Congrats on dodging a straightforward question twice, and not even slyly! Why is it so difficult to answer with a yes or no? I already said I wasn’t trying to ensnare you. I honestly want to know if you think it’s justifiable to label Obama an elitist. If you think it is, why can’t just answer the question?
But forget it. I’m fine with making my own assumptions and going on my merry way.
Could you elaborate as to how it’s the liberal side that’s elitist? After all, liberals are known for sympathizing with the poor and minorities while conservatives are known for favoring the wealthy and other members of the Establishment.
After all, pretty much anyone’s position on anything can be spun as ‘elitist’.
I really don’t see that this does break down liberal/conservative lines, except insofar as those correlate with the urban/rural thing. Admittedly, I’m looking at the issue from a rather different perspective - I’m a Canadian living in the province that gave birth to our most left-wing political party, and which was the first jurisdiction to institute socialized health care and various other pinko commie policies. It’s also an overwhelmingly rural province. Guess how well pushing tighter gun control policies flies in Saskatchewan.
Well, I haven’t seen a lot of conservatives trying to push through gun control…most of those efforts seem to me to come from the liberal side of the house. What indications do you have that there is a balance between the opposing views on this topic?
At any rate Obama is pretty well on record on this particular subject.
-XT
It takes a lot of spin to go from vague fears of someone “trying to push through gun control” and elitism. There is a whole spectrum of opinion on gun issues and everyone thinks that theirs is what’s in society’s best interests.
Anyone with an opinion can be portrayed as getting into people’s faces and insisting that they “know what’s best for them”.
Are you saying that gun control is not mainly a Liberal issue??
Certainly. I can kick back and espouse all manner of opinions about what I think is best for people. However, if I actually get into a position to implement policy…well, at that point I AM saying that I know what’s best for people because I’m going to push through legislation to make it reality.
No?
-XT
It’s only fair when you can provide some support for it. You haven’t, and obviously cannot.
That the charge of racism you are, in fact, making needs to be leveled fairly. How can you accuse a demographic that generally supports Clinton of doing so because of racism without accusing a different demographic that generally (and far more heavily) supports Obama of it as well? That help explain it to ya any?
The point being that your claim in this thread is not only baseless but ill-considered belongs right here in this thread. No ducking.
Then, pray tell, who exactly is it that you now claim to be guilty of what?
If you can rebut anything I’ve said on the subject, do so - or reconsider which of us is failing, or refusing, either to support our positions or to assert them in good faith.
You know the drill by now. When come back, bring argument.
Go on, then. Suggest a metric. I have all day.
The motto of the SDMB is fighting ignorance. Not fighting ignorance broadly constrained by the subjective boundaries of someone’s OP.
Suggesting race plays no role in this election is disingenuous in the extreme. I could point you to hate sites dedicated to racist slander but I expect you would hand wave those away (but proves it does exist). More above board there were the pictures circulated of Obama wearing Muslim garb during his trip to Kenya. There was the whole flap over Rev. Wright which was aimed at scaring white Americans with the angry black man. Obama gave an entire speech relating to race relations in Philadelphia.
How about Geraldine Ferraro’s comment (while she was a member of the Clinton campaign): “If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman of any color, he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept.”
Yep…nothing to see here. Move along. :rolleyes:
The question here is explicitly if “elitist” comments made at Obama have any basis in racism. Reverse racism has absolutely zero to do with anything when exploring that question. You are merely trying to muddy the waters. It’s not working.
As I just noted to answer the questions being debated here there is zero cause to ask whether reverse racism exists. How does reverse racism’s existence in any way answer the question of whether “elitist” comments leveled at Obama are racially motivated? Unless you are suggesting that reverse racism excuses any racism pointed back at him.
It is not ducking to suggest that, in this thread, such side show questions are irrelevant but as a topic for discussion in its own right it has merit. You however want to obscure your failures here.
Huh? What…you want names and addresses or something?
Sure. The small ‘r’ republican system set up by the Founding Father can be described as elite-based. We use the democratic preocess to elect various elites to office and they (given the separation of powers) make the decisions.
I just don’t see wht that has to do with “liberals” as opposed to conservatives.
Well, if you scroll back up you will see that I conceded that there are conservative elitists as well as liberal ones…they are just elitists in a different way.
If you don’t want to acknowledge that many people look on liberals as being elitist that’s fine by me. As I said, it’s all a matter of perspective. Remember though that you probably look on some (or many) conservatives as being elitist to…because from your perspective they are. Just keep that in mind…and keep in mind that your perspective isn’t the same as everyone else’s.
It helps…took me years to figure that out myself.
-XT
I think political “elitism” is a simple short hand for “Doncha just hate those smart bastards?” When it comes from dumb guys, it is at least sincere. When it comes from other sources, it’s just a con. And a particularly odious con, since it plays to the least intelligent of listeners. Oddly enough, while it might spatter dirt on your objective, it requires that you wallow at least waist deep in the muck yourself. Not that that would be considered a bad thing, by people who find this type of argument useful.
Tris
But what’s all this about “elitists” in the first place? It’s a heavily contrived political tactic employed largely by the Right to change the subject from “you’re wrong” to “you’re bad people for thinking you’re ‘better’ than us”.
It’s not a question of whether some people have that perspective, it’s a question of whether it’s fair. Do you not agree that it’s unfair for conservatives to call liberals elitists given all the ways that attitude could be applied to themselves?
It should take more than “perspective” to accuse someone of having a contemptible attitude. I for one am unconcerned about elitism, but conservatives have been ranting up a storm about it lately, and in so doing they–and their perspective–are extremely biased and hypocritical.
I think it’s more a way of saying ‘you are different than I am, and you think you are better than I’. YMMV
Fair…FAIR! Ho, boy! This is politics here…there is nothing particularly fair about it. And even if we leave aside the politics, there is nothing particularly fair about some good ole boy with a char of redman in his cheek, drinking some horse piss American beer and watching monster trucks and resenting some ivory tower intellectual type for smoking a fine cuban cigar while drinking expensive 25 year old single malt whiskey and watching a foreign film…or from that same ivory tower intellectual type looking down his nose at the hillbilly. Nothing particularly fair about folks here on the Straightdope looking down their noses at the theist types because they are stupid and ignorant and deluded, etc etc…or for those theists to look down their noses at the atheist/agnostics because they are godless heathens.
Nothing fair about someone looking down their nose because of the color of someones skin, their religious preference or their sexual habits either. Life isn’t fair. But it’s very human for folks to do this kind of thing. And folks DO this kind of thing…even without tossing in the fact that this is an election year and all the stops are out. Obama comes across as an intellectual (which he is btw) and an elitist (which, again, I think he is)…and so he’s going to be as open to attack on that score as Bush was open to attacks on the fact that he resembles a chimp, can’t speak in public well and swaggers (‘we call that walking in Texas’).
If you are hoping for fair…well, I wish you all the luck with that. Myself, I’m not holding my breath for it. Obama knew what he was in for when he signed up for this race…and frankly he’s handled things a hell of a lot better than the Obama faithful have…they seem to want to wrap the man in swaddling and put him up on a shelf somewhere so he won’t get hurt. I think the man is tougher than that…and I doubt he sits around moaning about fair.
-XT
Nor is any of this particularly new - William Henry Harrison won the election in 1840 by painting Van Buren as an effete wine drinker, while he had been born in a log cabin and drank hard cider for his refreshment.
Never mind that by 1840 Harrison was quite wealthy and had a decent wine cellar of his own - plus he thought cider quite vile. Doesn’t matter. Politics is politics.
And you declare this as if its fact (by fiat, much), when ultimately that’s what the debate is all about. Obama does not come across as an elitist anymore than Hillary and McCain do. He may come across as more eloquent and office-professional, but eloquence and office-professionalism =! elitist. The way politics have become now, you’re either branded a beer-guzzling “man 'o the people” or a high-falutin’ elitist. So Obama has to be the latter, because he ain’t acting the part of that there other group. Some voters are able to see the folly in this portrayal of personalities. Others apparently are falling for it the same way they did the last two other times we’ve danced this ridiculous dance.
Elvis proclaimed earlier that accusations of racism are a strong and personal thing to say about someone. I don’t necessarily disagree with that. But I also view calling someone an elitist a pretty serious charge, too. Am I alone in seeing some inconsistencies here?
Which part of (which, again, I think he is) are you having trouble grasping? Is it the ‘think’ part?
-XT
Your statement declares that he comes across as elitist as if that’s a fact. The parenthentical “I think he is” is modifying the part where you opine that he is an elitist, but as written it doesn’t address the first part of that sentence.
Ah…so, you are having translation troubles. When I say “Obama comes across as an intellectual (which he is btw) and an elitist (which, again, I think he is)”, it’s a statement that he IS an intellectual (are you disputing this?) and that I THINK he is an elitist. IOW, those are my thoughts.
Now, perhaps you are laboring under the misconception that my own thoughts have some kind of magical effect on the population at large, forcing them through my sheer wit, charm and bad spelling and grammar to my own view point. Let me assure you that this isn’t the case. For example, you don’t seem to be susceptible, ehe?
-XT
No, and I feel reeeeeally good about that.
If you like, you can address the rest of my post beyond the first half of the first sentence. I didn’t mean to distract you from the meat of the issue with a shiny piece of snarky snark.