Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Newsvine
RedditEdwards, it is hoped, will bring the "working class" vote to Obama. In alternative descriptions, he will help with the "middle class" vote; or what a very tired Clinton might call the "white-middle white-class, white-working, white-vote." This (disappearing) working class population fills the pages of analysis and news. In the New York Times, for example, there are 324 references to "middle class," and 220 references to "working class" in the last three months.
At the same time, the "upper class" is vanishing from our language. In the 18 references in the New York Times in the last three months, none are in the context of elections. "Upper class" appears most in quotes, literature review and history, or as a referent to people on the other side of the puddle, as they say, the "upper-class British" way of life appears, as does the "upper-class European" and the upper class voice of a deceased BBC announcer.
In America, we don't have the upper class, apparently. We have, according to many news reports, "elites." There are thousands of references to elites; in the context of politics, a search for "Clinton" and "elite" in the last three months finds 40 results while the blogs are full of concern about various candidates' tendencies to attract elite voters. It sounds like an epithet, when thrown at campaign managers ("you are just getting the elite vote"), but it's a compliment to the people described therein.
"Elites only, folks, elites only for early boarding" cries the Continental Airline steward, and the rich people line up, complimented and convenienced at the same time. The best football players are elite, and the best colleges are elite--the word comes not with the stink of privilege but with the flattering sound of being something deserved, worked for even. Elites may be "out of touch," but they are "out of touch" with a french-derived word meaning to choose--the same root as the word "election," as it turns out. The elite are the chosen, the secular "good men and women", ones we ought make way for as they pass.
You might think I'm being unfair here--sometimes elite means a particular group of people, not all rich--but what I think is disturbing (and imprecise) is how we use words from different categories blended together, as if we had three classes, "the elite, "the working class" and "people living under the poverty level," instead of the categories as they were initially introduced, "the upper class, the middle class, and the poor" or "the elites, the mediocre, and the incompetent" or "the ruling class, the bourgeoisie, and the proletariat."
I like the first characterization best, because I think it's the most descriptive and least judgmental. I recoil against the tendency for the rich to have their cake and eat it too, as it were--to describe themselves as elegant and chosen, to describe the middle class if they were organized and very effectively demanding their rights, and to describe the poor as if they were living under something and ought be pitied.
But importantly, I recoil against the imprecision of the word "elites." It communicates less than it seems and leaves the meaning up to the demographic imagination of the reader. It might mean the rich, it might mean a group of 20 people who have drinks at the Brick Skeller in DC. The "richest 50,000" is precise. People "living below the poverty line" is precise. Anything written by Pew is precise. Elite is vague, and in a way that compliments people who think themselves elite while obscuring the real differences in opportunity and living that people experience.
So while we're making it difficult to make a middling income--and simultaneously making this near-extinct species the fetish of our politics--let me suggest that we at least do ourselves the dignity of naming elites what they are: in some cases, the gang of five hundred, in most cases, the upper class. A group of people with a blend of luck, parentage, and talent that has a whole lot more money than most people. The rich.
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrick Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Wonkette
Well, Ms Teachout, two things must be kept in mind....
1. Americans in general have never been a "class conscious" bunch. The image of the Rockefeller, who started out shining shoes, and built himself an empire...or Carnegie coming to America poor from Scotland, and doing the same....eliminates a lot of the "aristocracy envy" that was seen in other nations.
We simply don't care for "eat the rich" mentalities (to quote ol' PJ), since most of us hope given the idea of the country...to BECOME same someday, or that our kids will.
and 2. The argument that the rich or "elite" are out to screw us....cuts across BOTH political lines. Bush and his blue-blood "faux Texans" with their Prescott "Nazi money" and "Big Oil" H.W. money....pretending to care about the "little guy" while screwing him over and serving their billionaire friends...
or...say, an HEIRESS magazine publisher from a wealthy, prestigious family, married to an Ivy League academic, living in Morningside Heights (while claiming it's "Harlem"), and lecturing us on the values of socialism....
rings hollow as well!
Posted by Mask at 05/15/2008 @ 3:56pm
Posted by Mask at 05/15/2008
Well done sir....Hypocrisy floats.
Posted by JOMAMMA at 05/15/2008 @ 5:52pm
<Posted by Mask at 05/15/2008>
On the other hand, some of us who actually do work for a living (and have had to do so for perhaps 40 years or so) are skeptical about the prospect of having only authentic proletarians advocate for us in the circles of the elite. (Because, like it or not, the fact is that the elite DO make the decisions. They pay the bills, they set the agenda. That's the way it works in America, laddie.)
If we only have the real aproned, working class folk advocating for us, we will never get a hearing. When was the last time (since "Being There") that the lord of the manor asked the gardener if economic policy unnecessarily advantaged him and his cronies at the Club? It don't happen. Never.
And by the bye, Mr. "Obama Supporter Til I Die," this is exactly what the elite and their hinds in the media have been trying to do to the Savior from Illinois ever since he announced. First they said he wasn't really black (didn't grow up in no ghetto and talked way too white with all them big-ass words & shit). Then they said he was too elite to identify with the plight of peckerwood white trash working folk from the Heartland. It's all the same thing. Let the (n-word) get a little uppity, and hell he ain't no real (n-word) no more. He can't represent the masses--he's a member of the upper classes. He's arrived. He's elite.
(BTW, this jewish dude from Germany, this Karl Marx character? He was a dispossessed member of the lumpen classes who lived on handouts in London while he was finishing Das Kapital. Just because he was intelligent, learned & articulate did not boost him out of the proletariat. He was a consistent spokesman for the laboring & dispossessed classes 'til the day they plugged him in the ground.)
And MASK, if your money is weighing on your conscience, send it to me. I'll make good use of it in the cause of liberation. <wink>
Posted by goyadad at 05/15/2008 @ 6:02pm
I too find the use of "elite" in America unsettling. It implies both merit and a modicum of duty not present in the designated population.
yours Frank Johnston
Posted by fpjohn at 05/15/2008 @ 6:08pm
PS. -- As a card-carrying Wobblie (and to that manner born some 3 generations back), I have had some experience going to the lord of the manor, hat in hand, and asking that some of the abundance produced by us proles be returned to those who produced it by the sweat of their brow, and the labor of their bodies, and the rental of their short mortal term in this vale of tears. The answer has always been: "What do you want? Why do we have to listen to you?" And so it has been since PATCO & the breaking of the unions and collective bargaining all across this country.
The folks that built this country get the boot heel in the teeth every time. That's our thanks from the elite. The sooner we own up to this and demand our due, the better. "A la lantern dans tout les ci-devants!" I'd sooner stick a pig than beg from his dinner table. Bleed the whole lot of them and there's a beginning.
Posted by goyadad at 05/15/2008 @ 6:23pm
If you bleed the whole lot of them, you end up with a very similar system just with a different ruling class nearly every time. It happened in America, Russia, China, Mexico, France, and a whole spat of South American countries.
Posted by shadow master at 05/15/2008 @ 6:54pm
<Posted by shadow master at 05/15/2008>
Ok, so maybe that scares you off.
As for myself, WTF, let's give it another shot. It's either us bleed them or them bleed us. It's coming, willy-nilly.
(BTW, I think it's "spate" you're groping for. A "spat" is tiff, a set-to, a tussle. Diggy?)
Posted by goyadad at 05/15/2008 @ 7:02pm
Once worked for a food processing plant years ago. This plant packaged frozen food. In the rank & file hierarchy, strangely, the fork lift drivers thought they were numero uno. All the people dumping product in the hopper, inspecting it on the belts, running machines to fill, weigh & package, quality control etc. & these "knights of the isle ways" looked down with disdain on the rest. After all, even the white hats were on foot. Oh, the pride of man.
Posted by Sorelish at 05/15/2008 @ 7:14pm
Posted by goyadad at 05/15/2008
How about vote 100% of congress and the WH out and start over..
Posted by JOMAMMA at 05/15/2008 @ 8:12pm
Efficiency and progress is ours once more Now that we have the neutron bomb It's nice and quick and clean and gets things done Away with excess enemy With no less value to property No sense in war but perfect sense at home...
The sun beams down on a brand new day No more welfare tax to pay Unsightly slums gone up in a flashing light Jobless millions whisked away At last we have more room to play All systems go to kill the poor tonight
Gonna Kill Kill Kill Kill Kill the poor...tonight
Behold the sparkle of champagne The crime rate's gone Feel free again O' life's a dream with you, Miss Lily White Jane Fonda's on the screen today Convinced the liberals it's okay So let's get dressed and dance away the night
Jello Biafra
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/15/2008 @ 10:05pm
Old wobblies are dying out now. Victims of Henry Wallace syndrome. Throw the baby out with the bath water. Let's clean up our own house before we start pointing fingers & weapons at other people. Friggin imperialism has to go! We've got homegrown folk who can lead the way & only then can we regain our credibility, at home & abroad.
Posted by Sorelish at 05/15/2008 @ 11:03pm
have garage will become computer tycoon
gee, maybe life does begin at 60
Posted by Sorelish at 05/16/2008 @ 12:05am
$200,000/year and up is considered middle-class? When did this happen? Damn, I thought I was middle-class because I own my own home. Well, I always said I was poor but I was just "being funny". Great. Now I'll have to give my mom the "good news".
Posted by k330k at 05/16/2008 @ 08:29am
Since it took 2-3 weeks to fix the "tiny" message box, how long will it take The Nation to bring the time-stamp back? Come on Nation. Get moving on the time stamp and being able to return to the post you're reading, when you submit a post. You get those things, you will almost be as good as the last format. 'Cause right now, you're new format is still SUCKING(not as much but sucking nonetheless).
Posted by k330k at 05/16/2008 @ 08:33am
The "elite" are the top 1%. The upper class is still there, they just don't get talked about much. The upper class would be the 20% of earners who make as much income than the bottom 80% combined.
The elite are the 1% of earners who make as much income as the bottom 40% combined.
The elite are the best of the best.
Elite is also used as a pejoritive to mockingly refer to people who arrogantly believe they are the best of the best (and they are in their own opinions) irrespective of reality.
Posted by marybretbrad at 05/16/2008 @ 09:27am
Posted by goyadad at 05/15/2008
Goya, I agree...to an extent. Revolutions rarely perculate up from the bottom, without SOMEBODY from "the elite" showing up. Lenin was the son of a prominent education bureaucrat (how's that for red meat to the Right?..heheh)....and Mao came from a relatively prosperous peasant family.
But those are the exceptions rather than the rule, and I think today, we see a lot of the "elites" on the Left as Orwell saw the socialists in "Road to Wigan Pier"....that is middle class, even upper class snobs who at once proclaim their love of the "workers"...and refuse to recognize that they would have nothing to do with a "worker" if they encountered one at a social gathering.
Can we imagine a guy (clean, but still uniformed) from the NY Dept. of Sanitation showing up at one of the Manhatten cocktail parties of Ms vanden Heuvel and Prof. Cohen?
Treated kindly, perhaps a bit OVER kindly, but certainly not included as an equal in the conversation about "defeating the corporatocracy" and given short shrift when it came to his views on "the role of the proletariat"....he simply "couldn't know as much about the problem as those of us who have STUDIED IT for years and written several books on the down-trodden masses...nice fellow that he is."
Posted by Mask at 05/16/2008 @ 09:52am
Posted by marybretbrad at 05/16/2008
God forbid the 1% fall below the threshold mentioned or your mental anguish would be appalling. Maybe you could jump from your rooftop as a symbolic gesture.
Posted by Sorelish at 05/16/2008 @ 09:59am
The elite are the 1% of earners who make as much income as the bottom 40% combined.
The elite are the best of the best.
Posted by marybretbrad
so money makes someone the "best".
what a poor world you live in.
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/16/2008 @ 12:22pm
I think that ellite is used more here referring to "having a quality education that precludes the person of having the common touch" as it was referred to Obama when he was criticized for his SF speech. Or "intellectual or artist, not in touch with the people but instead theorizing about them without living like them".
So there is this intellectual ellite and the economic ellite (the ones that have the best of the best simply because they can afford it although that does not guarantee they will have a taste for wine or good literature) but both groups don't necessarily superimpose.
In fact, it is unfair to label some intellectuals as that because of its negative connotations. As for example Mr. Kerry was. Just for being a New England water ski aficionado. While the Bush family, making so much more money than him on oil, qualify to have a beer with Joe Smith.
So "ellite" as applied to politicians, is mostly used in a pejorative way but we would rather not use it. As if having extreme amounts of money was a much better moral quality than being a thinker. Now that says something about the people's education and the press.
Posted by Frank42 at 05/16/2008 @ 12:44pm
Elite is neutral, a fact; elitist is bad...that's the way I always understood it.
Am I wrong?
Same as race is a fact, racist is bad; sex/sexist ditto.
The pejorative element enters with the -ist, meaning the elite themselves may not be elitist, that is, may not believe that they (who have had more success than others either by good luck or merit) are inherently better than other people, and deserve to cast more votes per person, and have the right to spit on those less fortunate than they..
It's the prejudice and ignorance and callous unfairness implied in elitism that are the problem...
Even poor people can be elitist if they are foolish enough...look at monarchies. Look at the Bush monarchy the US has been ruled by for the past few years.
Posted by D. Tirante at 05/16/2008 @ 1:25pm
Posted by D. Tirante at 05/16/2008
Well, I will say one thing in favor of "Elite".....
in the old CGA video days, it WAS the coolest space trading/combat game going!
heheh
Posted by Mask at 05/16/2008 @ 3:26pm
The colonization of North America was lead by the Upper Middle Class in England, that is to say wealthy commoners. Parliament represented their interests. Knights were distinguished commoners, but still commoners. Building the British Empire was the work of these people. They often came from the Merchant/Adventurer class in major ports like Bristol and London. They were leaders in these port cities, who often dealt with Parliament and the Privy Council representing their interests. While the crown may have given a Charter for the various colonies, it was these families that put up the money, organized, and lead the colony. When the colony became more secure, the crown would take over the government. The interests of the lower middle class were not represented in Parliament. Wealth was measured by Land and or money. A knighthood went with an income of 40 pounds per year. If some of your ancestors have been in America for a long time, you will probably have connections with these upper middle class families or became middle classed because of the availabilty of land. However, while they may have had money, they were still commoners.
Posted by P. J. Casey at 05/16/2008 @ 3:38pm
When did "pretending to care about the 'little guy' while screwing him over and serving their billionaire friends..." become equated in the public mind with "say, an HEIRESS magazine publisher from a wealthy, prestigious family, married to an Ivy League academic, living in Morningside Heights (while claiming it's "Harlem"), and lecturing us on the values of socialism." when the latter supports policies and programs that have traditionally been viewed as pro-worker and pro-labor?
Unlike Bush and Co., Ms. vanden Huevel and Prof. Cohen - not that I am a particular fan of either of them - support social security, unemployment insurance, a higher minimum wage, unions, progressive taxation and a whole range of other policies traditionally championed by labor unions, workers' organizations, social democratic (i.e., reformist socialist) parties, labor parties and politicians regularly identified as "friends of the working man." Aside from the very slight pink tint that only MASK ever seems to be able to identify in them - When was the last time either of them actually advocated for the evolutionary development of society along socialist lines, Mask, let along a revolutionary break with the past? - the Editor-in-Chief of The Nation reminds me a lot of Eleanor Roosevelt (and ten to one, she will be quite pleased with that comparison, staunch anti-Communist though Mrs. Roosevelt was). However comfortable or "real" Mrs. Roosevelt may have felt around West Virginia miners or Lower East Side tenement dwellers, or Ms. vanden Huevel feels around sanitation workers or single mothers on welfare, I for one see no comparison with the ill intentions and worse impact of George Bush's (or Bill Clinton's!) policies on those populations.
There is a long tradition of upper class socialists and friends of labor, some of whom have contributed much to the movement while others were dilettantes (and some were both!). Mask constantly plays the "left-wing elitist" game on this web-site, usually baiting the Cohens while others did the same with John Edwards ("How can a man worth millions with a 28,000 sq. ft. mansion and $400 haircuts really care about the working class?"). Mask ignores this history to focus on surface things like who the sanitation worker would get along with (remind anyone of how GWB got elected in 2000?), while most of the others seem ignorant of the history of upper class and middle class "friends of labor" altogether. These are the same people who are stunned when middle class Arabs commit terrorism in protest against the impoverishment of the masses of their country. Look past your own noses, people! Try to figure out concepts such as patriotism, nationalism and anti-imperialism, not to mention class solidarity. Study some history, so you can tell when these concepts are in play and when they are being violated!
OK, rant over.
Posted by cka2nd at 05/16/2008 @ 4:15pm
"Can we imagine a guy (clean, but still uniformed) from the NY Dept. of Sanitation showing up at one of the Manhatten cocktail parties of Ms vanden Heuvel and Prof. Cohen?"
<Posted by Mask at 05/16/2008>
Pretty funny scenario, MASK. No doubt you're right. But Mr. Clean would likely get a better reception there than say W or Rove. (I've never met Rove, but somehow I have the distinct impression he exudes a pungent body odor cloud everywhere he goes. No kidding. He even stinks through the tv connection. No wonder Shit-for-Brains calls him "Turdblossom.")
Interestingly, from the turn of the century up through the 30s and into even the 50s, labor unions and working men's associations used to host public lectures, maintained reading rooms, sponsored radio stations and broadcasts that were aimed at elevating the level of discourse and broadening the range of interests among the working class. Back in that era, the white-collar flunky working his way up in a brokerage might be capable of quoting that day's price on steel or saying, "How 'bout dem Dodgers?" but a machinist might be able to hold forth quite interestingly on the theories of William Godwin and the history of guilds in medieval Germany. Could even teach S. Cohen or KvH a thing or two on those topics.
Now of course, with the advent of modern mass media (brought to you by your friends in the moneyed elite), the average wage-earner knows little more than which brand of toothpaste gets your teeth whitest and which among the variety of sudsy products is considered the King of Beers. And "how 'bout dem Mets?" naturually. Can't neglect that.
This is all the triumph of the market--giving the public what they want, even if that turns out to be child pornography and intravenously delivered Cheese Whiz.
Posted by goyadad at 05/16/2008 @ 6:35pm
OK, rant over.
Posted by cka2nd at 05/16/2008
spoken like the true and proud Trotskyist that you are. This is not directed as a slur.
At least you are open about it.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 05/16/2008 @ 7:23pm
Posted by cka2nd at 05/16/2008
cka, liking "the elite" because they espouse the socio-economic ideology you like....is just like the dime-store cowboys who think Bush is "one of them" cuz of the jeans and the fact he "don't like dem fags and kicks liberal asses when they try to take er guns!"
Posted by Mask at 05/16/2008 @ 8:46pm
I've got a Bentley matchbox car. My friends know I could've bought the Rolls.
Posted by winyahn at 05/17/2008 @ 11:28am
cka, liking "the elite" because they espouse the socio-economic ideology you like....is just like the dime-store cowboys who think Bush is "one of them" cuz of the jeans and the fact he "don't like dem fags and kicks liberal asses when they try to take er guns!"
Posted by Mask at 05/16/2008 | ignore this person
No, Mask, wrong as usual. If I liked KVH and her husband because of a shared preference for white wine and just the right kind of truffle, and a common disdain for bible thumpers and SUV drivers, then I would be like those folks who voted for Bush because they thought he was just like them and would fit right in over a burger and a beer. However, I can stand the editor of The Nation and the biographer of Buhkarin (not MY favorite Bolshevik) because, like Bush's more informed supporters, their politics and mine are at least in the same ballpark.
Ideas matter, Mask, political theories and ideologies matter, principles and ethics matter. I may deplore lvliberty1's politics and philosophy, and he may despise mine, but at least neither of us are sniping dilettantes, which is what you seem willing to settle for on virtually every issue besides Iraq. What a waste.
Posted by cka2nd at 05/17/2008 @ 2:55pm
Just in case I didn't make myself clear, whether someone supports increasing the minimum wage and some kind of sensible health insurance for all plan is MORE important than if she or he likes white wine or port rinds. And anyone who cannot make such distinctions in their own mind, based on their own standards - and goodness knows mine are not the same as Rio's or Happy's - than they are behaving like a fool.
Posted by cka2nd at 05/17/2008 @ 3:37pm
Posted by cka2nd at 05/17/2008
I never pay more than 4 bucks for a .750 ml bottle of dry red. I deplore lvs politics & I snipe. I'll bet I can stretch a buck a hell of lot farther than yourself & I'm not an admirer of Andrew Carnegie or his present day ilk. Do you really believe right wingers just accidentally strayed onto this left-liberal site? I'll give AC a pass on libraries however. If a giant like Gorbachev says the Cohens are OK that's good enough for me. I do, however agree with much of what you have to say.
Posted by Sorelish at 05/17/2008 @ 5:03pm
There's a interesting conundrum that the right wing- nuttery never addresses: If "elites" are such an odious thing, then you should logically be opposed to combat elites as well. So how about pouring some scorn on the Rangers, Special Forces, Delta Force, Seals, airborne, and Marines? The overtly refer to themselves as elites; indeed, "elite" is central to their self-identity.
Incidentally, I have no problem with combat elites. I do, however, despise the hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty of the right wing-nuttery, most of whom have never lived in a barracks.
Posted by IceNine at 05/17/2008 @ 5:06pm
alsace, s.v.p.
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/17/2008 @ 5:56pm
Posted by IceNine
<i>Oh, a sleeping drunkard
Up in Central Park,
And a lion-hunter
In the jungle dark,
And a Chinese dentist,
And a British queen--
All fit together
In the same machine.
Nice, nice, very nice;
Nice, nice, very nice;
Nice, nice, very nice--
So many different people
In the same device.</i>
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/17/2008 @ 6:02pm
I never pay more than 4 bucks for a .750 ml bottle of dry red. I deplore lvs politics & I snipe. I'll bet I can stretch a buck a hell of lot farther than yourself & I'm not an admirer of Andrew Carnegie or his present day ilk. Do you really believe right wingers just accidentally strayed onto this left-liberal site? I'll give AC a pass on libraries however. If a giant like Gorbachev says the Cohens are OK that's good enough for me. I do, however agree with much of what you have to say.
Posted by Sorelish at 05/17/2008
Not much of a Gorby fan, myself, and while I'm not the most frugal person in the world, I did learn some lessons from my mother, a child of the Depression who could scrape a Skippy jar clean. Um, I don't know how LivLib, Rio and Co. came here. I certainly don't buy Zero's theory that some of them are paid provocateurs of the right, though. By the way, I hope I didn't come off as an across the board apologist for the liberal or left bourgeoisie. I just think treating people's personal cultural choices as more significant for political or economic debate than their economic status and activities and their political practice is both personally and socially harmful.
Posted by cka2nd at 05/17/2008 @ 6:49pm
no entiendo.
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/17/2008 @ 6:52pm
Posted by cka2nd at 05/17/2008
Oh no, i don't believe in the provocateur stuff either. It's just that I 'm not living next to these guys, not neighbors, for heavens sake. I have to choke down the urpy-burps enough in my own village. Shouldn't I have a little room here for some honesty? There's no hope for conversion with dyed-in-the-wool cryptos.
Posted by Sorelish at 05/17/2008 @ 7:05pm
alsace, s.v.p.
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/17/2008
kronenbourg, no limit
Posted by Sorelish at 05/17/2008 @ 7:45pm
Posted by cka2nd at 05/17/2008
CKA, you missed my point.
The cowboys and rednecks screw themselves over by assuming that Bush is "one of them" and not recognizing both his interests aren't THEIRS and the fact that he's a phoney "cowboy" from a blue-blood Connecticut family, not Texas.
Now, on the other hand, what's the difference with socialists such as yourself who cotton up to HEIRESSes living in the Upper West Side, loaded with dough, who happen to be sounding like Louise Bryant (with a damn near perfect John Reed impersonation from her husband) while multi-figure trust funds keep them hanging with the "beautiful people" and going on cruises in the verandah suites?
Answer....no difference.
Posted by Mask at 05/17/2008 @ 7:47pm
IMHO the take-home implication of this article is that the decreased use of the term "upper class" reflects a purposeful distortion of reality by... the upper class.
Posted by winyahn at 05/17/2008 @ 11:33pm
i say we call THEM the STROMBOLI SET.
puppet masters, so to speak.
dance, pinocchio, dance.
Saturday, May 17, 2008 11:51:18 PM
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/17/2008 @ 11:45pm
Mask, W. Bush and Reagan certainly exploited the everyman/ cowboy image -- and (apples and oranges) both appear to be quite at home on the range. Bush may very will have taken to Texas due to a mix of things- rebellion against stuffy parental roots, a better cognitive/speech match, and a better match in terms of fundamentalism with rural Texans.
Posted by winyahn at 05/18/2008 @ 12:02am
Personally I see the economic / class story as analogous to hominids entering a new territory. They pick all the low-hanging fruit and kill the big animals with no fear of them first. So goes the corporatocrazy and us - their prey / fruit /meat = the shrinking middle class.
Posted by winyahn at 05/18/2008 @ 12:21am
Posted by winyahn at 05/18/2008
He's no Texan. Sure the twang and the bluster, but I'll guarentee you Bush-43 is really not that much different than Bush-41 on his conservatism (both not that much diff from ol' Prescott, who, while accused of being a Nazi sympathizer, was more liberal than Chuck Hagel).
He (and Rove) knew that the GOP wanted "another Reagan"...the cowboy, the bluster, the down-homeiness...and Dubya fit the bill (with a bit of tweaking, but not much since he had gotten it down pat for his run against Ann Richards).
No...Bush is a fake cowboy. An act, like Reagan (who was from ILLINOIS...not a single cattle or horse ranch in sight of Tampico and Dixon).
And his policies reflect the old Big Business GOP, not the Religious Right (he throws a bone to them every "Roe v. Wade" anniversary...and some judges...but never made a serious push for a "Pro-Life" Amendment or to overturn prayer in schools)
Just like the liberal, even socialist ELITE know in their heart of hearts that "the Revolution" is NEVER coming...even "best case scenario" they pay a couple extra grand in taxes, but their accountants find some tax-free munis to hide anything more than that.
Just like, Al Gore buying "carbon credits" from his own company and JUST NOW installing the solar panels (which will likely only pick up 10-15% of his power tab)...
or just like how Ms vanden Heuvel probably would go out and preach about global warming, pollution, "consumerism" and world hunger to a small auditorium...on a CRUISE SHIP, pumping out tons of CO2 and wasting 5000 pounds of food in un-eaten buffets.
The saps...Left and Right...either don't see this, or probably, ignore it because of the authoritarian mind-set that BOTH sides of the spectrum have when it comes to their leaders.
Posted by Mask at 05/18/2008 @ 12:27am
The simple truth is that rich of the liberal persuasion often make very good neighbors. I live in a rural area. Sometimes "middle class" types with their acres of noise polluting toys & obnoxious displays of rancorous sociality are hard to bear. Sometimes people in big houses can be rather convivial toward those of us in small houses. And almost always they are QUIET.
Posted by Sorelish at 05/18/2008 @ 01:06am
No...Bush is a fake cowboy. An act, like Reagan (who was from ILLINOIS...not a single cattle or horse ranch in sight of Tampico and Dixon).
And his policies reflect the old Big Business GOP, not the Religious Right (he throws a bone to them every "Roe v. Wade" anniversary...and some judges...but never made a serious push for a "Pro-Life" Amendment or to overturn prayer in schools)
Just like the liberal, even socialist ELITE know in their heart of hearts that "the Revolution" is NEVER coming...even "best case scenario" they pay a couple extra grand in taxes, but their accountants find some tax-free munis to hide anything more than that.
Just like, Al Gore buying "carbon credits" from his own company and JUST NOW installing the solar panels (which will likely only pick up 10-15% of his power tab)...
or just like how Ms vanden Heuvel probably would go out and preach about global warming, pollution, "consumerism" and world hunger to a small auditorium...on a CRUISE SHIP, pumping out tons of CO2 and wasting 5000 pounds of food in un-eaten buffets.
The saps...Left and Right...either don't see this, or probably, ignore it because of the authoritarian mind-set that BOTH sides of the spectrum have when it comes to their leaders.
Posted by Mask at 05/18/2008
You're really in left field on this one. Reagan grew to love ranching and the whole cowboy msytique from some of the westerns he acted in. It was from that and then the years he hosted Death Valley Days on TV that Reagan really came to love all that he felt the west emobodied. His ranch was real and as his former secret service agent wrote in a book, Reagan loved to ride his horse across that huge ranch in California.
And from what I've seen and heard from others, Bush really grew to love Texas as part of his rebellion from his dad. Seeking his own identity just like most of us do.
It's a shame that you always seem to think everyone is a fake.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 05/18/2008 @ 03:50am
Posted by lvliberty1 at 05/18/2008
What were the key words in there about Reagan and ranching, LVLB?
"the whole cowboy msytique from some of the westerns he acted in" ACTED in...
"years he hosted Death Valley Days on TV"....HOSTED on TV
Ronald Reagan grew up in Illinois, son of small town urbanites.
He TOOK ON the cowboy/rancher personae and wore his cowboy hat, because it helped foster an image both for his California gubenatorial elections and for the Presidency.
Of course, he was a pretty good actor....hence the reason YOU think he was a "real cowboy".
WHEN did Bush buy Prairie Chapel? What ELSE was going on that year with him???
Posted by Mask at 05/18/2008 @ 07:23am
Reagan saw the opportunity for demagoguery on a new medium (tv) & took it. What individual with political ambition wouldn't? And the suckers ate it up. The whole family watched Death Valley Days & the kid watched the spiel at the end like a tennis match. Dad-Reagan, dad-reagan. Thus setting the scene for a lifelong enmity. Thank god for my uncles.
Posted by Sorelish at 05/18/2008 @ 12:06pm
The elite are the best of the best. -- Posted by marybretbrad
so money makes someone the "best". what a poor world you live in. -- Posted by frosty zoom at 05/16/2008
Frosty
Thank you for your comment. I can see this didn't come out at all meaning what I intended to. I apologize for being unable to communicate clearly in written form.
I intended a criticism of the column. Maybe this attempt will do a better job.
IF the yardstick is money, the top 1% of earners are elite. If the yardstick is speed, the fastest 1% are elite. If the yardstick is strength, the strongest 1% are elite. If the yardstick is intelligence, the top 1% of IQs are elite.
Now, the top 10% of earners are rich, and the top 10% of sprinters are fast, and the top 10% of power lifters are strong, and the top 10% in terms of IQ are smart. My point was that elite is the best of the best, no matter what your yardstick is. I didn't intend to imply that I thought to be "elite" you needed to make $1 million dollars a year.
The paragraph I was specifically reacting to was this one:
"[W]hat I think is disturbing (and imprecise) is how we use words from different categories blended together, as if we had three classes, ‘the elite,' ‘the working class' and ‘people living under the poverty level,' instead of the categories as they were initially introduced, ‘the upper class, the middle class, and the poor' or ‘the elites, the mediocre, and the incompetent' or ‘the ruling class, the bourgeoisie, and the proletariat.'"
My criticism was that when Ms. Teachout partitions and re-partitions the population she is constantly moving people between the groups. If I were to talk about the upper class, middle class, and lower class, that divides the population into segments of roughly 25%, 50%, and 25%. But to talk about the "elite", "working class", and "people living below the poverty line, that doesn't partition the population. You get 1%, 40% and 12%, which leaves out 47% of Americans.
Let me try another way. If I was talking about a football team, I could talk about the offense, defense, and special-teams players. Or I could talk about the linemen, backs, and kickers. Every person on the team could be put into either one of those categorizations. But I couldn't say offense, defense, and special teams, and then say quarterbacks, tackles, and punters, and pretend that I was talking about the same groups of people.
Not all of the upper class are elite; not even close. She's using the word incorrectly. That was my point.
Posted by marybretbrad at 05/18/2008 @ 8:39pm
marybretbrad
yes, of course the adjective has its traditional meaning.
but words are but collections of sounds to express ideas.
and lately,
that poor word (haha!) has taken on a new, negative meaning
that everybody seems to "understand".
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/18/2008 @ 11:30pm
Frosty, I understand your point as well. In this context the political "elites" have definitely taken on a negative context. More on that in a minute. I think Ms. Teachout is trying to reclaim the word for the left by redefining it more broadly to be the upper class so that it loses some of the pejorative stink that has attached to it, which is my complaint; that she is using the word incorrectly.
Why has "elite" attracted a pejorative stink when referring to political elites? I'll tell you why. Starting with the understanding that "elite" still refers to the best of the best or the top 1%, consider the difference between the political context and the four others I mentioned above. With income, IQ, speed, and strength, there is an objective, numerical measurement for ranking or determining hierarchy. We can quibble about how to define income (realized gains or unrealized gains), we can quibble about distance (100m, 200m, 1600m) we can quibble about strength (bench press, squat), etc. But once we settle on a contest, the method of ranking collapses to a numerical assessment.
In the political context, there is no method of objectively ranking who's in the elite and who's not. Clearly the current and past presidents, almost all senators and most House members would qualify, as well as governors, etc. But beyond that, it really is subjective. So if a person considers himself part of the political elite there's no objective determination to measure whether the person is correct or not. As with any subjective determination a very large number of self-assessments, are false positives.
Barbra Streisand considers herself part of the political elite. So does George Clooney, Sean Penn, Martin Sheen, Rosie O'Donnell, Laurie David, Arrianna Huffington, the Dixie Chics, Jane Fonda, and Michael Moore. These people are part of the "status elite" but not the political elite. So this was the origin of "elite" taking on a mocking tone. Beyond that, all of the people mentioned have a lot of similar characteristics. They are all supremely arrogant and utterly convinced of their own moral superiority. The all display a condescending attitude to anyone who disagrees with them. They refuse to believe the source of the disagreement could be values related and constantly assume that anyone who disagrees with them must be stupid or ignorant.
This is why "elites" has taken on a pejorative stink and is an effective tool for dismissing certain people.
Posted by marybretbrad at 05/19/2008 @ 09:26am
Frosty, I understand your point as well.
• well, i'm glad YOU did. i didn't.
With income
• but is it fair? should a CEO make more than a doctor? to me, that makes no sense.
IQ,
• IQ for what, cooking? automechanics? music?
speed,
• at what distance?
and strength,
• pushing? pulling? lifting?
there is an objective, numerical measurement for ranking or determining hierarchy.
• maybe.
Why has "elite" attracted a pejorative stink when referring to political elites?
• ask senator clinton.
quibble
• hadn't seen that yet. oh well, i quibble.
In the political context, there is no method of objectively ranking who's in the elite and who's not.
• as with any system, it's a mixture of subjective and objective.
These people are part of the "status elite" but not the political elite.
• funny how you mention only cliché lefties. no heston (i'm not going to try to find others because i could care less what these people think), for example. however, status and politics are often one and the same.
• i hope i understand what i've written.
fz
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/19/2008 @ 10:51am
They are all supremely arrogant and utterly convinced of their own moral superiority. The all display a condescending attitude to anyone who disagrees with them. They refuse to believe the source of the disagreement could be values related and constantly assume that anyone who disagrees with them must be stupid or ignorant.----Posted by marybretbrad at 05/19/2008
replace "stupid or ignorant" with "appeasers or anti-American"...
and you've got a LOT of the Right too!
Posted by Mask at 05/19/2008 @ 11:54am
A few people call them "the overclass," a term that seems odd, and that is intentional--to display how hidden they are as a category, in contrast to "the underclass." Our country always has hidden our classism. Hannah Arendt said--somewhat ironically-- that we had racism instead. Of course, both scourges always have been intertwined and systemic, infecting us all. We have wasted too much energy quarreling over which to address--class or race. One step to move forward is to make both of them visible. All the time.
Posted by anncader at 05/19/2008 @ 2:25pm
Anybody who thinks U.S. citizens aren't class conscious need only see how we treat English royalty, or the rich. Mask, you really are obnoxious, absolutely certain of your correctness and usually wrong. The three traits together are extremely annoying.
Posted by brantl at 05/19/2008 @ 3:29pm
I've always said 'The people of the US, aka "'Murkans", aren't class-conscious.' And I've been wrong . I just realized recently that all 'Murkans are indeed ACUTLY class-conscious; they are acutely aware of themselves as middle-class Capitalist entrepreneurs. God help them.
As f0r instance the second commentator above, 'Mask'.
I'd call it 'ignorance' or, at best 'denial'.
Ironically, while the extremely wealthy 'gang of 500' are so wealthy they disappear from public perception, those of us who read, write, and think critically are left exposed as a convenient 'élite' scapegoat for the huge Corporate media and their Corporate fellows.
There is an intrinsic spiritual kinship between the extremely wealthy and the lower classes in 'Murka, that is, may God help them, their common unthinking greed and materialism, that unites them and sets them apart from us.
It's too bad, for we, the intellectual élite– and make no mistake, we are, God help us, an élite– are really a lot more concerned, even selfishly, for 'the general welfare' and the masses than are the Corporate owners of the 'Republic'. After all, we, like the lower classes, are really dependent on the Constitution, the Republic, and the rule of law for our lives and liberties, whereas the filthy rich can always buy whatever they want.
How odd the synonymity of the phrases 'the middle class' and 'the working class' in modern American usage would sound in any other culture or at any other time than in the post-post New-Deal post-post WWII soon-to-be post-Boomer daystimes.
Posted by tedvothjr at 05/19/2008 @ 3:44pm
As Brit, it is interesting to read the various points of view regarding class etc. I live, as various people have already pointed out, in an overtly class-conscious society, and can define myself, following Orwell, as 'lower upper middle class', due to my personal educational and family background, but I do not belong to anything that might be classed as an 'elite', as I have a lower-rung, academic-related job, with a corresponding income. In both the USA and the UK, there has always been some sort of social mobility - neither country has anything like for example the Indian caste system - but what is more interesting is that recent studies have shown that in both countries, social mobility is now far less than it has been from the beginning of the 20th century until now. The reason for this is clear. Since the 1970s, the agenda of both the Reagan-Bush Republicans (followed de facto by Clinton) and the Thatcherite-'New' Labourites has been quite clearly to cement and protect the position of the moneyed classes and the big corporations and to make them as unassailable as possible. One result of this has been to reduce dramatically social mobility, unlike for example in countries like Sweden, which have moved in the opposite direction. Patrick R. Jehu, England.
Posted by prsjehu at 05/20/2008 @ 04:47am
So what's your point, Dr. Zephyr Teachout?
What's disappearing? The word, or the rulers?
There are rulers among the elite, but not all elite are rulers. Think of Waylon Jennings, or Dolly Parton, or David Letterman, or Noam Chomsky as elite, but I wouldn't want Bush or Chaney in that same group. I guess I would call the latter, the Plutocrats, not to be unkind.
Posted by whit3hawk at 05/20/2008 @ 09:09am
CKA, you missed my point.
The cowboys and rednecks screw themselves over by assuming that Bush is "one of them" and not recognizing both his interests aren't THEIRS and the fact that he's a phoney "cowboy" from a blue-blood Connecticut family, not Texas.
Now, on the other hand, what's the difference with socialists such as yourself who cotton up to HEIRESSes living in the Upper West Side, loaded with dough, who happen to be sounding like Louise Bryant (with a damn near perfect John Reed impersonation from her husband) while multi-figure trust funds keep them hanging with the "beautiful people" and going on cruises in the verandah suites?
Answer....no difference.
Posted by Mask at 05/17/2008 | ignore this person
I really don't know how I can make this any clearer. How about this, let's use something like the Kinsey Sexuality Scale, but we'll call it cka2nd's Scale of Whose Bourgeois Head Should Roll, with one being not only do they keep their head, but I expect them to be on the barricades beside me, and six being chop, chop, chop away, probably with no remourse whatsoever. 6's on the cka2nd Scale of Whose Bourgeois Head Should Roll would include Margaret Thatcher, George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and, for the murderous sanctions regime against Iraq, Bill Clinton (would have been a 5, otherwise).
Vanden Huevel and Cohen are probably 2's or 3's, liberal reformers who I might share a jail cell with, but probably not a foxhole. In fact, it just struck me that middle class and upper class journalists, academics and reformers like them were jailed and killed by military juntas and dictators in South Korea, the Phillipines, Argentina, Nicaragua and El Salvador, and became symbols of the struggle for human rights. Later, their class interests won out, and they or their survivors led U.S.-backed governments that that worked against the working class. I don't really see either situation in our couple's future, so for now, I can appreciate their CURRENT practice of supporting workers' struggles and civil rights. That current practice is BETTER than Bush and Co.'s.
Oh, and by the way. Stephen Cohen is no John Reed, not now, not ever, and NOT EVEN CLOSE.
Posted by cka2nd at 05/20/2008 @ 11:47am