What exactly is 'elitism'? (Not a rhetorical question.)

Great Debates
81

I mentioned this in another thread, but it bears repeating as it relates to “elitism”. Hillary Clinton, in saying that the elites always screw over the majority of Americans, has made one of the dumbest statements since the famous quote by former Nebraska Senator Roman Hruska:

*Hruska is best remembered in American political history for a 1970 speech he made to the Senate urging them to confirm the nomination of Harold Carswell to the Supreme Court. Responding to criticism that Carswell had been a mediocre judge, Hruska claimed that:

“So what if he is mediocre? There are a lot of mediocre judges and people and lawyers. They are entitled to a little representation, aren’t they? We can’t have all Brandeises, Cardozos, and Frankfurters and stuff like that there.”*

Yeah. When it comes to coping with high energy prices, we can’t trust them fancy-pants economists and such-like. Let’s stick to mediocrity, and pander our ass off.

82

[QUOTE=you with the face]
Unless someone is accusing you of racism personally, they aren’t being personal.
[/quote]
Puh-leeze.

Class, who can name the logical fallacy here? Hands up.

83

I do not think it goes beyond the pale to suggest that some of those leveling the “elitist” charge are simply using that to mask their inherent racism.

Few, even these days, would be so bold as to openly espouse racism as a reason for not voting for Obama (of course there are some). Nevertheless those racist feelings are there in many people and they will latch on to anything to give them a palatable excuse to hate the man. They just needed one to be provided to them and HRC helpfully handed them what they were looking for.

Look at which demographics Clinton is strongest with then consider in which demographic groups racism (versus African-Americans) is still most persistent. Tracks very well.

Now, one could try to argue Obama is elitist and not be racist. However, in comparison to the other candidates and indeed his own background and work to date the charge is laughable. Or at most it could be said he is elitist but by far the least elitist of the lot.

For those here who latch on the elitist meme I do not suspect racism. I believe, based on other posts in other threads, they will use absolutely any brush to paint Obama in a bad light no matter how absurd. Dopers tend to be a savvy lot and used to the requirements of the SDMB. I simply can see no other way they could swallow the sickening pandering that HRC plays on with this and shrug thinking it is fine.

84

[QUOTE=xtisme]
Because DtC doesn’t think that Obama is an elitist, by fiat he is saying that anyone saying he is MUST be a racist.
[/quote]

No, I’m saying the qualities which Obama posssess which supposedly make him an “elitist” (i.e. education, position and relative wealth) are possessed to an equal or greater degree by both other candidates and by all the serious candidates from earlier in the season who have now dropped out (not to mention the current President who is the very definition of privilege and class entitlement). The only one who gets called an “elitist” is the black guy. What makes Obama any more elitist than Hillary or McCain or Mitt Romney or GWB or Dick Cheney?

I think the demonization of Jeremiah Wright by the political right has been so dishonest, tendentious and conscious that it makes the Willie Horton ad look subtle.

85

[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
This is more an urban/rural divide than a liberal/conservative one (although it ends up braking down that way a geographical consequence). Big cities like Chicago have huge problems with gun crimes. It’s not about takinmg guns away from rednecks “for their own good,” the populist desire for gun restrictions in urban areas is based on self-preservation. You can disagree with with their goals, but assigning elitist motivations to it is completely inaccurate.
[/QUOTE]

Well, the subject is debatable…personally I think this issue DOES smack of an elitist mentality in that it’s another example of someone knowing what is best for you because you are to dumb to figure it out for yourself. It’s part of a nanny mentality and there are a lot of blue collar types who do see it in those terms.

I agree that it’s more an urban/rural disconnect, though I think it also breaks neatly down liberal vs conservative lines.

[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
Are you saying that working class white people actually do these things more than other demographics? If so, cite? Or are you saying “liberal elitists” believe that orking class whites drive drunk and beat their wives more than other demographics? If so, cite that they *believe this? Also, do you think that opposing drunk driving and wife beating is itself an elitist attitude? Are you saying that only liberal elitists think that drunk driving and wife beating should be illegal? What exactly are you saying?
[/QUOTE]

It was a parody DtC…you know, tongue in cheek? Joke? Do any of these terms ring a bell? How about this one…hyperbole.

[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
Cite that liberals want to stop homeschooling or religious schools?
[/QUOTE]

See above.

[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
Cite that liberals think this?
[/QUOTE]

Um…are you seriously asking me for a cite that liberals are perceived as being for nanny type government?? Seriously? Because if you are then you might as well ask me for a cite that water is wet or the sky blue…

[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
Do you have a problem with seatbelts and speed limits? Do you honestly believe that those are “liberal elitist” laws? What does “wiping their noses and bums” refer to? That sounds like empty filler to me. I don’t think you’ve really manage to identify any elistist attitudes here.
[/QUOTE]

Do I have a problem with seatbelt laws and speed limits? Only in a generic sense I suppose. By and large, no…I don’t. But I know people who do have issues with all the nanny laws (like requiring people to wear helmets when driving a motor bike for instance).

Again, I was using hyperbole. We could, if you like, discuss Obama’s actual assertions and disect them in detail…and then squabble about what constitutes ‘elitist’ policies and positions because there is zero way you and I are going to see eye to eye on what is and isn’t elitist. Our politics are simply to divergent. Such a discussion would be meaningless (which is why I used over the top hyperbole, thinking that no one would mistake it for what it was…I figured the wife beating part alone would confirm that if nothing else. Wouldn’t you know someone would actually think that was said with a straight face? C’est la vie…)

Or, you could simply go on google and type in ‘Obama perceived elitist’ and look over some of the links. It’s not like I’m the only one out there who is saying this…but I forget. Everyone saying this is a racist because there is no substance to it, right?

[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
Can you give an example of a specifically elitist belief held or expressed by Barack Obama?
[/QUOTE]

Pretty much most of the liberal pantheon of policies and perceptions are perceived by some to be rather elitist. Hyperbole aside, a lot of the nanny state policies are perceived to be elitist when presented such that the presenter knows whats best for the masses.

I’m sure you are sitting there shaking your head…because frankly you don’t see it the same way. That’s why it’s all a matter of perception. Your perception…my perception…some blue collar workers perception. You perceive a label of ‘elitist’ applied to Obama as automatically a code word, a hidden racial slur. I see that it COULD be that…or it could simply be that the person saying it really thinks Obama IS an elitist. From the way the man dresses, to his actions, to the way he talks, to what he does or doesn’t do, it all factors into how we perceive someone. Hell, because he isn’t perceived to like to hunt or fish, to drink a beer or watch NASCAR or bowls in a tie…all of those things (even if they are wrong…for all I know he DOES like to hunt or fish or drink a beer) factor into his perceived image to people.

And not all of those people who perceive him as an elitist do so because he’s black. Think about folks like McGovern and Dukakis…hell Bush I was perceived as a bit of an elitist and a whimp. Kerry is another good example in someone being perceived as an elitist.

Perception becomes reality in peoples minds…and it doesn’t always have to be motivated solely by racism or even actual reality.

-XT

(sorry about the disjointed post here…I’m running between meetings so don’t have much time to even review what I’m writing)

86

[QUOTE=xtisme]
Plain and simple I don’t agree with you and I think there is sufficient evidence pointing to non-racial uses of the term elitist…and several things that tie Obama and his positions into the liberal branch of what is considered by some to be elitist stances.
-XT
[/QUOTE]

This contains two splendid examples of illogic.

  1. “I think there is sufficient evidence pointing to non-racial uses of the term elitist.”

That’s fine. The fact that these examples exist would only undermine the premise that “all uses of the word elitism are racist”. This is untrue and nobody is making that claim. Piling up irrelevant anecdotes about the word used absent a racial context does not mean that it is not racist in this context.

  1. “Several things that tie Obama and his positions into the liberal branch of what is considered by some to be elitist stances.”

First, “some” could be wrong.

Suppose they are not. Suppose Obama has positions that favor the “elite”. There are several considerations.

Suppose we delinate “eliteness” by income quantile. Anyone who makes more than the median income is somewhat elite. Anyone in the top 25% is reasonably elite. Anyone in the top 1% is extremely elite. Suppose a candidate crafts policies to satisfy some set of people who earn more than the median income.

It is very, very, very well known that the lower your income, the more you favor redistribution of wealth. So the more you try to satisfy those who make more money, you will not propose large-scale redistribution. That’s called fucking life. It doesn’t make you “elitist” since it in no way implies that the richer are better than the poorer. You are just satisfying their preferences with your policies. There is no implied value judgment: you just want their votes.

I am going to go out on a limb here and say that I am an upper income New York professional. The chance to have a president more beholden to the service and idea generation industries and voters employed by them is absolutely thrilling. The more candidates pander to my diametric opposites, the more frustrated I get. Again, this has nothing to do with my personal feelings towards lower income industrial/low end service workers so much as they need and prefer different things than I do. And in a world of scarce resources, I would rather get mine given the chance, especially since it does not take a professional forecaster to see that services and idea generation is this country’s competitive advantage. It is that simple, and it has fuck all to do with value judgments.

87

[QUOTE=ElvisL1ves]
Class, who can name the logical fallacy here? Hands up.
[/QUOTE]

Okay, so can you answer the question? Do you think Obama is elitist? Believe it or not, I’m not trying to trap you in a gotcha ya. I still don’t understand why you are taking anything personally, if you don’t believe he’s an elitist.

I don’t even understand why you’d take it personally if you do believe he’s an elitist.

88

[QUOTE=ElvisL1ves]
Not perfectly, in general, no. But we do have the established results of the administration of which Clinton was a very senior policy-level member, no? We have the IL state senate by comparison.

Oddly enough, I thought this thread was about elitism. My bad.
[/QUOTE]

  1. HRC’s marginal contribution to the Clinton administration is impossible to estimate. Obama’s is easier, by almost any metric. This is a non-starter.

  2. This thread may be about elitism, but that does not mean I am going to let illogic pass even if it is slightly tangential to the matter at hand.

89

[QUOTE=xtisme]
Or, you could simply go on google and type in ‘Obama perceived elitist’ and look over some of the links. It’s not like I’m the only one out there who is saying this…but I forget. Everyone saying this is a racist because there is no substance to it, right?

Pretty much most of the liberal pantheon of policies and perceptions are perceived by some to be rather elitist. Hyperbole aside, a lot of the nanny state policies are perceived to be elitist when presented such that the presenter knows whats best for the masses.

[/QUOTE]

So why isn’t HRC being painted as an elitist? Her stated policy positions are not all that different from Obama’s. She grew up in more privilege than Obama did and is currently far, far wealthier than Obama is.

Obama may be elitist but if he is then Clinton definitely is and then some yet it is Obama that gets the label. Why do you suppose that is?

90

[QUOTE=Whack-a-Mole]

Obama may be elitist but if he is then Clinton definitely is and then some yet it is Obama that gets the label. Why do you suppose that is?
[/QUOTE]

My guess is it’s that he sounds more intelligent, more well-read than Clinton does. The average American doesn’t want someone smarter than they are- they want someone they could have a beer with.

Og help us.

91

She IS an elitist to. Remember though it’s all about perception. But IMHO she is as much an elitist as Obama is…and as much as Clinton ever was as well. Hell, I think McCain is an elitist, though in a different way from Obama/Clinton…and I think GW is as well, though he REALLY goes out of his way to hide it.

-XT

92

[QUOTE=Whack-a-Mole]

Obama may be elitist but if he is then Clinton definitely is and then some yet it is Obama that gets the label. Why do you suppose that is?
[/QUOTE]

Because she’s married to a good ol’ boy?

93

Plus she has worked VERY hard to polish her image as just one of the folks. You can see how she has progressed through this campaign…and how she has obviously put a lot of effort into making herself look like an image that blue collar folks can relate to.

I’m not sure how well it’s working since she is still behind Obama…and certainly I think she is responsible for the dust up over this whole ridiculous elitist thingy…but to a degree she HAS managed to shift the way folks perceive her. And that’s not something Obama could do if he wanted to wrt this elitist thing. I’m actually glad he isn’t trying.

-XT

94

[QUOTE=Whack-a-Mole]
So why isn’t HRC being painted as an elitist?
[/quote]
To put it broadly, because she *listens * to people, she doesn’t preach to them. Or at least appears to. And, she has the cred of actually trying to do something about universal health care.

And FDR beat them both hollow in that regard. Doesn’t matter - it’s a matter of perception of personal manner and in whose interests the candidate has demonstrated a commitment of effort.

95

[QUOTE=Maeglin]

  1. HRC’s marginal contribution to the Clinton administration is impossible to estimate. Obama’s is easier, by almost any metric. This is a non-starter.
    [/quote]
    La-la-la …

“Slightly”?

96

[QUOTE=you with the face]
Okay, so can you answer the question?
[/quote]
Are you now asking in good faith?

Note your deletion of the racism part of your question, which you have not thought fit to mention. Well, so much for that.

97

[QUOTE=Whack-a-Mole]
I do not think it goes beyond the pale to suggest that some of those leveling the “elitist” charge are simply using that to mask their inherent racism.
[/quote]
But dropping the nuke takes a damn good reason. All we’ve seen from those posters is assertion backed by insinuation. And now that list includes you too.

Do you really need a lesson in correlation vs. causation? How about one about Obama’s voting support among African-Americans, for that matter? :dubious: Or among men? Come on now - if you want to make the charge, you have to do better than that.

Then quit suggesting otherwise. The old “present company excluded, of course” cover story you’ve tried here doesn’t work well anymore, anywhere.

98

[QUOTE=ElvisL1ves]
But dropping the nuke takes a damn good reason. All we’ve seen from those posters is assertion backed by insinuation. And now that list includes you too.
[/quote]

So you keep trying to remove it from the table with hyperbole when it is a completely fair assertion. It is wrong for someone to claim it is all about race and it is likewise wrong for you to dismiss it. Like it or not it is a part of the equation.

Guess I do need that lesson. That African-Americans vote for him because he is African-American I do not deny. What has that got to do with this? If you want to have a discussion of reverse racism or mysoginism in the election start a new thread and I’ll happily participate. That however in no way undoes what I was saying. And it is not a balance thing either. Two wrongs (racism either way) do not make a right.

If I thought you were a racist I would call you one. But it is a heavy charge to level at someone and I would not do so lightly without good evidence of which I have seen none (not to mention it is probably against GD rules but I’d Pit you if I thought that). I think you are a frothing at the mouth Clinton apologist but not a racist. Has nothing to do with providing myself a cover from the ire of other Dopers.

99

[QUOTE=you with the face]
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!
[/QUOTE]

There ya’ go! Talkin’ all faggy and everything.

[QUOTE=you with the face]
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.

Really, I mean that. That’s how fed up I am.
[/QUOTE]

Actually, “bitter” was probably the wrong word to use. I think “defensive” would’ve been more fitting. I don’t know if that would’ve lessened the resulting ruckus though.

100

What do children say about a neighbor kid who has more expensive toys than they do? That’s right, he’s spoiled. They’re just trying to turn the situation on its head out of sheer jealousy in order to salvage some pride. We’re looking down on him because he’s the one with the bad character flaw.

And of course, the way a nerd gets bullied in school is also reminiscent of the same attitude. He demonstrates by getting better grades that he’s better than his classmates, and so they punish him for making them feel bad about themselves and they change the rules of peer culture, so being smart and getting good grades = bad, and being good at sports and fistfighting = good.

And so similarly, all this ‘elitist’ claptrap is all just riven by resentment and sour grapes. People don’t strive for a higher station in life so they can look down on others and make them feel bad about themselves. But since that’s how they do feel, they make that the issue and proceed to backlash.