We need to replace 'elitist' with 'intelligent'...

[YvonneCa]

...or 'educated' starting now. The RNC used elitist to disrespect Kerry in 2004, and they are trying to do the same thing with Obama. It's a frame we don't need.

Let's start talking about how our current problems are due to an 'non-elitist' administration since 2000. Gore and Kerry weren't elitist...they were (and are) intelligent. They were (and are) well-educated. There's nothing wrong with that.

I want my president to be smarter than me. I want my president to be the smartest person around...intelligent and educated. That doesn't make that person 'elitist'...it makes them QUALIFIED.:patriot:

[Hydra]

1. Bush and his family are elitists

If people don't like that attitude, we need to ask them why they voted for him.

[blondeatlast]

5. Exactly. So is the likes of David Brooks and the unwitting, self-satirical punditry.

Keep talking, dumbasses.

[tsuki]

10. Bush cannot be an elitist. He does not think. nt

[Hydra]

12. Being an elitist take no talent

Simply the ability to say "I'm better than you, you schmuck."

Bush does that all the time. It's not hard.

[tsuki]

33. Like my tee-shirt says- I think, therefore I am an elitist. I am going

to define the word on my terms. Republicons don't like that.

[YvonneCa]

24. Definitions...

...by another person on this thread were great:



http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=3385288&mesg_id=3385310




Elite = really good at something/at the top of your game. A GOOD THING.


Elitist = looking down on others.

[Captain Angry]

2. I just want to know how a wealthy educated senator can call another wealthy educated senator elite.

How does that work? How can people buy that crap?

[YvonneCa]

6. But they do...

...and we need to call them on it.

[blondeatlast]

3. Just say "smart (as avoiding Applebee's) is "smart." The OPPOSITION is as

elitist as it gets, behind their gated communities, country clubs, etc.


I'm rather happy David Brooks said thei, actually.

[CJCRANE]

4. They're blurring the lines between "elite" and "elitist".

If someone is "elite" it just means they are good at what they do (e.g. academically). Elitist is someone who looks down on others, which is totally different.

[Hydra]

8. Ya

And an "Elitist" does not necessary have any talents to back up his/her attitude. Sometimes, it's simply a comment on being of a certain social status vs. someone else's.

A true "elite" need not show off. Their ability is obvious.

[YvonneCa]

17. The abilities of Gore and Kerry were obvious...

...to many. But...maybe because they were not 'show-offs'...they were still taken down by that 'elitist' caricature.

[Hydra]

23. No

Gore and Kerry won by wide margins.

Welcome to America, though, where elections are freely tampered with if the powers that be don't like the results.

I think that puts us on par with Zimbabwe right now.

[YvonneCa]

25. I agree with you...

...that they won. What I mean by 'taken down' is that they didn't get to the White House. The caricature drawn enabled the result.

[Hydra]

29. That's the excuse they used

But how many of us thought it was bad that Gore was a "Know it all"?

Don't we want a President who doesn't need a teleprompter or an earpiece to Cheney?

I'm glad Gore and Dean rose above all the s*** they were smeared with to accomplish great things.

[YvonneCa]

32. I agree with you...

...and do want a smart, competent president (what a breath of fresh air that would be :7 ). And...as to 'us'...we here didn't buy the spin. But I know a LOT of people who did. And I'm worried that these same people will buy it again in November.

[Igel]

38. Somebody who is elite is qualified to

rule in his or her area of expertise.

Tennis, computer programming, bowling, political science, medicine, oboe, nuclear engineering, business finance.

It can be somebody who has a social status not based on talent but on some external attribute; they are also, in some sense, elite. Money, family connections, a title or honorary degree.

Being elite doesn't make them good or virtuous people. It doesn't mean they are more qualified to rule in other areas. It doesn't make them better human beings than somebody else. Some very good scientists have proven to be bad people.

You can be an educated poor service worker and be a better person than a Harvard professor. Or vice-versa. I define "better" in moral and ethical terms, not in terms of talents, and I'm not going to work on the details of the definitions. We'd argue over details, but agree in general.

An elitist believes that being a member of some elite, or some specific elite, makes you a better person, grants you greater right to power outside of your little area of expertise. Technocrats are elitists, by and large. The presence or absence of a talent is fairly meaningless here, since we can differ on defining "great" and "talent" in many cases: It's the attitude itself that's at issue. When you see people saying, "He graduated from Yale, he'd make a good president" you see elitist nonsense.

I might think that Itzhak Perlman is a great violinist, or that Domeniconi's guitar music is perfection. Truly elite in their fields. But please, don't let either run so much as a hot dog stand; and I honestly don't care about their opinions on political or social issues, they're no more qualified to judge than I am. Fortunately, by and large they agree, as do most classical musicians who show at least a small measure of humility.

And, yes, I've known people who were convinced that being a good slavist or a good musician or a good historian or a good lathe operator gave them deep insights into everybody else's motives, beliefs, and into how society should be properly ordered. Wannabe philosopher kings, to a one. Usually elitist hacks, sometimes elitist elites. But elitist.

One could extend the argument to issues vs. character, where the same kind of dichotomy comes up, but I won't here.

[YvonneCa]

39. Great post. n/t

[YvonneCa]

11. Really good point...

...about the definition of 'elitist'. So we need to play up the definition of being 'elite', and explain (and provide examples of) how that's a good thing.

Remember...they use elitist...which is a putdown.

[tsuki]

7. I have a tee-shirt that says, "I think...therefore I am an elitist."

No one has said a word to me about it, but boy, do I get the stares and glares.

Embrace the word 'elitist.' Use it continuously. Get your friends to agree that they are elitists in public. Make elitist your word. You define the context in which it is used.

Elitist=Thinking in my world.

[YvonneCa]

27. "I think, therefore I am an elitist" ...

...what a great T-shirt idea. :)

[tsuki]

34. Mine is homemade. Easy with liquid embroidery paint. nt

[YvonneCa]

35. Maybe some of us can copy...

...your great idea? :7

[tsuki]

37. Please, let's turn it back on them. Our problem is that we always try to

reason with a ditto head like they comprehend anything other than a talking point. Take what they dish out and throw it back in their face.

[YvonneCa]

40. We do need to call them on their...

...behavior. But I think we have to do both...instantly stand up to nonsense, but also reason with those we can. I think it's the reasoning that will win longterm (past 2008). :)

[tsuki]

42. I am in a very Republicon area. They have all drank the Kool-Aid.

They are retired, with money, living on the beach afraid of everything. Their hate is the only thing that keeps them going day to day. They women all LOVE Hannity and the men think that Billo stands up for what is right.

[YvonneCa]

43. Many elderly people were taken in and used...

...by relying on FOX for their news. I've seen that where I live. A few decades ago, one COULD count on TV to know the truth about what was happening in the world. That changed, but a lot of people didn't find that out. They were used...and that's just plain wrong.

Still, I'd reason with them as much as possible...I know an 80-year-old who voted twice for Bush who is now for Obama. :) Took eight years, though. :7

[DJ13]

9. We need to emphisize that elitist means a person of wealth and an attitude of..

....abusing their position in society to further their personal gain.

McCain's wealth (when his wife is rightfully factored in) is 20 times greater than Obama's.

[tsuki]

13. Naw, I'd rather defiantly redefine the term. In your face, republicons.

[YvonneCa]

18. That's a point that should be made. n/t

[no_hypocrisy]

14. I dunno. Republicans used "intelligent" against Adlai Stevenson.

What about smart, wise, common sense, conventional wisdom, well reasoned, good judgment, prudent, etc.

[YvonneCa]

20. And how is it that we Democrats allow that to stand?

Our country has a lot of challenges, thanks to this administration. Intelligence, wisdom, judgment and reasoning need to be obvious skills of our next president.

[heidler1]

28. This is a replay of what the Republicans did to the word liberal.

How they can straight faced be the Fundie Christian force and not see that Jesus was a liberal is weird or that they are the self appointed elitist part of society.

Hillary was on to something by playing like she Had a lot in common with the blue collar workers. Which is a tough fence to straddle.

I hope Obama can find o VP that can do the same without being so wacko on other things. I'm sure he is aware of Hillary's negatives.

[AngryAmish]

15. and replace "Republican" with "child-eating cannibal"

[LucyParsons]

16. AND MCCAIN ISN'T???????

That's all I have to say to that.

:argh:

[anonymous171]

19. We should just put images like this everywhere:

[YvonneCa]

21. Thank you for the smile...

...this morning. What an EXCELLENT way to make the point! :patriot:

[izquierdista]

22. Bring back the word 'stupid' too.

For too long, people have suffered from the often prattled saying "there's no such thing as a stupid question". When the question is "how much longer should we stay in Iraq?" that's a stupid question. The intelligent thing to do when digging yourself into a hole is to quit digging, not ask how longer should you continue to dig.

This election is the opportunity to turn it around. Recognize that Dubya got to show what stupid could do unrestrained for 8 years. Now let's see if smart can get things back on track.

[YvonneCa]

26. EXCELLENT...

...comeback for our Democrats!

Your words:

"This election is the opportunity to turn it around. Recognize that Dubya got to show what stupid could do unrestrained for 8 years. Now let's see if smart can get things back on track."

I love it! :7

[Two Americas]

30. nothing to do with that

I agree that the "elitist" theme from the right wing is damaging, but to counter it effectively requires that we understand it and why it is effective.

It has nothing to do with intelligence, and saying that it does worsens the situation and promotes the right wing propaganda, it does not refute it. It also has nothing to do with education or wealth.

It does no good to say in effect "stop accusing us of thinking that we are superior. We ARE superior!" since that reinforces the public perception of elitism and gives credibility to the right wing propaganda. It does no good to say "who cares what they think? We are right!" Being right is the consolation prize in politics, and we have settled for that for too long.

We are saddled once again with the same image problem, as we are nominating yet another professor personality. We had professor Gore, professor Kerry and now professor Obama. It is a handicap and a weakness, whether or not it should be in a perfect world. We should not be too harsh in our judgments of the public for rejecting our nominees based on style and personality, since after all that is obviously the criteria we use when selecting our nominees. "Live by the sword, die by the sword." We relate to and are comfortable with a professorial style. Certainly we are not judging our own candidates based on political considerations, other than the "not a Republican" fall back position, which works with Dem loyalists but is useless in the general.

The "anybody but Bush" or "better than McCain" argument is the weakest possible position we could take. Of course the fire fighters are nominally better than the arsonists. Republicans and Democrats are supposed to be representing the interests of different groups of people and pursuing different goals, and that is what should matter. Our candidates are only "better than Republicans" for those who share the traditional goals of the party and side with the common people against the wealthy and powerful. When "better than the Republicans" replaces strong advocacy for the have-nots, and I think that is undeniably the case today, we are no longer on firm ground. Likewise, when being "right" replaces objective political goals, when we go for the consolation prize, and I think that tendency has reached feverish proportions, we are weakened as well. When style replaces substance we have surrendered our most powerful arguments. Not everyone is going to fall in love with our candidate - half of the Democrats have not.

[YvonneCa]

31. Thank you for your VERY thoughtful...

...post. You have given me a lot to think about. I completely agree with this sentence:

"When style replaces substance we have surrendered our most powerful arguments."


I am one who believes our Democratic party 'values' ARE our most powerful argument...and that, if we win in November without making them clear...we won't really have won.


But, while I agree we have nominated candidates with somewhat an 'academic' style, I think we have allowed the other side to turn that into a negative...to build an unlikable caricature candidate...that they then defeat. And one way they do it is by their choice of labels, like 'elitist' or 'flip-flopper'. And then the media joins in with polls and discussions on likability...instead of discussing issues.

It is THAT practice that we need to expose, explain, and no longer tolerate. No matter who our candidates are. And then we need to sell our party's values.

[Two Americas]

36. thanks YvonneCa

So far, Obama has been promoted based on personal qualities - he is smart, charismatic, young, has the right style and sentiments and biography, etc. - and as a symbol - "the "historic" nature of his candidacy. We lose absolutely nothing to give all of that up. The public, unlike the people in the activist community, doesn't care how wonderful the candidate is, nor what he symbolizes to the activist community, nor do they care about our melodramatic battle with the fundies and knuckle-draggers - other that to be resentful of being characterized as the evil and ignorant ones.

Were we promoting the traditional principles and ideals and a strong program that was in alignment with that rather than a personality, we would not be vulnerable to the "elitist" charge, would we?

[YvonneCa]

41. You are most...

...welcome. Your question is a very good one:

"Were we promoting the traditional principles and ideals and a strong program that was in alignment with that rather than a personality, we would not be vulnerable to the "elitist" charge, would we?"


I won't pretend to know the answer. :) I think, in the last two presidential election cycles (2000 and 2004), we had candidates who tried to do that. They were shredded by the other side. Even their so-called lack of personality was shredded. And I don't think, personally, that Gore or Kerry were chosen as a 'personality'. I think they were chosen for their experience and intelligence. They HAD policy and programs aligned with their values. But they allowed their campaigns to create an image on which (they hoped) to run and win. They were called elitist, out of touch and worse.

As to this year...Obama starts out with personality and intelligence, but he is also strong on expressing his values and principles. I judge his policy direction based on his past history AND based on people he is aligned with (Kennedy, Durbin, Kerry, Daschle, Carter, etc.). I expect him to lay out his programs in the GE against McCain.

So, for me, 2008 is an 'experiment' of sorts. Instead of starting with a candidate with experience and shaping an image...a personality that will get people to like him or her...this time we are starting with a magnetic personality who can draw in supporters first, and then we can help them understand our Democratic party values. With Obama, we can build unity, and build on the idea that (as Bill Clinton used to say) "Even as our differences sometimes seek to divide us, our common humanity matters more."

Still, he is charged as elitist. :) I sometimes think the other side doesn't know any other game to play. :(

[KSCFAN]

44. Why elitist is bad.

Elitist is a bad word becuase it creates the impression of someone of high social/economic standing that looks down on you and your life. Even if you are happy with your life an elitist sees you as less worthy and in need of assistance. Most people just want to be left the fuck alone. You know things like not spied on, maintain the value of the currency, not sent off to war. Things like that.

[YvonneCa]

45. See definition...

...above. Elite and elitist have different meanings...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=3385288&mesg_id=3385493


...and welcome to DU. :)

[YvonneCa]

46. Kicking for a new...

...(and beautiful) day! :)