As I said in the post, I was merely using your post as a springboard…not attempting to associate you necessarily with those concepts. I HAVE seen people who do just what I said though…so, it’s not simply in my own mind.
Why do people what it? Damned if I know…but you can see it’s pretty much a theme that strikes a cord with people. Think of movies like Dave where you have some schlub who is ‘just folks’ become president…it’s a powerful idea. Think of the Jack Ryan books by Tom Clancey and see how powerful the idea of a DC outsider (who is basically a man of the people, blah blah blah) comes in to clean house and show those effete elitists how things are done.
People want the illusion…not the reality. The reality of course is that Hillary and GW AREN’T ‘just folks’…that they are the elite as well. Billy boy wasn’t some jazz playing hillbilly. The founding fathers weren’t ‘just folks’ either.
I think that Obama has to be what and who he is…he can’t pull off a folksy ‘everyman’ act. It wouldn’t work for him and I doubt he could do it even if he wanted to…which looks to me as if he doesn’t. But the very thing that appeals to me about the man is also the thing that turns some off to him…some folks would rather see the illusion of Hillary being ‘just like us’ than the reality that under the surface they are all pretty much the same…they are all elitists. And they are all from and of the elite in this country. Obama simply has the internal courage to not try and hide that fact (though as I said I doubt he could pull it off anyway, even if he wanted to. This leaves aside the fact that if he DID try and pull it off his being black would probably make things worse).
In Obama’s case, “elitist” is a code word for “uppity.” It represents resentment (or at least an attempt to generate resentment) for a black man with a fancy Harvard Law degree who now thinks he’s better than working class white people. He is no richer (actually far less rich) than any of the other candidates, and unlike most of them, he earned his way rather than inheriting it (I except the Clintons in this), so the “elitist” tag makes no sense except as a code word.
JFK was at least third generation rich, the son of one of the richest men in Massachusetts in fact, and enjoyed a life of yachts and parties and skirt-chasing at exclusive private schools and Ivy League colleges and never lived on his income in his life. FDR- same story- lived off a trust fund and his mother’s largesse and spent more on his clothes in a year than most people earned in a year. They were both entitled brats and notorious womanizers and bon vivants (hell, FDR smoked cigarettes out of a foot long holder- how “out of touch” is that?). I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that either or neither of them never went into a grocery store or clipped a coupon or even signed their own rent checks in their lives, yet they were two of the most liberal Democrat presidents we ever had and both were praised by the working classes. I wonder if they would be branded elitist and unelectable today.
Ex-fucking-actly. And the Clinton team is well aware of this. They know full well that they can attack the way they do because they know that America will recoil at the image of “an angry black man”. Any other candidate would have shot back at her, but she knows he has to maintain a decorum that is not required of others. The Clintons are, after all, racist white trash. They’ve used Blacks for nothing more than political expediency, just as they used gays. Dont’ ask, don’t tell, my ass.
Elitism in the political context is not necessarily related to a politician’s own life story. The most populist, common-people-oriented President of the 20th century was probably Franklin Roosevelt of the Hyde Park Roosevelts, for goodness’ sake. Some of the least compassionate people anywhere grew up poor and became rich (and elite) as adults, so the elitism charge is appropriate for them anyway.
Rather, ISTM the term in a political campaign is a charge of lack of sympathy for the common people (and yes, I know use of that term itself is grounds for a charge of elitism, but you have to use something, okay?). More than lack of sympathy, it’s a charge of lack of *understanding * them and their lives - and it can stick even to someone who used to be one of them. Evenmore than that, it’s a charge that the pol in question can’t be expected to arse himself to do anything for them beyond the minimum it takes to get their votes - that he’ll work for his fellow elite instead.
Is there *any * criticism of Obama that can be fairly made without the imputation that it’s racially motivated? :dubious: Haven’t we seen *enough * of that shit here already?
You can’t use a nuclear weapon to win every dispute.
[HIJACK] I’ve looked for a quote I can’t remember the details of- I heard it back in junior high debate class when I knew very little of ancient history and I cant’ remember the details other than I believe it’s from ancient Greece. It sounds like something Demosthenes may have said in one of his phillipics and so I’ve tried to find it by looking up him and Philip of Macedon, but I don’t know it was them and I haven’t been able to google it.
Anyway, the (king or statesman or other) person who was showing his plain folks appeal and whipping up support made a comment to the effect of “You all know I can work harder than any man here, and I’m stronger than any man here, and I can out-[copulate] and out drink any man here!” and of course the toadies go wild cheering him cause he’s one of them, just better at it, and the critic (possibly Demosthenes but I don’t know that) just stole his thunder by saying (something to the effect of) “My horse works harder, is stronger, and can out-[copulate] and out-drink any man here. It never occurred to me that qualified him to lead us.”
Does anybody know this story (possibly a fable) and who the participants were? I think of it whenever I watch “just plain folks” pandering.[/HIJACK]
I suspect “non-working-class voters” generally understand that’s how the electoral game has to be played, and that the game is not closely related to what will happen after the election.
Sure. The arguments that he’s inexperienced, that he’s an ultra-liberal, that he lacks toughness and the suggestion that he’s all flowery rhetoric and no substance are not racist. They’re not true, but they’re not racist.
I think that Wright and “elitist” are two lines of attack that are racist, though.
His label of elitist comes from his positions and attitudes, not (solely) from the color of his skin. The man espouses a highly liberal and elitist viewpoint that has nothing to do with the fact that he’s black. Which isn’t to say that the fact that he is black doesn’t amplify the effect somewhat…or the fact that he’s black sets off some working class folks.
Rich doesn’t equal elitist…a LOT of ivory tower liberal types are elitist (and I even know some ivory tower conservative types who are elitist as well), whether they have a lot of money or not. And a lot of them have lilly white skin as well. There are plenty of elitists on this board of all colors (but my guess is predominantly white)…and THEY aren’t rich by and large. In fact, by their own admissions many of them are fairly poor. The amount of money you have has nothing to do with having an elitist attitude…though it’s funny you try and put it in those terms to prove somehow that Obama can’t be an elitist because he isn’t rich.
I think this whole effort to portray the label of ‘elitist’ in terms of Obama as a code word for ‘uppity’ (nigger) is a load of horse shit. It’s amusing that it seems to be mostly liberal types (who are themselves elitists) who are the ones most pushing this meme forward…that elitist is code for uppity. The fact that Obama’s POSITIONS may be a bit left leaning and smack of the ivory tower to some working class types don’t seem to phase them because, well, they agree…no?
What’s sadder is that what we’re seeing actually foments elitism.
I have no problems writing off anyone who has fallen for the “Obama is elitist” okey doke as a moron. If most people who happen to think this watch NASCAR and shoot squirrels, oh well. So be it. Guess that makes me an elitist. I don’t care. I will eat my Trader Joes sushi and listen to NPR and donate to the UN World Food Programme and be perfectly okay with myself.
Why my attitude? Because we’ve been through this BS twice already. And look at the fantastic results. Not once but twice, we’ve been down this road, and it has been calamitous experience. Just what is it going to take before people realize that grading a politician by how well they pander is not just foolish. It’s dangerous!
But, but, but, you with the face, Obama called them bitter!
Yeah, and Hillary is insulting their intelligence by acting like an anti-intellectual. She’s calling them willingfully ignorant to their face, without the honesty of explicitness. If she gets their vote in spite of that, well gollee gee, maybe they deserve to be insulted. Maybe they deserve to be called stupid.
Other than it being more pathetic than amusing, you got it. The charge of racism, even when it’s merely implied, is an effective way to prevent any actual exploration of any issues or criticisms, which is why it gets used so frequently lately. The charge doesn’t have to be fact-based or honest, it just has to get the nonbelievers to shut up.
Exactly. It’s a way to try and essentially godwin-ize the topic by painting the one’s who disagree with you with the ever present racist brush. And yeah…it’s a bit pathetic to.
True, but it isn’t related to what the politicians do for the common people either. Good ole folkst W has screwed the common people more than any President I can remember.
I’ve seen this attributed to George Burns, but it seems appropriate to the situation whoever really said it.
“The secret of success in acting is sincerity. Once you can fake that, you’ve got it made.”
Amen. My wife despised HRC from the start. I preferred Obama, but didn’t used to mind her. Now. Given her bullshit about why we shouldn’t listen to “elitist” economists, I’ve totally had it with her. TDS last night had her face morphing into Bush’s. Right on the money, as usual.