What exactly is a "liberal elite"?

[MortSahlFan]

I’d call them “Democrat Elites” because they aren’t liberal.

[QuickSilver]

@octopus

What’s the point in this particular thread?

I think it’s reasonable to want to know what I stand being accused of.

@octopus

It would just turn into a debate about that particular policy or set of policy when the question was about the term liberal elite.

Therein lies the substance. Are “liberal elites” rightly deserving of the label?

@octopus

The policy is asset forfeiture. It is arguably unconstitutional and factually a factor in corruption in law enforcement and the judicial system.

One that is a fault of the liberal elite is the counterproductive support of unions for federal employees. Another is the support of rent control. Another is the support for minimum wage. Another is the support for quotas. Another is the support for social promotion and erosion of standards in schools. Ugh! I can’t stop.

Putting aside the pros/cons of the policies you listed, including whether they are correctly described and characterized, is it your position, as outlined in the book, that it is ‘elitist’ of liberals to promote what are commonly regarded as socialist (as opposed to free market capitalist) policies? If so, I can be persuaded that the policies are socialist, for better or worse. But what exactly makes them ‘elitist’?

@octopus

For a 4-5 hour read, the book I referenced is quite good. Even if you disagree with 90% of it getting an insight into how other people think is very valuable.

Is it fair to question whether what people think about liberals is correct, or must it be accepted at face value without question?

[Voyager]

@Kearsen1

I think we can break it down to a more simple version.
The Elite are those who think they know better than the “others”. How Republicans use the term is very simply the “liberal elite” that think they know better what to do with ‘your money, your taxes, and your wealth’.

So, conservatives who want to take my money to pay for the military are members of the Liberal Elite also? Or does it only apply to things you don’t like, like providing food and health care to the poor?

While you don’t hear much run of the Elite being wrong about Global Warming, you might hear of them being wrong about how to best go about fixing it.
Pretty much all policies positions that have subjective terminology can be. It isn’t that the underlying facts are wrong , it is only when trying to determine the best approach to fixing it that takes some of those liberal elite off rail, and go so far as to say “we know better than you” so just trust us.

Really? You haven’t heard Fearless Leader refer to global warming as a hoax?
There is hardly a single liberal position on the best way to reduce the problem, only that there is one. A debate about how to fix it starting with a shared that climate change is happening and that we are responsible for much of it would help. That wouldn’t involve withdrawing from treaties.

[QuickSilver]

@Bone

I’m not sure how to respond to this because I’m not sure if it’s relevant or a response to me.

For me, I view the term is accurate when describing ideas that are subjective in nature as if they are objective. More specifically, the assumption that one person knows what’s best for the other, not recognizing the idea that each could have different evaluations of the relative utility of a given choice set.

So you do not agree that the “liberal elite” label is often used to disparage those who promote scientifically supported ideas and/or socially progressive values? You think it’s strictly applied as a result of a difference in subjective choice evaluation, e.g. Bud v. Craft IPA?

This is in no way to suggest or accuse you of doing so.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Velocity

Ironically, this sounds exactly like the question/type being referred to by the OP.

I feel no shame in thinking of myself as elite. Well, elite-ish. Frankly, compared to the recent troglodyte tide, I’m practically divine.

[octopus]

@QuickSilver

I think it’s reasonable to want to know what I stand being accused of.

Therein lies the substance. Are “liberal elites” rightly deserving of the label?

Putting aside the pros/cons of the policies you listed, including whether they are correctly described and characterized, is it your position, as outlined in the book, that it is ‘elitist’ of liberals to promote what are commonly regarded as socialist (as opposed to free market capitalist) policies? If so, I can be persuaded that the policies are socialist, for better or worse. But what exactly makes them ‘elitist’?

Is it fair to question whether what people think about liberals is correct, or must it be accepted at face value without question?

I’m not sure if a word has ever been defined in a way that is universally accepted on these boards. You must have me confused with Sisyphus if you think I’m going to attempt that.

[QuickSilver]

@octopus

I’m not sure if a word has ever been defined in a way that is universally accepted on these boards. You must have me confused with Sisyphus if you think I’m going to attempt that.

I’m not asking you for a mutually agreeable definition of the word “elite”. I’m asking you what makes a liberal an elitist. However, your reply is dully noted as demurring from an opportunity of nuanced discussion.

[Bone]

@QuickSilver

So you do not agree that the “liberal elite” label is often used to disparage those who promote scientifically supported ideas and/or socially progressive values? You think it’s strictly applied as a result of a difference in subjective choice evaluation, e.g. Bud v. Craft IPA?

This is in no way to suggest or accuse you of doing so.

Obviously there’s no ownership over rhetoric so I’m sure there are examples of varying usage, some more apt than others. This thread is a good example of that. That being said, something that is scientifically supported and/or socially progressive is not necessarily based on objective criteria and thus could easily fall within the construct of the phrase as I described.

[octopus]

@QuickSilver

I’m not asking you for a mutually agreeable definition of the word “elite”. I’m asking you what makes a liberal an elitist. However, your reply is dully noted as demurring from an opportunity of nuanced discussion.

I’ve already answered the question though. I’m not going to reword it.

[Urbanredneck]

I’m thinking the liberals that are into gun control but live in gated communities and have personal armed security.

I’m thinking actors who talk about saving the planet but live in huge mansions and jet to climate control meetings on their own private planes.

I’m thinking California liberals who talk about supporting personal liberties and equality but fight to control access to beach areas where they own homes.

[QuickSilver]

@Bone

Obviously there’s no ownership over rhetoric so I’m sure there are examples of varying usage, some more apt than others. This thread is a good example of that. That being said, something that is scientifically supported and/or socially progressive is not necessarily based on objective criteria and thus could easily fall within the construct of the phrase as I described.

Would it be fair to characterize the Trump Administration as being “liberal elites” for supporting the Criminal Justice Reform “First Sept Act”?

[begbert2]

The liberal elite are a boogeyman. They’re coming for your guns, your religion, your children, your wife, your house, your job, and your pet hamster. You don’t know what they’re going to do with the hamster.

To the limited degree the term refers to actual humans, I’d say it refers to liberals who are so incredibly wealthy that they can afford to engage in the gratuitously wasteful pastime of entertaining ivory-tower academic liberal fantasies. You know, stuff like women’s rights, colored people’s rights, equal rights for gays and muslims and atheists. Having the absurd opinion that one can live without a gun clutched to one’s bosom. Being so distanced from reality that you think that people aren’t fully-souled humans starting from conception and ending at birth. Crazy shit like that.

If you are so absurdly wealthy that you can afford to espouse opinions like that, you are the liberal elite. Out of touch, detached from humanity, alien in nature, the enemy.

[Chingon]

Real America knows who the Liberal Elite are.

[Velocity]

Some random examples to fit the OP:
Mark Zuckerberg, a billionaire;
Rachel Maddow, who is paid $7 million a year;
Numerous NBA/NFL athletes;
Numerous Hollywood celebrities;
The Kennedys and numerous other political families/politicians;
Numerous other figures in the media.
If those are not reasonable examples of people who are both liberal and elite, I do not know what is.

[QuickSilver]

@Urbanredneck

I’m thinking the liberals that are into gun control but live in gated communities and have personal armed security.

I’m thinking actors who talk about saving the planet but live in huge mansions and jet to climate control meetings on their own private planes.

I’m thinking California liberals who talk about supporting personal liberties and equality but fight to control access to beach areas where they own homes.

What fraction of the population do you estimate these folks make up? Do you believe them to make up a large/majority proportion of liberals, specifically?

[QuickSilver]

@Chingon

Real America knows who the Liberal Elite are.

Draw a Venn Diagram.

[ASL_v2.0]

@Velocity

Some random examples to fit the OP:
Mark Zuckerberg, a billionaire;
Rachel Maddow, who is paid $7 million a year;
Numerous NBA/NFL athletes;
Numerous Hollywood celebrities;
The Kennedys and numerous other political families/politicians;
Numerous other figures in the media.
If those are not reasonable examples of people who are both liberal and elite, I do not know what is.

Sure, but the implication, again (which I think is starting to gain some traction), is that there is an implicit allegation of hypocrisy.

Which may or may not be justified for a given case.

But, merely labeling someone a hypocrite, even if true, does not make the views they are “hypocritically” espousing “wrong.”

Which is why I think it’s important for my liberal friends to understand that it’s not just about being educated or wealthy, it’s about the views espoused (the “liberal” part of “liberal elite”), with the achievement of wealth and education (the things commonly associated with “privilege”) within the system being used to bolster an accusation of hypocrisy. As in “you’ve obviously done well in this system that you say we ought to change, and change in a way that will make it harder for others to amass equivalent (to yours) sums of wealth, so clearly you’re a hypocrite.”

It’s an ad hominem, but not in the way you think.

[HMS_Irruncible]

@octopus

The danger is the systematic insulation from and disregard of feedback from the consequences of the counterproductive policy.

Do you think this is particular to liberals? How is this moral hazard any different from, say, conservatives who insist that dismantling the social safety net and rewarding the investor class will help 60-year-olds attain the noble goal of work through dignity? A consequence which is not only immaterial but completely invisible to them?

The reason we hear more about the liberal-elite stereotype is that conservative propagandists know full well that nothing engages conservatives like the merest suggestion that they might not be the specialest snowflakes in God’s predestined world.

[dropzone]

@Bone

This is my understanding as well. A key underlying sentiment that usually permeates the theme of knowing better than the other person is arrogance.

But what if you DO know better? Is that arrogance or simply an acceptance of fact? Must I keep my mouth shut to maintain peace lest I come off as arrogant?

@HMS_Irruncible

True, everyone made fun of Columbus, and everyone also made fun of Bozo the Clown.

but those who made fun of Columbus were right and those who made fun of Bozo were also … right because he wasn’t the least bit funny. Gee, could you have done the joke right and and said “laughed at” so my joke could work better?

@DrFidelius

I thought “liberal elite” meant Jews.

So did I

@MortSahlFan

I’d call them “Democrat Elites” because they aren’t liberal.

Oh, Jiminy Christmas! Is Liberal/Libertarian back to force us to use “liberal” as it was used 200 years ago?

[XT]

@dropzone

but those who made fun of Columbus were right and those who made fun of Bozo were also … right because he wasn’t the least bit funny. Gee, could you have done the joke right and and said “laughed at” so my joke could work better?

I was going to say something similar, though in Bozo’s case, he WANTS people to laugh at him…it’s kind of his job. As for Columbus, it’s funny that folks still use him. He absolutely deserved to be laughed at, as he was dead wrong and an idiot who got lucky. His calculations of the Earths diameter were laughably wrong, and had been proven multiple times they were wrong (and we are talking about 2000 years or so before, as well as by his contemporary…well, not peers, as he wasn’t in their league) , and he never did admit that he didn’t in fact find a way to India.

That he was a monster as well just rounds things out.