There was an article at Politico the other day by some Republican strategist about the GOP’s elitism problem. He actually claimed that both parties suffer from this, though his reasoning against the Democrats was misplaced – his reason was their ideology rather than their people even though they are rife with nepotism and millionaire lawyers. The truth is that both parties suffer from an elitism problem and the GOP needs to fix theirs.Elitism has long been a problem for the GOP. As far back as I can recall, our side has been represented by wealthy old men who were the sons of wealthy old men who held political office themselves. This is where the image of the country-club Republicans came from as these people were all from old-money and old-power. The Democrats were the same thing, but they were better at hiding it because:
(1) They claimed to represent the poor,Reagan changed the image of the party, but he couldn’t change the mindset. Yes, modern Republicans all claim to be outsiders, but few of them really are. To the contrary, they keep picking Washington insiders for everything they do. The problems with elitism are this:
(2) They were smarter about highlighting their women and minorities to give the appearance of a meritocracy, and
(3) The Republicans never leveled the charge of elitism. Why didn’t the Republicans level the charge of elitism? Because the Republicans were elitists and didn’t really see elitism as being a bad thing. Who could object to young Winthorp following in daddy’s footsteps after all?
(1) Bad PR. Americans love merit, not accidents of birth. Elitism is unAmerican. Electing elitists turns our ideology into nothing more than a vehicle for entitlement, and that is death with American voters.Sometimes, it shocks me that anyone could seriously consider voting for another Bush. How many disasters does it take before conservatives get the message? And why would anyone vote for the son of Quayle? The wife of Dole? The GOP needs new blood. Seriously, no more Bushes. No more Doles. No more Quayles. No more Cheneys. No more Kristols. No more spouses or kids of people in power. No more political lifers. If you spend your life in politics, what can you possibly know about the real world?
(2) The public knows the inbred kids of rich people are over-privileged morons who can’t be trusted with responsibilities. Moreover, elitism keeps out the smart and the capable in favor of the connected. That means the more of these people we have, the lower the brainpower of the party – essentially, we are surrounding ourselves with deadweight. Also, elitists cluster in bubbles so they don’t understand America or its citizens, which means they are a liability waiting to happen and they make our image problem worse.
(3) It’s impossible to point out how elitist/nepotistic the Democrats are when our side is the same thing.
The Republicans need to remake their image. They need to be seen as the party of small business, the party of entrepreneurs, the party of young workers and young families... the party of aspirations and the American dream. To do this, we need to get more people who fit that image and stop picking people who scream “privileged” and “nepotism.”
No more Bushes.
72 comments:
I should also point out, they've cloned another one... George P. Bush.
Never again...
I just about ripped my radio out the other day when I heard someone speculating about Jeb running for the White House in 2016. Unfortunately, I think there are a lot of Republican voters who probably think this is a good idea. The general line of reasoning is that so long as some thread can be traced back to Reagan, then that's as good as having Reagan again. Nevermind that H.W. was foisted upon Reagan by the elites.
I will quibble with you on one thing: Lately the GOP has taken to blasting elitism, but it's the establishment accusing outsiders of being establishment in order to keep them out. *shakes head* What can you do? What can you do?
tryanmax, Yeah, I feel pretty homicidal whenever people start talking about the Bushes as candidates. It makes me realize just how (string of expletives) stupid the public can be. Seriously, how many Bushes will get a crack at destroying conservatism forever before people catch on that they are not good for us?
I agree with your second point. The establishment has mastered tarring outsiders as "establishment." Bizarrely, too many conservatives don't seem to be able to tell the difference. Rick Santorum an outsider? Newt an outsider? WTF? Talk about low information voters.
I don't disagree with you at all. We need some fresh young faces whether it be Jindahl, Rubio, or someone I haven't seen yet. We are seen that way. And, I think Americans are tired of dynasties. One of the things that hurt Hillary in her primary battle with Obama was Clinton fatigue, although there are a lot of N.O.W. N.P.R. women out there who are hoping she runs in 2016 despite what appears to our side as a ton of baggage.
Jed, I agree. I think that most average people despise the idea of dynasties (though I think leftists like the idea because they see left-leaning dynasties as American royalty).
I see nothing to be gained from choosing people like George A-Z Bush Jr. III, and everything to be lost. The best they can do is waste a seat and disgrace us once again. They worst they can do is giving us Clinton/Obama. I wish more conservatives would wake up to this.
A Bush has won the Republican nomination every time they've tried and Bushes are the only Republicans who have won the presidency post-Reagan. Some might argue that if the Republicans want to win the presidency, they need a Bush...
Seriously, while I see no evidence Americans have anything against political dynasties unless Rubio, Ryan and Rand Paul (son on Ron Paul) decide not to run in 2016, there is no way a Bush has a shot.
Anthony, I've heard people making that same argument in all seriousness. It's such a phony argument though. It isn't as though we've had seven or eight Bushes in a row. There have only been two! It just shows how quickly people fall into dynastic thinking.
All true. However, I think it might be more helpful to define "elitism" more carefully. It gets thrown around a lot as a slanderous term without people really comprehending it, which just allows group X to manipulate it. There are surely a lot of people who would insist that it can be a good thing. Are we just talking about East Coast blue bloods, or what?
OT:
Bev, you have time to bug some libs??
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2013/03/who-you-gonna-call-kochbusters.php
Anthony, I don't think Bush has a chance, but unfortunately, too many people on our side keep falling for the idea of "he's different."
tryanmax, The problem is that people fall for the idea of name recognition, plus these people have a lot of allies. The pundit world is a big cliche of people who feel like they are insiders, so they pimp for insiders.
T-Rav, True. One of the uses that I've seen which is a problem is "anybody educated".
Elitism should be a pretty simple contest -- it's people who didn't earn their places based on merit, but instead got them because of family money and family connections. These people usually make it easy to spot them too by separating themselves from the rest of us in terms of lifestyle and views.
BTW, I'm going to Denver today, so talk amongst yourselves.
P.S. Bev, I sent you an e-mail.
New Pope elected! White smoke out of the chimney...don't know who it is yet...stay tuned
Bev, finally managed to find a live stream here at the coffee shop I'm at.
Can't pull away.
The new Pope is being announced at night at the Vatican. It looks so much like the night Pope John Paul II was introduced.
(Also reminds me of a scene in a movie about his life, "The Man Who Became Pope," when Polish workers, upon hearing of his election, cheer and march in unimaginable enthusiasm through their streets and factories. Faith triumphing over tyrannical communism. It always chokes me up.)
-Rustbelt
Anthony: I see no evidence Americans have anything against political dynasties ... there is no way a Bush has a shot.
That's what I thought about Romney in 2008. The Republican party has this "thing" about slotting in the next "Old boy" in line. In addition, the media will be pushing Bush as someone Hillary can beat the pants off in 2016.
Here it is folks -
Pope Francis formerly Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio of Argentina. Apparently he is a Jesuit which for Catholics and the Papacy is kind of a really big deal.
Bev, the Jesuits are a Catholic order founded by St. Ignatius of Loyola (a soldier who chose to become a monk), in the 16th century. Their primary purpose was to act as missionaries for the faith across the world. Today, they're also known for running Catholic schools as well and being strong advocates for better education. (I went to a non-Jesuit Catholic school, so I can't speak on too many specifics.)
The new Pope's name appears to a homage to St. Francis of Assisi.
May God grant him the wisdom to serve both Christ and His flock.
-Rustbelt
rlaWTX - Thanks for the head's up. I was wondering what happened to the Coffee Party! It seems from their website that they are really, really into demonizing the Koch brothers and pretty much...nothing else.
Coffee Party website link
I may go to their shindig on Thursday. It might be really entertaining.
Andrew - I agree with you, but then again, the Dems have the same problem including an major infestation of Kennedys (or is that Kennedies?) that are like cock roaches. They are everywhere all the time doing way too much bad stuff. They are either going to jail or they are running for something. The latest is Ted Kennedy, Jr. who is being groomed to run for Kerry's open Senate seat in Massachusetts. He'll probably win just because the voters probably don't remember that Ted Sr. is dead...
Bev, I haven't really followed the whole Pope selection. What do we know about this guy?
Rustbelt, Any thoughts on the new guy?
K, That's a huge problem. The GOP does have a thing for picking the next old guy in line. I really, really hope that changes. But I'm not hopeful.
Bev, I agree about the Democrats. They're actually worse than our side, but they have the benefit of having Hollywood and the media lionize their dynasties.
I just find this very frustrating that our side would even consider the inbred offspring of failed politicians to be a resource rather than a hindrance.
Andrew, Rustbelt, et al., we were talking a little about the new Pope during class this afternoon. A couple of ex-Catholics--or maybe they are still Catholics, but they're very left-wing--said they were annoyed with this guy because, like most of the post-John Paul II cardinals, he's very anti-liberation theology. So that's reason for optimism, I suppose.
Also, apparently non-Jesuit Catholics just love to talk smack about the Jesuits. I hadn't realized that. Even the priest in our class was laying them out.
Andrew - re: Bushes. I agree - No more Bushes. However, the Bush running in Texas has an added advantage of also being Hispanic.
As for the Pope Francis -
1. I just saw on CBS (I think). They were doing a last little blurb at the end of the broadcast. As they reported - if you believe in symbols and portents, they showed a camera shot of the smoke stack during the last vote of the day, when a white dove landed right on top of it. St. Francis is always painted with white doves flying around him or on his shoulder. Two hours later the smoke came out white and we had our new Pope - Pope Francis. Cool. It actually gave me goosebumps!
2. Pope Francis is a Jesuit from Argentina. And aside from being the first Jesuit, he is also the first non-European and first New World Pope. And according to reports I have read, he is a "human rights/rights of the poor" kind of priest. When he was ordained as Cardinal, he decided not to live in the cardinal's palace and lived in a small apartment, took public transportation and cooked his own meals. That is probably why he wore a simple cross when he came out on the balcony and not the jeweled cross of the Pope.
There are already rumors that he may have had a hand in the deaths of 2 liberal priests who were killed by the Argentinian Junta in the '70s. This is much like when Benedict was accused of being a Nazi though.
3. Jesuits From what I have read, Jesuits were established in the late 1500's by St. Ignasius of Loyola and St. Francis of Assisi. They are the evangelists of the Catholic church and were willing to go anywhere and suffer any indignity to spread the word of the Church. They are also known as the educators of the church and have established schools, universities and hospitals around the globe.
At the end of the 1700, they were "suppressed" by the church by decree and were not allowed to do their priestly thing except in Russian and Poland where Catherine the Great said "Niet" to the Pope. For some reason they were re-annexed back into the fold around 1814, but the scars are still present with the way the Jesuits are still somewhat disdained by other orders.
Oh, and he's also 76 years old and has one lung...
T-Rav, The Jesuits are supposedly more serious than the rest, but I haven't really paid much attention to it. The only Jesuits I know run Georgetown and they seem pretty non-Catholic to me.
Bev, As long as Texas promises not to let him cross state borders, then I don't care. But I will never vote for another Bush... ever. I swear I will knowingly vote for Satan first.
Bev, Thanks for the info.
So he's an old, one-lunged priest killing machine? Wow. The Church should put that in an ad, I'll bet they attract a lot of gamers. :)
Ok, two facetious questions...
1. Francis? Wasn't Francis a talking mule?
2. Do you think the Kenyan priest lost because the Church was weary of our poor experience with our own imported Kenyan leader?
Andrew, that seems kind of unfair. At least that guy admits to being from Kenya.
From people in the know I've talked to, the Jesuits are notorious as the most left-wing order of the Church, and have been that way since at least the '70s. It got so bad that John Paul II actually interfered in their elections for the head of the order once, to make sure they didn't pick a nut.
1. Uh, no, not the mule one. Though from what I have learned about Jesuits, he may be "mule-like"!
2. The African Cardinal was from Ghana...duh. But your observation still applies. Though his real first name is Peter and is probably why he lost. There will only be one Peter as Pope. According to Nostradamus, a second Pope named Peter portents the end of the Church...but then it IS Nostradamus who was Jewish. Oh, and there is something about a black Pope being the end of the Papacy too. But then, a friend said that the Jesuits are known as "black priests" or something like that. Whatever, it doesn't look good. Do I hear the hooves of the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse in the distance?
Bev, I had hoped that we had our first mule Pope! Why not? We already have a jack-ass for President. :)
Ghana... Kenya... same difference. Next thing you'll be trying to tell me there's a difference between Greece and Italy!
Nostradamus was Jewish? I did not know that.
No, that is not the hooves of the Four Horsemen. The Europeans ate the horses (rim shot!), so now they're the Four Public Transportation Users of the Apocalypse.
T-Rav, That might explain why Hollywood loves the Jesuits.
LOL!! I bet Nostradamus never saw THAT coming! Do you think the Four Public Transportation Users of the Apocalypse will take the bus or the subway??
I'm betting they will take the bus. The subway is too dangerous. ;)
Oh, and there's GOT to be something about it being 3-13-13 that must factor in somewhere as a portent of bad things to come, right? This whole new Pope thing has "portent" written all over it.
Bev, Why do I get the feeling you're a member of the Doomsday of the Month Club? :P
Yeah, and you've "been to Denver" again, haven't you? 8-P
Yep. LOL!
Bev, there's really nothing to worry about until the date is 13/13/13.
True. But whose calendar and what time zone?
Andrew, I don't understand the question. Isn't Margustuary on everybody's calendar? And it's the central time zone, of course. Because it's in the middle. :P
I'm Rustan orthopedix, so I don't recognize Margustuary, but my Februtober has 361 days. I agree about central time zone. I think the Bible mentions that specifically... somewhere in the appendix.
My Bible had an appendectomy, so I wouldn't know.
RE: Jesuits - my only firsthand knowledge of them is that Creighton University is a Jesuit school and it puts out most of the people who run Omaha, but they are of all political stripes, so I dunno.
From what I've read, it seems the criticism of Jesuits is all over the map, which suggests to me blind prejudice rather than ideological disagreement.
Mine is complete, right down to the bit about being for entertainment only. :P (Yeah, that's gonna make people happy.)
While I'm getting on everyone's good side, would you say that we should classify this Jesuit verses others issue as the Catholic Church having a problem with sects OR it is just a gang problem? :D
As long as they keep it in their own neighborhood, I don't care. LOL
LOL! Well played!
We should do this routine in a Muslim country and crack wise about Muhammad. I'm sure that would go over huge.
Sects problem?? So THAT's what they mean! And all of this time I thought it was sex! Silly me...
Bev, Yep. That's what they really mean. You know how the media likes to warp things.
Okay. Who brought the weed?
T-Rav, we don't need the weed. We've already gotten to the sects.
T-Rav, It's the sun man... it was almost 70 today and sunny and I was driving around with the sunroof open and the windows down and I think I burned my brain. 8D
Andrew, it wasn't a media distortion. They just aksed the wrong questions.
As an aside, I met a REALLY pissed off Obama voter today. She just discovered what Obamacare is going to do to her and she's absolutely furious at Obama. She was ranting and raving how she'd been lied to and how he's a crook, etc. I gave her even more reason to be angry. I hope similar things are happening all over the country. :)
oh the things I miss... sigh... :)
tryanmax, Silly media.
Andrew, I read an MSNBC article about how ObamaCare was going to raise insurance rates. I figure when even MSNBC can't keep it spun enough to limit the truth, then the word is def going to get out!
Andrew, on that same note, I have no idea what I was watching but I landed on some news program talking about raised costs of all sorts of things due to Obamacare. They were doing the typical split-screen pundit thing, and the reporter asks, "How is it that the President didn't know about these?" or something to that effect. I don't have the words...
rlaWTX, That's what you get for having a life! :)
tryanmax, That's exactly how this woman started, "How did Obama not realize this?" Then she moved into him being "a lying bastard" and into "What can we do about this? How do we get rid of this?"
:)
I told her about how the bill is a sop to insurance companies, which made her very angry, and some of the anti-competitive stuff. Then I reminded her of the tax hike she suffered in January, which made her even angrier. She finished with, "This is the first time I've ever been pissed off that I voted for someone."
Good times!
rlaWTX,
1. Rates going up as much as 300%.
2. Lots more people dumped off the plans than expected.
3. The fine will not be $500 like expected, but around $2800.
4. The IRS is demanding you complete a really intrusive form each year. It's estimated the basic form will take "45 minutes," which means 3 hours. If you have anything "complex" (basically anything other than a single W-2 with the same income as last year) then you get to fill out more forms.
The forms are also incomprehensible and then you need to pick a plan still.
Taxes are going up on all kinds of medical things jacking up the costs of everything from tanning to drugs to equipment.
Jobs lost.
Yep... good times.
Well at least she got to "lying bastard" on her own. I had to turn away pretty quick from that news program, b/c I couldn't take it, but for the brief moment I watched, the baseline assumption seemed to be that Obama was blindsided by his own signature legislation. Incredible!
Don't forget, veterinary bills are going to go up, too b/c, even though the medical devise taxes don't apply to things used only on animals, veterinarians use a lot of equipment that is used on humans, as well.
That would be, "medical device." Good night, folks!
tryanmax, If you think about, what other choice do they have? They can try to blame the Republicans, but there's no link to them. They can try to blame "insurance companies," but they aren't HHS and they aren't running the IRS or the exchanges. So it's either (1) Obama was duped or (2) Obama lied. They'll pick duped, at least until they can shift blame.
That's exactly how this woman started, "How did Obama not realize this?" Then she moved into him being "a lying bastard" and into "What can we do about this? How do we get rid of this?"
She had not heard Pelosi saying that we had to pass it to find out what´s in it? Ts, ts ... there really are low information voters.
Unfortunately she can´t vote against Obama ever again. 3 to 1 that within a year she will find a reason to vote for another liberal Democrat.
El Gordo, I suspect she will vote Democratic again as well because conservatives aren't offering anything to make her life better.
Post a Comment