• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Why do conservative eastern elites attack elites in general?

S

Stoneburner

Diamond Member
Of course we all know conservatives are unabashed hypocrites but why aren't non elite conservatives a little more skeptical about metro latte drinking air bags like Davis Brooks whining about elites? Conservativism has always been the defender of the elite, that's historically undeniable. And if that's too general for you, it's especially undeniable in the BUsh age of cronyism and heavy corporate sponsorship.

Thomas Franks' What's the matter with kansas is an excellent book dealing with this topic but comes to no conclusion as to the WHY.
 
Originally posted by: Stoneburner
if you can't follow a simple train of thought then you are well qualified to answer the overall question.
Click to expand...
Your OP rambles and doesn't make a concise point. Which "elite" are you speaking of? Is it the political elite, the academic elite, the social elite?

Try being a little less simplistic and spartan in your OP so people can figure out what the heck you're trying to say.
 
I thought everybody in this forum would be familiar with the anti-intellectual bent of conservative commentators like limbaugh, ingraham, coulter, and most ironically, Brooks. As for what elite, I wish I knew, the cons seem to think everything from hollywood to harvard is "elite" more precisely a "liberal elite" that's running the nation and dictating to the common person how to run their lives. All I'm seeking is an explanation as to how common middle class republican supporters can buy into this while supporting the scion of a powerful political family as president. And the ones who make a living bashing the elites, like Brooks and COulter, are part of that eastern establishment. Just look at Bill Kristol and all the neocons. ANd not to sound elitist, but this should have been very clear to anybody following the 2004 election, it was consistently discussed by all the networks (except maybe fox).

PS - spartan and rambling are not quite antonyms but I dont' see how you can be both.
 
Originally posted by: Stoneburner
if you can't follow a simple train of thought then you are well qualified to answer the overall question.
Click to expand...

On the contrary, the only question I believe I'm well-qualified to answer is "How much extra does it cost to Super-size that?"
 
Originally posted by: Stoneburner
I thought everybody in this forum would be familiar with the anti-intellectual bent of conservative commentators like limbaugh, ingraham, coulter, and most ironically, Brooks. As for what elite, I wish I knew, the cons seem to think everything from hollywood to harvard is "elite" more precisely a "liberal elite" that's running the nation and dictating to the common person how to run their lives. All I'm seeking is an explanation as to how common middle class republican supporters can buy into this while supporting the scion of a powerful political family as president. And the ones who make a living bashing the elites, like Brooks and COulter, are part of that eastern establishment. Just look at Bill Kristol and all the neocons. ANd not to sound elitist, but this should have been very clear to anybody following the 2004 election, it was consistently discussed by all the networks (except maybe fox).
Click to expand...
Elite is a person or group assuming a natural advantage of moral, cultural, and intellectual superiority. We see it in this forum quite often with this who look down their noses at 'dem dar, knuckle-draggin', PBR swillin', NASCAR watchin', suthern redniks.' That same sort of thinking shines through quite frequently from the liberal side of the aisle. And, frankly, I agree with you. They are not elite. They merely have a penchant for underestimating some people and overestimating themselves.

As far as supporting a "scion" of a powerful family as president, would the alternative have been any better - a man who's married to a portion of the Heinz fortune and whose family is tied to Forbes?

PS - spartan and rambling are not quite antonyms but I dont' see how you can be both.
Click to expand...
I know it's difficult to ramble in only a few sentences, but you pulled it off quite handily. 🙂
 
My point is not that dems aren't elites, it's that the cons are also, if not moreso. And far as I can tell it's the cons who actually want to dicate how to run your life, based on the bible of all things. That's what's so ironic about all their braying over liberal elites. How do you whine about kerry being elite when bush went to the same school 2 years later? And the people pushing this anti elitism are elites themselves.

As a side point, it seems to be those southern nascar loving jesus groupes hate being looked down on but constantly look down on other races and cultures, primarily arabs. Is there moral equivalence there? Or just more hypocrisy.
 
Originally posted by: Stoneburner
My point is not that dems aren't elites, it's that the cons are also, if not moreso. And far as I can tell it's the cons who actually want to dicate how to run your life, based on the bible of all things. That's what's so ironic about all their braying over liberal elites. How do you whine about kerry being elite when bush went to the same school 2 years later? And the people pushing this anti elitism are elites themselves.

As a side point, it seems to be those southern nascar loving jesus groupes hate being looked down on but constantly look down on other races and cultures, primarily arabs. Is there moral equivalence there? Or just more hypocrisy.
Click to expand...

Its a good strategy, it has worked in almost every civilization, and the Republicans really don't care about their 'base'. Does that answer your question?
 
Originally posted by: Proletariat
Originally posted by: Stoneburner
My point is not that dems aren't elites, it's that the cons are also, if not moreso. And far as I can tell it's the cons who actually want to dicate how to run your life, based on the bible of all things. That's what's so ironic about all their braying over liberal elites. How do you whine about kerry being elite when bush went to the same school 2 years later? And the people pushing this anti elitism are elites themselves.

As a side point, it seems to be those southern nascar loving jesus groupes hate being looked down on but constantly look down on other races and cultures, primarily arabs. Is there moral equivalence there? Or just more hypocrisy.
Click to expand...

Its a good strategy, it has worked in almost every civilization, and the Republicans really don't care about their 'base'. Does that answer your question?
Click to expand...

Thank you
 
Originally posted by: Stoneburner
My point is not that dems aren't elites, it's that the cons are also, if not moreso. And far as I can tell it's the cons who actually want to dicate how to run your life, based on the bible of all things. That's what's so ironic about all their braying over liberal elites. How do you whine about kerry being elite when bush went to the same school 2 years later? And the people pushing this anti elitism are elites themselves.

As a side point, it seems to be those southern nascar loving jesus groupes hate being looked down on but constantly look down on other races and cultures, primarily arabs. Is there moral equivalence there? Or just more hypocrisy.
Click to expand...

I'm a little bit curious, where are you getting your information about "those southern nascar loving jesus groupes". I am pretty sure that you do not see how hypocritical you are being.

 
Originally posted by: Stoneburner
My point is not that dems aren't elites, it's that the cons are also, if not moreso. And far as I can tell it's the cons who actually want to dicate how to run your life, based on the bible of all things. That's what's so ironic about all their braying over liberal elites. How do you whine about kerry being elite when bush went to the same school 2 years later? And the people pushing this anti elitism are elites themselves.
Click to expand...
If the "cons" really want to dictate your life based on the bible, things would be drastically different than they are right now. However, I don't see that any laws have changed drastically since the 60s, with the advent of anti-discrimination laws. So I just don't get what all the beefing is about. The vast majority of Republicans I know are not anything even closely related to jesus freaks and have no ambitions whatsoever to enforce law based on the bible.

And elitism is not dictated by the schools one attends. It's an adopted air and those who are garner the label generally bring it on themseves. When people start pontificating about the uneducated, unwashed masses they deserve such a label, and that accusation tends to come from the liberal side of the political spectrum far more than the conservative side.

As a side point, it seems to be those southern nascar loving jesus groupes hate being looked down on but constantly look down on other races and cultures, primarily arabs. Is there moral equivalence there? Or just more hypocrisy.
Click to expand...
ime, those southern nascar loving jesus groupes are acceptable of anyone...so long as they're an Earnhardt fan.
 
Elites by definition think they are elite. They think they know more than anyone else and that the poor simple folk of the earth (Us peasants, with pitchforks for emphasis) need the elites just to get by.

My father had a definition for an Expert, which was "An Ex is a has-been and a spert is a drip under pressure!"

People get by without experts all the time. You can learn more from a Video Game than listening to an exper or an elite on the TV.

Whenever I hear the talking heads on TV telling me what to think about a speech I just heard on the TV, I just turn them off. I dont need to be brainwashed by the media.
 
Originally posted by: Stoneburner
Read chicken's post for context. It's not hypocritcal anyway since i'm not condemning elitism.
Click to expand...

You didn't answer my question. I know plenty of people from the south that like nascar and are deeply religious, but they don't look down on other groups. You are generalizing a whole group of people by saying that they look down on other groups, especially arabs.

 
is it really necessary to debate whether i was attributing characteristics to an entire group, generalizing about some characteristics of a group, or divining a set of attributes that seem to be most prevalent in a certain group? It's besides the point and untrue anyway.

And tasteslikechicken, that's the point of THomas Frank's book. But the issue is used to get elected and is very popular in certain areas. So what these anti elites end up doing is supporting benefits for the elites they despise.
 
Originally posted by: Stoneburner
And tasteslikechicken, that's the point of THomas Frank's book. But the issue is used to get elected and is very popular in certain areas. So what these anti elites end up doing is supporting benefits for the elites they despise.
Click to expand...
So what's your solution? Nobody should vote for a presidential candidate because they're all rich, connected bastages?

I don't see where your going with this or even what the issue is here.
 
As for what elite, I wish I knew, the cons seem to think everything from hollywood to harvard is "elite" more precisely a "liberal elite" that's running the nation and dictating to the common person how to run their lives. All I'm seeking is an explanation as to how common middle class republican supporters can buy into this while supporting the scion of a powerful political family as president. And the ones who make a living bashing the elites, like Brooks and COulter, are part of that eastern establishment. Just look at Bill Kristol and all the neocons. ANd not to sound elitist, but this should have been very clear to anybody following the 2004 election, it was consistently discussed by all the networks (except maybe fox).
Click to expand...
The OP, and your subsequent explanations, are using far too broad a brushstroke to narrow the discussion to anything value added, but I will touch on this point.

The term elite when applied to Hollywood tends to focus on or otherwise criticize the tendency of some liberal leaning celebrities to enter political discussion...celebrities are no better qualified to enter political debate then any other citizen, yet because of their celebrity, their voice tends to garner media attention...yet what qualifies a celebrity to chime in on political debate. Given the freedom of speech, there is certainly nothing stopping celebrities from voicing their opinion...but given their lifestyles, celebrities are too far removed from reality to truly contribute beyond feeding their inflated egos.

As for academic elitism, the majority of university faculty, with rare exceptions, tend to lean left...yet academics, like celebrities, are somewhat out of touch with reality...it is kind of like that scene in the movie "Back to School" where the business professor is talking about establishing a hypothetical factory to create widgets, and Rodney Dangerfield, given his experience in the real world, questions the professor on his reasoning...finally dismissing that they should build the factory in Fantasyland...and considering that academia is supposed to be a forum that welcomes all manifestations of thought and discussion, it is amazing how quickly many academics are willing to silence or otherwise censor that which does not fall into their particular worldview.

 
chicken: Care to explain? Or am I making a mistake in assuming you have any idea what anybody (including yourself) is talking about?


Starbuck: First, whose fault is it that hollywood types get attention? SEcond, it's rather hypocritical since republicans voted for Arnold of all people and use any celebrity they can scrounge up to throw on the air. Ron Silver?

As for academics, i was accused of generalizing? More importantly, why is it that academic types like brooks and krauthammer are given a pass? Please provide a non ironic response this time, one that does not invoke a hollywood character.
 
Starbuck: First, whose fault is it that hollywood types get attention? SEcond, it's rather hypocritical since republicans voted for Arnold of all people and use any celebrity they can scrounge up to throw on the air. Ron Silver?
Click to expand...
It is the fault of our materialistic and media whoring society that celebrities exist on these glorified pedestals. I never claimed that the right is not guilty of tapping into the celebrity pool when it is convenient. Arnold and Reagan are two notable examples...but then again, at least they served in some capacity of public office...extended their political activism to actually holding public office...the Susan Sarandon's and Sean Penn's of the world come down from the Hollywood Hills, shake their fists and perhaps even make an appearance at a charitable event, and then return back to the privileged bubbles in which they live.

As for academics, i was accused of generalizing? More importantly, why is it that academic types like brooks and krauthammer are given a pass? Please provide a non ironic response this time, one that does not invoke a hollywood character.
Click to expand...
There was no irony in my original response...I made several points in that post that you failed to address, most notably the hypocrism of academics who champion free speech so long as it is in line with their political worldview.

The "Back to School" reference was to simplify the distinction between real world experience and academia...somewhat ironic that academics feel the need to comment on a subjects they have never practically applied in the real world.

As for Brooks and Krauthhammer, I am not familiar enough with their work to comment on the supposed "pass" they receive from the right. Brooks is too common a name to search on, but a search on Krauthammer did bring up a Charles Krauthammer...he appears to be an Op-Ed columnist...and the whole point of Op-Ed is to, you know, voice an opinion...not really hypocritical for conservatives to support an Op-Ed columnist who shares their worldview.


 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top