Ivy League Liberal Elitism Will Make Sarah Palin President - How Only Union Organizing Can Preventit

[Omaha Steve]

http://www.truthout.org/1111099

Wednesday 11 November 2009

by: Mike Elk, t r u t h o u t | Op-Ed

photo
(Photo: geerlingguy; Edited: Jared Rodriguez / t r u t h o u t)

Conservatives win many votes saying that liberals are elitist. I am here to tell you that the liberal movement is indeed very elitist. Its organization's staffs are composed mainly of Ivy leaguers whose life experiences are dramatically different than the 70 percent of Americans that never graduate from college. Very few of them have any actual experience living with or knowing working-class people. As a graduate of Bucknell, I still feel out of a place and most glaringly underdressed when I get in a room with the Ivy Leaguers running our movement.


(Photo: geerlingguy; Edited: Jared Rodriguez / t r u t h o u t)

As garbageman turned United Electrical Workers (UE) in Political Action Director Chris Townsend put it to me:

"When I am in meetings in Washington, DC, with organizations that presume to speak for workers or on behalf of workers - I ironically find myself the only worker in the room. As a worker with a GED - and 30-plus years of labor union experience - opinions like mine are rarely sought and universally dismissed as being too extremist when most workers feel the way I do about things. This is why it is so common for liberal and left-wing staff and activists to completely misunderstand workers."

The experiences of liberal elites are so outside of the mainstream that, very often, they just don't understand the working class. They fail to communicate to workers because most of them have never talked to a worker in real life, except for to ask for fries at McDonald's. Instead, when they fail to understand the misdirected anger of the working class at its economic anxiety, they tend to engage in intellectual snobbery and narrow-mindedness that only serve to alienate the white working class further.

Such snobbery was expressed to me in an email recently sent to me from a Democratic media strategist who said the message of the day was, "Conservatives face a choice about the future of their movement: Will they come to the table to get things done or 'stick with the angry people'?"

Well, let me think about that for a second. If I am a poor white guy, do I want to go with the polite people (Democrats) who are going to beg for change with their sophisticated intellectual arguments that I don't understand? Or do I want to be with the party (Republicans) that embraces my anger and wants to get out in the streets to yell about how awful this economy is?

Americans are screaming now about the economic hell we are in. Republicans are screaming about how awful the economy is and winning many of them over. Albeit, they're winning them with the wrong solutions, but they are trying to win Joe the Plumber, not Joe Stiglitz, so the details don't really matter.

On the economy, the Democratic message is, "Sit tight, don't get out in the street and protest, everything will be alright."

FULL story at link.

[NRaleighLiberal]

1. and the fact that republican policies and presidents made their plights bad is immaterial?

I agree that "liberals" need to do a better job connecting with and understanding the "angry republicans" - but at some point, the angry republicans need to engage their brains just a bit (I guess I have a foot in both camps - grew up lower middle class and worked my butt off to get to school, went to a crappy undergrad school, but made it to Ivy league for my grad degree).

Way too much generalizing in that Op Ed for my comfort level.

[noiretextatique]

2. i didn't care for the article either

i think his premise is beyond generalizing: it's stereotyping. and the title is just plain stupid. if anything, Blue Dog triangulation will give palin a shot at the presidency :rofl: i don't really believe that, but i didn't think ronald reagan or george bush would be president either.

[C_Lawyer09]

4. Really?

you didn't think Reagan would be president? All that money and corporate interest behind him, to say nothing of the manipulation of the Iranian hostage crisis.

[noiretextatique]

5. no...i thought he was an idiot, and an actor

and a disaster in the making. i did not then, and do not now understand his appeal. money, corporate interest manipulation of the hostage crisis...those things certainly had a lot to do with why he won. but as to why so many people voted for him...that i will never understand.

[dschis]

7. YOU MISSED THE POINT!!!!

The Democratic party has disconnected with the average 'working joe'. When I see posting like this it confirms it. Look at MSNBC, they haven't said anything about jobs and the plight of the working middle class. In order to have an "elite class" you must have an economic foundation, but we have for been shipping that foundation to China, India, etc.
You wonder why the working class votes Republican in the South and the West? A clue, Jobs, Jobs, Jobs. Sure the Repugs have been screwing us over for at least 25 years, but at least 'the great unewashed' were working.
Dems need to work on GOOD PAYING jobs yesterday and be willing to put some other issues a little further down the list.

To hell with Wall Street (they should relocate everybody and bulldoze), cut the military to the bone, send everyone back to school, and tell everybody we will tax the hell out of the rich unless you're putting someone to work. If need be, start the WPA

MEDIA (especially Rachael/Kieth) I'm talking to you, President Obama I hope you get this.

[Berry Cool]

13. I don't think it's fair to say Keith and Rachel don't get that.

They've talked about jobs. They talk about things that matter to everyone. One of the things I've always appreciated about Keith is that he doesn't ACT like a guy with an Ivy League degree when it comes to caring about issues that affect average people who didn't have his advantages in life. It may be because he didn't come from money to begin with--his father was self-educated as an architect--his parents had to work hard to give him the educational advantages he had. It's the same thing with me--I have an MA, but I'm the most educated person in my family. My father dropped out of high school, my mother never got to go to college and only one of my siblings has a bachelor's. Two of them are just working-class people trying to get by with a high school education and the expertise years of experience in a job gave them. And they're having a hellish time trying to do it, because one became an expert in a dying industry and settled for a retail floor job after having been downsized out of every job she ever had that used her real skills (she just doesn't have enough entrepreneurial spirit to try to turn her skills into a business), and the other faces constant oppression from management that treats her like shit.

[noiretextatique]

14. no, i didn't miss the point

the democratic party has disconnected...period, not just with the average working joe. i mostly vote democratic to avoid the horror of a republicon majority. as for the rest, i agree.

[C_Lawyer09]

11. A DU relevant example of understanding

and this is considering I'm a fairly liberal Democrat, especially regarding social issues. I have guns I like to shoot. I took issue with a few generalizations relevant to gun ownership/legislation, you should have seen the peanut gallery open up. I'm surprised at the inability of many in here to evaluate and use critical thinking skills to evaluate issues of importance. You don't have to agree or endorse an issue to examine a conflicting opinion. What if the examination caused you to have an epiphany that helped you solve a problem?

[C_Lawyer09]

3. Intellectual honesty

The military in large part is a microcosm of the American working class, and working poor. Most Democrats have a very hard time making undertandable arguments/explanations that resonate with most of my buddies. You have to break it down shotgun style and forget about the platitudes. You'll never win anybody over with any argument if they can't understand your stance. You are correct most ivy league elites, regardless of where their hearts are, surround themselves with more of the same, and alienate much of the working class. There is also a rugged individualism represented in the Republican politicians of the West(whether they are rugged individualists or not)that washes well with farmers, ranchers, and loggers. There is a very self righteous attitude about some issues, especially guns that will always distance a large portion of Western voters. The reality is, there is a big lack of common ground. I thought your post was very insightful.

[noiretextatique]

6. i am alienated from the democrats in congress and the house

not because they are "elitist" but because they are not representing me. i am probably what the author would consider a liberal elitist, and i don't feel any more represented by democrats than your buddies. i think the washington elites, liberal, moderates, centrists, conservatives...whatever...do not represent the best interests of most people in this country.

[C_Lawyer09]

8. Hello campaign finance reform

That is the answer that will keep the undesirables out, not the voting public as we note with Reagan. GE was the catapult of his Presidential campaign. I'll bet if Schwarzenegger ran they'd elect him as well.

[OHdem10]

9. The Democratic Party does not have one central organizing

Philosophy. With no set of principles to guide, most Democrats
in Congress(both Houses) come across as hesitant and many
appear lacking in confidence. When you have a set of principles
which guide you, you have much more confidence. More confidence
equals more persuasive arguments on the issues.

I agree with the writer. Elitism is a problem. At least the
appearance of being Elitist.

[C_Lawyer09]

10. Great point

And all too often perception is reality. Also, be who you are. Remember when Presidential Candidate Kerry held the duck hunting photo op? Don't try and manipulate portions of the electorate. I think meaningful campaign finance reform that isn't gutted or relegislated is the only answer. There are very few politicians left on either side of the aisle that are representative of their constituency.

[bread_and_roses]

12. excellent article. We have only to look at how the Rs captured the rage against Wall St

While the Dems were rescuing the Banksters. Obama knew the rage was out there - at least, if the story of his saying, "Gentlemen, I am the only one standing between you and the pitchforks" is true, and not apocrophal. His administration could have used that moment to really capture thousands - millions - of people for the much needed regulation, reform, and restructuring that could really make a difference. And they are so tone-deaf, so blind to the plight of ordinary workers that they let the Rs capture that rage and turn it against the measely piece the Dems tossed to workers in the "Stimulus" - their usual role as the scraps and bones Party, to whom we are supposed to be so grateful. And they are STILL talking down to us, with their "jobless recovery" and their paltry "cash for clunkers" - which no one who actually owned a REAL clunker could afford to take advantage of - you know, the people with low incomes, bad credit from late bills.

I am still boiling over it. And still disbelieving that they have been so stupid, so "limosine liberal" as to have lost that momentum, not to mention leaving millions of ordinary working people to drown economically.