"For generations they've been seen as the party of the rich. Democrats don't have that problem. Their Achilles' heel is cultural elitism: the sense that they value highfalutin' Ivy League degrees more than practical experience; that they look down their noses at folks who go to church, hunt and fish, and salute the flag."
From "Does America like its candidates poor?" by Paul Begala, who is trying to explain why it's okay that Hillary Clinton is rich.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
64 comments:
Not for anything the Democrat politicians have done.
It's the fault of the media, who make the Democrats out to be the party of the people and fool the low information voters into believing such silliness.
Look how Sarah Palin was treated. A blue collar hero, come up from nothing special. And she becomes a VP candidate and buys some expensive clothes and it's a news story. For shame!
But you don't see the same shaming of Michelle Obama. Nor would you of Hillary Clinton. These women deserve their expensive clothes.
That's the message we get.
Didn't employees of Goldman Sachs donate heavily to President Obama's campaign?
Which party tends to get social and financial support from the Big Entertainment world? Is the Entertainment business big enough to be Big Business?
I think those stereotypes from the 1930s need to be revised.
The Clinton world view is so 1990s.
In the 1900s jealousy of Rich Americans was a way to get middle class votes like the FDR coalition did. Today's winners of the 2008 bailout are Dems and now are the World's uber-rich. And everyone of them is a true Global Warmist seeking again to use the "crisis" to steer a government looting of what is left in the middle-class' hands.
This is kind of missing the point here. People aren't necessarily taking issue with the fact that Hillary Clinton is wealthy, they're taking issue with her attempts to downplay and mislead people about her wealth.
Republicans being the party of the very rich is pre-WWII stuff. Even by the 1950's they were - in Nixon's words - the party of "the respectable Republican cloth coats." It was already the Democrats who wore vicuna overcoats and smoked the really expensive Havana cigars.
And today Hillary! (and Bill) consider themselves among the impoverished in the company they travel.
That's true, in the sense that those are the conventional wisdom views people generally have of the two parties (though partisans of each side would see it differently). Voters seemed okay with FDR's wealth, as they believed his politics were formed despite and not because of that wealth. Romney's wealth was used against him (both in the primary and the general) because enough people believed that his politics were insulated by a lifetime of wealth and an attempt to protect that wealth. Fair or not, that's how the conventional wisdom has worked.
Likewise, if a Democrat spends a lot of time hobnobbing with Hollywood celebrities, it feeds into this notion of the Democrats being cultural elitists ooh-ing and aah-ing with out of touch rich snobs like Sean Penn or Barbra Streisand. But that same charge wouldn't work on Mike Huckabee hanging around with Chuck Norris or Clint Eastwood attending the GOP convention, or Reagan hobnobbing with Sinatra.
However, I don't think these latest Hillary! gaffes are a problem because they remind Americans how rich and out of touch she is (though of course she is rich and out of touch--she was first lady of a state since the '70s, followed by 8 years as First Lady of the U.S., then a Senator, then Secretary of State--how could she not be rich and out of touch?). They're a problem because they remind Americans that she and her husband are constantly trying to spin and dissemble every chance they get. Instead of simply saying "yes we're very rich, we get paid a lot of money to speak and for rights to our memoirs" she goes on some laughable sob story about being "dead broke" or trying to act as though she "earned her money" as opposed to Mitt Romney (who apparently just got checks written to him for no reason for decades). The conventional wisdom that Begala is ignoring is the conventional wisdom that the Clintons are sleazy dishonest people, and if they get elected it will be despite that.
It's all a matter of perception. The reality is that there is no dichotomy. Both moral and natural principles are negotiable in principle, if not actually in practice. This is evidence of a regression to an untempered natural order. Perhaps an inevitable conclusion of progressive corruption and dysfunction, which every civilization is destined to confront.
But the only reason the Clintons do not have their own Gulfstream is that Hillary! is too cheap to buy one as long they can just put the arm on others to provide them a ride when needed.
Poor??...as in lacking accomplishment?
Sorry, I failed to get past the first paragraph.
An alternative explanation is that the Democratic Party consists of the super-rich 0.01% (the part of the 1% actually enjoying income gains) and the poor. The super rich are the brains who control the agenda, while the poor are the ballot-box muscle that keeps them in power, bribed with handouts funded by the middle class.
Chris Low:
Exactly. The Left gains control of a country by squeezing the middle class to reduce political, economic, and social diversity. The Republicans, if they are still representative of American interests, need to reconsider and change policies which demote the middle class.
Chris Low got it absolutely correct.
Further reading of the thread is strictly for entertainment purposes.
Democrats are the party of government and Republicans are the party of entrepreneurship. Once you think about it that way, it all makes sense.
Some very rich people support an activist government because government can be very useful in maintaining a very wealthy person's wealth and position. Government can erect barriers to entry to smaller competitors. Government can reward its preferred businessmen by subsidizing expensive research or even entire ventures. Corporate welfare is rampant in this country, and it's appalling that many people view it as a purely Republican phenomenon. Democrats do it just as much, if not more.
The poor fall in line with the Democrats, because more government means more goodies paid for by others, especially those who aren't rich enough to avoid taxes.
There are many ironies in our current political system. My favorite is the observation that in today's politics the bold visionaries call themselves conservative, the reactionaries tirelessly flogging worn out ideas call themselves progressive, and the greatest threat currently faced by liberal democracy is posed by liberal Democrats.
That said, another great irony is that, while the Democratic Party is the party of the super rich and giant corporations and the Republican Party is the party of the small entrepreneur and the middle class, anti-rich and anti-big business sentiment is almost uniformly directed against the Republicans by Democrats.
...they look down their noses at folks who go to church, hunt and fish, and salute the flag.
Jeez, anyone with a three-digit IQ does that. I'd hardly call it elitism.
2012 - Rich people are bad bad bad
2014 - it's ok HRC is rich, because she's a Dem and not rich-rich.
Clinton doesn't think she's wealthy because she doesn't own the private jets she flies in.
All my rich Democrat friends vote democrat, that's because like Hillary they are not truly well off.
Republicans being the party of the very rich is pre-WWII stuff. Even by the 1950's they were - in Nixon's words - the party of "the respectable Republican cloth coats." It was already the Democrats who wore vicuna overcoats and smoked the really expensive Havana cigars.
I think that is pretty accurate. Republicans were main street, while Wall Street long had more of a leftist orientation.
An alternative explanation is that the Democratic Party consists of the super-rich 0.01% (the part of the 1% actually enjoying income gains) and the poor. The super rich are the brains who control the agenda, while the poor are the ballot-box muscle that keeps them in power, bribed with handouts funded by the middle class.
I don't think that is quite right either. The problem I see are the recent statistics I saw that those making more than, say, $100k, and below $40k, tend to be Democrats, and those between, Republicans. Something like that. Those earning less than $40k or so are, of course, the masses that are bribed by ObamaPhones, free birth control, etc. to vote Democratic. But there is a large group of professionals and the like who vote Dem too. They are rich enough to not be hurt by progressive policies, and most likely didn't work their way up to those incomes, but were doing well by the time their were maybe 30. If you want to see a lot of them in one place, just look at Boulder (CO). Still, I would put both groups, those on the bottom economically, and the moderately well to do who didn't work their way up to their wealth over a long period of time as the Dems' sheeple. Their useful idiots.
The .1% and .01% are who do run the Dem party, much more than the Rep party. Some of it may be ideological. But a lot of it is pure crony capitalism. They know that buying politicians is the best way to increase their wealth. But, the interesting thing to me is how really powerful Dem politicians manage to join that .1% and .01%. Kerry married his money. Edwards channeled unborn babies for his. Gore panicked the nation with visions of the oceans rising 100 feet. The Clintons sold influence around the world. And, Harry Reid, not in their company, yet, made his wealth through a bunch of inside deals that would have never been available absent his role in the Senate. And, I would not be surprised if Obama was able to follow them into great wealth upon leaving the White House - though probably not as well as the Clintons did, because he doesn't exhibit Hillary's level of greed. These last examples seem to indicate that Dem politicians, if sufficiently powerful, can be inducted into the .1% and even .01%, based on their service to other centa-millionaires and billionaires.
Progressive political ethics is situational.
Vilifying Romney for being rich helped the progressive cause and was therefore good. (Begala laughably claims it was all just about how he made his money.)
Vilifying Clinton (or Kennedy or . . . ) for being rich would hurt the cause and is therefore bad.
As far as how to overcome these notions (of the Democrats as a cultural elite and the GOP as an economic elite) it seems it should be easier for a Democrat than a Republican. Attend religious services, drink beer, eat pork rinds--just avoid the usual pitfalls of discussing the price of fancy lettuce at Whole Foods or holding a hunting rifle the wrong way.
But for the GOP, explaining to voters that your policies are really about creating more jobs and that wealth is not a zero some game between the haves and have nots--this is a defensive strategy that won't fit on bumper stickers. If you have to explain yourself more than the other guy does, you have a disadvantage. And it's harder for an actual millionaire to hide the fact that he's a millionaire than it is for a cultural urbanite to fake being a regular Joe. (Hell, George W Bush was both part of the cultural and economic elite--but he had a much easier time convincing people that he was no cultural elitist)
As someone wrote (can't remember who or I'd give credit): "The Democratic Party is the party of the little guy--if, by 'little guy,' you mean the IRS."
Not to mention the Kennedys, the Hollywood Left, the Park Avenue Pinks, and of course Darth Soros.
And come to think of it, President Alinsky and his butch wife are pretty well-heeled, too.
If only these "compassionate" folk they would use their money to, you know, actually help people, instead of advancing the power of Der Staat.
"I remember when 'liberal' meant being generous with your own money."--Will Rogers,
"...[Obama] doesn't exhibit Hillary's level of greed."
Moochelle does.
Am I the only one annoyed by this increasingly common misuse of "downfall" to mean "flaw" or "problem"? I would have thought Begala would have known better.
As an aspiring connoisseur of hackery, this piece has bold Clintonian notes. The spin is strong and situational, earthy, with hints of activism. It doesn't linger in the brain.
I'm going to say 'Tax & Spend, 1993' with some 2014 activist box-wine blended right-in off the shelf.
Democrats are the party of government and Republicans are the party of entrepreneurship. Once you think about it that way, it all makes sense.
I think that is mostly correct. And, when you view it that way, you see how the top .1% and the bottom maybe 40% have common cause - they want an activist government. The top .1% because of crony capitalism - they either get protection from competitors, or sweetheart deals from the government. As I pointed out above, it is just good business buying politicians these days, esp. since so many are so willing to sell themselves. And, of course, the bottom economically are in it for the free handouts. So, the .1% buy the votes needed for their crony deals by supplying ObamaPhones, Food Stamps, Medicaid, etc. to the least affluent, in trade for their votes.
The natural constituences of the Democrats are:
1. Government employees
2. Those dependent on welfare programs
3. Academia, which is often a combination of 1 & 2 above
4. Hollywood
5. Unions
The big lie is that the Democrats are the party of the working man and woman. Democrats do support union employees but that's only a small percentage of the non-government workforce and is done only to get union dues as campaign contributions.
Employees in the private sector are screwed just as are the business owners by government tax burdens and regulations.
Some Republicans get very comfortable tossing around epithets like "low information voters" for anyone who has different opinion than they do. And then they call Dems arrogant.
Just my worthless opinion, but "low information voters" is a meme for losers. It turns people way off.
Romney's wealth was used against him (both in the primary and the general) because enough people believed that his politics were insulated by a lifetime of wealth and an attempt to protect that wealth.
Of course, that is complete spin BS (not your comment, but the thesis). Romney actually gave away his inheritance, and continues to give away large amounts of money. The money he does have comes from building business and creating jobs. Contrast this with the Clinton fortune, maybe half the Romneys', built almost completely from selling political influence. How many jobs did the Clintons create in creating their wealth? Personal staff, and that is about it.
And talk about being out of touch. My understanding is that Mitt Romney still drives. Hillary! apparently hasn't driven herself since she moved into the White House over 20 years ago. Driving is for the little people, which is why she has people to do that for her.
Then how would you describe "low information voters," phx? "Informationally challenged"? And do you think the Republicans would have any chance of wooing the low-fo vote, anyway? Just wondering.
No information voters is the worst problem we face. And the insiders plan to keep it that way for as long as possible.
Two things have changed everything since 2000:
1) China became the world's industrial mega producer that we once were here in the USA, and
2)The computer power came into being to easily run a World economic system from one world capital, as soon as the Programmers catch up, which is about now.
And the political insiders have all been acting under "the invisible hand" of knowing those two game changers, while the No Information Voters still have no clue about them.
America does not insist that its candidates be poor but prefers that it candidates not acquire their riches as a result of having held public office.
"Of course, that is complete spin BS (not your comment, but the thesis). Romney actually gave away his inheritance, and continues to give away large amounts of money. The money he does have comes from building business and creating jobs. Contrast this with the Clinton fortune, maybe half the Romneys', built almost completely from selling political influence. How many jobs did the Clintons create in creating their wealth? Personal staff, and that is about it.
And talk about being out of touch. My understanding is that Mitt Romney still drives. Hillary! apparently hasn't driven herself since she moved into the White House over 20 years ago. Driving is for the little people, which is why she has people to do that for her."
Absolutely. Unfortunately Romney was on defense the whole time, probably not expecting that his GOP primary opponents would be starting the "vulture capitalism" crap (and Gingrich and Santorum had every right to do this, but not if they expect anyone to consider them loyal conservatives--this was a pointless cheap shot that could not have helped in the general election, but that's a discussion for another day).
The thing is, Romney was (and remains) very rich, and he amassed that money legitimately--even though he started out well-off, he built on that himself and deserved credit for it. But when your party has been labeled (fairly or not) the "party of the wealthy" you have to get in front of that, and early. As I said, when you've got to explain why your policies help everyone who isn't already rich, you're playing defense. The class warfare used by Obama in 2012 was impressive in its shamelessness. Romney may have benefitted from shaping his intended image much earlier though, rather than letting his opponents shape it for him.
Hillary is shamelessly out of touch, but I think Begala's right that she can counter that if she supports a bunch of "bleed the rich" policies. Voters on the left don't seem to much care when their candidates have a lot of wealth, as long as they seem embarrassed by it and (at least apparently, though not in reality) ready to part with a lot of that wealth for the common good.
For an attack plan, I think the GOP would get a lot farther with the "you couldn't trust Hillary before, and you still can't trust her" tactic rather than the "she's rich!" tactic.
phx,
Did you ever watch "Watters' World" on "The O'Reilly Show'?
And. yes, these people sometimes vote and determine election outcomes.
phx: "Some Republicans get very comfortable tossing around epithets like "low information voters" for anyone who has different opinion than they do."
LOL
The dems are very very respectful of those with views different than their own.
Why, to even suggest that the libs would use terms like "low information voter" is ridiculous!
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/08/07/dumb_and_dumber
snip1: "The term is mainly used by liberals to refer to those who vote conservative against their interests and the best interests of the nation."
snip2: "Interestingly, I have yet to run across a liberal castigating low-information voters who happen to vote Democrat on the basis of information from liberal media, friends, or family. It's a term that goes one way: left to right."
Thanks for playing phx.
Next time, you know, try harder or something.
phx: "Some Republicans get very comfortable tossing around epithets like "low information voters" ...
The phrase was originally coined by lefties as a pejorative to describe people who voted for Republicans.
It has come to be applied to Democrats because they demonstrate with regularity that it is a better fit. Soon, with the continued assistance of the lefty mediaswine Democrats will move on to "no information voters."
In the 21st century the notion that the Republicans are the party of the rich is entirely fabricated.
The Democrats are the party of the very rich and the poor. Folks like Jeff Bezos, George Soros, and Lloyd Blankfein could buy the Koch brothers and not notice that they'd spent the money. Do you think that they stand up for the little guy, or do you think that they are okay with any sort of financial criminality as long as the perpetrator is a Democrat in good standing? If you disagree, then what about Tim Geithner's taxes and Jon Corzine's embezzlement?
Bush was a "down-home guy you could have a beer with"? For the last time, Mr. Begala, the guy's teetotal and has been for decades.
There's no doubt that this is a populist moment. Americans worry about the collapse of the American Dream and the shrinking of the middle class. If Clinton runs on an agenda of empowering working people -- with an increase in the minimum wage, equal pay for women, student debt relief, increased availability of child care, prekindergarten, and an end to tax breaks for corporations that ship jobs overseas -- few voters will care how fat her bank account is.
Unfortunately, the sheeple are economically illiterate and fail to grasp that this kind of political programming is a recipe for further decline and stagnation.
We're so much better off as a society with an economic engine that is driven by the investments of rich people in risky propositions that can potentially create further wealth for the rich investors, create new rich people who formerly weren't and give productive employment to millions.
This massive overhang of looselugnut librul deadweight social programming on the economy is dragging us down down down.
Accept the new reality; better days for us all are not possible. That's exactly what the lefties are selling.
-Krumhorn
jussendavis: "America ... prefers that it candidates not acquire their riches as a result of having held public office."
Not necessarily so. Acquisition of wealth through graft in public office is a time-honored tradition among Democrats. E.g., LBJ, Harry Reid, Jesse Jackson (the youngest), Richard Daley, Tammany Hall etc., etc.
It's not just ok that she's rich, it's great. Let her be rich.
What sucks is her pretending that she was ever poor, or that she's not truly rich now.
Everyone knows the Republicans are the party of the rich and the Democrats the party of the middle class and poor. That is conventional wisdom.
The historical basis for the Republicans are for the wealthy meme
It's true.
http://www.debt.org/faqs/americans-in-debt/economic-demographics-democrats/
"An individual’s likelihood of being a Democrat decreases with every additional dollar he or she earns.
Democrats have a huge advantage (63 percent) with voters earning less than $15,000 per year.
This advantage carries forward for individuals earning up to $50,000 per year, and then turns in the Republicans’ favor — with just 36 percent of individuals earning more than $200,000 per year supporting Democrats.
Interestingly, the median household income in the United States is $49,777 — right near the point where the Democratic advantage disappears and the Republicans take over."
+
From the Department of Irony Department:
Income Inequality Is Higher In Democratic Districts Than Republican Ones
Hillary! combines in one person a huge fortune, a highfalutin' Ivy League degree, and a lack of practical experience. She's bipartisan!
Willie Stark and his fancy white suits
Alex said...
Everyone knows the Republicans are the party of the rich and the Democrats the party of the middle class and poor. That is conventional wisdom.
Just as everybody know that the Dems are the party of the cultural elite. I count many here among the self-described cultural elite, including you. No one is willing to introspect.
Hillary is probably as rich as Mitt Romney. And she and the dems pretend like she's not one of the 1%.
Only the true fools will fall for it.
And for all the talk of wage gaps, its always in the blue states where you actually see the wage gap at its worst.
Why is anyone taking Paul Begala's partisan bullshit seriously, as if he were offering any sort of factual analysis? He's a hack for the Clintons, knee pads and all.
The Democrats are for Big Business as any Republican.
Jeez, anyone with a three-digit IQ does that. I'd hardly call it elitism.
We can call you a narrow minded douche bag instead, since you're not rich.
"Vilifying Clinton (or Kennedy or . . . ) for being rich would hurt the cause and is therefore bad."
No, Clinton got his money from government and giving speeches. Kennedy inherited his.
Romney worked for his and built industries that employed, and currently employ, thousands if not millions.
Look at WalMart. The Waltons built that company in one generation. John Walton , the son, was a sergeant in Vietnam. Clinton and Kennedy would never stoop to such a role.
>The historical basis for the Republicans are for the wealthy meme<
it works because demonrats are the party of the "zero sum economic game". ask the slaves?
It has come to be applied to Democrats because they demonstrate with regularity that it is a better fit. Soon, with the continued assistance of the lefty mediaswine Democrats will move on to "no information voters."
It is hard to fathom how the bulk of the Dem voters could be anything but "low information". If they weren't low information voters, they wouldn't vote for progressive solutions for essentially anything. Esp. not fixing the economy, esp. mired in the longest downturn/lack of recovery in most of our lifetimes. We are in the 6th year of Obamanomics, and 1Q GDP just got adjusted into negative territory. Last election, we were already 4 years into the Obama Recession, and yet, more people ignored that and voted for 4 more years of the same, or worse, than voted for sane economics.
You also have to be pretty low information to believe these days that the government, and, esp. the federal government can solve any real problems facing this country. You have to ignore all the government failures, including shipping guns to the Mexican cartels, throwing millions out of their health insurance (who liked their plans and doctors, and lost both), VA administrators getting millions in bonuses for essentially killing thousands of veterans, Benghazi, trading our top 5 terrorists at Gitmo for a guy who walked off his post, and is likely a deserter, an out of control, above the law, IRS, etc. The government is run for the benefit of the government employees, politicians, and for the fat cats who can get either sweetheart deals, or can get protection from competition. The last people the government looks out for are the taxpayers (esp. with illegals apparently getting better health care than our veterans).
Please explain to me how a high to moderate information voter could vote for any of that.
The meme of GOP as the tycoons comes straight out of the winner The War that ended in 1865.
The Democrat Party of the agrarian south woke up dead broke with NO legal money at all, but with a 70 year status as a Northern owned Colony imposed on it.
The GOP Party of the Industrial north woke up with all the existent capital wealth in America, half of a rich North American Continent left to develop, no income taxes, no foreign enemies, and a huge manifest destiny.
So the GOP guys actually once owned the great wealth and the Democrats endured the grinding poverty. That all shifted after WWII, but the cultural memory is with us to this day.
I think it important to define what economic elitism means to different sectors and demographics of people. I also think it important to define what "means to" means.
jr565 said...
Hillary is probably as rich as Mitt Romney.
Uh, no.
Romney invested money and created wealth for himself and many other by helping to create productive enterprises. Hillary and Bill give speeches and get included in the occasional sweetheart investment deal.
Romney has worked his vein longer and more effectively than the Clintons, whose wealth is in the tens of millions. Romney is in the hundreds of millions. Which is fair, because from an economic perspective he has created more.
Hillary and Bill have control of that double-wide down in Little Rock - including the penthouse on top - which when last heard of, when the building was completed, had garnered $495 million in "donations," and I would imagine there has been a few more coming in since. Then they have several "non-profit" "charitable" organizations, which also help pay their bills.
Then, folks on Wall St. with nothing better to do, do indeed estimate the Clintons' personal means to be in the neighborhood of Romney's estimated net worth.
Note that the one time when Hillary! demonstrably spent their own money, on Chelsea's wedding, she blew an estimated $3 million on that event. This you don't do, especially if you are as tight as Hillary!, if you are "broke and struggling to make ends meet."
"You also have to be pretty low information to believe these days that the government, and, esp. the federal government can solve any real problems facing this country."
The government can help solve the real problems facing this country...if the people in government serve their constituents, that is, the people of America. In fact, only the government can do so.
The problem is not government, per se, but who serves in government and who they serve, (i.e., Wall Street, the big banks, the financial elites).
Both parties now are the parties of the wealthy class, and neither party serves the interests of the American citizenry. If one considers who government really serves, one see the government is not dysfunctional at all, but is quite capable at achieving the ends desired by government's actual constituents.
The phrase was originally coined by lefties as a pejorative to describe people who voted for Republicans.
That's fine, I'm much more comfortable with Repubs owning it now.
Did you ever watch "Watters' World" on "The O'Reilly Show'?
And. yes, these people sometimes vote and determine election outcomes.
No, I haven't seen those shows. But if your point is that there really are "low-information" voters, I completely agree. Probably most voters could be characterized that way. I personally think I probably am, in a relative way.
My point is that it's obviously used as a smug insult, even if it's true. Independents and moderates aren't likely to reward those kind of expressions imo.
Many people who Republicans need probably find it as annoying as I do.
phx: "That's fine, I'm much more comfortable with Repubs owning it now."
LOL
Upon what evidence do republicans "own" this now?
More "received wisdom" from the left side of the dial.
Again, thanks for sharing your premises. All of which constitute assuming facts not in evidence.
But hey, I get it. You staked out a position. It was wrong. Now is the time for a little goalpost slidin'....
The word, the very word, "information" has been utterly corrupted and transformed.
I'm not sure why anyone feels all elated by and respectful of that word anymore, any adjectives--"low" and "high," for example, and also low and high, as part of general categorization--notwithstanding.
rcommal wrote: The word, the very word, "information" has been utterly corrupted and transformed.
"To Inform," in the original metaphor, meant "to form + into." I imagine a potter's hands, forming clay (or putty) with bare hands. In that sense -- the older sense -- the word has not lost meaning.
@rcommal: You seem compelled to "call out" people you otherwise like. I appreciate this because it reminds me of good parenting. I, on the other hand, like to call out people with whom I disagree or otherwise dislike. Maybe it's my zodiac sign.
Post a Comment