The "liberal elite"

[BainsBane]

Facts matter. Talking points that ignore those facts are false.


The Democratic base:







?



Liberal elite? The majority of Democratic voters earn less than Republicans. Elite refers to financial wealth and power. The overwhelmingly majority of Democrats have neither, while Republicans are wealthier. In recent years the GOP has defined "elite" in terms of education rather than wealth. That is part of their war on education, knowledge, and science. To use their language is to capitulate to the conservative view of America. It's time to stop excusing the repetition right-wing talking points. I will not capitulate to the Fox view of America because some politicians see is as beneficial to their political prospects. The comments are factually false and repeating them is unacceptable.

[betsuni]

1. THANK YOU!

[Hortensis]

118. Yes. Big truth. Needs a lot of repeating.

We ARE the American workers we are so absurdly claimed to be ignoring.

[Nwgirl503]

140. It reminds me of that saying

You call me a bitch like it's a bad thing.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

244. Remember you are also an "elitist" if you are "too smart." I have been called an "elitist" because

I have a master's degree and sound educated, I guess. Despite being a social worker, I have been called an "elitist" by people making much, much more than I am.

[NRaleighLiberal]

2. toxic combo of destructive envy and laziness and apathy that puts them there in the first place

If working hard, being curious, trying to learn something everyday and having an open mind - as well as being accepting and welcoming of all and NOT being a follower of toxic messages from the pulpit - are liberal elite, I wear that badge proudly.

They are being so used it is pathetic.

[BainsBane]

3. Exactly

[NRaleighLiberal]

5. pisses me off - we have so many in our country that have been or are being screwed by

the hypocrisy - people with legitimate beefs, people who are or will be suffering - that I have no sympathy for those that choose to be bamboozled.

[JHan]

4. Guess I'm a "liberal elite"

[aikoaiko]

6. When anyone uses the phrase liberal elite, the base is not who they are talking about.

This is true of any organization or group.

Of course, you know this.

[BainsBane]

7. He said he was talking about the Democratic party

I took him at his word.

[aikoaiko]

8. Who is he, BainsBaine? If we are talking about Bernie

I'm fine with him talking about the liberal elite within the party.

Would you prefer liberal or Democratic power brokers?

If you think he was talking about rank and file members or even just the people who vote Democratic without being members, then you are mistaken.

[BainsBane]

9. Why is the elite the Democratic Party and not the Republican party?

When Republicans are more affluent?

He didn't say the power brokers. He said the Democrats are the party of the liberal elite. If I have the quote wrong, feel free to provide it. but I'm not interested in your trying to spin it to claim he really meant something he didn't say.

[aikoaiko]

13. Yes, the liberal elite are, by and large, in the Democratic party and not the Republican party.

Is this really a news for you?

And he was warning that the Democratic party cannot merely be a party that serves or follows the liberal elite.

I like how you accuse me of spin when you conflated the base, the people, as the elite.

We criticize Republicans for being the party serving corporatist interests -- that doesn't mean everyone in the Republican party is a CEO.

[BainsBane]

16. So I didn't get the comment wrong

therefor your argument that he didn't really mean what he said is not persuasive.

[JHan]

24. Stop spinning this please.

"Liberal elite" is a coded phrase*. Does he mean "elite" in the way republicans define it- that is educated types who head agencies and make policy decisions in D.C, the same Liberal types that Obama hired ( now fired or about to resign)? Does he just mean rich people? - he's had no problem talking about the billionaire class as a pernicious influence in politics but no - he said specifically "liberal elites".

I am sure Sanders is aware that there is a global attack on the liberal order ( the same liberal order begun by his hero FDR) derided as "the liberal elite". Fun fact: Conservatives used to enjoy calling FDR "elitist" yet he expanded the social safety net. This same liberal elite soundbyte it still used by Marine Le Pen and far righters , and Trump himself, when they exploit fear and preach that there needs to be a pivot to right wing politics to "fix" what "liberal elites" destroyed. Sanders should be more careful of what memes he uses to make his point. This is a continuing theme of his when he complains about establishment politics, which coincidentally, is the most successful attack Republicans have used against Democrats since they lost the culture wars*. When progressives and liberals use the same line of attack, it hurts the progressive cause because it is divisive. Unbelievably, he made these comments despite our new DNC chairs and Dems fighting Trump on multiple fronts.

[aikoaiko]

27. He's talking about liberal with power within the party that use their

Power to stifle grassroots efforts within the party.

[JHan]

30. that's nonsense.. sorry.

no matter how you spin it is it nonsense.

He's already talked about billionaires and their influence in politics - he's had no problem in the past just saying "billionaires". That is what you are describing in your interpretation of what he said.

He specifically said "liberal elites" - it is a coded phrase. It was a rhetorical blunder and we shouldn't excuse it, knowing full well the implications.

[aikoaiko]

34. It's not just billionaires or millionaires of the liberal variety

That's one way to become part of the elite.

[JHan]

35. sigh.

[FakeNoose]

65. JHan I get you

They're using falsified descriptions to talk about us, but they're not talking to us.

"Liberal elite" is one of those false descriptions but they have plenty of others.
It's not a hill worth dying on, so nobody calls them on their BS.
But I get your point, we should be calling them on it.

We just have too many other things to get them on that are more important & urgent.

[58Sunliner]

218. Instead of using dog whistles, which are destructive, he should aim for transparency.

He should not be able to to generalize or stereotype. He should say exactly who he feels is obstructing the party, and on which issues. It just creates divisiveness and ambiguity. Sorry-done with that BS. I like Bernie, I voted for him, and I am disappointed that he is not forthright.

[boston bean]

39. as far as I understand the phrase, it is usually hurled at progressives from republicans who think

we are too judgmental of them and their racist/misogynistic views.

[JHan]

40. yes, that too..

it's one of those nebulous phrases that can be weaponized - usually against liberal causes.

I am amazed the irony is lost on many that FDR is one of the founders of the " Liberal Order", personified "liberal elite" for many Conservatives, and yet here we have a progressive in 2017 banding about the phrase to attack democrats. I don't get it.

The phrase has meaning and a history. Progressives shouldn't repeat RW memes.

[redstatebluegirl]

109. Academics have it hurled at them as well.

The anti-intellectual crowd on both sides use that term a great deal.

[JHan]

155. Yep. strange bedfellows eh?

[BainsBane]

175. definitely

As Squinch said, they see knowing stuff as bad.

[BainsBane]

101. I did a google search

and discovered he has used the term repeatedly. That's more than a blunder.

[JHan]

103. sigh, and it's right out of the conservative playbook.

[JHan]

106. well the "liberal elite" world wide is under pressure:

so I guess it's all good then...

so fuck climate change agreements, funding initiatives that tackle poverty, prioritizing science,,, fact ... evidence.

Welcome to a world of hysteria and myopic nationalistic populist garbage

[BainsBane]

31. Provide the quote that says that

[aikoaiko]

36. seems strange that I have to provide the quote that your OP is apparently referencing

But I will when I get to my computer.

It's difficult to post quotes on my Phone.

[BainsBane]

42. Because you are claiming he said something

not evident in his recent remarks.

[aikoaiko]

46. Here is the quote I think you are referencing and is the one I'm talking about.

Looks like I'm getting better quoting with my phone.

“We need a Democratic party that is not a party of the liberal elite but of the working class of this country, we need a party that is a grassroots party, where candidates are talking to working people not spending their time raising money for the wealthy and the powerful.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/apr/01/bernie-sanders-trump-voters-not-deplorable-clinton-warren



If you'll forgive the use of wiki, this is what I think Bernie is referring to when talking about the elites within our party.

In political science and sociology, elite theory is a theory of the state which seeks to describe and explain the power relationships in contemporary society. The theory posits that a small minority, consisting of members of the economic elite and policy-planning networks, holds the most power and that this power is independent of a state's democratic elections process. Through positions in corporations or on corporate boards, and influence over the policy-planning networks through financial support of foundations or positions with think tanks or policy-discussion groups, members of the "elite" are able to exert significant power over the policy decisions of corporations and governments. An example of this can be found in the Forbes magazine article (published in December 2009) entitled The World's Most Powerful People, in which Forbes purported to list the 67 most powerful people in the world (assigning one "slot" for each 100,000,000 of human population).[1]

Even when entire groups are ostensibly completely excluded from the state's traditional networks of power (historically, on the basis of arbitrary criteria such as nobility, race, gender, or religion), elite theory recognizes that "counter-elites" frequently develop within such excluded groups. Negotiations between such disenfranchised groups and the state can be analyzed as negotiations between elites and counter-elites. A major problem, in turn, is the ability of elites to co-opt counter-elites.

Elite theory opposes pluralism, a tradition that assumes that all individuals, or at least the multitude of social groups, have equal power and balance each other out in contributing to democratic political outcomes representing the emergent, aggregate will of society. Elite theory argues either that democracy is a utopian folly, as it is traditionally viewed in the conservative Italian tradition, or that democracy is not realizable within capitalism, as is the view of the more Marxist-compatible contemporary elite theory permutation

.

[JHan]

50. We need elites, to be a part of the "elite" doesn't mean you believe in elitism..

It doesn't matter what system of government you implement or leader you vote for... If we had a Sanders presidency, we would still have an "elite".

It is a word that has become ridiculously demonized - which helps the Right since their politics is untethered from reality. They are climate change deniers, deniers of social inequality and want social conservatism ( less plurality, less cosmopolitanism since diversity is a threat).

These are the same attacks used against Liberal politicians since FDR - The Kennedys got the same label of "Liberal elite".

Some progressives have become so caught up in hatred for "establishment" they end up using RW smears to attack their own. It is madness, it is crazy.

yes, Rich people continue to try to influence policy, regardless of ideology - you don't need the phrase "liberal elite" to describe this phenomenon.

[aikoaiko]

63. I agree to an extent. You can be elite (brightest, motivated, polished) and not fall prey to elitis

Given the context of his remarks, it appears he's talking about liberal elites engaging in elitism. I can see how and why Bernie offends those I would call part of the HRC coalition. Some people say HRC took over the Obama coalition and I think formed her own.

I will admit that I wish Bernie were better at communicating his ideas. But then again, I wish Hillary, Schumer, Biden, and Boxer were better, too.

The bar has been raised by President Obama and I don't see anyone quite up to his level. Elizabeth Warren and Al Franken, maybe soon.

[H2O Man]

45. Exactly.

[QC]

107. That's all very nice, but such thinking is useless

if one's goal is to rehash the primaries, which seems to be the purpose of these Bernie Bash threads. It's really time to get past all that.

Did you see where two "BERNIE IS A POOPIEHEAD!!!" threads posted yesterday, both by brand new members, ended up being deleted because they were the work of disruptors?

If the Russkies are still meddling in this country, and I suspect they are, pitting Democrats against one another is one of the most effective strategies they could pursue now, since their stooge is in the Oval Office. What better way to protect him than to divide the opposition?

[Demit]

124. I'll reserve the right to criticize what Sanders says NOW. The primaries are over,

but apparently he still has plenty to say, and I see no reason for it to be off limits.

Maybe if he had stayed a Democrat, after it was no longer useful to his purposes, I'd feel different. But he couldn't leave the party fast enough, could he?

[BainsBane]

179. It has nothing to do with the primaries

This is about what is happening right now, specifically Friday.

I find it fascinating that you are more concerned that my thread is more divisive than Bernie's continual attacks on the party. You can't possibly believe what I write has greater influence than Bernie's regular television appearances. You don't object to his condemnations of Democrats, but that I dare to question Bernie is unacceptably divisive.

Don't pretend you're concerned about a united front against Trump. It doesn't pass the smell test.

[Cha]

189. You know damn well this is about BS' comment on

Friday when he called for a Democratic party that is not of "the liberal elite". If you don't like it then speak to him.

The OP is rightly pointing out what kind of Party we have.

[Me.]

260. INdeed

And the OP is not a disruptor

[stonecutter357]

52. lol seems legit !

[H2O Man]

43. Respectfully disagree.

Of course there are "conservative elites." They are found in every community in the United States. They prey upon the ignorance of the registered republicans who are hoping to reach the elite status, and who blame non-republicans for their every failure.

Republican elites are found in both corporations and in government positions -- including both elected and non-elected offices. The synergism of corporate and government power allows the elite to become entrenched in terms of economic and political power. I've yet to see a single DU forum member who is unaware of, or who denies, this glaring reality.

Many Democrats -- and a higher percentage of the Democratic Left -- recognize that there are democratic elites. This again is based upon economic status, and access to the political power that allows them to become entrenched and generally out of touch with the reality of the problems that the majority of citizens are confronted with. That does not mean the Democratic Party is "elitist." That is not what Bernie is saying. It simply means that in some important instances, those Democrats in power are not representing the thoughts, beliefs, values, or needs of the common citizen.

[BainsBane]

53. I fail to understand

Why the most urgent issues of the day involve attacking the Democratic party, including contrasting it as "elitist" in comparison to the GOP.

What you describe does is not what Bernie said yesterday. If everyone has to explain what he "really meant," he's not doing very well at communicating his message.

There certainly are political elites. Bernie is one of them. This article demonstrates how he uses power. http://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/sanders-revolution-resists-dnc-loss-235404

I don't believe he is in touch with reality. He may convey well the concerns of the white male middle and upper-middle class, but he certainly doesn't understand the reality of many Americans. His comments on the election are directly contradicted by exit poll data. He insists Trump voters aren't racist, ignoring the rise in hate crimes and lived experiences of many across this nation. Our concerns are dismissed as "identity politics."

If you read this thread, you will see Democrats living below the poverty level who were regularly insulted as being corporatist elites and banksters. Those wielding the insults were often comfortable economically. It is that pernicious and dishonest use of those terms that is so divisive.

If the point were to get money out of politics, that is accomplished through POLICY, not insults. Bernie appears to have abandoned concerns about campaign finance reform and now insists that all campaigns should be funded like his was. They can't be. Most candidates aren't on television several times a week. Public financing is the only just solution, so why do his comments focus on attacking Democrats rather than reforming the system through the law?

As the case of Jaime Harrison recounted in the Politico article above demonstrated, insults like "corporatist" and "elitist" are used for purely political purposes, just as they were against Democratic voters like those in this thread. I am here to say I see through it.

[H2O Man]

62. It isn't "the"

most important issue facing us today. Yet, it is definitely one that the Democratic Party needs to address honestly, if we are going to win elections in a meaningful manner in 2018 and beyond. The 2016 experience shows this rather clearly, in the national and congressional elections (both House and Senate).

A lot of people were likewise insulted during the primary. This included when their concerns and beliefs were labeled nonsense, untrue, etc .....only to be confirmed by the DNC leaks. I think that it would be extremely hard to deny that some in the DNC were acting, by definition, as elites.

Indeed, the concept of "super delegates" is elitist. Denial of this requires tortured logic.

These are issues that can be dealt with successfully. But that requires open and honest discussion and debate. Denying the realities is not a way that it can be accomplished. More, that insures the very fractures that can be exploited by the Russians, etc.

[BainsBane]

67. Why is that discussion at a public rally in Boston

rather than at a party meeting? That public does not have power to effect the internal workings of the party. If the point is to address the influence of money in politics, why focus exclusively on the Democratic Party? None of your explanations make sense in light of where he has made those comments and the fact he constantly and repeatedly makes the same accusations in front of the cameras.

I don't buy any of that for a second. And I am over hearing him and his supporters whine because he couldn't get the four million more voters he needed to the polls. Using those sour grapes as an excuse for his continued attacks on Democrats, which are the people pictured in my OP, is unacceptable.

[H2O Man]

70. If the public

does not have the power to effect the internal workings of the party, then one can only conclude the internal workings are absolutely controlled by an elite. However, I should note that many, many good Democrats at the grass roots level believe that we can affect change within the party. Hence, not only do we attend Bernie's rallies, but we continue to invest our energies in the party.

It would be a serious problem, going forward, if the public becomes convinced that they have no voice in the Democratic Party. I am sad to see this position advocated by anyone.

[BainsBane]

77. So now you've defined elite as being elected to a position in the party

rather than wealth. Members of the public can influence the party if they are willing to join, attend meetings, and get elected to positions that run from the local precinct level up to DNC chair. Then you concede that you yourself are involved in the party. Yet somehow you exempt yourself from being part of the elite.

What are you determined to change? To ensure that the "elites" like the ladies in the top picture are ousted from their positions in the party? Do you oppose the door knocking and voter turn out that local party units do? It must be terrible to suffer through the presence of all those "elites"--social workers, teachers, union members, single moms living at the poverty level--who hold the party positions at the local level.

Bernie doesn't participate in party meetings. In fact, he won't even join. He saves his comments for the cameras.

This OP began as a discussion of use of the term "liberal elite" to describe Democrats. Now you claim that the fact random attendees at a rally aren't able to influence a party that they haven't bothered to join or participate in means the party is dominated by "elites." The fact you share Bernie's contempt for the people who make up the party doesn't refute my point at all. In fact, it reaffirms it. The point you fail to grasp is that "the people" are not confined to 11 million people who happen to agree with you but also includes the rest of the citizens of this country, including the Muslims, African Americans, Latinos, poor whites, and others pictured in my OP.

[H2O Man]

79. No, actually I haven't.

"No one puts words in my mouth." -- Malcolm X


What I said is that "elite" is a word with an actual definition. We do better if we apply that definition, that if we attempt to misuse it. Let's consider that definition:

Elite: a group of persons exercising the major share of authority or influence within a larger group:
the power elite of a major political party.

Now, as I have correctly noted, within the context of the Democratic Party, that includes "power." And as we know, "power" comes from the Latin "posse," meaning the ability to accomplish. It would be silly to deny that there are not individuals who have a combination of economic, social, and "position" -- be it, for example, elected or appointed office -- that provides them with elite power. The "super delegates" are a prime example.

[BainsBane]

96. so when you said you were trying to change the party

that doesn't include actually doing anything as "elitist" as joining your local party organization to work on voter registration and turnout?

Sanders is part of the Democratic Senate leadership. That makes him more of an elite than the folks working at the local level. Your not participating explains how you could imagine they wield power. ALL party positions are elected. Any power they exercise is granted through a democratic process. Participants just need to care enough to become involved and stay involved. I don't share your view that civic engagement is nefarious. Nor do I believe the bourgeois or affluent are exempt from being part of the elite because they don't care enough to bother.

My core belief is in equality. That means I believe that whiteness should not be valued more than melanin and that men do not deserve to rule as a birthright. I believe that people should earn positions through hard work and by accumulating experience. I have little patience for those who believe they are owed power but refuse to work to generate support or do anything but complain and expect other to cater to them.

[H2O Man]

105. Let's see:

I've recently been asked to assist a couple of Democratic Party committees to consult and assist in helping them win "local" elections this year. I'm glad to volunteer my time and energy. I assume that they have asked for my help, because they know that I have assisted them in the past, in terms of grass roots power. And certainly, within this context, I advocate for the values of the grass roots.

A few years back, when "fracking" was a hot issue in my state, I traveled from town-to-town, city-to-city, to speak at rallies and other meetings about the issue. I was pleased to accept these invitations. I assume the invitations were made, because these grass roots groups of citizens recognized that my values were one and the same as their's. In that time, as individuals at several such meetings witnessed, there were "bircher-types" who were uninvited, and who were intent upon expressing their displeasure with me as a human being.

Now, lots of the good folks in the events were registered Democrats. My message was simple: the Democratic Party should be opposed to fracking, because of the severe damage it does to the environment. Thus, I support those Democratic Party candidates that oppose fracking. But, of course, not all Democrats do oppose fracking. That represents a huge difference in values.

I also engaged in "solitary" activities in opposition to fracking. A few forum members may recall, for example, that I engaged in a hunger strike to "lobby" a state senator to meet with the pro-environment citizens in his district. Eventually, I spoke to a large rally inside the state capitol. No one there could have possibly mistaken me as an "elite." I had absolutely no power other than participating in a grass roots event.

There remain very different values within the Democratic Party on some issues. That does not imply there are differences on many, most, or all issues. Yet they are real.

[BainsBane]

137. How do you suppose opposition to fracking

plays with the white Republicans that Bernie is courting? Have you considered that workers in that industry might perceive that position to be elitist because it's not your job on the line?

And does opposition to fracking mean you are in favor of renewed dependence on coal? Or do you favor continued reliance on Middle Eastern oil and the ongoing wars to maintain access to it?

Clinton had a plan for weaning the country off fossil fuels, but that was roundly denounced because she didn't call for a full ban on fracking. Like you, they demanded an end to fracking with no attention to what would replace it, or a broader energy policy.

[NurseJackie]

81. Thank you for that! I love you so much!

[H2O Man]

86. And now,

to respond to the points you make after the incorrect first sentence .....

In my opinion, the Women's March on Washington/Trump is a wonderful example of the power of the grass roots. I have been involved in many marches, demonstrations, and rallies over the years -- including several supporting Bernie or other good candidates -- and I hold such events in high regard. I note that the message of that Women's March in no manner included any "rule" that individuals were requited to join or attend republican meetings. Yet, they communicated the power of the grass roots --0 which, by definition, is distinct from the power of the elite. It's when the power of the grass roots is not reflected by the power of the elite that confrontations take place, no matter if one is of the same party as the other.

Another power belonging to the grass roots far, far more than to the elites is that ability to go door-to-door in any and every political contest, or on any and every social issue. While the elite have a more limited ability in this respect, the obvious goal is to have both groups coordinating their efforts. To the extent that happens, Democrats win; to the extent it doesn't happen, we lose. In light of the number of loses in state and national contests in the past few years, it would be difficult to pretend that the party is doing a good job there.

All of my contributions to this thread have addressed the issues raised in the OP. Anyone who reads them will clearly see that the second sentence in your last paragraph is glaringly false. What I said was that the grass roots has power -- but it is a collective power, that involves a group effort. It is exercised in settings distinct from a DC cocktail party, for example. Please make a sincere effort to respond to what I'm actually stating here, so as to not close the door on a potentially worth-while discussion. I have not twisted your words here; have the same respect for mine.

[democrank]

68. Thanks for your levelheaded thoughts, H20 Man.

I didn't have the energy.

~PEACE~

[H2O Man]

71. Thank you.

[JHan]

72. so why didn't he throw his support behind Jehmu Greene?

"Indeed, the concept of "super delegates" is elitist. Denial of this requires tortured logic"

Jehmu Greene is the only person who wanted to get rid of super delegates AND caucuses. I keep asking why she wasn't heralded while ellison was - she didn't get a single big name endorsement.

And these byzantine rules didn't appear in 2016, they were always a source of contention, esp. in 2008.

[H2O Man]

75. Interesting.

I would venture that the issues relating to "super delegates" most likely are viewed by individuals, based upon which candidate they support in the primary season. Hence, some view 2008 as the lowest point, while others see 2016, as the prime example of when elitism was most damaging. That this remains an on-going issue would, in my opinion, be a good reason to evaluate the situation.

That any person get a "big name endorsement" can mean a number of things were in play.

[JHan]

82. It seems to be concerns about elitism from some quarters is a ruse..

I observed jehmu greene closely, it's interesting she barely got mention among progressives who claimed that super delegates were their main beef last year, at the very least people should be consistent about the things they claim to be most passionate about. They had no problem last year voicing their complaints.

[H2O Man]

89. When a candidate

does not get any support, there are more than the two most obvious reasons -- those being "natural selection" and "social Darwinism" -- there are, not infrequently, people who run for symbolic reasons.

[JHan]

90. indeed, and "liberal elite" is very symbolic.. for reasons I outlined in this thread.

there's an ugly history behind it. Heritage foundation* types and bircher types would be mucho amused a progressive used it to smear democrats.

[H2O Man]

92. Interesting.

I pay no serious attention to the Heritage Foundation or bircher-types, when it comes to what I value in the Democratic Party. They play no role whatsoever in my value system. The fact that they drink water doesn't prevent my advocating for clean water, for example.

[JHan]

93. They should concern you..

They have poured billions, along with the Koch brothers and the Mercers, in shaping narratives and it was koch brothers astro-turfing that birthed the tea party.

It is heritage foundation thinking that is behind Mulvaney's budget.

so yeah, I get antsy when I see PROGRESSIVES using their memes to smear democrats and liberals.

As I said before, "liberal elite" is a coded phrase. It is the "liberal elite" first under FDR, that is partly responsible for the freedoms we enjoy. FDR got the smear, so did John F Kennedy - just read Nixon's diatribes against the Kennedys to understand, and this progressed to even Obama - the first black president of the United States.

It is a jedi mind trick that aims to attack liberal influence in education which prioritizes science and evidence, and social liberalization - all threats to conservatism.

so yeah, we should all be concerned about the political terrain and the enemies we're facing and the memes they use against US.

[H2O Man]

94. Odd.

As I stated, in terms of Democratic Party values -- which I consider internal to the party -- I do not pay any attention to them.

What I did not say -- and which you appear to be mistakenly attributing to me -- is that applies to national politics -- which includes the external.

You would agree that there are distinctions between the two, would you not?

[JHan]

95. How can the internal politics of any political party not pay attention to the political terrain?

or external influence... The business of political parties is to influence and shape the body politic.

you're trying to avoid dealing the smear behind the phrase.

[H2O Man]

108. Oh, that's simple!

Let's look at it closer. People can do more than one thing at once, including advocating for their values within the Democratic Party, while being fully aware of the local, state, or national realities. Indeed, I would hold that this is essential in winning elections.

I'm not concerned with your fear of others using two words to "smear" anyone. Certainly, they should not dictate in a manner that prevents us from the proper use of words. Words have meanings. Proper use of them helps to define reality.

It is only when there is already a fracture within the party -- as many of the intelligence community have pointed out -- that an opponent/ enemy can exploit a situation. Again, there were differences of values throughout the recent national primary. The leaked DNC documents did not create those differences. They did attempt to exploit them. But for myself, they did not influence my beliefs in the least.

[JHan]

110. Yes , I suppose it is that simple..

And by repeating memes like "liberal elites" it widens and exposes those fissures because it is nonsensical.

If the concern is big money in politics... politicians, including President Obama, have spoken on this, so it's not like Democrats aren't aware :

And Bernie has no problem specifying "the billionaire" class and their influence in politics. Yet he used a specific phrase.

If Hillary were President, she would have appointed a left center ( or even more liberal leaning) scotus to counter the current Roberts led court that wants corporate personhood to be a thing.

Please note which scotus appointees have consistently voted in favor of corporations ( if big money and "elitism" is the true complaint here) They have all been republican appointees.

Yet we hear nonsense about "liberal elites" - this is poor prioritizing at best, cynical pandering at worst.

[H2O Man]

115. It can only

cause a problem if one group pretends it is the two words that cause the issue, rather than the reality itself.

[JHan]

116. Are you suggesting President OBama in that clip is pretending?

In what context are you making that statement - Democrats want to reverse citizens united and get dark money out of politics and have always wanted a limit on donations. Even HRC in a leaked audio lamented the effect of citizen's united on politics.

Obama expressed his concerns , in that clip, about the amount of money even he had to raise in 2012. Is nuance now lost on us?

[H2O Man]

120. One of the

base causes of opposition to President Obama was, in my opinion, racism. Yet, that does not mean that within the Democratic Party, anyone who disagreed on any issue with him was racist. Indeed, President Obama encouraged citizens to let him know when they disagreed with him. I can't speak for him, of course, but I believe he meant he wanted to hear from those who disagreed with him on policy, rather than the racists.

Years ago, J. Edgar Hoover was convinced that the racism in America that fueled the Civil Rights movement was merely a "communist" construct, one that the dangerous commies were seeking to exploit. That sad fact did not change the absolute need for people to address the very real racism in America. Nor did it mandate that anyone not use the word "racism," simply because Hoover and/or communists used it.

[JHan]

125. Ok that doesn't address the issue directly but it does provide context..

Yes, much of the opposition was racism and as I said before - his detractors used the same "Liberal elite" smear against him - yes imagine that - Barack Obama as the "liberal elite". Of course disagreements with Obama are expected - I disagreed with him on a bunch of issues, but I won't ever use the smear of "Liberal elite" against him because that would be dumb.

Last year, anti establishment cries were in vogue under his Presidency despite progress made on several fronts. As bainsbane noted, the establishment is now destroyed, the status quo is now destroyed - so now what? Still think those liberal elites were the problem?

Could the establishment have done better over the years, of course and I can believe this while thinking Clinton and Obama were extraordinary presidents in their own rights because by and large, their vision was correct and they steered the country in the right direction. They governed from a position of pragmatism which, while not perfect, resulted in progress despite gridlock, despite a fractured left, despite obstructionism. For all the flaws of the ACA, healthcare is now considered a right - and democrats can build on that to push for even greater expansion of healthcare coverage - so much for incrementalism being a bad thing.

And yet .. "liberal elite" continues to be used as a smear against our politicians. Yeah, I won't fall for it and when I see progressives using this tactic, I'll call it out for the stupid it is.

[H2O Man]

129. Sure it does.

It addresses it for me, but not for you.

The difference, clearly, is that the reality is important to me, while the two words are the issue for you.

[JHan]

131. I'm well aware of the "realities" ... we are living with harsh "realities" because of stupidity.

Good luck to you.

[H2O Man]

133. I make my own "luck,"

but thank you nevertheless. Good luck to you, as well.

[Arazi]

121. Thank you. This is the crux here

There seems to be a willfully negative spin applied to Bernie's message

[H2O Man]

122. Sad but true.

[BainsBane]

144. I keep being told that I don't understand what he really meant

but every explanation of what he really meant is different. There are at least three in this thread alone. That certainly isn't effective communication.

No one has a responsibility to adore Bernie. This isn't North Korea. I'm allowed to form my own views of politicians.

[melman]

151. Of course

There always is and often by the same posters. It's beyond tired.

[BainsBane]

132. So have we know decided than economic inequality isn't the problem?

and instead those who participate in the Democratic Party are? So Susan Sarandon who has six homes and a net worth of 50 million isn't an elite, but the social worker who is a precinct chair is?

[H2O Man]

134. Please define

who you mean by "we"? I think it would be accurate to say that you and I view "we" in distinct ways.

[BainsBane]

138. Correction

You

[H2O Man]

159. Me?

Oh, I think that people know where I stand. The economic differences can be important, especially when they deny people basic needs. But I'm not concerned overall if some people are focused upon amassing material wealth. One of the reasons that I have so much respect for Dr. King and Malcolm is because they were leaders who were not consumed with personal wealth. Both were more concerned with the victims of the gross inequities in society, than by material gain. I do understand that not every leader practices this.

Throughout my adult life, I have made a conscious effort to follow their example. I liked that King, for example, first attempted to speak to LBJ about the war, but when that didn't work, was willing to speak out publicly. There were plenty of people who then attacked him for "hurting" the Democratic Party, etc. But King was right: it was the war that hurt the party.

Let me ask you: are you 100% satisfied with the party leadership? Is there any change you's like to see within it? Or would you favor keeping it the same?

[BainsBane]

170. The question was about the meaning of elite

I would like you to answer that question rather than deflecting.

As for party leadership, that depends on who you mean. Nancy Pelosi is a very effective minority leader. I'm not so keen on the Senate Director of Outreach because his loyalties are not with the party. The jury is out on Schumer. I am proud of the way that Perez and Ellison are united for the benefit of the party. I am fortunate to have very good elected representatives, but then it is the population of my congressional district and state that elects them. The chairman of my State Senate District DFL committee seems like a good guy. He is committed to ensuring as many people vote as possible and focuses in particular on apartment buildings where lower income citizens tend to live. I appreciate what he does to promote civic engagement and that our state regularly has the highest voter turnout in the nation.

I absolutely oppose efforts to remake the party in the image of the GOP. I oppose excusing racism. I oppose treating women's reproductive rights as optional. I see far too much conservativism being championed under the guise of progressivism.

I think the fundamental problem with our political system lies with sections of the electorate. The Kremlin's propaganda operation could not have been successful if so many weren't eager to spread false information that suited their agenda, while refusing to consider anything that didn't affirm their beliefs. That tendency is as strong as ever. I'm concerned that so many want to be pandered to rather than consider issues in their complexity and that they see the role of their elected officials as validating their emotions. I despair for the future of democracy, not because of the "party leadership" but because of a public that has lost patience for electoral democracy and seeks a strongman or father figure to enforce what they want. Across the political spectrum, we see people more concerned with the politics of personality, in which fealty to a couple of politicians takes precedence over everything else. I see that as indicative of the erosion of democracy. The American people need to want a functioning democracy for us to have one, and too many prefer to see government quit functioning than see congress function as a deliberative body that hammers out the compromises necessary to pass legislation. Associating with a member of the opposite party is disqualifying for too many voters. Hence the idea of working across the isle--representing the country as a whole rather than a small slice of the electorate that votes in primaries--is an anathema. That's all well and good for those privileged enough not to rely on government. For the marginalized, however, is is lethal. It pains me that so many are unconcerned with those lives. The sense of entitlement and self-centerness that makes that possible disgusts me.

[JHan]

135. you know I laughed at this, but that's the insane logic here:

aside from the demonizing of "elite" and "liberal"... yes the social worker who is a precinct chair is part of the "elite" lol because it's all about the internal workings of the party.

this is one hell of a rabbit hole.

[BainsBane]

139. It really is

and it keeps getting deeper.

[H2O Man]

157. You are, of course,

the only one speaking about "demonizing."

[JHan]

160. I'm not a fan of rabbit holes.

[BainsBane]

176. I think it is clear

that the singular issue in that race was who endorsed whom for president.

[JHan]

180. Yes,

wish folks would admit that to themselves.

[BainsBane]

102. or based on what month or week it is

Since we have seen ever shifting arguments over the course of the past year.

[QC]

195. +1

[George II]

12. Then who are they talking about?

[aikoaiko]

15. I can't name names (DU Rules) but those who are elected or donate money and stifle grassroot efforts

Especially grassroots efforts that challenge the status quo.

[BainsBane]

21. The status quo is Trump

The GOP shattered the horrendous "status quo" of the "liberal elite." They did so by being bankrolled by the Mercer family. If destroying the "status quo" was the sole criteria, the 2016 election was a roaring success.

Clinton was the ONE candidate who devoted resources to organizing the grassroots. She did not stifle them.

[aikoaiko]

23. geeze we were talking about the status quo within the party

Is it necessary to move the goal posts to counter my point?

[BainsBane]

32. How about people quit using ill-defined buzz words

and say what they actually mean? Is it really so difficult?

In my view, his continued use of the term status quo shows he hasn't come to terms with what the country is facing. To continue to take aim at the Democratic party, time and time again, promotes division that helps the GOP.

The fact is Bernie has never adjusted what he says to the current context. He's been decrying the status quo since the 1960s, and now he says the Democratic Party should return to that period, even though he opposed it at the time.

The fight over the DNC chair and his treatment of Jaime Harrison in particular demonstrated that he is not above using condemnations of "corproatist" and "status quo" for purely political reasons. http://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/sanders-revolution-resists-dnc-loss-235404

How was Harrison a much sought after ally on one day and then a corporatist stooge the next, after endorsing Tom Perez, a man who worked as a janitor to put himself through law school?

[George II]

41. Sorry, to me that's just a collection of vague catch phrases. Okay, let's not name names....

...(we both expose ourselves by doing that), but you mention "stifling grassroots efforts" and challenging the "status quo". Are you referring to current elected Democrats (in general)?

When I was a teenager (5 decades ago) I remember asking my father "what is the most important thing a politician can do?" His anser was "get elected, because if he (we're talking 1950s, ALL were "he"!) doesn't get elected there's not much he can accomplish".

Sure, everyone wants to get money out of politics, but until EVERYONE agrees to do so, one small segment or one side cannot do it unilaterally. And until people stop generalizing by blaming everything on "Wall Street", the "oligarchy", etc. etc., we're going to have a very difficult time getting into a position to get money out of politics.

[synergie]

192. So, anyone who is elected?

And anyone who donates? Um, are you literally saying that all those folks who sent in $27 checks are implicated?

Also, all grassroots efforts challenge the status quo, that's usually why we need to organize at the grass roots level, especially since we're apparently somehow bad for supported our elected representatives or donating to them in an atmosphere where too much money on other side along with a complicit media drown out our elected officials.

Seems like a rather broad brush, who doesn't qualify per your definition?

[KittyWampus]

20. Are they talking about Sanders supporters like Susan Sarandon?

People with an education that goes further than high school?

People who make a decent living as a professional after going into debt for a higher education?

[aikoaiko]

25. He's talking about those with power within the party that use their power to stifle and control

As well as do many good things.

[butdiduvote]

10. I made $15,000 last year

Yet all election long, I had to put up with Berners accusing me of being an elite or basically a Republican who didn't care about the working poor. I was up all night having a nervous breakdown over how I can't afford mental health care this year, so don't talk to me about how elite I am.

[BainsBane]

11. That's just wrong

I have faced similar lectures from people who had never been poor a day in their lives, who had never relied on food stamps or lived in a shelter.

[butdiduvote]

17. Had someone tell me voting for Hillary was an act of privilege.

I really hate these people. I blame them for Trump. They poisoned minds with this type of rhetoric, and now actually marginalized people are suffering.

[BainsBane]

22. Exactly

and I heard some of them celebrating the election. They achieved exactly what they wanted.

[SunSeeker]

44. You nailed it. They were Putin's pawns. nt

[progressoid]

47. Sounds like you're describing the 'Liberal Elite'

[BainsBane]

54. Oh, are you saying the liberal elite

backed Sanders? Because we were insulted for failure to do so.

[progressoid]

59. I don't know.

How does one detect a liberal elite? Did these people drive Volvos and sip chai lattes while lecturing you?

[BainsBane]

60. Liberal elite is not a term I use

You are the one who characterized them as the liberal elite.

[BainsBane]

61. I favor the phrase

the white bourgeoisie or the white male bourgeoisie.

My sense is they tend to be privileged but in most cases are not wealthy enough to meet my definition of elite.

[progressoid]

76. Potayto. Potahto.

The irony here is that you and Bernie seem to agree on this point. Wealthy white people talking down to the masses isn't going to win the hearts of the base/working class.

[synergie]

97. Um, isn't that ironic for Bernie to be saying?

Considering that he's a wealthy white male who's been part of the establishment as an elected official for decades?

[progressoid]

223. Depends on how you look at it.

Compared to most Americans, he is a wealthy white male.

But compared to other Senators and Presidential candidates, he's at, or near the bottom.

Of course, all of this pales in comparison to what we have in the white house now. That people could be swayed by Trump's faux populism, is stunning.

[synergie]

235. We can look at his net worth.

He is a wealthy white male, period. A member of the liberal elite he derides.

[BainsBane]

123. if that is what Bernie meant

Why didn't he say it? Why is it only wealthy liberals who are the problem, when Republicans now dominate government at all levels? And why are others in this thread insisting that elite means anyone who participates in the Democratic Party? If Bernie's own supporters disagree on what he means, how can you expect the rest of us to infer meaning that he doesn't articulate?

Bourgeoisie means middle-class. It is a term that arose in France to distinguish merchants from the landed aristocracy (who held titles, like marquis and vicomte) . It is also a term used by Marx in his historical analysis and discussion of class struggle.

[progressoid]

227. "Why didn't he say it?"

I think you just made your own point. You said you favor the phrase the white bourgeoisie. But which do you mean? Like 'liberal elite', bourgeoisie has many meanings.

It's too bad Bernie and Hillary don't have the advantage of DU's many experts to help them better articulate their ideas to the proletariat.

[BainsBane]

228. You aren't following my point

The issue is using a RW trope about Democrats. He was not making a point about inequality or elitism in America at large, but about Democrats, liberals. Why are liberals the enemy? How about the conservative elite? I don't see how his comments help anyone but the GOP and Bernie himself.

I'm not getting on television multiple times a week complaining about Democrats. Suggesting some sort of equivalency because I pointed out that I've seen insults used to protect privilege rather than challenge it is not equivalent to comments by a high-profile politician in the media.

[progressoid]

229. I'm following it just fine.

It's kind of interesting to watch DUers fall all over themselves to find a new reason to express their blatant disdain for Sanders. It seems to be an obsession for many.

Granted, trashing Democrats seems to be the only thing that Sanders talks about.
Oh, wait, no it isn't.

Where is the outrage that Joe Manchin and Heidi Heitkamp will vote For Gorsuch? Where are all the rec'd threads of indignation about that?

[BainsBane]

238. You're following it

but consistently diverting from the point. You could have given that response at first, but you purposely chose to divert the conversation with non-relevant points rather than giving a straight-forward response. I've read enough to know that the only thing many care about is Bernie, and that he will always take precedence over the party, issues or the citizens of this nation. Since I am in a democracy, I am under no obligated to obey any politician, no matter how much you think he is owed absolute deference. My right and responsibility as a citizen is to think critically, not to prop up politicians career. I will not forsake that responsibility because you believe him too fragile to sustain even a fraction of the criticism he continually deals toward others.

If you want to post a thread about Manchin and Heitkamp, do it yourself. I'm particularly interested in hearing why people who condemned Merrick Garland as a corporatist stooge and repeatedly insisted the Supreme Court was irrelevant now claim to care about it.

[JHan]

85. Actually not just volvos - but electic/hybrid cars..

the meme is electric car driving liberals sipping lattes.

Because wanting to drive a vehicle which gives off less emissions is such a terrible thing.

I have to give it to the right - their smear tactics have been incredibly successful.

[George II]

14. Years ago I worked for a bank in NYC, earning $14,000 a year. Last year...

...here on DU I was called a "bankster"!

[butdiduvote]

19. Lmao

Unreal. This election brought out so much shameful behavior in people.

[NastyRiffraff]

73. I DO understand

I was subject to the same thing because I didn't support or vote for a certain candidate. It happened in person, on social media, and here on DU.

Funny how people like Susan Saranden was applauded here because she supported Sanders. If she isn't an "elite" I don't know who is.

[all american girl]

199. drop the mike after this....

[Cha]

257. And the elitist SS voted for another Elitist, jill stein..

and a liar.

[Warpy]

114. You need a RAISE, which is something a lot of party insiders aren't talking about

and they damned well should be talking about it. Wages have been allowed to fall too far in this country. When a job doesn't support the worker doing it, something is very, very wrong.

It's the people with the upper middle class bias who are not talking about what's happening to too many people out there in the party. This is who is being talked about as "liberal elites." Oh, they think about great things like full equality under the law for all of us, paths to citizenship for undocumented workers who have been here, working, and paying taxes for decades, and improving health care, an issue close to me, too. They're just not seeing the sheer misery out there among people who want to work, have found work, do the best job they can, and still don't have enough money for good food and a safe place to live, let alone being able to save for retirement or send their kids to even community colleges.

This is what Sanders and Warren are talking about, but the people who prove themselves to be the ones they're trying to wake up always pick on the words they use while ignoring the contents of their speeches.

Appealing to "middle class issues" isn't going to mean a damned thing to people who are working hard and barely hanging on. Middle class looks rich to them and they know nobody's paying a damned bit of attention to their own issues of not needing that extra child care credit because they can't afford to get married and have that child, in the first place.

Mostly they don't bother to vote, at all. Why the hell should they?

I'm hoping the housecleaning Perez and Ellison have done allows the party to shed that bias and start speaking to all of us. Building the party into something that can campaign without free media time and win is a tall order. Addressing the fall in the purchasing power of the average family as well as working folks who don't have enough to live on any more is a big first step in that.

[butdiduvote]

214. Honestly, if it's between getting a raise and furthering what you call "middle class" social issues,

I will take the latter. It's more important to me in the long run. Hillary spoke to both, though. And one of my favorite components of her platform was all of the attention placed on child care accessibility. Please don't speak for me or try to tell me which "type" of progressive is better for me and my situation.

[Warpy]

245. You really don't get it, do you?

If the party wants to WIN, it's going to have to campaign on something that will resonate with the largest amount of people. The middle class is nearly gone. The largest cohort are people who have fallen down a class or two as their purchasing power has been eroded by low wages and inflation that the wages didn't even pretend to keep up with.

If the party doesn't win, then all the social consciousness in the world won't matter. How much progress do you think you're going to make over the next 2 years with a rabid right Congress and an orange horror in the White House.

[butdiduvote]

248. Keep condescending me and telling me what I'm supposed to want.

It makes me believe in my worldview even more.

I don't need some patronizing internet likely-bro to tell me what to prioritize.

[Warpy]

249. Reading comprehension

It's a very good thing.

Goodbye. Oh, and enjoy your stay.

[butdiduvote]

250. Unbelievable.

I call you out on being patronizing, and you respond by saying I have reading comprehension problems.

You bros are the worst.

[all american girl]

198. Yes...that's democrats...I'm tired of a white dude from a white state telling all of us who were are

and getting it soooooo wrong.

This is for you, standing up and being heard

[meow2u3]

18. "Liberal elite" is a RW dog whistle

When the RW elite say "liberal elite", they mean smart people who don't buy the bullshit repukes are selling.

[hollowdweller]

26. Means people who don't focus on economic issues where I live

[BainsBane]

29. So those people who care most about racism

because that is what they experience in life are the "liberal elite" regardless of what they earn?

[NurseJackie]

241. It appears that this user is no longer with us.

[BainsBane]

242. Wow

He was a long-timer.

[NurseJackie]

243. Probably a shut-in.

[BainsBane]

246. ???

Why would you say that?

[NurseJackie]

252. Don't mind me...

... I'm getting cynical and less trusting any more.

[Kahuna7]

28. Three bernie cultist attacked me racially on twitter last week.

bernie's message seems to give them permission to do this (in their minds). I was also accused of being an elite who didn't care about income inequality.

[Blanks]

33. Rachel has pointed out a couple of times...

That part of the Russian hacking the election was Bernie groups being infiltrated by bots and ruthlessly attacking Hillary and Hillary supporters. Essentially shouting down Hillary supporters by creating additional personas and having them join the conversation and coordinating the attack with RT and the other Russian media outlets.

I suspected that this was going on here and pointed it out a couple of times. When I hear "Hillary was a weak candidate" (and I heard a republican talking head repeat that yesterday on CNN) I believe that is one of those oft repeated sayings that the Russians planted, Bernie people picked up, and since it's not a fact, it cannot be disputed with proof. I wish there was a way to get democrats to quit repeating it.

[hrmjustin]

37. How can I as a gay man appeal to people who think I am an abomination?

How can women appeal to people who think they should be barefoot and pregnant?

How can people of color appeal to people who think they don't belong here and hate them?

Maybe the person who said this doesn't understand the left as much as he thinks he does.

Most of us don't have a pot to piss in and he calls us the liberal elite.

It pisses me off!

[BainsBane]

38. But they aren't really racist, sexist, or homophobic

That's just your imagination.

[NurseJackie]

48. I feel the same way. It's infuriating. It denegrates us. It divides us. It weakens us.

[JHan]

100. Expecting us to reach out and embrace those supporting ideas that oppress us is self sabotage.

we shouldn't stand for it.

[TexasTowelie]

247. Don't worry, Justin.

We know that you are

[font color=f74d98 size=5]FABULOUS![/font]

[hrmjustin]

253. You too!

[SunSeeker]

49. Thank you, BainsBane. It is infuriating.

[sheshe2]

51. Well done, Bains.

Thank you.

[guillaumeb]

55. But if one sees the "liberal elite" as college teachers, media types,

and celebrities, as well as coastal elites, it is easy to frame the battle as one of a handful of liberal elitists who are contemptuous and dismissive of hard working average Americans.

Right wing talking points are what convince working class Americans to vote for the GOP. If we wish to replace FOX as the official source of generally accepted beliefs, we must have an alternative. And that takes both money and commitment.

[BainsBane]

57. I completely agree

[Ligyron]

224. That is the operative definition of "liberal elite" exactly.

It's the one most weaponized.

[guillaumeb]

231. And the billionaire class, the true controlling elite,

poses as simple job creators who are trying to help American workers.

[Eliot Rosewater]

56. Liberal elite is a russian anti america talking point.

I am afraid to say in public who I now KNOW are deep cover russian agents.

Suffice to say you see them on tv all the time, or hear them on the radio, they run for high office too.

[FakeNoose]

66. It's time to ban Russians from coming into this country

If there's one group of people that we need to mistrust, it's Russians.

Unfortunately there are already too many here, and they've done way too much damage.
Assume ALL Russians can't be trusted until we find out otherwise.

[synergie]

98. All that's going to do is increase the amount taxpayers are alreadying paying

for the Trump family's travel and security expenses and the administration's necessary meetings with their bosses.

[NurseJackie]

58. It's bad enough for anyone to use those words to smear our great party... but then...

... it adds insult to injury to hear others defending it and excusing it. How can people not see that these types of things are dividing our party? How can people not see that a divided party is a weakened party?

[mcar]

64. K&R

[mcar]

69. It's sad to see some "progressives"

taking up the anti-education, anti-critical thinking mantra of the right.

[NurseJackie]

74. It's difficult for me to figure out if these people actually believe what they spout...

... or if it's just a cynical tactic that's employed to cause division and to weaken a party that stands in the way of some sort of revolution fantasy.



------------
Oh, hello there again! In this post, I am expressing my opinions and theories about what motivates people who are intentionally causing harm to the Democratic party, either by tarnishing its reputation, or by attacking its members and leaders.

[mcar]

104. That again?

If you have a problem with my using a DU symbol and a symbol of my ancestry as my avatar, I suggest you take it up with Admin.

[NurseJackie]

111. It's a personal attack. A clever way to accuse you of being a white supremacist. By...

... linking to a site that (emphatically) describes the symbol as one that's (only or primarily) used by white supremacists, it's just a way of accusing YOU of being the same. It skirts the rules, but the attack is still clear.

It's worth noting that the last paragraph (almost as an afterthought) at the linked site says:

It is the short "sun cross" version of the Celtic Cross, surrounded by a circle, that is more commonly used by white supremacists, although even here care must be taken always to judge it in context.

In this case, it's clear to me that no such care is being used. Sad.

I'm sorry you're being treated this way, Mcar.

[mcar]

113. Thank you Jackie!

I got this a lot during the primaries. I know what it's about. Sad to see it back here again.

[BainsBane]

119. Trump voters couldn't possibly be racist

but now apparently the Irish are because of the Celtic cross?

[mcar]

162. Right?

[Eliot Rosewater]

258. We are a gurgling, bubbling cauldron of hate. Well, not we, but you know who I am

referring to.

Everywhere, they are.

[still_one]

163. You are darn right it is a personal attack, and the insinuation made against Mcar is garbage

[mcar]

165. Thank you still_one!

[still_one]

168. Sorry that they are pulling this garbage again on you mcar

Last edited Sun Apr 2, 2017, 09:26 PM - Edit history (1)

[mcar]

169. I wonder they don't take it up with Admin

if they find a DU approved symbol so offensive?

[tammywammy]

173. Someone has asked the admins before.

This was back when the insinuation of Clinton supporters with Celtic cross avatars as neo-Nazis / white supremacist / anti-semitic first came up.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12599941

And has been pointed out numerous times, even ADL mentions that the Celtic cross is also a common symbol of Irish pride.

[mcar]

177. Oh I remember

I was attacked a few times during the primaries.

I'm just sad to see it coming back again. It is nonsensical and we have actual, big problems now.

[tammywammy]

178. That's when I changed my avatar to the cross

In support of you. This keeps coming up every few months, right around the time I contemplate changing the avatar. So the Celtic cross stays.

[mcar]

185. I changed mine to a Hill avatar for the GE

Then changed back. I appreciate the variety of symbols DU offers.

Thank you so much for your support Tammy!

[tammywammy]

112. I'm sure from your ADL link you were meaning to highlight this

The Celtic Cross, as typically depicted, is a traditional Christian symbol used for religious purposes as well as to symbolize concepts like Irish pride. As such, it is a very common symbol and primarily used by non-extremists.

And weren't trying to imply DUers are using the admin provided avatar as a symbol of white nationalism.

[BainsBane]

117. Look at the exit polls in the OP

They show very clearly that Trump voters are more affluent than Clinton voters.

[QC]

143. That is true. So why is it an article of faith

among so many that those awful tacky country bumpkins inflicted Trump on us? You know, things like that wretched Daily Kos tantrum about being glad to see people lose their health insurance?

Trump is in power mainly because rich people like Robert Mercer and Paul Manafort put him there, so why are we always jumping on the hayseeds?

[BainsBane]

149. I'm not responsible for media memes

or what other people say. I believe a whitelash and sexism were central in the election, but I don't believe I have "jumped on hayseeds." In fact, I am far more likely to blame voter disenfranchisement, the busters, Comey, and the Russians.

There are two groups that have focused on rural whites as key to the election: 1) the media; and 2) Bernie and his supporters. Both groups ignore the impact of voter disenfranchisement by which the GOP took a series of measures designed to suppress the black and Latino vote. You'll have to ask those who perpetrates the argument why they are so focused on white male voters to the exclusion of everyone else.

[George II]

128. Oh jeese, are we on this again. I guess it's like the change of the season...

...."gosh, it's Spring, time to start complaining about people's CELTIC CROSS avatars!"

I guess it's time to haul out all the pictures of CATHOLIC Churches that use the "white supremacist symbol" and have been using it for centuries, long before "white supremacy" became a "thing".

If you need any more examples, just ask. But before that, please do some research on "Celtic Cross", okay?

[NurseJackie]

136. Thank you! People who have "never-have-figured-that-one-out" in the face of such obvious evidence...

... lack critical thinking skills, or they have an agenda that requires smearing other DUers with lies and innuendo, or they're just mean. Those are the only choices. Either way, it's sad, it's a personal attack, it's bullying, and Mcar doesn't deserve to be treated that way.





http: // www . democraticunderground . com / avatars /celticcross.gif

Oh, JESUS! I didn't realize until I decided to paste that image in my message. But would ya look at that!? Check out the URL! It's an avatar that's hosted on this site! Is this person also suggesting that DU isn't progressive enough? Or that the DU administrators are sympathetic to white nationalists?

[QC]

142. Yes, George, I know what a Celtic cross looks like.

I've been to three of the Six Celtic Nations, have visited some of the ancient high crosses in Ireland, and even wrote a doctoral dissertation dealing, in part, with Celtic migration to the U.S.

So now that that's out of the way, do you see any difference between the crosses you posted and the stumpy little avatar we are offered here? I helpfully changed my avatar to make the point.

But enough on marginal issues--why do you suppose it is that a good many bourgeois liberals sound remarkably like conservatives when they talk about poor people? "They just need to stop being so lazy and upgrade their skill sets!" and all that stuff. Do you think that sort of thing hurts us when it comes to winning outside the coastal states? Is it really wise to say that almost half the electorate is hopelessly wicked?

[NurseJackie]

146. "But enough on marginal issues" (LOL)

[George II]

161. .

[George II]

154. If you're that familiar with the Celtic Cross, its surprising that you made that brash "accusation"

As for the "stumpy little avatar", it could possibly be that avatars are limited to a limited number of pixels, but there's more.

Here's a picture of the church we go to each week. Look at the "stumpy little Celtic Cross" built into the steeple. I'll add that there are twenty eight of them on the walls inside the church, one on each side of the fourteen windows. I seriously doubt that our church considers it a hate symbol.

Now, as you your last paragraph, I don't know of any liberals berating poor people as "lazy" or any of that stuff.

Finally, no matter how good and inclusive the Democratic Party is or will become, I seriously doubt that we or even the republican party will ever cease to be considered hopelessly wicked by the other side. Gone are the days of Presidential elections like Lyndon Johnson's or Ronald Reagan's. EVERY election in the near future will be a dog fight, with many elections decided by 1 or 2 percent. With that in mind, it's time for ALL Democrats or those who consider themselves aligned with the Democratic Party to STOP taking every opportunity he has to denigrate the Party and constantly point out what's "wrong" with our Party. We don't need our so-called allies making daily or weekly appearances to bad mouth us. No need for OUR politicians to do the republicans' job by pointing out that we're (falsely, I should add) "hopelessly wicked".

[mcar]

166. You are the one who brought up the "marginal issue"

In your attempt to insult me and imply that there is no difference between conservatives and liberal "elites."

[BainsBane]

181. Are you seriously claiming Skinner is providing a white supremacist symbol

as an option on DU?

Who has talked about poor people being lazy. I find that politicians rarely mention the poor at all.

[synergie]

209. So what you're saying is that you actually do know

what that symbol means, despite stating otherwise?

Why the focus on the white supremacists then, when your doctoral dissertation and your travel taught you that the symbol did not mean what was implied?

I helpfully offered you two links so that any confusion could be cleared up.

Why do you suppose that some "progressives" feel the need to sound like CONs by choosing to use right wing talking points, and why do these people exhibit the same short term memory issues, the same projection and the same attitude towards POC, people of other belief systems and women?

Why do they put in quotes stuff they make up and misattribute them to the people they're trying to denigrate? Do you think it hurts us as actual progressives to have people whose pretense to progressiveness doesn't extend to getting rid of the Right wing talking points, the right wing methods of argument and the right wing need to project?

How does this help us actually fight for progressive causes when these folks are using right wing attacks from the supposed left? How does this obsession with only the white population help us with anywhere in the US, where non-white populations are ever increasing? Is it really wise to employ right wing tactics against progressives, how does that help Democrats or progressives or address liberal causes. How does ignoring the ever growing proportion of the electorate that isn't white, that isn't suffering from "economic" anxiety, but from fear of the aggrieved white that's being whipped up into race based rage and shooting us?

Why is calling out those people who embrace and lovingly tend to the delicate feelings of racists so wicked? Or are such concerns merely "marginal issues" that we must not be "rigid" on, like women's basic human rights, which apparently are no longer progressive, but something that can be jettisoned.

is it really wise to abandon more than half the electorate who are deeply upset about the regressive positions that in vogue right now with so called progressives? What's the difference between purist progressives and Conservatives when basic human rights for women, POC and others that make up the base are considered so much the part of the war on the establishment, whatever that means?

Why are progressives and our the issues that make up our daily concerns issues that can so easily marginalized, and how is it not hopelessly wicked to do such a thing so cavalierly?

I truly don't understand what you're trying to say, can you explain please?

[betsuni]

211. +100000

[mcar]

237. I'd like the answers too

You said it so well!

[mcar]

164. Thank you George!

I love Irish history and my Irish roots. These churches and crosses are beautiful!

It is like the seasons. Some things never change. Like we don't have enough to worry about.

[synergie]

130. I think it's pretty sad that some "progressives"

are so busy denouncing these communities and telling them to put aside the real concerns of their everyday lives because some white men have decided that they get to decide who is a real progressive and what real progressive issues are, and everything else is identity politics.

Women must not be so rigid about insisting on basic human rights or fighting for something as simple as bodily autonomy, because reasons. People of color should hush up already, because it's only the WHITE working class whose issues matter. The same people who think that religious minorities are all the same, and their issues don't matter and the racism and the violence and the fear they live in doesn't matter, because white folks have economic anxiety (that no one else experiences apparently) and should step aside while "true progressives" embrace the people who cheered on Trump in his racist tirades and voted for him are learning that Trump's indifference extends to them as well.

I see a lot of these supposed progressives using those Republican talking points, when it comes to echoing GOP talking points, some "progressives" sure found a lot of common ground with attacking the party, its nominee, the people who make up the party etc. Weird how much they have in common.

Even weirder still is how so many "progressives" who should actually know better keep insisting that when a racist white men appropriate cultural and religious symbols from religions and cultures that are not their own, that they somehow "own" them. Be it a swastika (a revered symbol of numerous religions and cultures that was stolen by white Christian males, and defiled) or a celtic cross. A bunch of white guys in the 30's running around stealing symbols from cultures they had nothing to do with, be it the Celts, the Norse, the Hindus, Buddhists, Jains, Etruscans etc. and some "progressives" insist that the white men somehow get to define it?
I've never figured out why progressives, who are supposed to be more educated, culturally aware and less reactionary would be so ignorant. I guess it might be that they're truly ignorant and didn't bother to read the actual text of links, just the part where White men in a single decades did something with it and thus own it for all time. I don't agree with giving such men so much power.

Since you mentioned you're confused about the origins of these symbols and don't know what they are outside of the experience of some tiny fraction of white guys from the 30's, and those nostalgic for those times, allow me to educate you, please read all the words, skipping to the sentences about a single party in the 30's in one country won't tell you much about what the symbols actually mean to the wider human community.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swastika

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celtic_cross

I hope this clears up the confusion, and that "progressives" can now stop casting aspersions and insisting that White men and white men alone matter when it comes to progressive issues, the progressive agenda or the usage of symbols that they have stolen from other cultures. I know it's a trying time for white male culture, but as progressives, we really do need to help them understand that other voices matter too, and that we do not accept that they "own" the things they stole and trashed.

[NurseJackie]

141. Great info here... thank you. I'd heard prevoiusly...

... that the swastika had been appropriated from another culture, but I didn't know how widely it had been used in so many cultures and throughout history, PRIOR to the Nazis.

Thanks for the links and the info. I appreciate it. (But I think it's safe to say that others won't appreciate it as much as I did.)

[synergie]

150. Still in daily usage, you find it Hindu and Jain temples and Buddhist places of worship etc.

Ironically, Hitler and the Nazis were apparently trying to convince themselves that the vedas and the Indus Valley civilization as whole was as advanced as it was due to some White men they made up. They were literally claiming that brown people couldn't possibly have created it, there must have been white leaders who were responsible. It's a common trait among the white men who invaded the rest of the world from the peninsula of Asia styled as a continent.


There are many who are unwilling to accept anything that's not a eurocentric view of the world.

As an aside: I like to watch documentaries on youtube, and found a new one on the crusades, which I've always found to be a bit biased. You know how they're always looking for the "real location" of Noah's ark or trying to figure out if the Shroud of Turin is a medieval fake or the burial shroud of Jesus? Because no other human was ever crucified ever, and there can be NO other possibilities? I stumbled on a 4 part documentary from Al Jazeera on the crusades, and their handling of the topic was hilarious. The western bias that permeates everything so much so that we forget that it's there, stands out when we see the "middle eastern" version of it.

I didn't even notice where it came from til I heard their pronunciation of the word "islam" and took a closer look.

[NurseJackie]

152. Yep... just saw that. I went back to read some more from the Wiki page ...

... and to follow a few links and sources. Thank you again.

[mcar]

167. Great post!

Thank you synergie!

[JHan]

203. Great post...I've experienced a similar attack, especially my Hindu relatives..

Re the swastika...In Pujas, and during divali, Hindus have had to stop using the symbol, you can get attacked and get called all sorts of other slurs because of cultural appropriation by the nazis. My uncle doesn't use it in ceremony, he's sensitive to the new meaning it's taken but it's unfair and tragic that such a symbol became perverted and twisted into a symbol of hate. When I do henna art, I sometimes incorporate it making sure not to slant it but keep it straight, the tilt is what distinguishes the original swastika from the nazi swastika.

[synergie]

213. It's deeply offensive.

A close friend of mine who wears a pendant had someone ask her if she "hated Jewish people". The Jewish people of my acquaintance are not participating in this ignorance, they know better.

From what I've sen, the sensitivity that's acknowledged is that it makes white Christian people upset. Saw it first hand when I was helping some relatives with their newly delivered custom carved doors from India, the workmen were extremely upset and apologizing when they showed us the doors they had just uncrated before we got to the work site. I had to explain to them that the swastika carved on the book at Ganesha's feet wasn't an act of vandalism, but a symbol of good fortune found in every Hindu home and on sacred texts and puja articles.

I keep wondering why when the Nazis deface property by spray painting swastikas, they don't just go to the local indian store, pick up kumkum and turmeric and purify the symbol and take it back.

When the priest did the puja for my car, he painted a swastika in turmeric on it, he told me after that I could go wash it because he understood how crazy "the Americans" are and not to risk my safety by leaving it as would have been customary.

I think it's truly insane how much we need to bend and slant and deny ourselves to accommodate the ignorant. I have literally never had a single one of my Jewish friends, even the ones with a family history that would excuse a hatred of the symbol, express the implied insults that I see from some progressives. The whole "well it means something different now" speaks of such Eurocentric blindness and total ignorance, that I am shocked to see it coming from people proclaiming themselves progressives. It's truly sad how poor our education system is that we don't teach children the basics about the cultures of our species (or much reading, writing, science and math either.)

[JHan]

217. I have some theories about that brand of ignorance...

Sometimes cultural appropriation arguments can be bizarre but not always - the anger is over the way whiteness is the default and everyone else must adapt and cater to it which is harmful to all of us ( including whites). And who would want their culture unjustly and unfairly defined and distorted by another group , especially a dominant group?. In some ways I'm lucky - I'm a young black woman and my family resembles a United Nations assembly gathering, for which I'm grateful.

Also........it's unfortunate but you'll find myopia of all kinds on either side of the political spectrum, including progressives. I've lost count of the ways I've been lectured to about pointing out the racism, sexism, xenophobia in this country and support for Trump .. lectured to by progressives!

[NastyRiffraff]

236. The post of this thread!

Thanks for the info, synergie. I doubt if some people will actually let go of their conditioned responses to a symbol, but you've educated a lot of us.

[Cha]

182. You have nothing so you resort to personally

attacking a member.

[mcar]

186. And then tell us to move on

[Cha]

187. Yeah, they better follow

their own advice.

mcar!

[mcar]

188. I await further insult to my

DU avatar.

In the meantime, I continue to call and write my congress critters about the true white supremacists who are now running our country.

Priorities!

[Cha]

193. Yes, "priorities".. we have them. Fighting the

Fascistrumps.. while too many are into distractions that have nothing to do with taking down the bloody gop.

[bronxiteforever]

78. K & r. Brilliant truth! N/t

[Squinch]

80. I love this post but I disagree with what is meant when a Republican (or Independent) refers to

the Liberal elite.

I don't think the term has anything to do with education, wealth, or any substantive characteristic.

I think it is nothing more than a dog whistle that means, "One of those girly men who votes liberal" which means the same thing as, "Not someone like us, nudge, nudge."

They used to add the word "effete" to the description, but that word itself was too effete for them to be comfortable using after a while.

When the term was applied to Obama, which it was quite a bit in his early years, it was supported by things like his eating kale and drinking lattes and not pounding beers. It was used to describe someone with all that "elitist" education that made him believe in things like global warming and reproductive rights, someone who didn't drive a truck with those giant wheels. Generally "liberal elite" to the Republican base just means someone who is Not Our Kind, Dear when Our Kind is Limbaugh's tiny brained and un-endowed army.

That's why Obama was considered a liberal elite, but Hillary was considered a worse liberal elite.

[BainsBane]

83. Yes, I agree with that

but I've also seen it used to refer to higher education, especially professors.

[Squinch]

84. Well... they know stuff, so of course they're suspect. The Lord never intended us to know stuff.

[BainsBane]

87. They've taken that mission to the executive branch

Ensuring that all the government agencies related to knowing stuff are eliminated or slashed to oblivion.

[Squinch]

91. Amen. All we need is the bible. And Vladimir.

[JHan]

99. this x 100

[JI7]

145. the support for trump and his family proves this

They have no problem with their lifestyle education wealth etc. They don't even have a problem with melania being an immigrant and brag about how she can speak many languages(no proof of this).

This is why they voted against feingold who is against free trade and for his opponent who is opposite.

It has always been about race and social issues for them.

And Hillary is the white women responsible for not staying in her place and promoting the diversity they hate

[Squinch]

147. Ay-yup. Exactly.

[MainSt99]

148. Yes. Liberal elite can be a Conservative's pejorative term for a Liberal "effete" upper crust.

But I usually think of elitist Liberal politicians as those who vote for Liberal social values like racial equality or LGBT rights while voting with Republicans on economic issues which benefit special interests while widening the wealth gap. Too many Congressional Democrats take legalized bribes from enormously wealthy special interest in return for favorable legislation.

IMO, this increasing Congressional Democratic corruption in the last 35 years has blurred the lines between the parties and alienated many Democratic voters. If we Democrats don't stick up for the economic well-being of ordinary people, the better liars (Republicans) will win most of the time. Hence, the present Republican domination of government on all levels.

When Democrats next get power, we need to get money out of politics.

[BainsBane]

153. The parties have never been further apart than there are today

a few decades ago, there were liberals and conservatives in both parties. Your post is factually incorrect.

This is now the fourth explanation we've had for what liberal elite means. That signals that Bernie is not effectively communicating his point.

[MainSt99]

158. A few decades ago, but no longer.

Today, political polarization manifests itself as loathing of the other. That is significant. But the reality is that Congressional Republicans are moving Right and so are many Democrats, although not all. In truth, the entire Country is moving to the political Right. When one looks at the recent, disastrous election, it's hard to deny.

[BainsBane]

171. How are Democrats moving right?

be specific. I don't see evidence to support your assumption.

[Squinch]

191. Did you read Hillary's platform? There has never been a more progressive

Presidential platform ever.

Political polarization is based on real and extreme differences. It is not, as you say, based on "loathing of the other."

[Cha]

215. It's just a buzzword to him..

designed to insult our Democratic Party.

Thank you for your OP, BainsBane.. we are so far from being what he's trying to paint.. it's ridiculous.

We are Fighting for People who have HUD Assistance, SNAP benefits, Planned Parenthood services, those being unfairly deported, against the Fasicstrump's draconian budget that is lethal to everything that's been good for this country.

Mahalo for Shining the Light~

[Blue_true]

126. During the election, annual earning of Hillary supporters

were said to be around $5,000 lower that Trump supporters. I am not sure that I buy this for several reasons. It is clear that republicans lie about a lot, self reporting income is open to lying. The richest zip codes in the country were predominantly won by Hillary. Wealthier states tend to be overwhelmingly Blue, except for Texas. The most highly educated, employed people swung decidedly for Hillary. While Trump has several rich people in his cabinet, richer people supported Hillary and want nothing to do with Trump.

[BainsBane]

127. Except there are far fewer rich people than poor and middle-class

and Trump voters were predominantly white, and the median income of whites is many times greater than most other groups. Men also tend to earn more than women, which likewise explains why Trump voters averaged higher incomes.

[Blue_true]

156. Hillary supporters were highly educated and had professional training.

Statistics clearly show those groups earn more. Why is it that something like 70% of the richest counties in America voted for Clinton? I continue to think that a lot of Trump supporters lied about their incomes and Hillary supporters told the truth, because many had real incomes.

[MainSt99]

172. Bernie blames the wealth gap on the Liberal Elite.

As I mentioned in post #148, when Bernie talked about the Liberal Elite, he was talking about Democratic politicians who vote for Big Interests, resulting in economic inequality.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/bernie-sanders-blames-hillary-clintons-loss-on-too-many-liberal-elites/article/2607312
//QUOTE//
Bernie Sanders blames Hillary Clinton's loss on 'too many liberal elites'

That's why President-elect Trump didn't succeed as much as Democrats failed to connect with the middle class, Sanders argued Monday on CBS News.
- snip -
"You can't be, in my view, I speak only for myself," Sanders said, "a party that raises substantial sums of money from Wall Street and the wealthy and make any worker think you're on their side."
- snip -
"We need a radical shakeup at the Democratic Party," Sanders said. "So instead of doing fundraisers with wealthy people, we're out in the grassroots — in the veterans' halls and the union halls — talking to working class people about how to make positive changes in this country."
//UNQUOTE//

[BainsBane]

174. Definition number five

in this thread.

Well considering the Democrats have been ousted from power at all levels, Bernie doesn't have to worry about that anymore. The GOP controls just about everything. He doesn't complain about a conservative elite, only a liberal elite. Only it no longer wields power. They don't have the ability to vote anything into law. So why is he still complaining? Could it be that his concerns don't actually relate to laws or policy at all?

[MainSt99]

183. Bernie - Liberal elites are the reason Democrats lost power

If you had looked at the article you would have seen it was dated 11/14/2016. But to the point ... Which is that when Bernie refers to Liberal Elites, he is talking about Democratic politicians who raise money from wealthy special interests like Wall St and Big Pharma.

That is why Bernie thinks the Democratic Party is losing traction nationally.

[BainsBane]

184. Only the exit poll data shows he is wrong

Hillary overwhelmingly won the lowest income voters, especially those earning under $30k. That was true both in the GE and the primary. He has a narrative that he's very fond of, only the data directly contradicts it. That is the point of this OP.

The voters he insists Democrats owe something to--white male Trump voters--earn more on average than Democrats. As a demographic, their incomes are many times more greater the people of color who comprise the most loyal Democratic electorate.

Isn't it time you stopped repeating talking points that are proven false by exit poll data?

[MainSt99]

201. Isn't it time you stopped jousting at windmills?

I am ascribing to Bernie what he means when he refers to the Liberal Elite. It is borne out by his own words, which I have documented.
Nowhere did I claim what he said was correct or incorrect.

[BainsBane]

221. We've had five separate definitions in this thread, at least

If Bernie's die hard supporters don't agree on what he means, how can the rest of us be expected to divine his meaning? It is up to him to clearly communicate. Clearly he hasn't.
As others have pointed out, the phrase has been used by right wingers for years. Now you want to pretend he means something completely different.

[BainsBane]

222. You don care if it's true?

You have ignored that data and resent my providing it. I find it impossible to respect such disregard for the truth.

[Squinch]

190. Bernie should be more careful not to use terms that Republicans use to divide Democrats

from each other.

He is using a Republican dog whistle term, and he is not using it by mistake.

[Cha]

206. BS is wrong and divisive in his comment on Friday..

calling for a Democratic party that is not "of the liberal elite".

[Tarheel_Dem]

220. If Bernie was so concerned about "liberal elites", he should've put a muzzle on $usan $arandon....

when she was spouting Russian nonsense about Hillary and the DNC.

[melman]

194. I'm sure the people in pic three

would be very interested to learn they're part of the 'Democratic base'. Considering the fact that that photo was not even taken in the US. Maybe you should research this stuff better.

[BainsBane]

196. It was with an article talking about how more immigrants are applying for US citizenship

How is that not the US?

[BainsBane]

197. Here

http://affinitymagazine.us/2016/11/18/racial-identity-is-more-complicated-for-a-lot-of-latinx/

From the article.

In 2014, the Hispanic population of the United States was 55 million people. Making it the nation’s largest ethnic or racial minority with a 17% of the total population of the US.

A prediction by the Census Bureau says that by 2050 the Hispanic population will represent 28% of the American population, keeping the title of the largest portion of a “majority-minority”. According to this census, in between 2000 and 2010 the Hispanic population grew from being 12,5 percent of the American population to 16,3 percent.

A research by the Population Association of America presented an estimated of 1.2 million people who changed their racial and ethnic identification from “Hispanic, Latino or Spanish origin” in 2000 to “White” in 2010, the same way 1.3 million people made the opposite change identifying from “White” to “Latino, Hispanic” or even “White-Hispanic”. Several researchs including the one mentioned before, show that a lot of Hispanics or Latinos are identifying as “white”, even if they hold to their cultural heritage.

It's also used on another site to talk about how immigration is a priority for Latino voters. http://democracy-news.com/immigration-problem-is-top-priority-for-hispanics/

Perhaps you shouldn't assume people aren't American just by looking at them?

[Jamaal510]

200. The "liberal elite"

phrase the GOP has been pushing around is yet another way they project their traits onto us. They portray most liberals as snobs and out of touch when it's them who act like that, generally speaking. Their party doesn't respect anyone who isn't a rich straight Christian White male, and they fear an educated population.

[JHan]

202. Yep, and they had no choice but to demonize us that way.

Republicans have been losing the argument on a bunch of issues since the 60's, and it all came to a head in the 90's. "Liberal elite"- painted as as the force killing Christianity, promoting homosexuality, social engineering, the "welfare state", dependency, immigration policy, diversity, cosmopolitanism, also blamed for killing extractive industries, regulations that protect the environment, government bureaucracy in general, and federal intervention....the list goes on.

[OilemFirchen]

204. I'm thrilled that the liberal elite are in the Democratic Party.

They are, after all, those with the professional skills necessary to advance liberal policy.

As opposed, of course, to elitist liberals, who spend their every waking hour with their fingers up our asses.

[sharedvalues]

205. If your goal is to stop using that language then you need a new title

Try "GOP elites fund efforts to deflect populist anger away from the wealthy".


Read George Lakoff.

[Cha]

207. The OP has made the case how wrong it is to call

the Democratic Party that "of the liberal elite".

[sharedvalues]

208. Lakoff: first lesson. Don't repeat words that are wrong.

Don't think of an elephant - makes you think of an elephant.

Don't think of "liberal elites" - makes you think of liberal elites.


Lakoff, how to fact check


https://mobile.twitter.com/georgelakoff/status/841029473587752960

[Cha]

210. Wrong and Divisive.. yes I know Lakoff. Doesn't change

the OP's Case Made.

[sharedvalues]

212. Yes the case is good

The headline would better communicate if it was in a positive frame.

[betsuni]

216. K&R

[herding cats]

219. Why are we at war with the liberal elite today?

I've been busy, I'm sure I've missed a latest breaking outrage. I'm unapologetic.

Yes, we have some. Yes we have more people such as myself who aren't "elite" Democrats. Agree with the OP there.

Now for my less than polite tirade:

This isn't aimed at the OP, but if this is more infighting, I'm over it. This is me to everyone holding grudges - yeah, I was one angry person after the election, too - but we need to focus now. Our Democracy is at stake!

2018 is vital, 2020 is a CENSUS YEAR! Don't pretend it's going to be easy because of Trump, it won't. The seats up are mostly conservatives. 2016 was our big chance to chip away at this, and we came up short. Focus! Learn how our political system actually works. Research districts, learn about the people who live there. Educate yourselves on people not like you. I'm sorry, your ideals, dreams and beliefs aren't the same as everyone else you've never met, let alone engaged. People are extremely complicated, and they really don't all think like you do. Shocking I know, yet still true.

Also, there are no fairies, there is no Santa. We're up against real GOP political experts who know the all too well how the system works, and how to manipulat it and people's emotions (hello?) like the pros they are. That's a fact! If you doubt me look at our current national political unbalances. They've kicked our butts in the majority of local races. That's where it counts people, not the presidency! The presidency is peanuts compared to the power of committee. (Look it up.)

Now, please stop with this senseless infighting. I beg you. Look local and get INVOLVED. If you want change, that's where it starts. That's where we begin removing Republicans year after year, the same way they did to Democrats decades ago.

All politics is local.

Stop bickering. Get busy!

[Donkees]

225. As President Obama said in his last press conference...

President Obama said that Democrats "have to be in those communities" where voters felt like the party was too coastal, too elitist, too politically correct. "When we are in those communities, it makes a difference," he said. "It's how I became president."

[BainsBane]

226. While the party should campaign

Last edited Mon Apr 3, 2017, 09:32 AM - Edit history (1)

In those relatively higher income communities, earning the votes of the less privileged does not make the party elitist. While the GOP and one or two other politicians don't earn many of those votes and instead rely overwhelmingly on white voters who earn far more than the Democratic base, Hillary was not among them.

[IronLionZion]

230. Believing the worst about another group but the best of one's own group

is what bigotry and prejudice is all about. Racists do it all the time, and sexists, and other bigots.

They simultaneously call us liberal elites and we're lazy unemployed bums on welfare and food stamps.

We simultaneously call them 1% corporate billionaires and uneducated rural hicks.

They have serious problems with our education and think that jobs that involve too much thought and analysis or creativity are not real jobs supposedly.

Many on our side have problems with corporations and social conservative policy.

[randome]

232. I hate to use this phrase but, in a way, they hate us for our freedoms.

Or, as you pointed out, they hate us for our intelligence because it's too much trouble for them to keep up.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]All things in moderation, including moderation.[/center][/font][hr]

[IronLionZion]

234. They think we want big government to hire people who have no real skills

and can't get jobs in corporations. When reality is that the preference in hiring is for veterans and in some cases there are opportunities for disabled people as opposed to lazy liberals. They twist and pervert what we support to make it sound bad.

And their constant braying that education softens people into triggered snowflakes is reflective of the fact that they don't like studying and intellectual pursuits so they look down on it. There are some educated people who look down on the uneducated in this country and there is a stigma attached to doing manual labor instead of white collar work.

They are furious at liberal plans to retrain coal miners to do other types of work in our changing economy. As if it's a bad thing.

[BainsBane]

259. True

Like supporting civil immunity for gun corporations and the near trillion dollar F-35 boondoggle.

[YoungDemCA]

233. Atherton, CA: One of the richest (if not THE richest) communities in America.

2008 Atherton Results
Obama 57.6%
McCain 41.1%

2012 Atherton Results
Romney 51.5%
Obama 46.6%

2016 Atherton Results
Clinton: 64.8%
Trump: 27.5%

Somehow, I suspect that this wasn't an isolated case.

Contrast that to all of the traditionally Democratic (or at worst, politically mixed) working class areas where Democrats collapsed in November, particularly the now-infamous working class white communities of the Rust Belt.

Also, I want to emphasize that the wealthy communities in which Clinton greatly improved relative to Obama still tended to vote for Republicans downballot.

[BainsBane]

239. Well, thank god for the non-elitist Republican party

that represents the "real America." What do national exit polls matter compared to a single county. We can't have facts interfering with precanned narratives.

And now the non-elitists are slashing meals on wheels and all social programs. Again, just another pesky fact.

[YoungDemCA]

240. Many of the people who voted for Trump are not Republicans in any meaningful sense.

As opposed to those "better educated" country-clubbers who voted for Clinton even as they continue to vote Republican for all other offices. Though many of these people seem to have changed their minds now that the stock market has been soaring higher than ever.

And where did I say that Trump isn't the almost-comically corrupt billionaire racist/misogynistic con man that he is? I'm just saying that there are many reasons for why different people voted for Trump, a lot of them having many very real grievances - some of them understandable, many others based on very ugly, bigoted, and mean-spirited sentiments indeed. That doesn't justify Trump or his voters, for that matter. Justification is not the same as explanation or understanding.

[JI7]

256. They voted for him because of his anti immigration, anti Muslim stand

[JI7]

255. so what ? Obama won by a huge amont in 2008. someone like Kasich, Rubio, Jeb would have won

and less than 50 percent of the 5 thousand or so voters are registered republican. dems and indies make up over 50 percent of the voters there.

[JustAnotherGen]

251. I wish I could rec

This twice. JHan posted an interesting piece in the Af AM Group - check it out.

[William769]

254. kick & recommended.