most interesting points raised on this thread and elsewhere on the SDMB to my mind, is the consistent pattern that conservative posters have of mistaking liberals for socialists. I’m all for the capitalist system, I just think it should work to the benefit of all the people and not just the rich and the super-rich, as it does as present. This is a fairly consistent approach for liberals, yet conservatives keep saying we want to destroy capitalism. I’m thinking it’s another case of strawman, a strawman meme that’s been so widely spread among conservatives that when they look at anyone left of, say, Attila the Hun, they see a socialist whether there’s one standing there or not.
Heck, Dog, I dunno. I might have a cogent refutation to your premise if I had any idea what the “hand-wringing” was, or what “the thing” is.
It’s all kind of pointless anyway, you are positing a political and social prejudice as a fact. Like most such arguments, it is entirely immune to rebuttal. No facts can be offered to refute such a claim, it is a theory that cannot be tested.
What the “liberal elite” canard reminds me most is when I was but a wee little commie. People muttered darkly about those “northern agitators” coming down to Texas and stirring up trouble amongst “the colored”. How if they would just mind their own business, things could progress in a sensible fashion towards a racial parity that might well be achieved in a couple hundred years, or so. Don’t want to rush this sort of thing.
Were there “northern agitators”? You bet! Were they right? No question! Did they sneer at the backwardness and ignorance of thier opponents? Well, what if they did? Those three college kids who were murdered in Mississippi, were they “liberal elites”? Its all a matter of definition, isn’t it?
An argument that cannot be based on facts cannot rise above an “Is too! Is not!”.
But I shrug. Hell, I’m still trying to figure out how New Isk derived a carload of conjecture about my personality and views from my observation that Paris Hilton is not a particularly productive person. Maybe he’s a deconstructionist.
Dogface: does that mean that there is no such thing as leftist elitism?
I don’t think anybody here has been arguing that there is no such thing as leftist elitism. I, for one, am simply arguing that
-
it’s inaccurate to describe leftists in general as elitist, and
-
it’s inaccurate and perhaps even dishonest to suggest from the OP’s link that Thomas Frank is trying to describe leftists in general as elitist.
Does that mean that leftists and liberals do not tell themselves that everybody who doesn’t agree with their agendas is inherently stupid?
Correct: leftists and liberals in general do not tell themselves that everybody who doesn’t agree with their agendas is inherently stupid.
Your attempt to characterize my question as “gleeful” proves that you are an excellent model of such elitism.
How on earth does calling someone else’s argument “gleeful” automatically make one an elitist?
In any case, conservatives themselves don’t seem to have any qualms about using the word “gleeful” to describe their adversaries:
There. By Dogface standards of logic, I have just proved that conservatives are elitist. I repeat:
Dogface:
But is he right or wrong? Shouldn’t that matter more that whether a statement is “elitist” or “condescending” or “out-of-touch”?
Who is one supposed to be “in touch” with when one is simply criticizing a statement made by another individual?
Couldn’t SCIENCE be regarded as “elitist and out-of-touch” and therefore be regarded as invalid?
Doesn’t this “elitist” bad, “mainstream” good attitude amount to an “appeal the the masses” fallacy?
Does this mean there’s no such thing as stupid people? In my book, anyone who beleives that the Bible is the inerrant workd of God is stupid, and there’s a lot of them and they’re on the Right.