It’s this quote that gave the Clinton elitism claim some real traction. Taken out of context, it makes it sound like he thinks small town folks are a misguided backwards lot.
Whenever a reporter asks a candidate about the price of a gallon of milk or a dozen eggs, they are really asking about elitism. Is your paradigm that different than mine?
“If feel your pain” is a famous Bill Clinton meme, but it’s representitve of his highly developed political ability for (feigning?) empathy.
People will accept the rich and educated, but not if it insulates them from everyone’s else’s perspective. It’s not you’re background so much that effect’s your (political) elitism, it’s your emapthy.
I think these two statements hit it right on the mark. It’s not about money; it’s about education. Obama doesn’t hide his education or intelligence–unlike Ms. “What do economists know about the economy?” In some people’s minds, that means he’s a snob.
I earned $25,000 last year. Economically, I’m working class. I’m tired of this meme that I’m not a regular working person or that I don’t know what it’s like to pinch a penny just because I prefer novels to NASCAR, hiking to hunting, and pappadoms to pork rinds.
“Mrs. Clinton has also tried to cast her rival, Senator Barack Obama, as an out-of-touch elitist. She has made her case at all the right stops (an auto-racing hall of fame) and used all the right props (lately delivering speeches from pickup beds).”
Geez…
The longer this goes on the more I feel the revulsion for the political process. Its almost as stong as when was in my teenaged years in the late 60’s.
I just read thatarticle as well, and it disgusted me. Further in that article the writer clearly states: *Clinton does not bring up or mention her own biography. *
Because if she did she’d be exposed for who she really is, a hypocritical ass.
Bingo. I haven’t felt so much … what, hatred? … for a politician since Nixon.
ETA:
As a matter of fact, watching Bill at his rally yesterday almost made me puke. Someone fainted, and he was all puffed up about it as though the thoughtless bitch had taken the spotlight off him. “Y’all just give her some water and leave her alone,” he bellowed. “People pass out all the time at these things.”
The use of ‘elitist’ is a tried and true political wedge. It will always be used and it will always work. It is very easy to employ because, for most of the target audience ‘elite=elitist’.
You don’t have to demonstrate that the person you are calling elite (someone who is educated, has financial means, and may possible have developed a taste for some of the finer things in life) also exhibits snobish, looking-down-the-nose (elitist) tendancies. The target audience will assign elitsit tendancies to an elite even if they aren’t present.
Personal story - I grew up in a small farming community where everyone was lower middle class at best. I went to college, moved to an urban area and have a professional career. Along the way I developed a taste for NPR, liberal politics, literature, foreign films, etc.
Recently I returned to my home town for a school reunion. From many who were there, those who had not left town, who were living as my family had lived when I grew up, there was much talk of people being ‘stuck-up’ or ‘thinking they were better than others’. Now, I know some of this was directed at me but honestly, I swear there was nothing I did to deserve the derision, other then show up.
For this crowd that’s all it took. Our politicians know this, our predominant culture says it’s perfectly OK, even encouraged for the non-elites to tear down who they perceive as elite (by calling them elitist). But god help you if you are an elite and say anything to separate yourself from the non-elite.
Myself, I think that most people would consider this a good definition of a left wing elitist:
It begs the question…HOW did your friends and family in your farming community find out that you developed such tastes? Perhaps you shared that knowledge with them…or perhaps you tried to ram it down their throats all with a superior air or perhaps a touch of condescension?
I’m not saying you did all those things yourself (I’m just using your post there to riff off of)…or if you did that you did it consciously. However, a lot of people DO try and ram their superior (supposed) education and left wing tastes, positions and politics down the throats of those who have less refined tastes. They have a (conscious or unconscious) air of supercilious superiority which strikes the wrong cord with some of the good old boy types.
In Obama’s case (since really that is what this is all about), he comes across sometimes as superior…as if he thinks he’s better than other people. I don’t think he does it intentionally, mind…it’s just the way some people see him. And it’s the exact same way people perceive the consummate liberal…as an elitist who knows better than those scruffy masses exactly what they need, since they are incapable of knowing what they need themselves.
They want guns? Well, we know guns are evil so we need to take them away for their own good. They want to drink and drive or beat their wives or kids, or send them to church oriented schools so they don’t have to learn the evils of Evolushun! Can’t have that. They can’t take care of themselves so we need to make sure the government takes good care of them, makes them wear their seat belts, drive within the speed limits and wipes their noses and bums for them.
Sure, a lot of that stuff is a good thing to have…but some people still resent the superior airs that some liberal types give off…the superior air that THEY know what is best for everyone. That they are superior to those scruffy masses, yearning to have a gun and go forth to shoot gray squirrels or spotted woodpeckers to their hearts content. That those superior liberal types look down their noses at NASCAR or the demolition derby or monster car rallies while throwing NPR, Free Air, foreign films and endless coffee lattes in their faces.
Elitist. Obama is one. Though I don’t go for NPR myself, I’m one too…and so are most of the folks writing into this thread. It’s kind of funny to see people on the SD twist and turn about how this is some kind of made up label when you can see that a lot of people on this board really DON’T relate to the average joe out there.
I make a distinction between elite and elitist. I will accept the mantle of elite, it’s a definition I can not deny. Elitist, however, is a behavior. If, by having the gall to show up wearing slacks and a pressed shirt, rather than ripped jeans and a Harley t-shirt with the sleeves cut off, then I guess I am elitist. But now we get into how we let others define us by their pre-concieved notions…
As far how my people find out that I developed such tastes, they don’t. They look at my personal grooming and presentation and that’s all it takes. As for ramming anything down anyones throat, again, you are creating a full blown narrative in your own mind. Stop it.
Due respect, xtisme, but I don’t understand that theory. Why would people want some schlob that they gulp beer with at the bowling alley on Tuesday nights to be the President of the United States? Even the dumbasses who support Hillary learned in elementary school about Washington, Lincoln, Kennedy, and all that. It seems to be that people would want someone in the office whom they see as better than their buddies.
Think the difference between Adlai Stevenson and John F. Kennedy. Or John Kerry and Bill Clinton.
These things are sometimes easier to think of via example. There was a reason why Stevenson and Kerry lost, and Kennedy and Clinton won.
And while people may have known deep down that Kennedy and Clinton may not have been totally sincere in their friendliness and folksiness on the campaign trail, they sure knew what message was being sent by the undeniably elitist signals of the Kerry and Stevenson campaigns.
The rather sad, IMO, message that I come away from that with is never have a nuanced opinion. Default to soundbites and easily digestible snippets that are popular but relatively meaningless (such as “No gas tax”).
Obama’s “mistake” so far is he tries to talk to the electorate like adults. Tries to explain that things are not as simple as they may seem at first blush and to arrive at a good solution we need to explore the problem with a bit more depth than a knee-jerk reaction would lead us to.
For that he gets labeled an elitist. Much better apparently to be HRC, have a shot in a bar and stump off the back of a pickup and never talk about anything to any depth.
Is it no wonder that people become so cynical of the election process and worry about our fellow Americans? I mean how is it HRC is not called on that blatant, pandering bullshit? Why do so many eat it up? If we examine Clinton and Obama bonafides he blows her out of the water easily with a record of helping the less privileged not to mention coming from a not privileged background.
Yet here we are bickering over Obama being elitist rather than having the debate on the candidates focus on their proposals for Iraq or the economy or health care.
That’s not necessarily true at all. I think Kennedy is known for speeches more than sound bites.
What it means is that in politics you have to connect with voters - and at this level you have to connect with voters of many different kinds. That’s hardly a revelation to most people.
Indeed, that is true. What is unfortunate is that it is prefectly acceptable to connect with work-class voters by painting non-working-class voters as somehow worthy of derision.
Back then I think that worked and more what was expected from a politician. I think it has been a steady slide downhill since then and today we are left with the short attention span generation. Obama’s speech on Rev. Wright (the first one) has been largely hailed as the most substantive political speeches since Kennedy. Unfortunately the media and voters have penalized candidates for saying too much. When they do sooner or later they get a turn-of phrase wrong and we get Bittergate and the like pulled wholly out of context and twisted. Better to say universally good sounding tidbits and never explain anything.
I truly think Obama gets beat up for trying to provide detailed explanations for complex issues. On this count republicans have democrats beat. The conservative side is much more black & white about issues. This is right, that is wrong…nuff said. Liberals tend to be more cognizant and tolerant of shades of gray. As such they find it harder to stand shoulder-to-shoulder on various issues and provide a united front. The voters seem to like the, “Here’s your answer in five words or less” approach. It’s a lot easier than dwelling on inconvenient nuances in any debate. Those are boring.
I agree. I’ve heard the Republicans’ 2004 strategy summed up in seven words: “Cut taxes, Iraq War, No Gay Marriage”. Simple and understandable. The national attention span seems to be ever shortening and quick soundbites trump thoughtful answers every time. People seem to demand that leaders be cocksure of themselves and admit no possibility of error. The fact that no economist considers Hillary’s gas tax fraud to be plausible makes her the hero of the common man, ignoring those pointy headed ivory tower types and standing up for a simple but stupid solution. Hopefully Obama can usher in a renaissance of more reasoned political debate where substance triumphs over sound bite.