« A Question of Interpretation | Main | Obama and Iraq »

Obama's Elitism Problem

03 Jul 2008 01:11 pm

140px-CindyMcCain.JPG

As everyone knows, Democrats have struggled for generations with the perception that they're out of touch elitists. Barack Obama is no exception. He lives in Hyde Park, Chicago and ever since his book became a best-seller he's made a whole bunch of money. As a part-time professor at the University of Chicago he came to be acquainted with various pointy-headed professor types and he even ordered an orange juice at breakfast once which is the exact same kind of juice they serve at breakfast at the Aspen Ideas Festival.

By contrast, John McCain is an all-American regular guy who, like most people, earns his keep by marrying an heiress. Like average, everyday folks the McCain's rely on credit cards to make ends meet month-to-month "Cindy McCain charged as much as $500,000 in a single month on one American Express card and $250,000 on another, while one of their two dependent children had an AmEx card with a monthly balance as large as $50,000." Yes it's true, one of McCain's dependent children spent approximately the median annual household income of the United States in a single month and that's how McCain knows how to connect with regular people.

Similarly, Mrs. McCain "favors suits made by the German designer Escada, which typically retail for around $3,000 a pop" so she understands that most Americans welcome Wal-Mart's discount prices. And like many Americans, the McCains are very effected by developments in the real estate market, since "trusts and corporations controlled by her and her children spent nearly $11 million between the summer of 2004 and February 2008 on three condominiums in Phoenix and a pair outside San Diego." The McCains understand that these days many young people graduate from college saddled with debt and need a helping hand, that's why they spent "$700,000 for a 1,900-square foot, three-bedroom loft condo for her then-22-year-old daughter Meghan McCain" after she graduated from Columbia. Similarly, they know all about problems with inflation since they "increased their budget for household employees from $184,000 in 2006 to $273,000 in 2007, according to John McCain’s tax returns."

Share This

Comments (118)

Only in America could such salt of the Earth people have a shot at being President.

Excellent post. How I wish the Obama campaign could get away with an ad saying basically the same thing.

Yeah, McCain, like Goldwater, knew everything there was to know about the American Dream -- be born a white male in a well-off family, and marry a millionaire. Too bad everyone else is too lazy to do the same!

And don't forget their failure to pay thousands upon thousands in property taxes for four years. Yeah, I'm sure I wouldn't have had my ass dragged into court if I failed to pay my property taxes for that long.

BTW, how much jail time did Cindy McCain do for her drug offenses? How much time would have been handed down for a 20-year old inner city youth with no resources?

Finally, don't forget that John McCain is proposing tax cuts that will personally save them nearly $400,000 per year. Pretty sweet deal, eh?

Stay Classy, Matthew!

Uh oh! Al's mad that someone other than Republicans played around with a notion of elitism! Watch out!

Affected.

Truth fuckin' hurts, don't it Al.

Don't worry -- the "liberal" media will never run with this.

Yeah, Matthew. How classless of you to print facts. You hurt widdle Al's feewings.

Not to disagree with the nonsense that is "McCain is a guy just like any random middle-class, middle-American", but something about this idea that spending lots of money in a month is amazing strikes me as naive. As someone who (briefly, for reasons which will shortly become obvious) had a pile of dotcom money in 2000, I found myself spending 20K a month on basically nothing more than random stuff and eating out for about five months. Point is: if you have a lot of cash in a bank account, it's surprisingly easy to spend a lot of it without buying drugs or diamond necklaces or beachfront property. Two of three of which (I'll let people guess which two) the McCains spend a lot of money on, regularly, and which I suspect is more of an indicator of how out-of-touch they are from a middle-class existence than is spending a lot of money in a single month. I'd bet many a relatively ordinary person has spent tens of thousands of dollars for a month or two after having realized gains from their recently sold overvalued house. Spending like an idiot is pretty common. Having an estate, seven houses, and servants is not.

What does any of that have to do with the fact he is a former P.O.W. and decorated war hero? Huh? Huh, huh? Tell me, tell me now!

Why the slam at Goldwater? It doesn't occur to me at any rate that a family of Jews on the Western frontier had quite the easy life Cindy McCain has had, and the family really did work hard at building a medium sized business (of the sort that couldn't exist any more), Barry ran a traveling nature show for a while that was apparently pretty good, and had an intelligent interest in and some talent at fairly avant garde art.

To put it mildly, I was no fan of the guy (we had a house full of Rockefeller delegates staying with us during the '64 convention, and the tales they told weren't pretty), but it might be worthwhile comparing Goldwater's relations with Nixon with McCain's relation to Nixon's spiritual grandson Dubya Bush.

the flipside is that the enlisted digs of the Marine McCain kid (or the one at the Naval Academy for that matter) are hardly palatial....

Steve Duncan is right. Matt needs to stop insulting John McCain's service record.

I'm having trouble finding the post where you heaped this same scorn on John Kerry (who deserves bonus points because his wealthy heiress became so by fucking a wealthy republican). Can someone please provide the link?

Seriously, though, this issue seems to be like military experience. It's only something that bothers you if it applies to the other guy.

OK, I'm not really trying to pick a fight with this one, but i have to ask. Will one of you explain something to me?

As I see it, the left seems to have two contradictory fixations: bashing the rich and spending large amounts of public money.

How do you reconcile these two things? Who do you think pays the overwhelming amount of taxes in this country? The story of what happened to America's inner cities in the 70s and early 80s ought to serve as some sort of instructive lesson in what happens when a place loses its tax base (i.e. nothing good).

And, yes, I'm sure there's some sort of analagous contradiction on the right, but that's not an answer.

I mean, the last time Matt decided to bring up McCain's kids it was truly embarrassing.

When conservatives label liberals as elites, they do so from the perspective of cultural attitudes not wealth per se. You can be rich, like a lotto winner, and not be considered an elite member of society who gets invited to award dinners, charity balls, and board positions on foundations.

Likewise, a university professor is considered a "elite" of society, not because he necessarily has a lot of dough, if fact he probably doesn't, but because his position allows him to mingle with other elites and shape politics and policy.

Who do you think is more influential in society?: Jeffrey Sachs, the former Harvard Prof and poverty specialist, or Joe Blow, former truck mechanic who just won $10 million from a lotto ticket?

As an aside, many of Matt's posts regarding McCain's marriage touch on his "trophy wife/beer heiress/arm candy" spouse. Is Matt one rosy palm and some baby oil away from stroking out?

mike, while I don't speak for Matt, I think it's pretty obvious that his post is supposed to be a joke about the double standard with which the media treats Democratic and Republican candidates when it comes to concepts like "elitism" and being "out of touch." Seeing as how we've had nothing but rich guys in the White House for over 200 years, I don't think anyone is arguing that rich guys shouldn't be allowed to run for President.

Mike
I don't think it bothers Matt, but the Republicans always try to paint Democrats as elite. Matt's just pointing out that McCain has a life unlike most Americans.

mike, in this case, it's McCain's campaign and his allies who are trying to tar his opponent as an "elitist" while making himself at to be a straight-talkin' man of the people. So turnabout (which, in this case, has the virtue of being true) is fair play. And if it pisses right-wingers off, all the better.

I will concede that Cindy McCain's suits are nice, though.... very much against the DC aesthetic of "spend a lot of money to look like crap."

Mike... The point is that Republicans have been painting Democrats as "Elitist" and "Out of touch"....

The fact of the matter is that anybody running for President is going to have money, and quite often big piles of it. I have no problem with this fact. However, it is absurdly hypocritical for Republicans to campaign on the issue against Obama, and if the media would get their heads out of their asses and call them on it, it would be a non-issue, as it damn well should be.

Matt, thanks.

Jake, I guess most guys are rich by the time they run for president, because it's generally only something that successful people do, but we've had plenty of presidents who grew up poor. Most famously: Lincoln, Truman, Nixon, Reagan, Clinton. As you can see, they tend to be ambitious in the best and worst ways.

As a steelworker's kid whose Dad would bring home library-books for us to read together, I always knew I was a freak [code-word, "elitist"]. That got confirmed when I finally met me some real rich folks. They didn't know a graveyard-shift from a golf-date, and really got off on beer, football, and barbeques (disclaimer: I like all those, too). I've decided it's a Rousseau-thing. Antoinette set herslf up as a peasant at Versailles. That made her a "regular girl", I guess, till the real "regular girls" turned on her. For any number of cultural & psychological reasons, these folks need to see themselve as regular girls & guys. So, when anything about anyone (especially anyone contesting for the power they see as rightfully theirs) appears "not regular" (code-word, "elitist"), they are quick off the mark to yell to the REAL "regular folks" - "Oh, no! that's not like US!" Tiresome - even harmless enough maybe, except when it's used to torque a dificult-enough electoral process...

Whether or not Kerry was accused of "elitism" in 2004 (he was, in fact), the salient fact is that rich kid George W. Bush was not and never was to any significant degree, in either 2000 or 2004.

This year the Repubs are trying to spin the ridiculous notion that Obama is "elitist," so a look at McCain's credentials in this regard is very much fair game.

Fair enough. Thanks for the responses. I can appreciate the tongue-in-cheekiness.

Dour voice over

"Cindy McCain loves America so much she buys her suits in Germany . . . ."

As I see it, the left seems to have two contradictory fixations: bashing the rich and spending large amounts of public money.

How do you reconcile these two things?

I'll take a swing, though I don't consider myself a liberal. (I am, apparently now far left since I have thought George W. was an idiot since 2000.)

I don't think it's bashing the rich as much as viewing them as getting unfair advantages via the government. For example, the average person makes the vast majority of their money as income. If they work a bit extra to try to get ahead, they get whacked with a 28% marginal tax rate. If the rich do well on capital gains, which can often occur due to opportunities not available to the masses, and they hold it for a year, they pay 15%.

I think if it was viewed that the wealthy paid their fair share of taxes, and that means total taxes which takes into account state, local, property, Social Security, Medicare, and sales taxes, there would be less bashing. (There will always be those who are jealous and simply feel that people shouldn't be allowed to get that rich, but I view them as fringe.) As Warren Buffet said, his secretary pays a higher effective tax rate than he does.

One example of the back and forth is the estate tax. The wealthy want to abolish it, passing on large amounts of untaxed gains to their heirs. I, on the one hand, believe in the estate tax. On the other hand, I believe the current top rate is confiscatory. That's probably not a popular view among the left or right.

Good points, but can you picture John McCain at a country club with a beautiful date, holding a martini and a cigarette and standing against the wall making snide comments about everyone who passes by? I sure can't. He seems more like a cigar guy.

Obama can't really say anything with respect to Cindy McCain's money because he too is vulnerable on spouse-related issues. Michelle Obama has enjoyed a lifetime of pampering and privilege thanks to affirmative action yet somehow maintains a stereotypical Angry Black Woman image.

When it comes to wives, I would sleep with both Cindy McCain and Michelle Obama. Who's with me? Cindy McCain appears as though she used to be about a 9.5, while Michelle Obama is clearly about an 8.5 right now. Can we talk about this instead. My friends laugh at me when I speak of how sexy Cindy McCain is.

"Michelle Obama has enjoyed a lifetime of pampering and privilege thanks to affirmative action yet somehow maintains a stereotypical Angry Black Woman image."

I really can't tell if this is an attempt at humor or not. I fear that its not. Peter, she's been painted as a stereotypical black 'bitch' by the right, yet I have seen no evidence of that. Care to share what you know?

" The wealthy want to abolish it, passing on large amounts of untaxed gains to their heirs. I, on the one hand, believe in the estate tax. On the other hand, I believe the current top rate is confiscatory. That's probably not a popular view among the left or right.

Posted by LFC | July 3, 2008 2:05 PM"

Actually, a majority of the top 1% want to keep the estate tax. In general, the people against the estate tax are people who will never have to pay it. They just think they will have to pay it because the GOP keeps on telling them they will have to sell the family farm to pay off the estate tax.

I'm sure Brian Williams, Katie Couric, Charles Gibson, Bill O’Reilly, Brit Hume, etc, all agree that the McCains are middle class, just like they are!

Obama can't really say anything with respect to Cindy McCain's money because he too is vulnerable on spouse-related issues.

I know the right desperately WANTS this to be true, but I haven't seen much to substantiate the idea that America hates Michelle. The only real data point I've seen is this: http://abcnews.go.com/PollingUnit/Vote2008/Story?id=5185695&page=1

48% approval, 29% disapproval--not too shabby. I think the whole exercise of polling people on what they think of candidates' wives is pretty stupid and the results may be meaningless, but what else is there to go on?

I'm with you, Todd.

LFC,

What you're talking about is perception, and to some extent I can sympathize with that. If, however, people are going to engage in a real policy conversation, then they need to get beyond perception.

Yes, the "average" person makes most of their money as income, but the average person also has a mortgage, and credit cards, and student loans. All those things are made possible by capital markets, which are, in turn, made possible by people with excess capital making investments. Like it or not, our entire way of like is pretty much made built upon the existence of people who have more money than they "need". Start punishing those people, get too carried away with resistribution, and the results will be ruinous for everyone, most especially the lower classes.

I am grad student. Last year I made very little money and paid a lot of money to my school. I paid no taxes, which means that every bit of the public goods and services I consumed was paid for by someone else. I'm not suggesting that we adopt a "National Hug a Rich Guy Day", but at the same time I know what makes this all possible.

I'm with you, Todd.

They finally got me. DAMN YOU, THE ATLANTIC!

There is no necessary relationship between being rich and being an elitist. A typical definition (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/elitist):
"The belief that certain persons or members of certain classes or groups deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority, as in intellect, social status, or financial resources." You don't need to be rich to have that attitude, and being rich doesn't mean you do have that attitude.

Obama isn't being branded as elitist because he's rich. He's branded as elitist because he says things that sound elitist and condescending. E.g., "clinging to guns and religion". Whatever McCain thinks in private, he doesn't say stupid things like that.

Matt -

I think you really misunderstand the "elitism" charge leveled by Republicans against Democrats running for office. It doesn't play on resentment of WEALTH, it plays on resentment of intelligence and education. It's anti-intellectual, NOT anti-wealth.

So no one is going to be bothered by Bush owning a huge ranch and golfing all the time -- this is what a regular good ole' boy would do if he was rich. But shopping at Whole Foods, living in bourgeois areas of major cities and teaching at a university -- these are what make charges of intellectual elitism stick. Look at where this message has been most effectively mobilized. Is it in the poorest areas of the country? Well, mostly. But it tends to be most effective in the LEAST EDUCATED parts of the country (obviously there is significant overlap between wealth and education levels). The people who would most resent a college professor talking down to them.

The longer Democratic message makers like you Matt misunderstand the "elitism" frame the longer Democrats will be unable to break out of it. Saying "but McCain/Bush is rich too!" doesn't work because WEALTH ISN'T THE POINT.

ANTI-INTELLECTUALISM IS THE POINT.

This sort of thing really needs to get pushed more.

LFC -

If they work a bit extra to try to get ahead, they get whacked with a 28% marginal tax rate. If the rich do well on capital gains, which can often occur due to opportunities not available to the masses, and they hold it for a year, they pay 15%."

One of the many reasons that people start their own businesses is that W-2 is the worst way to make money. If you start your own business and pay yourself a modest salary and build up your business when you sell it you can only pay 15%. If you had stayed working for the man a huge portion of your income would have went to taxes.

The problem with your plan - as I see it - is it would be a huge disincentive for people looking to start their own businesses. I think you'll find this is the reason that even places as progressive as Sweden and France have capital gains tax rates less than half the income tax rate.

I am grad student. Last year I made very little money and paid a lot of money to my school. I paid no taxes, which means that every bit of the public goods and services I consumed was paid for by someone else. I'm not suggesting that we adopt a "National Hug a Rich Guy Day", but at the same time I know what makes this all possible.

Yeah, what makes it possible is taxes. When we cut taxes for rich guys, less is possible, because the idea that the money left in their pockets is going to stimulate the economy and generate more revenue for the government is a fallacy.

By the way, I'm about to join you among the ranks of freeloading broke grad students, so I sympathize.

I love how whenever the right's tricks are turned back to focus on their own, suddenly they play stupid and act like they have never, ever, ever encountered this trick before, and further need everything explained to them on an introductory and philosophical level.

My gosh, they say, why on earth would anyone be so mean to talk about 'elitism' or some such? It must be because liberals hate rich people, and they can't think of any other reason anyone would mention one's wealth background.

Also, George W. Bush Jr. is a totally common, regular guy who clears brush on his ranch and everyone wants to have a beer with, unlike John Kerry who looks French and probably spends an hour each afternoon sneering at working class people.

This sort of thing really needs to get pushed more.

LFC -

If they work a bit extra to try to get ahead, they get whacked with a 28% marginal tax rate. If the rich do well on capital gains, which can often occur due to opportunities not available to the masses, and they hold it for a year, they pay 15%."

One of the many reasons that people start their own businesses is that W-2 is the worst way to make money. If you start your own business and pay yourself a modest salary and build up your business when you sell it you can only pay 15%. If you had stayed working for the man a huge portion of your income would have went to taxes.

The problem with your plan - as I see it - is it would be a huge disincentive for people looking to start their own businesses. I think you'll find this is the reason that even places as progressive as Sweden and France have capital gains tax rates less than half the income tax rate.

When did "elite" stop meaning "better?" Obama could respond in one of two ways: "Elite means better. So yeah, I'm elitist." Or, he could go all GYWO on McCain's ass: "If 'elitist' just means 'not the dumbest motherfucker in the room,' I'll be an elitist!"

Jake H,

My point is simply that I find something really disingenous about taking money from someone with one hand and slandering them with the other. And, again, whether we like it or not, most Americans probably consume more in public goods and services than they pay in taxes. That is made possible because of the existence of the minority that are smart enough, or hardworking enough, or stupid and lazy, but lucky enough to have more money than they can spend.

Whether the mechanism is through taxation, or investing, or private spending, wealth is created and destroyed every day. It's nice to think that we can make the world a better place by simply transferring wealth from those who don't deserve it to those who do, but that's just not how a developed economy works.

"Like it or not, our entire way of like is pretty much made built upon the existence of people who have more money than they "need". Start punishing those people, get too carried away with resistribution, and the results will be ruinous for everyone, most especially the lower classes."

We had robust growth (including under Eisenhower, a Republican) when the top income tax rate was 90%. Nobody is even considering raising the top income tax rate to 50%. Hedge fund managers now pay the 15% capital gains tax instead of income taxes on their income. Capital flight doesn't really occur with just modest increases in marginal tax rates. In addition, the rich have been pushing hard for new spending, especially pork, under Bush and have disproportionately benefited from new spending while also pushing for tax cuts. This has inflated the budget deficit, especially at the same time we have a massive trade deficit. This will come back to bite us hard in the ass no matter what, but it will hurt the middle and working classes harder than the rich that got us into this mess.

In addition, fighting wars requires a lot of spending increases. That money has to come from somewhere. Conservatives have to choose between tax cuts or wars. You can't have both in the long run without completely wrecking the economy.

But it tends to be most effective in the LEAST EDUCATED parts of the country (obviously there is significant overlap between wealth and education levels). The people who would most resent a college professor talking down to them. - Michael T Sweeney

Which also relates to, IMHO, why social conservatism hasn't been very good politics-wise in the socially conservative religious African-American community. Socially conservative political messaging is oftentimes linked with such anti-intellectualism -- it isn't just "the Bobble says teh homosexuality is wrong" ... in order to gin up votes due to paranoia, it's "all those fancy-pants elitists who think they know better want to force gay marriage on you even though the wisdom of the ages, i.e. the Bobble, says it's wrong".

And it's hard to push an anti-intellectualism line to an audience that is socially conservative due to church attendence when such people have a tendancy to attend churches at which the pastor has a doctoral level degree ... as seems to be the case at many African-American (though not European-American) churches.

jrleonard, a developed society works by paying its expenses to create the sort of place we wish to live in. Talking about who "deserves" what is pointless. Life is not fair, and no one deserved to be born into poverty in a crappy, dying city in the rust belt. You might not think that people who make lots of money "deserve" to be taxed at higher marginal rates on that portion of their income, but life isn't fair, and this is the consequence for living in a developed society. There are plenty of horrid nations in which one can play tax-evading oligarch, but I doubt people rich in the USA would have managed to become rich in those crappy places.

The self-righteous preening from you is simply astounding. That a bunch of McCain surrogates would ahve the audacity to tar Obama as an "elitist" when they're on the side of such a warped, twisted character with such a hugely messed up relationship with wealth is simply stunning.

Reality Man - Keep in mind from 1951-1964 while the top income tax rate was 90% the capital gains tax rate was only 25% and you could exclude 50% of that if you held the asset longer than 6 months. So, in reality the rate was 12.5%.

jrleonard01 said... Like it or not, our entire way of like is pretty much made built upon the existence of people who have more money than they "need". Start punishing those people, get too carried away with resistribution, and the results will be ruinous for everyone, most especially the lower classes.

Wait a second. I went from the tax advantaged (the current system) to a flat tax. You are now using terms like "punishing" and "redistribution", both of which I find loaded and meaningless for this discussion.

If you wish to turn the topic to people advocating a vastly higher effective tax rate on the wealthy, we can talk about "redistribution", but I think most people (definitely not all) would deem a tax code that balanced the effective tax rate a bit better as fair.


Jmo said... The problem with your plan - as I see it - is it would be a huge disincentive for people looking to start their own businesses.

I've got a side business. I have multiple friends who started their own business. I've seen zero, nada, zippo, no evidence that their decision was driven by tax rates. I've worked for small companies all my life, and they rarely show a paper profit that's even taxable.

BTW, if what you say was true, the fact that self-employed people in small businesses have to pay double payroll taxes should have crushed small business formation long ago, right? How come that hasn't happened?

Reality,

I'm really not trying to turn this into a larger ideological argument. My points are purely practical. And from a practical standpoint, 15% of millions is still more than 28% of thousands. It may make us feel better to tax the hell out of the rich, but at the end of the day we'll all suffer with a generally lower standard of living and public services.

Yes, we had a lot of growth after WWII. Keynsian economics is a really good way to get from 0 to 60 very quickly, but once we got to the 70s what happened? Government spending as a means to achieving growth has its limits, and that's where a robust private sector is necessary to keep an economy going. Competitive tax rates are necessary for a robust private sector. Ideology aside, that should be pretty non-controversial.

Again, I'm not suggesting that everyone start worshiping at the alter of the Great Capatilist or even disown their progressive ideals. Just be wary of biting the hand that feeds you.

DAS --

I hadn't even thought of that, but that makes a lot of sense. Don't tell the GOP though, they might listen and figure out how to peel off more than 5% of the black vote.

Good point above, re wealth & anti-intellectualism. I agree, the matter in this context isn't wealth per se, or at least not-only. Rather, I'd say that anti-intellectualism is the glue that binds the "anti-elitism" of the rich & the "anti-elitism" of regular folks, the patina politically spread over both to make them seem like the same thing for rhetorical purposes. That is, of course, a lot of "what's the matter with Kansas" - & recognition of it what slipped out in the "bitterness" gaffe. Nietzsche predicted an age of resentment -- and in an acquisitive society, such is more likely to be expressed against the intellectual elite than against the economic elite (they overlap, but aren't identical). Of course, it would help if so many of the intellectual elite weren't such insecure "self-made" snobs who can't carry out a conversation with the regular folks whose taxes (as also noted above) subsidized our pilgrimage through grad school. This without prejudice to anyone in this thread, but we all know the problem. There's a tale told in Winnipeg about a university-theologian who was asked at the last minute to preach at a working-class parish when its priest fell ill. He was blathering away, then stopped & looked at the congregation and said, "Oh, I know you're thinking that what I'm saying is Eutychianism, but it isn't." Yeah. I'm sure he won hearts and minds that day!?! I know this stuff, & I had to look it up....

DAS --

I hadn't even thought of that, but that makes a lot of sense. Don't tell the GOP though, they might listen and figure out how to peel off more than 5% of the black vote.

self-employed people in small businesses have to pay double payroll taxes should have crushed small business formation long ago, right

If you have 1099 income then you know how much you can play around with deductions. For example, if I have an LLC and I hire my spouse, and I want to have my annual meeting in Cabo - guess what? I can deduct that trip to Cabo as a business expense.

With a decent accountant, and without doing anything illegal, you should be able to pay far less in taxes getting paid 1099 than you would W-2.

FYI, the slam on Goldwater is 'cause he thought everyone should be left to fend for themselves. Easy to say for a white guy married to a millionaire.

It does seem like there must be the side effect of this elitist charge of apparently conceding the fact that your opponent is more inteligent and capable than yourself. We all like to pick on people who are "better" than us (harder working, smarter, otherwise more capable), but when push comes to shove, we want the most competent person in charge.

I've seen this in work places, people will bitch all day about a boss that is condesending and tough, but they only rebel against bosses that are incompetent (or if toughness devolves into pure sadism, but that's pretty rare).

It does seem like there must be the side effect of this elitist charge of apparently conceding the fact that your opponent is more inteligent and capable than yourself. We all like to pick on people who are "better" than us (harder working, smarter, otherwise more capable), but when push comes to shove, we want the most competent person in charge.

I've seen this in work places, people will bitch all day about a boss that is condesending and tough, but they only rebel against bosses that are incompetent (or if toughness devolves into pure sadism, but that's pretty rare).

Tyro,

I apologize if I'm coming across as self-righteous, but I'm really tring to engage this from a practical, and not idelogical, perspective. I'm all for the rich paying higher tax rates under the justification that they have benifitted more from living in a developed economy and because they have more to lose if things go to pot.

Noone, however, has been able to provide an answer to my original question: How does one get a high level of public service without an adequate tax base? If the answer is, 'you can't', then maybe it's best that all sides decide that class-baiting, whether it be against the rich or the poor, is really a self-defeating strategy.

Why does much of what's said here seem like it's spoken from inside an empty steel drum?

"I'm really not trying to turn this into a larger ideological argument. My points are purely practical. And from a practical standpoint, 15% of millions is still more than 28% of thousands. It may make us feel better to tax the hell out of the rich, but at the end of the day we'll all suffer with a generally lower standard of living and public services."

All things being equal, I would prefer to have a progressive tax system with modest top income tax rates and low capital gains tax rates a la Scandinavia. However, Scandinavian countries have higher top income rates and budget surpluses while we have lower top income tax rates and budget deficits. In addition, it's not just the riches' spending that spurs growth. Everyone's spending spurs growth. You give a working class guy an extra $500, he'll go out and buy a new fridge to replace his 20-year old one that's pretty much broken, thus raising aggregate demand and spurring economic growth. If you give a billionaire an extra $500, he'll put it in the bank, where it won't really do much to help our economy while it collects interest. That's why the Bush tax cuts didn't lead to real increases in investment rates (in fact, the propagandists at the Wall Street Journal editorial page have been forced to ignore when interest rates fell to show a correlation between the Bush tax cuts and economic growth).

We have to pay off the deficit somehow. We can either have the middle and working classes whose spending actually drives the economy pay that off more or have the rich that have money saved up pay it off.

jrleonard01 said... Government spending as a means to achieving growth has its limits, and that's where a robust private sector is necessary to keep an economy going. Competitive tax rates are necessary for a robust private sector. Ideology aside, that should be pretty non-controversial.

What I'd like to know is that if that's so non-controversial, why does the GOP froth at the mouth at this very premise? Look at government spending under Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II. An enormous portion of the growth during those periods was fueled by increases in government (deficit) spending. Clinton slowed the growth in gov't spending (yes, right away, not because of a GOP Congress) and raised taxes marginally, not to a level that would stifle growth.

Right now, our tax structure is incapable of even coming close to covering our spending. Counting the Soc Sec IOU's, we're staring down close to $700 billion in debt for this year alone. Can we cut some spending? Monetarily, yes. Politically? Who knows? But the GOP wants to cut taxes AND raise spending, just as they've done for the past 7 years. And McCain says he can cut huge amounts of spending, but won't tell us just how he'd do it.

So we have two parts to this argument. One is fairness, the other is need. A flatter tax is a fairer tax. And we need more revenue unless we cut spending.

The funniest bit is that GOP drones see that kind of wealth and think that they need to lionise it for their own benefit. Sugar Momma McCain ain't going to spot you a beer, Al.

Todd asked... When it comes to wives, I would sleep with both Cindy McCain and Michelle Obama. Who's with me?

Uh, do you mean separately or together? Just askin'... ;-)

When conservatives label liberals as elites, they do so from the perspective of cultural attitudes not wealth per se.

Obama isn't being branded as elitist because he's rich. He's branded as elitist because he says things that sound elitist and condescending. E.g., "clinging to guns and religion".

...the "elitism" charge leveled by Republicans against Democrats...doesn't play on resentment of WEALTH, it plays on resentment of intelligence and education. It's anti-intellectual, NOT anti-wealth.

Yes, yes and yes.

Modern presidential campaigns seem to come down to which of 2 rich fellas can better adopt the affects of the non-elite. However phony the whole enterprise. Going back at least to Bush 41 with the pork rinds.

What's bewildering is the 2 sets of rules -- the media swallows whole the Republican cultural populism charade, but ridicules Democrats who do the same. Why was Kerry's going hunting uproariously funny, while W.'s brush-clearing is undeniably authentic? And it persists, the best efforts of Media Matters and others notwithstanding.

Maybe my memory is selective. I like to think Clinton (the '92 model) actually was part-hick, and the fact that he grew up with appliances on his porch seemed to actually inform his politics and perspective. But maybe come to think of it, he got a pass on Vineyard vacations and Renaissance Weekend.

For Obama, I think he actually might dodge this bullet because, even though he is something of an elitist, the country so craves change that it hardly matters. Plus, the Obama-is-scary-black-man may prove to be a more dominant narrative than Obama-shops-at-Whole-Foods.

Then again, as Jon Chait just pointed out in a piece at tnr.com, it wouldn't be the first time 2 contradictory frames were deployed in service of smearing a Democrat.

The man of the people angle would have worked better from some one who is actually middle class. Yglesias is well on his way to senior beltway pundit status.


LFC,
I would like to have them together, with John McCain shrinkwrapped and gagged in the corner. And then Barack Obama shrinkwrapped in the other corner and forced to watch McCain's reaction.

Love,
Darryl

I think that at some very high income level you need to have a very steep income tax, say 70, 80, 90%. The reason is that you need to give people a reason to stop and have some standards in their pursuit of money. If there is no 'top' to how much money you can get (not earn, get) in a year, then there is no 'bottom' to what you'll do pursuing it.

(Make all the exceptions you want - selling a business, fine, put the tax on income averaged of 3 years, etc, etc - but in the end, it won't hurt the economy one bit if individuals have a (high) ceiling on what they can make.

I think that at some very high income level you need to have a very steep income tax, say 70, 80, 90%. The reason is that you need to give people a reason to stop and have some standards in their pursuit of money.

That sucking sound you hear is rich people leaving the country in droves to escape your 70/80/90% tax rates. So instead of getting 30-40% of their income, you don't get anything at all.

In a world in which rich people can live more or less wherever they like, and in which the movement of goods, services and investments between nations is easier than ever, high income and capital gains tax rates don't work. That's why, across the developed world, tax rates have been coming down.

It's the prick factor. And it is attitude-based.

A wealthy Republican can be an elitist prick, as can a non-wealthy but feeling-superior leftist.

There happen to be more non-wealthy leftists whose attitudes reveal their inner prick. Ergo, elitist prick charges stick against the people who survive your nomination process (which tends to draw a high percentage of elitist pricks).

Jim Webb? Not an elitist prick.

The new and improved Hillary? Not an elitist prickette.

Bill Clinton? Not an elitist prick.

John Kerry? Big Time elitist prick.

Obama? Definitely elitist, but only hints of prickiness so far.

W? Not an elitist prick.

McCain? Not an elitist prick.

Most people here? Elitist pricks.

It's the attitude that you are somehow better than the rest. Keep reminding the rest of the country how much smarter and better you are and why everyone else should think the way you do and that they are ignorant, malignant, retarded, or just plain dumb if they don't.

W? Not an elitist prick.

This claim never fails to amuse me. I'm not sure if you actually mean what you said or whether you're just echoing conventional wisdom, but anyone who's been around genuine elistist pricks knows that Bush is the prince of their species.

...one of their two dependent children had an AmEx card with a monthly balance as large as $50,000." Yes it's true, one of McCain's dependent children spent approximately the median annual household income of the United States in a single month...

I don't think having a monthly balance of $50,000 means you spent $50,000 in one month. I mean, the McCain's are definitely irregular folks, but still...

I don't think having a monthly balance of $50,000 means you spent $50,000 in one month.

AmEx bills need to be paid in full at the end of the month. It's not like a credit card where you can keep a revolving balance.

AmEx bills need to be paid in full at the end of the month. It's not like a credit card where you can keep a revolving balance.

Of, of course. You're right.

Tyro,

You're not playing by the rules. I defined elitist prick this way:

It's the attitude that you are somehow better than the rest. Keep reminding the rest of the country how much smarter and better you are and why everyone else should think the way you do and that they are ignorant, malignant, retarded, or just plain dumb if they don't.

W does not fit the definition.

This is the attitude that turns people who you would think would vote for democrats away. You know-- those bitter people who cling to guns, religion and beer.

EP: If you call a tail a leg, a dog still has four legs, because a tail isn't a leg, even if you call it one. Though, regardless, it is unclear why you think W doesn't fit this description. I generally find that people who have very very little experience with actual elitist pricks are the ones who think W isn't one. But I, speaking from experience with them, can say he is. Sorry if you don't see it, but that's what it is.

Tyro: The tail/leg example may be true, but concepts of elitist prickism are not as objective as describing a dog. There probably are many different forms of elitism, and certainly the privilege into which W was born can be considered elite.

But he is self-depreciating about hismself, at least in public, and has never displayed a public attitude that he thinks he's better than anyone else because of what he believes. Of course he thinks he's right and his ideological opponents wrong, but that's entirely different from the moral superiority that turns off so many of the "Reagan Democrat" types.

"You're not playing by the rules. I defined elitist prick this way:

It's the attitude that you are somehow better than the rest. Keep reminding the rest of the country how much smarter and better you are and why everyone else should think the way you do and that they are ignorant, malignant, retarded, or just plain dumb if they don't.

W does not fit the definition"


Actually, he does. George Bush knows the truth about everything. He would never come right out and say that, but about any specific topic, he always knows he's right and despises those who disagree. He also has the advantage of knowing the truth without needing to learn it. He just knows things intrinsically, due to his superior birth.

His condescending, manipulative and juvenile treatment of others mark him as the absolute epitome of elitist pricks.

Just because he is in reality of average intelligence and above average ignorance does not mean he is not an elitist.

Well I don't see what you see.

"he always knows he's right and despises those who disagree."

I agree this marks one an an elitist prick, if it is accompanied by a moralistic attitude that the person you despise must change to the way thet think/act. But it really does not fit W. Even if he "despises" those who disagree with him (and there is little or no evidence of that), he does not insist that they adapt to his position.

It does fit the moralist Al Gore-types who preach about global warming but don't back it up with their own actions. And it fits many of the D mandates that will be forced upon the little people for their own good.

"His condescending, manipulative and juvenile treatment of others mark him as the absolute epitome of elitist pricks."

I don't see this either.

I think the left may be projecting here.

Wow, I've never read so many slanted comments in a long time. I must have pulled up the wrong email. The bottom line is - all of the presidential candidates are wealthy and I guess you have to be to run for president. Senator McCain is a war hero, a leader, and is able to work with democrats and republicans. Also, he has proven his loyalty to our country. Senator Obama is a great orator, but he has no experience. At least, we know about Senator McCain and what he stands for. Being married to a wealthy woman doesn't discredit you from running for office.

"$700,000 for a 1,900-square foot, three-bedroom loft condo for her then-22-year-old daughter Meghan McCain"

That's actually a pretty good deal here. Obviously economizing.

hi

Wow, I've never read so many slanted comments in a long time.

Suck it up and stop whining. Wah, wah, wah, people are making "slanted" comments about your preferred candidates. You need to learn to deal with the fact that people don't like your guy, and if you guys are going to claim Obama's an "elitist" and bad-mouth his wife, Obama's supporters are going to come right back at the McCains with both barrels, and they're much more vulnerable.

Grow a spine, will you?

EP, there are many people who have a distorted view of GW Bush, colored by their own class insecurities and partisan blindness. That you happen to suffer from this is hardly my problem, but "Elitist Prick" is a pretty good descriptor for the petulant jerk in the oval office who's of the type that plenty of people are familiar with.

That you stubbornly claim otherwise is hardly my problem, but it bespeaks a stubborn denial of reality that plenty of people who observe the guy have been able to tell you about.

Who is doing the whining - sounds more like you are Tyro. I don't think you have anything to complain about with the treatment that Obama is getting with the media, etc. and I'm certainly entitled to my opinion and I really believe that Senator McCain will make a better president than Senator Obama.

Only {Septic Tanks] EU slang for Yanks ...Americans can be so full of slop as to crave dopey lapel pins.... wow a lapel pin? who cares? nations of culture and class never care about childish rubbish like the yanks do.

The crud, uncouth language Septics use is repulsive and typical of their uncouth, cowboy, classless hordes, a {Bunch} of everything you slobs, retared check for [Cheque] to lazy to use a Q you Seps? on and on the slop keeps pouring out, A Task for any JOB ...a spike for an increase. The slobs of the globe USA hated everywhere ok?

No doubt about it the