I am not a fan of making predictions.
It is hard to do, and I am afraid of being wrong – as I have been earlier in this election cycle.
But I will make a prediction – though it’s not much of a prediction because it is already, to a degree, being fulfilled.
Nonetheless, here it goes:
When either Sen. Barack Obama or Sen. Hillary Clinton finally wrap up the Democratic nomination, they will be painted as “liberal elites” – sometimes even “far-left liberal elites,” or worse, “ultra-liberal elites.”
Like I said, this beast already reared its head in the aftermath of Obama’s “bitter” comments. It happened to Democratic contender Sen. John Kerry in the 2004 Presidential Election, and it served as an effective fear tactic for the Republican Party. But like most labels, “liberal elite” is a misleading term.
The first, and perhaps most important, criticism for “liberal elite” stems from the real meaning of the word “liberal.” We tend to use “Democrat” and “liberal” interchangeably, ignoring the simple fact that they do not always coincide.
Much to the chagrin of real liberal activist groups like MoveOn.org and liberal blogs like Daily Kos, modern Democrats tend to be far more centrist than many realize. Obama and Clinton are no exception.
Both candidates’ proposed healthcare policies involve preserving the private insurance sector and offering tax credits to help stem rising costs. These plans – especially Obama’s – have received chilly receptions from liberal activists, like Michael Moore, who prefer a more rigorous restructuring of the U.S. healthcare system. Healthcare, though, is only the beginning.
Obama’s support for nuclear energy as “reasonable and realistic” has come at odds with environmental activists. And the absence of a carbon tax – a proposal favored by former Vice President Al Gore – from both candidates’ environmental platforms has also garnered criticism.
Clinton “strongly” lobbied members of Congress to support her husband’s crime bill that aimed to expand the number of crimes eligible for the death penalty, according to an October 2005 article in The New York Times. Many liberals are also quick accuse Clinton of being a closet war hawk – and her statements in an ABC interview on Monday didn’t ease those accusations.
“I want the Iranians to know that if I’m the president, we will attack Iran,” Clinton said. “In the next ten years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them.”
In response, Open Left blogger Matt Stoller wrote, “I’m having a harder and harder time seeing the difference between McCain and Clinton.”
Of course, Democrats lean further left than Republicans, and many Democrats certainly embrace large portions of a liberal platform – but these activist liberal groups have often felt neglected by the majority wing of the Democratic Party.
While Obama enjoys the support of the majority of the liberal blogosphere, it is important to note that these endorsements come despite some of his policies – not necessarily because they always see eye-to-eye.
The “elite” part of “liberal elite” is by far the most annoying part of the term.
It’s not that Clinton and Obama aren’t elite. They are. And it is not that elitism is always bad. It isn’t.
The kicker is that Republicans often successfully pretend they are not elite.
There was a common narrative in the 2004 Presidential Election that more people would rather have a beer with George Bush than Kerry because Kerry was so elitist and out-of-touch – thus, making Bush appear to be approachable and “like one of us.” Pardon me while I throw up.
It was simply the summation of Bush’s tactic.
Bush is from the same Ivy League, Skull and Bones wealthy fabric that Kerry is, and Bush was a millionaire well before ever becoming president.
But 2008 is not 2004, right? People will not fall for that again, will they? That is a prediction I will not make, but I do believe the Republicans are gearing up to try it again.
Enter Sen. John McCain.
Obama’s implication that economically-ignored, rural voters are bitter – thus, they “cling” to guns and religion – gave McCain the perfect opportunity to point out that Obama is an out-of-touch “elitist.” Never mind, of course, that Obama worked as a community organizer in Southside Chicago, often working directly in impoverished communities.
I cannot deny that Obama is an elitist – his quick rise to fame has seen his personal wealth climb into the $4 million range, according to Politico.com. But McCain is an elitist too. In fact, most – if not all – successful presidential candidates are elitists, at least by what an average person would consider.
McCain and his wife, Cindy, filed taxes separately. So when his returns were made public, they revealed the modest $400K income of a U.S. Senator. However, Cindy has a personal fortune worth more than $100 million, according to AP estimates.
Given those numbers, I doubt the McCain camp will be interested in debating semantics.
—-Contact Nate Monroe at [email protected]