MC: Tennessee governor Phil Bredesen has advised Barack to head to Wal-Mart to connect with the “Wal-Mart women” who supported Hillary. What do you say to people who think your husband is too slick or elite for working-class voters?Ed Morrissey does a pretty good job of defining "elitism" here:.
Obama: I find it funny that people have tried to label Barack as an elitist. This is the man who grew up not knowing his father, with a young, single mother who he watched struggle to make ends meet — even going on food stamps at one point. And despite the economic struggles that his family went through, Barack turned down lucrative careers on Wall Street and went to work in communities to help folks in need on the South Side of Chicago, helping families who’d been devastated when the local steel plants shut down.
Elitism is a sense that the hoi polloi are simply incapable of governing themselves, let alone a nation, and that a small group of “experts” have to take control of everything they do. That goes far beyond mere matters of state. Elitists see people getting more obese and believe that government has to intervene to remove food choices from individuals, as one rather timely example, as in New York City. They believe that removing personal choices will keep people from making bad decisions, because they — in all their wisdom — will make the right choices for them.As relates to Barack Obama in particular, elitism is reflected more in his reference to hayseed voters clinging to "god or guns or antipathy toward people who aren't like them" than it is reflected in his reference to the price of "arugula".
This describes perfectly the policy direction of the Democratic Party, and perhaps even a part of the Republican Party as well. That’s why the charge of elitism sticks so well to Democratic candidates in national elections. Their humble origins are immaterial to the concept of elitism. Candidates who want to grow the federal government in order to increase its nanny-state power are by definition elitists, because they believe individuals cannot make choices for themselves.
And am I the only one bothered by Bredesen's image-over-substance suggestion?
12 comments:
Elitism is a sense that the hoi polloi are simply incapable of governing themselves, let alone a nation, and that a small group of “experts” have to take control of everything they do.
Ummm, weren't we created as a Republic? And in a Republic, we elect leaders to represent us. We are not a democracy, and therefore by definition, we have an elite class. Now, anyone can join that elite class (say, a bi-racial man from Hawaii with working class roots), but nonetheless, once in office, you become a part of that "class".
Good rebuttal, but the policies an elected official pursues can foster government "control" and regulation at the expense of liberty and responsibility. Statism is the preferred system for an Elitist in this context.
So, somebody who wants the Government to purchase mortgages from private lending agencies would be an "elitist"?
That is certainly a policy that is more statist than not. Though I would venture to say that an elitist like Obama has no business demagoguing such a proposal.
By the way, what has Obama recommended should be done with the economy? (That's a sincere question).
Economic stimulus, tax cuts for working/middle class and small businesses, appointing people to oversight positions that actually believes the Government has a role in regulating commerce, etc...
I wouldn't deny that by your definition, Obama is an elitist...just that by your definition, so is McCain.
appointing people to oversight positions that actually believes the Government has a role in regulating commerce
I guess there are no Congressional Democrats that would qualify?
Re. "elitism": I don't think you understand my definition.
Or you are stretching to find a definition of elitist that fits Obama and not McCain but are having a hard time.
Actually, I don't think that McCain is elitist at all. And I'm certainly not running from defending him on that point. Even the proposed mortgage buyout--the only example you've offered, is more populist than it is statist. Offering to do someone a favor is different than not thinking someone can govern themselves.
And to be clear, I don't think that the mortgage buyout is a great idea, but I'm not defining "elitist" as anything-I-don't-agree-with.
So, rewarding poor decisions by having the Government come in and purchase your mortgage and sell it back at a reduced cost is populism, not Statism? Fair enough...but by that definition, so is just about every other welfare policy which tries to help people who made poor decisions or who are victims of their surroundings.
Yep. They're fine distinctions, but they are distinctions nonetheless.
Ned,
So what is statism if all welfare policies are populism?
I never said "all welfare policies are populist." And everything offered as a program by gov't does not work like "welfare."
The way I treat my children is akin to elitism, the way I treat my brother-in-law who wants to borrow money isn't.
Post a Comment