From Wikipedia:
“It is commonly invoked pejoratively, with the implication that the people who claim to support the rights of the working class are themselves members of the ruling classes and are therefore out of touch with the real needs of the people they claim to support and protect.”
These are examples of the ones we notice.
To me, the ‘Hollywood elite’ is the worse subset of liberal elite. If anyone really needs examples, they will be provided.
I mean, I t would supposedly apply to those the same, if they ran on policies of taking your money and giving it to the US Armed forces (except you know the term Liberal would no longer apply, it’d be Conservatives Elites!). But it currently resides where those who think they know better where and how to spend someone else’s money, money that they want to tax others for to spend in the correct way because those others don’t know how to spend it correctly.
We can bring up Trump all day long, he’s an idiot and definitely could be deserving of the label if he ran around telling others that he wanted to tax them so he could pay for whatever.
Whether it’s right or wrong, or in between. We can’t even agree there is such a thing?!
Climate change The FIX: Get everyone to agree to immediately eliminate 90% of all fossil fuel usage. EVERYONE.
Done.
I’m not sure how that’s germane. If you elaborate I could offer an opinion, though as a threshold matter I take it you don’t consider the Trump Administration to be liberal, therefore the example doesn’t seem on point.
You do you. Other people can judge as they see fit. If you’re talking about the calculation of the arctangent of an angle, you could be objectively correct. If you’re talking about the best way to order a person’s affairs to maximize utility, an attitude of humility is better than one of arrogance.
There are definitely problems with the economic right as well. Two of many being too much faith in the free market and the economic models that assume humans are rational. But that’s a different topic.
Here is another video - recently Ilhan Omar said that “most Democrats…it’s the one thing that everyone accuses us of, we think we’re the smartest in the room, we are very policy-oriented, we care about the details, just today we were, you know, fighting about a lot of things that most people can’t understand.”
Would you happen to have a link that wasn’t clipped short by the “GOP WAR ROOM”? I would love to hear it in context.
First Steps Act was widely held as a liberal policy, though it did gain bipartisan support. Nobody called conservatives who supported it, “elites”. That label seems to be primarily attached to liberals when they espouse values/policies that the conservative right generally opposes.
I acknowledge that’s how you view the term and I’m sure people use it that way. I don’t share that view and I explained how I construe the term. Based on that, the First Steps Act doesn’t seem like it is fairly characterized as liberal elitism.
See, when it’s your side, it’s “faith”. When it’s the enemy side, it’s obvious virtue signaling and feigned compassion. This is the fundamental attribution error expressed in sociopolitical-theoretic terms.
I’m glad to see that you believe in proposing solid no problem to implement solutions to our problems. Not.
Take up a collection to build a nuclear submarine, and see how much you get. The benefit to the country as a whole of that sub is great, but the benefit as perceived by each taxpayer (who will never even get to see the sub) is a lot less than the benefit of the money. And they will totally discount the cost of the Russians/Chinese/Grand Fenwickans rolling in.
You think Joe Putz who maybe takes two minutes to read about something the government wants to buy is better qualified than people with experience and training? If you think so, I suppose you diagnose yourself on the internet and don’t bother to go to those medical elite guys. “I read about how some doctor misdiagnosed something or botched an operation, so they are all losers and I can do better.” Is that your general position. How to spend our money is less important then our health, isn’t it?
If you don’t want to bring up Trump, how about the other climate change deniers, all on the right.
Your solution is about the same as saying we will cure obesity by having everyone eat only 10% of the food they do now. What could go wrong?
I dont know what fraction but they put their voices to alot of causes and can show up to an event and bring in lots of money so they have a TON of clout. Way more than they deserve.
Where is the gate in my community and where is my armed guard? Nowhere to be found. If I generalized this way about you you would no doubt be offended. So, I can just say you are full of shit.
I’ll agree that right wing climate change deniers to jet to meetings to lobby for more pollution are much more honest.
Guess what. Liberal old California has a low preserving beach access. The guy who is trying to keep people from his beach is hated by liberals. Not that this has anything much to do with liberalism.
You think the same of the Kochs?
Concur.
It’s so annoying when the question is about one side and someone can’t help him or herself from posting, “both sides do it.”
Did you actually read the OP?
[QUOTE=Boycott]
You get conservatives who went to top class higher education institutes, like Ted Cruz at Harvard, frequently use the “liberal elite” tag to degrade opposition points of view as out of touch. What makes him - a conservative - in touch with the ordinary folks anymore than a liberal at Harvard?
[/quote]
The real question, as alluded by the OP, is why are conservatives, who demonstrably are every bit as elitist as liberals, so disproportionately obsessed with the idea of liberal elitism (to the point of writing entire books about it, and insisting this thread is about the perfect definition of liberal elitism).
Just replace the term “radical republican” with “liberal elite”. The name has changed over the last 150 years, but same-same
Yes, but when challenged on that definition, you fall back to it just being an opinion. Such an argument doesn’t work in this context, since we’re actually trying to figure out what the term means. In that context, it matters less how you use the term, and more how it is actually used in discourse.
My observation is that the term usually refers to the idea of liberals who, due to privilege, are out of touch with the concerns of the poor and working class. They offer solutions that are overly simplistic and miss the real world issues. They are too caught up in the idealism to make sure their ideas are practical.
This idea is, like most conservative insults, overused. It is definitely about playing up the divide between blue states and red states. It is used as a way to dismiss any liberal ideas as being impractical.
But, as someone who lives in a small town myself, I’ve definitely seen it–the person who is both liberal, but also elite in denying the needs of the working class. It’s just far more rare than conservatives would have you think.
I would agree with those who say that upper class conservatives are more likely to be truly elite. The rich libertarian mindset that is inherently elitist, while rich liberalism isn’t.
On the other hand, NIMBY liberals are definitely the liberal elite. They say they care about all these things, but, when it has to impact their lives, suddenly they become just as shitty as the conservative elite.
The thing about conservative bogeymen is that they do usually base the idea on something that actually exists. They just exaggerate it to the point where it often loses all meaning. But I don’t think that “liberal elite” has quite gotten there yet.
That said, I would not use it. I would use the liberal terms. I’d simply refer to privilege and classism–when such is actually appropriate. And I note that, despite this being a liberal leaning message board, I’ve only encountered that a handful of times here.
I do very much agree this is the actual underlying question of the OP, though. Those bringing up conservative elites are not distracting from the topic.
Sure, getting the definition of “liberal elite” is also important. As is understanding the underlying mindset. But the OP is definitely also about why conservatives only seem to care about the liberal elite, when the conservative elite seem to be more numerous and more influential on policy.
It would be very nice if we could decouple elitism and liberalism in the minds of voters. Those of us in rural America should embrace a lot of liberal ideas, since they actually are trying to help. I myself am liberal in part because of my rural status, and my belief that nothing in conservative policy actually seems to be a solution to rural problems.
I think it’s just partisanship at work. People tend to be far more forgiving of flaws of someone that they perceive to be on the same side or team as they are on, than someone from the opposing side.
Another reason might be that conservative elites may be rich or powerful, yes, but they are perceived to have done so openly and in a non-contradictory way (i.e. “that conservative may be a fat-cat CEO, but hey, that’s capitalism”) whereas liberal elites who criticize income inequality, yet are millionaires or billionaires themselves, are perceived as hypocrites. It’s the reason Bernie Sanders gets slammed for owning 3 houses and being a millionaire (which, actually, by presidential-candidate standards, is pretty modest,) but few if any conservatives have a problem with a rich Republican - “he never pretended to be anything other than who he was.”
For the most part the rich liberal uses his money to try to make life better for those without as much. Bill Gates is an example. The rich conservative uses his money to try to get more money.
Both sides donate to cultural activities, in that they are somewhat the same.