Who the hell are these Liberal elites?

[booley]

has this happend to you?

Was 'debating" with a con on another board. Long story short, the thread was about why blue coller males support shrub. His answer..becuase of all the "Liberal Elites" that are "attacking his way of life".

And I remembered that other cons have given me this same response. That "Liberal Elites" are a threat to them, that 'Liberal Elites" hate and are going to destroy America, that "Liberal elites" are evil and suck the blood of the living and conservative at night before returning to thier coffins to slumber...

Ok I made that last one up..But you get the point. Kind of a vague charge (and an interesting one for cons who love to denounce class warfare) But also incomprehensable.

I mean, I'm a liberal and I work two jobs to get 30,000 a year and still don't have health insurence. How elite am I?

well, the con did send me a list of examples of the "Liberal Elite" that is "attacking" his way of life...

They are...Susan Glick, Norman Lear, Ariana Huffington, Sarah Brady, Ted Kennedy, Dick Durbin, Dorothy Tillman, Mikey Moore, Jayson Blair, Ski Anderson, Nancy Skinner, Sheila Jackson Lee, Jesse Jackson, Ben AAfleck, Danny Glover, Alec Baldwin, Boner, Rob Reiner, Barbara Streisand, and thousands of college professors, to name just a few.

So anyway, has anyone else had to deal with this kind of thing and did you find away through it? I think we should think about this becuase part of the cons strategy is to get thier constituents as afraid of the "Liberal Meance" as much as possible. It's an emotional reaction, obvioulsy., How else to explain how cons could take Coulter serioulsy when she was talkigmg about how liberals loved the towers being attacked when New York is home to some of the most liberal people in the country?

In other words, if we could break through that it's bush that is the real threat to them, bush would lose an irreplaceable part of his constituency.

So how can we do that?

[nadinbrzezinski]

1. After discusing with some

here is what I have concluded

Many of these people have been convinced that America is what used to be in Leave it to Beaver, but it was ruined by them liberals with teh Civil rights act and they want to go back to Leave it to Beaver, where everybody knew its place

Now look at the list.. many of those people are Jews, or other minitories, such as Catholics...

They are also far better educated than these folks and I mean that... on average Liberals DO HAVE at the very least SOME college education. These folks, from what I can tell, do not. Hence they resent this. They also think that these minorities are taking away their jobs

Now I have no idea how to break it to tehm that they are not better off with the pukes, becasue what the GOP Elites have done is convince them that their lot in life is NOT their fault, or the fault of the system, but somebody else, teh minority, the immigrant, in other words THEM. It is fear based and breaking through fear is very difficult.

Oh and yes the other thing is that these so called liberal elites do understand about separation of church and state, these people have been convinced that we are athenist communist fear mongering will eat their children and deny their religion... sadly I am not simplifying either.

[starroute]

27. I think you're right on the mark about this

I've sometimes seen it suggested that "liberal elite" is simply code for "Jews." I suspect there's a lot of truth in that -- since the accusations are very close to those which used to be made more explicitly against Jews back before obvious anti-Semitism became a no-no -- but it probably does extend to a somewhat larger circle:

- Jews
- Hollywood entertainers, especially but not exclusively Jewish
- university intellectuals, especially but not exclusively Jewish
- news outlets and reporters, especially but not exclusively Jewish
- uppity blacks

There seems to be an implied conspiracy theory under all the vagueness -- the notion that Jews and certain American institutions with a heavy representation of Jews (namely those where it was always possible for upstart immigrants to get ahead purely on brains and talent) are working as a coherent group against the interests of "real Americans."

The problem is that because the whole thing is so vague on the surface, there's no way to pin down the people who are using the term and make them admit to what they're doing. But because it's so specific underneath, it can never by dispelled simply by arguing about, say, the actual content of network news.

One particularly unfortunate result of the way "anti-Semitic" has recently been twisted to mean "anti-Israeli" is that it becomes much harder to recognize genuine old-fashioned anti-Semitism at work in this country. But it's clearly present, it's highly toxic, and it needs to be addressed every bit as much as the anti-black or anti-gay messages coming out of the right.

[RockwellCity]

59. I agree

I think it's code for Jews

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SoCalDem]

4. "The Liberal Elite"

are whomever Rush & the rightwinger media designates as such.

And BTW.. "this" war was most definitely OPTIONAL.. Look up PNAC on google.. The republican "elite" has been itching to bash Iraq ever since Poppa Bush wimped out in the first gulf war..

Republicans speak in coded language.. Probably most people could not even define elite, but Rush says it's bad, so they latch on like a newborn to a mother's breast..

Anyone who thinks that the "alphabet media" is liberal elite has not been paying attention for decades.. These are branches of the same comapnies that make the bombs and missiles.. The "on air talent" are BIG BUCKS people who are too scared to rock the boat.. They "know" which side to take..

The real liberals do not fear a republican voice in the media, IF it could be balanced with the "other side of the story"..

Only a juvenile mind could interpret what we see on tv (on any station) as news.. We are forcefed infotainews..

Treason is what GWB did when he bailed on his National Guard duty during a war.. Treason is NOT voicing your opinion on a failed policy of your own government..

The fact that docile people could be brainwashed into believing that GWB has our best interests at heart, is what is truly frightening.

The was was necessary in some respects.. I will give you that one.. It was necessary, because they needed a "cover" to excuse all of that tax money being sucked out of our treasury and into the pockets of the very businessmen who front the money for the next election.. Once that money was gone, the natural progression was to bleed dry any social programs that actually make life worth living in America..

Someday, people will wake up and realize that they have been royally cheated m but of course it will be too late then.. I sincerely hope that you are a young person, so that you will live long enough to see those chickens come home to roost in your very own yard :)

Democrats are the fiscally responsible party, even though the radio hogs would have people believe otherwise.. GWB mentioned the "adults being in charge".. well, as a mother of three sons who were once teens, I can tell you that what he has done is very typical of teenagers being left in charge for the first time.. Mom and Dad come home and have to pay that huge phone bill and for those pay per views, and often a wrecked car.. THAT'S our Bushie.. a wayward drunken teenager..

The grownups are the ones who make sure that the kids go to the dentist, the doctor, we pay our bills first, and we take care of our families.. The spendthrift "so-called adults" who are running things now, are the ones who write a check from Mom's checkbook, throw parties for their pals until all the money is gone and then wonder how they will pay the housepayment, or the medical insurance, or buy food..

He's robbing Peter to pay Paul..I think you might just end up being Paul :)

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Gore1FL]

7. "CBS, ABC, and CNN lean noticably to the left. "

yeah, if you are Hitler.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[booley]

11. ehhh, not quite...

first of all, obvioulsy Fox is going to get most of the attention becuase they are far right and have turned propaganda and manufactured news into an art form.
there is simply more material there to be reported on. the difference i sbetween being heavily influenced by the right and being a part of it,

But lots of times FAIR has criticised the networks and CNN . Look in thier archives, not just thier front page...

Networks don't follow money in medicare story...

http://www.fair.org/activism/medicare-networks.html

Also on ABC...." ABC's Baghdad correspondent Neal Karlinsky told Nightline (10/15/03) that "there's a lot of good news stories here that we are trying to get out. And, quite frankly, news events sometimes get in the way of that. It's hard to work on a feature story about life in Baghdad getting back to normal when there is suddenly a car bombing that kills a half dozen people nearby." Karlinsky seems to be complaining that breaking news keeps getting in the way of reporting the news."

http://www.fair.org/press-releases/iraq-good-news.html

or this on CBS..."The idea that you can make a falsehood true by attributing it to someone else was endorsed by some journalists. "The statement in the president's speech was technically correct since it accurately quoted the British paper," said David Martin on the CBS Evening News (7/10/03). Such reporters are in for a shock if they try to use that defense in a libel trial."

http://www.fair.org/extra/0308/bush-lies.html

Nor has Fair been all that lenient on the networks when it comes to the use of cluster bombs and Du in iraq..

http://www.fair.org/activism/tv-cluster-du.html
or False WMD claims carried by the "Liberal" media like ABC
http://www.fair.org/activism/abc-iraq-weapons.html

or on the war coverage..
http://www.fair.org/extra/0305/warstudy.html

or just stuff in general..

http://www.fair.org/media-beat/020314.html

http://www.fair.org/extra/9507/green-wool.html

http://www.fair.org/activism/jennings-wolf.html

http://www.fair.org/extra/9606/unabomb.html

(FAIR seems particularily hard on ABC, the network Ibeleived you said was left leaning)
hell, even PBS isn't exactly spared ..

http://www.fair.org/extra/best-of-extra/public-tv-conservatives.html

http://www.fair.org/reports/pbs-study-1999.html

http://www.fair.org/extra/0005/pbs-ads.html

or NPR
http://www.fair.org/reports/npr-study.html

http://www.fair.org/activism/npr-liberal-media.html
I could go on..but this is what i found on FAIR's website after only a few minutes.

So lets see. By your own words, networks like ABC and CBS and CNN are decidely "leftist" . yet I can find many instances of criticism and reporting on journalistic lapses. about these supposedly left leaning networks by a left leaning watch dog group.

NOW..how many times on MRC do you get them criticisng conservative networks like Fox and the Washington times and radio like Limbuagh and o'Reilly?I went there and whiel MRC seems positivly OBSSESSED with the networks and CNN, they rarly if ever mention any conservative media outlet in anay negative way whats so ever.
Did I miss it?

So if there is a Liberal eltie, it isn't in the media...

[SHRED]

13. "...CBS, ABC, and CNN lean noticably to the left."

Huh?

OK then;
Why aren't there any in-depth examinations of the consolidation of corporate power in the media and it's influence?
Where are the stories of clean alternatives to the destruction of our environment?
Where are the human rights stories?
Where are the critical stories of our military-corporate-complex's influence in other soverign country's affairs?

Those questions just don't sell. Bottomline is the "media" is ran by the almighty corporate $$$. The Cons have made up this "liberal biased media" crap to change the focus from reality to a fantasy.

my 2 cents

[JHB]

17. Welcome SHRED

...to DU

[SHRED]

23. Cool Thanks...

This DU is like a breath of fresh air!

[JanMichael]

30. Great post. These are issues that are conveniently glossed...

...over.

Sure they'll talk about supurfluous pop culture mind numbing issues but serious issues of the Left?

Not bloody likely.

They're sensationalist corpo whores, nothing more or less at this ugly point.

Welcome to DU!

[newyawker99]

54. Hi SHRED!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[rucky]

34. Our Economic messages don't get out there....

not because nobody's talking about them, but because that's the one soundbyte our "left-leaning" media chooses to report... and the only question they care to ask.

Read some Howard Dean speech transcripts (or any other candidate) & you'll see how much time is spent on domestic issues.

btw: welcome to DU!

[0007]

24. Excellent!

[booley]

10. hmm, lets see then

"Liberal Elite: Any person or organization that puts politcs ahead of this country's security."

So when Shrub lied about iraq to get us to go along with an invasion that will have dire consequences...isn' that putting his political needs in front of the countries?

when he makes pithy slogans and laws like "leave no child behind" and "clear skies iniative" that do the exact opposite and leave millions of people at risk..isn't that putting his political career in front of the needs of the nation?

When Reagan and Bush the first helped fund and turn a blind eye towards people like Saddam and osama becuase they were useful in thier foriegn policies..isn't that REALLY putting thier personal political interests in front of the nation's security? I mean, the US gov is still supporting repressive regimes that sponsor terrorism in order to now control and counter other repressive regimes and terrorists -supposedly)

By your definition, almost every conservative I can think of is one of the "Liberal elite"

Ok, and then you contradict yourself when you say "This plays because of the STRONG anti-war position the dems have taken" but then turn around and say "I remind you the democratic party voted overwhelmingly yes on the authorization to go to war"

Affter the shock of 9-11, i can certainly see even dems being scared and wanting to strike back at somebody. Revenge and fear is a normal human response. and they might have very well done a very bad mistake..assume that when Bush was saying something it wasn't a bald faced LIE. But you know the saying..fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice...

becuase you know...If dems or anyone makes a mistake once, are they therefore doomed to never be able to correct it, even if they figure out they made it?

"this war is not optional, it's a war of self-defense and so there are different rules of engagement.'.it really doesn't make much difference if the war was a "mistake"

First of all, self defense against what? Iraq was no position to attack us. They hadn't attacked us. it was a 14 SAUDIS and 5 Eygptians that flew those planes, not a single iraqi. Not a single bit of evidence that iraq had anything to do with 9-11. None of the tonnes of WMDs that Bush swore were in Iraq and ready to be used against us at any moment. seem to exist. No Links that Saddam and Al Quida got any closer then saying they wouldn't kill each other sight. So why was it so important to invade Iraq (and now apparently syria and Iran and possibly China?) especially when the probably consequences of invading Iraq was that it would spur terrorists and destabilize the region?
if anything, the iraqi war has only wasted resources and made us even more unsafe..

Secondly, we are not talking about a clerical error. we are not talking about bodies and mutilations. we still have troops in Iraq being killed. And if you listen to bush and his advisors make thier grumbling noises, iraq is just the first in a number of countries that could also be invaded., each such war leaving more and more troops over seas to keep the region "secure".
When body bags begin coming home, I think we should be sure. Oops simply doesn't cover it. especially when this is just a preclude to another war and another...

Sorry, but it seems that you are just excusing stupidity becuase you think the majority wants to think that way. I mean 2/3 of american might very well support the war in a poll. Of course, 2/3 probably know somebody over there and sure as hell ain't gonna say they are against thier own family and friends in the military coming home as soon as possible (which requires the war go well) I sure wouldn't. And 2/3 of americans, last I checked , also beleived that Saddam and Osama are the same person.

Niether inspires me with confidence that 2/3 of American would follow Bush blindly if they knew the truth. especially when here in conservative Missouri, people are beginning to question Bush's actionsand they don't think that thay are being "treasonous"

even in wartime, generals can be removed for incompetancy or gross misconduct. Only an idiot follows somebody blindly off a cliff.

I mean, just to put it in perpesctive..we were not isolated internationaly when we went into Afghanistan. We were when we invaded Iraq. None of the dem canidates that I know of are questioning going into afghanistan (except maybe what we did when we got there). but there's a lot of questioning on why we went into iraq. We ALL would love to see OSAMA (remember him?) to be brought before a court of law. But nobody felt thrteatened by Saddam. I don't think I 'm a the only one to see a number of differences between the two.

and as a side note...as for the celebrities.

firstly, who cares? Alec balwdin and Barbera Straisand are hardly the Rush Limbuagh''s of the left. If they say to vote a certain way, liberals don't fall over themselves to do so. Liberals vote becuase they want to vote that way and if a celebrity like baldwin happens to agree, then that's that.
Not to mention, you seem to equate differences of opinion with treason. In that regard, 99% of cons were traitors during the 8 years of clinton. You got to be careful when you start getting into moral relativism, after all.

Secondly, besides that while you think there isn't a brutal dictaor that libs don't love, it's always the Cons that put or keep them in power... i can't help but feel the need for actual proof that Danny Glover really said what you claim or that context Jackson Lee was talking about the Syrian president. becuase I've also heard that Reno said a religouse fanatic is anybody who beleives in the bible and that the president of P&G was a satanist. The problem , of course, was that they didn't actually say that. Cons have lied and slandered so many times my BS meter goes off even as they open thier mouths. If hey said the sky was blue, i would look up just to be sure.

so getting back to my point..what Liberal elite? becuase the conservative elite seems to have a lot more power then a few celebrities you don't like.

[JHB]

14. "...puts politcs ahead of this country's security"?

You realize you've just classified the Republican Party (and the Bush Administration in particular) as "the Liberal Elite"

Democrats are not "playing politics" with this war for political gain, they're doing so because Iraq wasn't connected to the attack on us (which even Bush has had to publicly admit), yet the Administration has lied and misrepresented facts every step of the way in order to goad us into an offensive war.

If you want to talk about "misinformation", then how about addressing The Bushies ever-changing stance about WMDs?

And I would remind you that the reason we were so isolated during this war was because Bush & Co. practically spat on all of our allies for not blindly following him. Saddam was contained, so they wanted to know why it was so urgent to attack him on Bush's timetable, and not let the inspection process continue. He didn't have a good answer then (and still doesn't), so the Republicans bashed our allies instead. How did that help national security?

[Devils Advocate NZ]

20. War of self defence?

Bullshit.

More Americans are killed each year by other Americans with guns, than have ever been killed by terrorists! In 1993 ALONE there were 18,300 homicides committed with firearms (source)!

So where is the "War On Guns"?

Of course, it is a fundamental right for Americans to kill Americans with guns, isn't it?

[Q]

21. The biggest lie is that we're 'at war'...and it goes downhill from there..

- Your post nicely demonstrates the kind of RWing talking points used to unfairly demonize 'liberals'.

- Put politics before country? Isn't that exactly what Bush* and Republicans are doing by using 9-11 to advance a political agenda? Or is it only 'bad' when liberals do it?

- The problem with this type of thinking is that it's based on perception and not fact. RWingers think that criticism of the 'president' is treasonous during a 'time of war' unless it's a Dem president who has troops in the field. And let's not forget that Bush* 'invented' this war against Iraq in response to a terrorist event by SAUDI terrorists.

= I was going to give a point by point rebuttal to your post...but most of it isn't founded in fact or reality. Your post pivots around the idea that Bush* can do no wrong because he's CIC during war...a war that was unnecessary and criminal.

[FDRrocks]

28. A preemptive war of defense...

Ever read 1984?

[Granite]

36. "Democrats are playing politics with the war"

and the Repubs aren't? Bush* has taken advantage of 9/11 to enact an agenda that is hell-bent on marginalizing/silencing anyone who disagrees with him. Are you suggesting that anyone who has an issue with the way this administration is running the country is merely "playing politics?" Do you not think that there can be legitimate differences of opinion on this issue, or is there only one truth - that defined and articulated by Republicans?

Bush's* actions since 9/11 have been driven by politics - to not see that smacks of partisan dishonesty.

The "liberal elite" moniker is just another republican bogeyman, designed to continue to disparage and marginalize those who have legitmate differences with the current RW agenda.

[Trajan]

37. This commentary is riddled with fallacies ....

Figures ....

{Liberal Elite: Any person or organization that puts politcs ahead of this country's security.}

Creating a secure nation can be realized in many different ways: not necessarily that of one specific party ... Many think that the strategies of the Neocon/PNAC inspired Bush Administration will NOT in fact forge a safer, more secure nation: but will instead incite a greater hatred that will inspire millions of moderate citizens of the world to cross the line into radicalism against the US for decades to come: radicalism that can just as readily process and use WMD as Saddam 'could' .......

Your assertion that disagreements with the Bush administration on matters of national security is 'putting politics ahead of security' is false for this reason ... and it is a bifurcation fallacy ....

Ill return when I have more time to dissect and destroy your arguments one by one ....

Did you miss a turn somewhere ??? ....

[bobbieinok]

49. 'liberal elite'= person or organization that puts poli tics ahead of the

country---

Then, by your definition, W and the republicans are 'liberal elites'.

I've never seen a group before that so consistently works for its political benefit above anything else.

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Gore1FL]

5. It is a good point

The "liberal eleite" mentioned are at least out for the good of the whole. The "Conservative elite" are out for themselves.

[booley]

15. from what I gathered talking to the cons about this

the Liberal elite are supposed to the ones deciding policy.

But what politician waits to hear what Alec baldwin says on an issue? How often has a Dem has used barbera Straisand to rally liberals to vote for a political action or participate in massive political campaigns? And how effective would it be if they did?

None. At least no where on the level that Rush has done by himself..not counting the rest of the conservative punditocracy. Rush called himself the fourth branch of government and no conservative politiican that I know of disagreed with him that he could get conservative dittoheads to do what he wanted by just asking on his show.

What liberal celebrity has that kind of influence?

I mean, I like jeanine Garofolo. She is obvioulsy a liberal, obviously anti-war. she is obvioulsy well liked on this board. i do listen to what she says.
BUT...if she went out and said she supported a certain canidate, who here would change who they supported JUST ON THAT? Who here would vote a certain way just becuase she said so?

franken and Moore could probably rally a lot of liberals. So could Chomsky. But how many politicians are biting at the chomp to get in thier favor?

We knwo that their is a conservative elite. It doesn't take much to see through Shrub's false populism if you look (it's getting people to look thats the hard part) And maybe thats where the myth of the powerful liberal leite comes from. Projection. Cons assume since they have an elite telling them what to do...Liberals must as well.

Maytbe that's even a way of breaking that myth..pointing out the conservative elitism.

Just a thoery, mind you. But I have cats and I know how hard it is to herd them. Libs are only slightly better.

[Maccagirl]

8. Hell if I know

I'm a lib and I've yet to meet an "elitist". Just another term the cons have learned in Grover Norquist's school of hate-speech and have have become part of the public lexicon.

[xchrom]

12. the heart of the attack

on the liberal elite isn't a political one -- like the one listed by the posters above -- it's an invention created in the reagan era to go after academia.
the right can't rationally attack the ideals and guiding principles of the left -- so it created a mythos that allowed it to go after university and college institutions.
it plays on the natural reaction humans have to change and their economic circumstances. and by no accident is there a lingering smell of racism and sexism involved -- it's part of the fear tactic used by conservatives to motivate their base.
you'll find lynne cheney at the fore front of the war on the ''liberal elite''. i could go on but two pop-culture advocates of right wing stupidity are camille paglia and andrew sullivan.

[Iverson]

16. send them back to school?

I don't really know to get through to minds that are not merely closed but proudly closed.

Since evidence doesn't make much of a dent in their world view, critical thinking skills are the simplest route that I see for them. Few will be moved to do it on their own, so sending them back to school is the simplest answer.

Unfortunately, as liberals and lefties, we are loathe to force people to do anything, unlike our closed-minded brethren who revel in it.

[Jacobin]

18. It's the dissing you get for not being an obedient servant of the junta

You're not supposed to complain about SmirkCo and the American Conquest of the World and if you do you must be some pointy headed "librul intellectual" (i.e. you read too much and don't believe the propaganda)

[farmbo]

19. "liberal elites" = Anyone who disagrees with GOP talking points

This has been a GOP term of art since 1994 when Newt focus grouped certain phrases to be used in GOP propoganda.

The word "eite" obviously applies to the Republicans who control the wealth in this country as well as all branches of government and the media, but they've co-opted it and corrupted its meaning.

Colter and Inghram can scarcely utter a sentance without using the term.

It means nothing... and everything.

[booley]

22. Hmmm, I have an idea...too bad I don't have a million $

Do a TV spot where you have variouse "liberal elites" on.

Guy in a t-shirt and jeans.
"Hi, I'm richard. i work two jobs and make 30,00 a year. I beleive in universal health care... I am the Liberal Elite"

Woman in a diner..
'"I'm Annette. I make 25, 000 a year including tips. I thik peopel should be able to make a living wage. I am the liberal elite"

Fisherman on boat..
"hey, i'm fred. I own my own fishing boat. I think the countries waters should be protected from pollution..especially the pollution that contaminates a lot of the fish today. I am the liberal elite"

and so on and so on and so on....

too bad I don't have a million dollers to put on such a commercial.
Sigh

[Eric J in MN]

57. I think that's a brilliant ad idea. You should try to

I think that's a brilliant ad idea. You should try to get in touch with
people on the board who do ads for the Move On contest.

Maybe one of them can use your idea, for that contest, or just to post on a website.

[KharmaTrain]

25. I Show 'Em I'm A Conservative

The labels are so stupid, thus when I get into one of those name-calling tete-tetes with some Right Winger, I enjoy disarming them by showing them MY Conservative credentials...

First, I'm a proud Conservative Jew. Then I explain that this means I believe in Conserving the traditions of my faith and its values while adapting to the situations of our current world. That starts the head scratching...

Next, I describe that I'm a Fiscal Conservative. Given the chance to invest in a solid, guaranteed security vs. a high risk stock, I'll take the lower rates every time. I'm against defecits of any kind, think the Federal government is too big, we are taxed unfairly and so on. It's usually then that the Winger will say, "you should be one of us"...that's when I laugh.

Why would I support an agenda that is based purely on selfishness and the shirking of personal responsibility in one's actions? Isn't that against the Conservative ideology? Aren't the liberals the ones who want the free lunches and leave the messes for you to clean up? Doesn't sound like it looking at what's going on with this regime, does it? Then I start explaining to them how they should start THINKING about being of uf us!

[Skittles]

26. the party that has $2000 fundrasing dinners

sure likes to toss around the word ELITE a lot, eh? It's an RNC code word.

[mainer]

29. It's the American disdain for educated people

Remember how voters thought Bush would be cool to hang out with at a frat party, but that Al Gore was too much the teacher's pet? Or how Dean was sneered at for using the word "contretemps"? It's so different from France and Germany, where education earns you respect. Here in the U.S., it just earns you the charge that "you think you're special."

Voters here seem to prefer the dumb guy who does the great party tricks.

[Granite]

40. Agreed

I see this all of the time. I'm an assistant professor at a northeastern university (hah! guess I'm the repubs' poster-child for liberal elite!) I interact with working professionals in our field, and I constantly have to justify that I'm grounded in reality - that I'm not a "pie-in-the-sky, out-of-touch, ivory-tower academic." Plus I constantly have to justify to repub "friends" that I try my best to leave my personal ideology out of the classroom, that I try to frame the issues in ways that encourage critical thinking. Its an uphill battle. But just like other "wedge" issues (gay rights, race, guns), the repubs have found a way to paint "intellectuals" as liberal bogeymen, out to brainwash their kids with feminist, socialist, environmentalist, anti-corporatist, other liberal agendas.

I remember reading a poll after 2000 that revealed that Gore had a huge electoral advantage among voters who claimed higher levels of education, so this plays into the perception that Dems are the party of the intelligentsia and the repubs are the party of the people (sigh).

[Yupster]

46. Gore wins with post grads

No high school degree
Gore 59-38

High School Graduate
Bush 49-48

Some College
Bush 51-45

College Graduate
Bush 51-45%

Post-Graduate Degree
Gore 52-44

I think the post-grad numbers reflect the Democratic Party's huge support from schoolteachers more than anything else. Teachers, elementary, secondary and post-secondary get master's degrees at overwhelming numbers compared to other professions.

[Granite]

47. Thanks for that info...

I remembered that data, and agree with you regarding the Dem stronghold within education (elementary, secondary, post-secondary). Kind of ironic that repubs harp on the "liberal elite" stuff when our largest voting bloc in 2000 was the group with the least amount of formal education.

[Yupster]

45. And yet, Gore's most reliable voting bloc

by education was people who dropped out of high school which he won 59-38. Irony can be so ironic.

[Redbear]

31. Joe Conason's "Big Lies"

covers this subject very well. He explains it began with Nixon's concept of the Silent Majority and how a truly elite group representing at most 5% of the population has engaged in a pattern of lies to convince the American people that tehy are on their side.

How do you convince Joe Sixpack that you are on his side when you routinely drink $20,000 bottles of wine on your yacht?

You argue that the "elites" (the natural enemy of Joe) are the Democrats.

I had always wondered about the republican hate machine's fascination with movie people etc., but I can see its all part of the same process.

[Redleg]

55. Yes, the conservatives have replaced the class war with the culture war

and the "liberal elites" are the face of evil in the latter.

[Redleg]

56. I am! I am a liberal college professor. Fear me!

I represent all that is sick with America.

[jsw_81]

32. Liberal elites according to the freepers:

- Anyone with a degree from an accredited institution

- Anyone with an IQ above 70

- Anyone who isn't a Christian fundamentalist

- Anyone who cares about our environment

- Anyone who supports a woman's right to choose

- Anyone who doesn't think that gays should be imprisoned

- Anyone who voted for Al Gore

[librechik]

33. anyone who tries to make them think

rather than blissfully swallow the line of crap ground out in the "liberal" media!

[LeahMira]

35. Back in the 1950s ...

... they were called the "intelligentia."

I think it's a reference to people who are educated.

People who are calling other people "liberal elites" just don't see why you need to discuss philosophy when religion has the answers to all of those difficult questions. They don't get why you need sociology when "family values" says it all for them. Why spend a week's lunch money to go to the theater to see a show when you can watch TV? Why should money go to the National Endowment for the Arts to sponsor museums with Jackson Pollack paintings (or elephant dung ones or crosses in urine, etc.) when you can buy a Norman Rockwell reproduction at WalMart that you don't need a course in art appreciation to understand?

The people who call others "liberal elites" simply don't understand, or care to understand, any number of ideas that the "liberal elites" find life enriching. And, in truth, for any number of people in this country, life is such a competitive rat race and so stressful that they find those who do have the time (or who make the time) for these kinds of interests to be out of touch with their reality. And who knows? Maybe they are right. I'm sure they do feel "put down" all the time, and I know I wouldn't like it if I were made to feel that way.

Certainly W is not one of the "elites" in that sense. I don't suppose he worries much about philosophical discussions, for example. And maybe that's why these people who resent the "liberal elites" find W to be so appealing.

[rucky]

42. I agree. It's more cultural than political. n/t

[Cleita]

38. I was called that a decade ago up in the north woods.

It was a word that local logging culture pinned on environmentalists. Somehow in their weird little minds I also wore Birckenstocks and was from California. So the phrase came out in several variations of, "you Birckenstock wearing liberal elitist Californian".

So it came as a surprise to me since I have never owned a pair of Birckenstocks and I lived in a trailer and spent the summers mopping our vault toilets (outhouses) as a campground host for the Forest Service. How elitist is that? I was from California. That was the only truth in those accusations.

I never had an answer other than to askthem to explain to me what they think an elitist is. It turns out it means anyone who isn't part of their inbred culture and actually spoke grammatically correct English.

The gun culture also flings those accusations at everyone who doesn't think that Wayne LaPierre is a god.

[CrownPrinceBandar]

41. You should get a pair of 'Stocks...

they're actually quite comfortable. And anyone who says that foot comfort speaks to your political slant is an idiot anyway.

[CrownPrinceBandar]

39. I think this thread...

has answered itself. The fact that there are ump-teen replies here, each with their own slant on what constitues "liberal elite," makes the concept such an elusive and effemoral one that it pushes the boundaries of existence. I believe the liberal elite is a white buffalo. Something that June Cleaver tells little Beav about at night to scare him into joining the Heritage Foundation.
Seriously, I wouldn't hold up Alec Baldwin and Babs as paragons of liberality, and I definitely wouln't hang on their every word. Ben Affleck? Please. They are just hollywood actors, with no REAL political credibility. The fact that the cons feel the need to even attack the is laughable and stinks of paranoia. Ted Kennedy and Dick Durbin are the closest you can get to a liberal elite. Meaning, they are democrats with political position and influence. However, when was the last time you heard of a neo-con think tank soiling their panties about what Ted Kennedy is gonna do?
In my experiece, most "real" liberals tend to be the grass-roots folk. The people who were wondering when the lower and middle classes are going to get their tax break. The people who are supportive of the troops, but against the war (not an oxymoron). Folks who are wondering what happened to the voice they use to have in their own affairs.

[Gman03]

43. Paternalism

I suppose "liberal elites" are those that think folks like themselves, or the government, need to take care of the ignorant masses.

[Cleita]

44. Perhaps the tax money that makes

corporations rich should be spent on education so that the masses aren't ignorant. It works for me. Tax dollars to educate children instead of kill them in foreign lands. What an elitist concept!

[Blue_Chill]

48. Liberal Elite live in the Ivory Tower

now all you have to do is find the ivory tower and ask them. Good luck :D

[bobbieinok]

51. in the 50s it was 'eggheads in ivory towers'

and it was pretty clear that the university was the ivory tower.

One of my brothers since the 60s has always countered any political statement by me, my ex-husband, or my son - with '.....but in the REAL WORLD'

[kodi]

50. "liberal elite" is one with an education or wealth opposing conservatives

it is not without note that conservatives are suspicious of opponents who exhibit intelligence or money since the former can easily disect their bullshit arguments and the latter undermne their philosophical underpinnings of the innate value of human selfishness.

[denverbill]

52. Right wingers hate people who are educated.

Every right-wing dictatorship cracks down on university professors and other educators. Education encourages people to discard prejudices and examine things with an open mind. People who do that tend to discard conservative ideas.

People like your friend are just repeating what they hear over and over on the radio. "Limosine liberals" "liberal elites", etc, are simply propagandistic inventions designed to discredit ideas which can't be fought with conservative ideas. So rather than attempt to compete in the intellectual realm, they discredit intellectualism itself.

Fortunately, these tactics don't work well with intelligent people. Unfortunately, they do work well on others.

[Yupster]

53. And yet,

if only people with high school diplomas would have been able to vote, Bush would have won comfortably.

If only people with college degrees would have been able to vote, Bush would have won comfortably.

[fishguy]

58. Liberal elite means well-educated person

Someone who is not born wealthy or has a bachelor's degree or less.

Conservatives love to place these generalities on unnamed people.
If they had to name one of the "liberal elite", they could not do it.

Kind of like when Ann Coulter is asked what liberal should be executed. She can't name one.

[sendero]

60. Elite...

elite - political adjective - anyone who disagrees with you and is not stupid and hence a threat