Why are Democrats tarred as elites when the world’s richest man funds Trump?
Why are Democrats tarred as elites when the world’s richest man funds Trump? | Robert Reich
🗳️ Register to vote: https://vote.gov/
To Democrats, "elites" mean your in some top percentile of wealth and income. To Republicans, "elites" means having a college degree.
It really is the right answer. But I think we can sharpen it if we look at how the media around Democrats elevates and highlights elitism as a quality to be pursued, for example, in a candidate.
A great example of this was the treatment of Pete Buttigieg, and specific media outlets elevation of him to a nationally relevant political actor. Harvard, then Oxford Rhodes scholar then a decade long McKinseyite (that alone should have disbarred him from running for president), then intelligence officer US Navy. He was the definition of "qualified" to the CNN and NPR editorial boards.
But how well had only political bonafides were a failed run for treasurer in Indiana, and a mayoral victory where he garnered all of 10k votes. So the guy has never actually won any significant state or federal elections. Yet in 2020, suddenly this guys is gets treated like a serious contender in the Democratic primary. Why?
Democratically aligned corporate press is obsessed with credentials, and specifically, the kind that comes from "elite" schools and organizations. Partially because they themselves also come from these elite schools and organizations.
So they basically turned anti elitism to anti intellectualism so they can fool their audience.
I mean, I thought we all knew that.
It means the nerds you shoved in lockers who learned to read and now have successful lives while you scrape by trying to make alimony at a job that would pay a living wage if you didn't live in a right to work state.
It’s also how we talk, how we walk, and that we often come from elsewhere and think differently.
That's not what (((elites))) mean to Republicans.
A lot of times they amp up the dog whistle and say (((global elites))).
This is one of the greatest scams that conservatives get away with IMO, not just in the US but it happens in the UK and other places too. Conservatives get in, go hog wild cutting taxes, selling off public assets and throwing huge contracts to their friends, and then as soon as the other side gets back in they find that they have to now balance the books, the conservatives start complaining and saying they're the fiscally responsible ones.
It's literally happening right now in the UK - we just got rid of the Tories finally after about 15 years, and the new Labour government immediately found a £20 billion hole in the economy which they now have to make harsh cuts to sort out, and they're the ones getting criticized for it by the media.
We need a government report card.
At the end of every administration, we need to compare the national debt and all important factors.
It’s one thing people missed in coming up with democratic systems. If different people take turns to steer the ship then you need to define what their goal is so you can evaluate each.
I'd half agree; they could raise taxes instead of making cuts.
That generally also does not go over well in the media.
Conservatives make a mess to their advantage and win/win every time
Don't say this around any conservative. They only believe in cutting taxes.
They always have these "household budget" analogies when it comes to the government, but even in a "household budget" situation one solution to overcoming debt is to find a way to raise your income so you can pay down the debt faster....
not just in the US but it happens in the UK and other places too
Damn. Can't believe New Labour is getting tarred with accepting soccer tickets, fancy clothes, and vacation packages from British Peer Lord Alli. Seems so unfair. Wish people would stop accusing the Labour government of being corrupt, when they are very obviously following the rules of accepting gifts and definitely not operating on any quid pro quo.
the new Labour government immediately found a £20 billion hole in the economy
New Labour has a set of accounting rules that count investment in capital as an expense and insists on running daily budget surpluses for their operating expenses.
Popping open your household account, making cartoonish bug-eyes, and announcing "We owe $200k on our 30 year mortgage but we only make $80k/year! We're bankrupt for the next three years until we pay this house off!" This is New Labour accounting. It's laughable and only ever used as an excuse not to spend any money.
On the flip side, this is the same party that insists on privatizing everything. From Thames Water to British Gas to UK Rail, every once-public service has to be turned over and rented back from the private sector. The Brits pass out these privatization contracts as sinecures, guaranteeing their financial friends huge piles of free no-risk revenues at the expense of the British taxpayer. And then they complain that the country has no money.
That New Labour slid directly into the driver's seat the Tories left and gunned it isn't something you can ignore, simply because the party leadership has changed.
To be fair, in this monopolized 2 party system, both parties are owned by pretty much the exact same corporate interests and mega rich. Everything is by design. There is nothing they leave to chance.
Because rich Republicans also own the media.
Because it was always about projection.
Because the Democrats abandoned working class voters in the 80s and 90s to court the professional-managerial class in a pivot towards the center, and the Republicans were able to win over these disaffected blue-collar voters with resentment politics.
Most elected Democrats had abandoned a working class message by the 90s. Jimmy Carter seems like a socialist by today's standards, but its important to remember that at the time, he was running on a pivot towards the center and an attempt to distance the party from the New Deal. Ted Kennedy's primary challenge was a campaign to return to their New Deal principles. Mondale and Dukakis were both moving to center as well, as the party had convinced themselves that Regan's success meant New Deal politics seemed fiscally irresponsible.
By the time Clinton was in power, the party was essentially a center-right party by their own historical standards. Clinton and the 1993 Congress passed legislation that actively hurt the middle class while helping the managerial and financial class. His deregulation of Wall Street was a gift to investors, while his work requirements for Welfare basically killed the program. Worst of all was NAFTA, which created the largest outsourcing of manufacturing jobs in American history.
Obama at least ran on a progressive platform (which should have proved to Democrats that centrism was not a winning strategy), but he governed like another moderate. He even attempted to pass another NAFTA like trade agreement, the TPP, and Trump successfully won over blue-collar workers by promising to kill that deal. Granted, he also won them over by blaming their economic woes on immigrants, and his opposition to the deal probably had more to do with his racist desire to undermine as many achievements of the first black President as he possibly could, but the TPP would have been another nail in the coffin of American manufacturing jobs.
Anyway, point is, aside from a few progressive hold-outs, the Democrats by-and-large pivoted away from their New Deal roots towards being technocratic centrists whose policies benefit investors and white-collar workers and often hurt the working class. Meanwhile, the Republicans, whose policies are even worse for the working class, are able to create the illusion of being on their side through scapegoating and dog whistles that appeal to blue-collar workers (particularly white blue-collar workers, although not exclusively).
In some categories, but overall Dem voters get more income. I think most wealthy donors skew Republican, which is rational. Why shouldn’t they vote for self-preservation? No one justifies to these wealthy donors that no one wants a handout.
People, regardless of their socioeconomic status, should be taxed appropriately for the resources they use. If your business is generating billions in revenue, and your net worth is multi mill+, you got a lot of benefit from the civilized order of society. That’s basically what your taxes are for. Well, that and human potential is worth investing in as that’s how we got so far here. It would be great to go further instead of boiling to death in some war torn, poverty stricken wasteland, but I digress.
Here’s some data on income by party, I can’t speak to the quality of the source: https://www.thehivelaw.com/blog/average-income-republican-vs-democrat-by-political-party/
Accuse your enemies of that which you are guilty.
because US politics is center right vs far right
Why haven’t Democrats embraced economic populism? Because for too long they’ve drunk from the same campaign funding trough as the Republicans – big corporations, Wall Street, and the very wealthy.
US two-party sham needs replacing
Poor Republicans don't show up to push their representative or senators.
There could have been a public option to the ACA if a Republican Senator voted for it; none did. If Republicans can't get the full credit for being Santa, no one can.
Probably for the same kind of reason that "everyone knows" that the corporate media is a "liberal media".
"The media is liberal!"
"Who told you that?"
"The media."
Putin is also one of the world's richest man and funds Trump.
Now that you mentioned putin, I propose we go looking for the Mexican cartel people who do the political events such as head and shoulders separations and we give them a challenge. Maybe give them a small island as a reward? 😉 Could you please bring back putin's happy face for a chance to win Mara Lago! Or Mara Island! 🏝️🏖️. With margaritas!
Because it's convenient to have bad faith actors sowing discord before any election.
Tankies (sleeper conservatives that they are) can't rely on logic, merit or hope for a better tomorrow, so they cause as much chaos as possible to their perceived 'enemies'. This chaos includes the encouragement of unrealistic statements and general cognitive dissonance.
My true thoughts are that they went too far and started to believe their own drivel as generations of hexbears rose and fell and shit themselves into .ml
What does this post or article have to do with "Tankies?" Did you just hop in here to badmouth them without any context? The idea that anyone who opposes Democrats is a conservative is so out of touch. You must live in a world of ghosts, probably ones wearing ushankas and singing the Internationalé. What a strange comment.
Projection.
Because projection, misinformation, disinformation, and political agendas.
yup. Amoral leadership lying to gullible supporters who want conspiracies, it's really that simple. A base who want simplistic explanations that reinforce their prejudices. Truth doesn't even rate.
Because democrats value egalitarianism and education. Good education is expensive. The businesspersons that have expended the most effort to offshore our jobs to the serious detriment of working-class America have had some of the most expensive and exclusive educations of all, and they are some of the wealthiest people on the planet… (conservatives fullstop here and ignore the rest: …who are also likely voting conservative). Couple that with the fact that expert (educated) advice and direction is often in direct conflict with the myopic goals and views of the uneducated. Don’t dump shit everywhere (but it’s cheap, easy, and fun to roll coal and pour used motor oil on the ground!), don’t cut down all the trees (but mah lumber is more expensive!), and maybe wear a mask (grandma was gonna die eventually anyways, at least I can bring her Covid from the Applebees take out!)
So it’s really easy for the conservatives to paint education = evil, and then of course they couple that with feel-good bullshit like “common sense” and small-town American wisdom that is completely meaningless but makes the uneducated feel smart or like they have control of their situation.
Elitism and wealth, though often linked, are not the same. The term nouveaux riche highlights this difference: it refers to those who have gained wealth but lack the cultural status of the traditional elite. One can be rich without being part of the elite, as elitism is more about attitudes of superiority tied to education or social influence than money alone.
In American politics, Democrats are often branded as elitist due to their perceived condescension towards certain demographics, such as rural communities or southern voters. Critics argue that some Democrats dismiss these regions as culturally or intellectually inferior, suggesting that rural areas offer little value or substance. This perception of elitism stems from more than just economic disparity; it reflects a cultural and ideological divide. The urban-rural schism is not simply about money, but about who holds the power to shape discourse, values, and the future of society. Such perceptions fuel populist resentment, where rural or working-class voters feel alienated or belittled by what they view as a metropolitan, highly educated, and culturally insulated elite.
You can see some of this elitism right here in the comments in fact.
Trump is the urban elitist you are referencing. Why does he get a pass from the voters from rural places?
Trump has been snubbed and the laughing stock of elite NYC society for decades.
They aren't. Republicans lie all the time and some people are stupid enough to believe them.
Because Republican voters never, ever seek evidence or utilize basic critical thinking when their hatred steeped biases are confirmed.
A sufficiently hatemongering, and therefore trusted conservative talking head could say "Kamala Harris is a secret Aids Virus in a skin suit made of harvested fetuses made human size by George Soros' double secret reverse shrink ray!"
And you'd cue thunderous Republican voter applause with shrieks of "I FUCKING KNEW IT!"
It's because Democrats are not willing to become anti-elite or anti-rich or anything like that, they'd piss off their donors. Only Trump was able to do this because everyone knows he's lying. His donors know it's all a show.
Hard agree. All we get from the Democrats is more of the same economically and military, but with some feel good identity politics (i.e. that don't in any way threaten corpos, just provide more markets) and socially progressive vibes. Still better than the alternative sure, but they are just sprinkling glitter on a turd to make it look appealing. There's zero interest towards actually addressing social/financial inequality, reigning in the power of corpos, separating money from politics, or basically changing the economic status quo in any meaningful way. It's a sad state of affairs, and absolutely no wonder leftists aren't enthused to vote for Harris. It's basically a vote for keeping things exactly as they are now, which is not what voters want at all. US politics is so corrupted by money now that a government of the people for the people is just a distant memory. And this talk of reforming the electoral college is just more window dressing, seems to me.
have you considered identifying as metamorphic rocks? Cause my newest donor has some lovely rock Polish for you and when you buy it you prove to all the haters that your post igneous lifestyle isn't just a phase! In fact I will specifically respect and enforce the sales of metamorphic rock Polish in all stores that would already sell it because of the corporate backing of this product!
what was that about a rent cap? Sorry no comment. And how dare you diminish the matamorphic-os who you tried to silence with this pointless off topic line of questioning. You are just Rockist.
This would be a good example of the sort of elitist sentiment I was referencing in my other post.
Because it’s hard to think of a moron like Trump as elite at anything.
Corporate politicians are the same regardless of whether there is a D or an R in front of their name. They will vote in the interests of their donors every time, without question.
But there is such a thing as a non-corporate Democrat. Unfortunately, they are few and far between. There are also some wealthy Democratic donors that are less than 100% shitbags, resulting in some legitimate progressive policy.
Deleted
Because they are? Let's not pretend several billionaires don't have Democrats on their payroll too. Are we just ignoring the existence of pelosi and her corporate democrat ilk to make this point? Dems and Republicans are in the pockets of corporate america and billionaires. It's not a secret that this country is a thinly veiled oligarchy
I think oligarchy is putting it extremely kindly. Can we please just acknowledge we are a naked kleptocracy now?
Nuh uh! Not my team!
..........and even if it was true, my team is better than yours, so they deserve to rule.
Perhaps because they are the current ruling party of a government doing business with elites such as the world's richest man who funds trump.
Propaganda.
Because 2 things can be true at the same time?
Why is this a question?
Its just each side has their own excuse of why their shit doesnt stink and what their idea of how this fake meritocracy will justify their elites.
The unwashed masses dare to think that we are the elites? Clearly a result of their inadequate education...
because the average american is dumber than the average human?
Kamala Harris’s campaign should strike a more populist note
I agree, if we could get Kamala to agree then I'd feel a lot more confident about her beating trump.
I don't understand why people want to blame everyone except Kamala and her campaign for her campaigns failings tho.
The media is always mad at Dem voters for not being excited for Dem candidates, probably because the wealthy owners of the media are the same ones donating so the left most option isn't really all that "left".
Because it's easier and then it becomes someone else's fault.
I don’t understand why people want to blame everyone except Kamala and her campaign for her campaigns failings tho.
There are a lot of things outside of Harris's control though - having two important voting blocs (the Jewish vote and the Islamic vote) that are on opposite sides of a big and important single issue, the need to draw in moderate Republicans, etc.
I agree, if we could get Kamala to agree then I’d feel a lot more confident about her beating trump.
Based on her 2019 platform I'd suspect that this is secretly the case. I'm expecting a massive turnaround - but this is conditional on Dems also gaining a majority in the House and retaining the majority in the Senate.
The media is always mad at Dem voters for not being excited for Dem candidates, probably because the wealthy owners of the media are the same ones donating so the left most option isn’t really all that “left”.
Actually it's a failing of FPTP, with a system like that folks need to aim for the centre.
Democrats believe they alone should be the alternative to the Republican party. Their refusal to replace First past the post voting in the states they control is them telling us they know better then everyone else.
The state of Maine disagrees. Dems got ranked choice to pass.
Aren't you telling everyone you know better than them right now?
That being said, we have preferential voting here in Australia, and it's Awesome. We can vote for who we want, and they still get paid if they get a minimum amount of votes.
But eventually, your votes keep filtering down until one prference is selected
One big thing Democrats do that marks them as elites is they consistently prioritize the climate over the needs of people.
People come second in their rhetoric.
I don't know about you, but I live in the climate.
Don't worry, they said they will move us out of the environment.
Brain dead take
Do you know what a changing climate does to the needs of the people?
I mean, obviously, natural disasters like severe weather impact the needs of the people. Look at the last two hurricanes in the US south or the wildfires out west. Death, injuries, lives disrupted, houses and businesses destroy or damaged, links in supply chains shattered.
Imagine what happens to populated areas that, hypothetically, get hit repeatedly by this for a few years. Many in Florida can't find home insurance already. Eventually they'll have to leave and go... where? If this happens repeatedly in poorer neighboring countries? What if sea levels actually rise and wipe out coastal cities? Massive migration, climate refugees, regional instability. It gets too hot for a good crop yield or rainfall patterns change and we get less fresh water? Food and water scarcity, death and starvation... the needs of people can't be met.
Thr planet? It'll likely be fine in a few million years. We won't be.
To be brief, it’s propaganda designed to keep rural voters red. Ie- "those big city folk don’t care about you."
Partly...
But also that the Dem party today is significantly more "conservative" economically than we used to be, as the article points out:
Plus, Teddy was the first presidential platform that used universal healthcare....
So part of it is that Republicans lie and propaganda
But if the modern Dem party didn't think the Dem party platform from a fucking century ago wasnt "too extreme" the modern Dem party would be as popular as it was with FDR.
I think that's more of a symptom than a root cause. republicans' goal since the 70's has been to pull the lower and middle classes to them with wedge identity issues like abortion. the whole "elitism" thing is a part of that too. So now the parties are competing on those wedge issues and identity more than economic progress, as they were in FDR's time.
I also wish the Dems would promote more progressive policies. At the same time, the media does not celebrate the wins for Dems, such as the creation of the CFPB that Elizabeth Warren established. They don't celebrate the response to oligopoly through review of mergers and acquisitions by the FTC under Lina Kahn. They don't celebrate the reduced child poverty rate under the expanded child tax credit. Positive progress doesn't make it to mass media even when it does happen, which isn't often enough.
Stop blaming the Dem leadership and look at the facts.
The voters heard Donald Trump say that he liked grabbing the pussy and that he didn't like soldiers who got captured.
People are choosing garbage because they'd happily eat a ton of manure if it meant they could blow stink in a Libs face.
Damn I miss Teddy. One of the last presidents to truly give a fuck and put the actions behind it.
Ironic considering that Teddy was a Republican.
But that's the contradiction. The GOP is even further along this scale, so how can the GOP be seen as the party of the people while the Dems are elitists?
I think mainly.
We need to bring back the Bull Moose Party (at the local level, not the Russian-backed spoiler effect garbage like the Green Party is debasing itself at).
Propaganda makes you believe that one of the two party is your fiend. Meanwhile for the past century both the red and blue party has served elites interests and fuck over everyone else (including the planet). The proof is that you are a peasants and it would take you a couple of minutes just to visualize how much a billion is.
The system is working as intended. A country created by the wealthy, for the wealthy, and controlled by the wealthy.
Having said that the two sides of the same coin is a bunch of bullshit when you see 60+ years of hate and fear propaganda conducted by conservatives.
Making every modern amenity a partisan issue and is also no mistake. It is very clear one side is keeping us from free education, free/cheap healthcare, equality, and a living wage. It is even clearer when they are pushing for more child labor, pollution, racism, and sexism.
To be fair, there is a kernel of truth there.
https://www.cracked.com/blog/6-reasons-trumps-rise-that-no-one-talks-about