posted October 01, 2004 02:30 AM            

Democrats: the party of the little guy. Republicans: the party of the wealthy. Those images of America's two major political wings have been frozen for generations. The stereotypes were always a little off, incomplete, exaggerated. (Can you say Adlai Stevenson?) But like most stereotypes, they reflected rough truths.

No more. Starting in the 1960s and '70s, whole blocs of "little guys"--ethnics, rural residents, evangelicals, cops, construction workers, homemakers, military veterans--began moving into the Republican column. And big chunks of America's rich elite--financiers, academics, heiresses, media barons, software millionaires, entertainers--drifted into the Democratic Party.

The extent to which the parties have flipped positions on the little-guy/rich-guy divide is illustrated by research from the Ipsos-Reid polling firm. Comparing counties that voted strongly for Bush to those that voted strongly for Gore in the 2000 election, the study shows that in pro-Bush counties only 7 percent of voters earned at least $100,000, while 38 percent had household incomes below $30,000. In the pro-Gore counties, fully 14 percent pulled in $100,000 or more, while 29 percent earned less than $30,000.

It is "becoming harder by the day to take the Democrats seriously as the party of the common man," writes columnist Daniel Henninger. "The party's primary sources of support have become trial lawyers and Wall Street financiers. It is becoming a party run by a new class of elites who make fast money--$25 million for 30 days work on a movie, millions (even billions) winning lawsuits against doctors...millions to do arithmetic for a business merger."

Obviously both parties have their fat cats, but Federal Election Commission data show that many of the very wealthiest political players are now in the Democratic column. Today's most aggressive political donors by far are lawyers--who donated $98 million dollars to 2004 political candidates as of June. (By comparison, the entire oil and gas industry donated $13 million.) And rich lawyers do indeed tilt strongly Democratic: 71 percent of their contributions went to Democrats, 29 percent to Republicans.

Migration of the rich and powerful to the Democrats has been so pronounced that Democratic nominee John Kerry has actually pulled in much more money than sitting President George Bush this spring and summer. Kerry's monthly fundraising totals have routinely doubled or even tripled Bush's totals. And the money on the Kerry side has come much more from rich individuals, while Bush has relied on flocks of small donors. So which is the party of the people now?

John Kerry is in many ways a perfect embodiment of the Democratic Party's takeover by wealthy elites. Experts describe his genealogy as "more royal than any previous American President." There is a long line of blue blood and inherited funds in his family, and his life has been anything but typically American: Mom was an heiress summering at her family's resort estate in France when she met dad, a Phillips Andover/Yale/Harvard Law School alum who was passing his own summer of 1937 in France "as an apprentice in a sculptor's studio." John's early boyhood was spent in a grand house outside Boston bought with inherited money. At age ten he was packed off to a fancy boarding school in Switzerland, and "for the next seven years of his life, this would become routine: His parents would send him off to boarding school and he would adapt anew to a world of competitive boys from wealthy, privileged families," as Kerry's Boston Globe biographers summarize.

Kerry spent his high school years at St. Paul's prep school, with a rich aunt paying the bills. He described himself at that point as being "from Oslo, Norway" (where his father was then posted as a diplomat). At St. Paul's and then Yale, Kerry whirled through hoity-toity circles with Auchinclosses and Bundys and trust-funders of all sorts, and when it came time for marrying, he showed the darnedest luck at finding true loves with true money. His first wife was worth $300 million; his second is a billionaire.

Between heiresses, Kerry had to live on his own earnings, and the results were not pretty. His spending on high life exceeded his income to the point of functional bankruptcy. But most of his life has been grand: hundred-dollar haircuts by Christophe, Old Master paintings, and expensive toys of all sorts. His five current houses, one more achingly exclusive than the next--Beacon Hill, Georgetown, Nantucket, Fox Chapel, Sun Valley--could keep a producer for "MTV Cribs" filming and looking up synonyms for "fabulous" for most of a year. Yet of course politically, Kerry is a man of the left. National Journal rates his record the most liberal in the U.S. Senate (John Edwards is tied for second).

The term "limousine liberal" doesn't adequately capture how disconnected Democrats like John Kerry (and Jay Rockefeller, and Barbara Streisand, and Jon Corzine--there are now many such) are from everyday American life. They are more like "Learjet liberals," who literally pronounce their poxes on oil executives and cattlemen from leather sofas floating at 15,000 feet inside their personal jets (which consume 1,200 gallons of fuel every time they streak their enlightened owner to an Idaho skiing weekend or Cape sailing jaunt).

John Kerry is a man who will ignore his own car registration fees and parking tickets and dinner tabs, while cavalierly calling pharmaceutical scientists "selfish" and "irresponsible." He is a fellow who made no charitable donations for years on end, while excoriating other Americans for being "hard-hearted" and "greedy." Some tribune of the ordinary guy.

In this issue of The American Enterprise, Chris Weinkopf, Joel Kotkin, and other contributors limn John Kerry's separation from middle-class America. They connect Kerry's rarefied politics back to New England, the region that produced him, as well as the other Democratic favorite this year, Howard Dean. New England is an area well out of the American mainstream in many ways. Politically, it is more liberal than the rest of America. Economically it often resembles Europe more than the rest of the country. And culturally, New England is far more prone to elitism than any other part of the U.S.

New England's elitism--and the resulting tendency of its politicians to assign decision making to a managerial class at the top of society--is the quality that propels it most emphatically out of mainstream American practice. Being ruled by the Harvard faculty might appeal to the electors who sent John Kerry and Ted Kennedy to the Senate, but it sounds like a nightmare to most of the rest of America.

Americans grow up imbued with a deep sense that, while we each have our special talents, every man is fundamentally as worthy as another. This springs from both our religious traditions and the egalitarian principles on which our government was founded. And historically it has been everyday yeomen, not lords, who did most of the building and defending of America.

Most every rifleman who fought in our Revolution could read and write, had a good understanding of the issues for which he was fighting, and had firm opinions on the principles at stake in the war. In Europe at that same time, the officers were generally the only ones who were literate. As he shaped these proud, obstreperous, self-governing men into an army, George Washington found he had to adapt to the "levelling spirit," where "the principles of democracy so universally prevail."

Reinforcing our philosophical egalitarianism is the fact that America (as Daniel Boorstin pointed out) has traditionally been a culture without a capital. At the time of our founding, more than 95 percent of the population lived outside the major cities, and we continue to be a highly dispersed, localized, and independent-minded people, quite resistant to bossing from the center.

Average Americans believe elitism is not only wrong in principle, but also ineffective. And they are correct. In his new book The Wisdom of Crowds, James Surowiecki of The New Yorker demonstrates that a cross-section of everyday people will generally prove better at solving knotty societal problems than any fraternity of experts. He presents many proofs for the conclusion--long promoted in these pages--that ordinary citizens possess forms of knowledge, intuition, and moral sense that make them better arbiters of critical national debates than any educated elite. This is not just rabblerousing, but a time-tested reality that explains much of the brilliant success of America and the common people who have come to her shores.

America's distaste for elitism might once have trans-lated into a distrust for conservatism. But today, with country-club Republicans having been swept aside by NASCAR Republicans, there is nothing undemocratic about American conservatism. It is now liberalism that is the dominant creed among elites.

Over the last generation, Harvard political scientist Samuel Huntington reports, professional elites have become both "less nationalistic" and "more liberal than the American public. This is revealed by 20 public opinion surveys from 1974 to 2000." One authoritative study of a dozen different elites, including top civil servants, lawyers, religious authorities, military officers, entertainment moguls, union leaders, non-profit managers, business executives, and media elites, found that every one of these groups but two (businesspeople and the military) was twice to three times as liberal as the public at large.

It's not as if the Democrats have taken over the top of the socio-economic ladder and the Republicans the bottom. Rather, the Democrats dominate at the very upper and lowest rungs, while Republicans find their following in the middle. When you slice by education rather than income, for example, you find that both high school dropouts and graduate students are heavily Democratic, while high school grads and those with bachelor's degrees (the educational middle) are predominantly Republican.

I was speaking not long ago with someone in the publishing industry about the new book imprints and clubs that have recently been founded by several major publishers to cater specifically to politically conservative readers (who have previously been neglected by booksellers). He told me that the New York publishers had been pleasantly surprised by the spending, loyalty, and depth of the conservative reading public. We at TAE could have told them that a long time ago, but they only became interested when the conservative middle proved to be too large and lucrative a mass market to ignore.

So we're in an interesting new era. The Right has become a thinking party, with rich intellectual resources, that is simultaneously dead-set against political elitism and cultural snobbery. In many past issues of The American Enterprise we've described how conservatism has laid claim to America's quiet but multitudinous middle class. Now in this issue we look at the other side of the political spectrum: at how the Left has come to dominate among the overclass and underclass that bracket the conservative middle.

posted October 01, 2004 07:40 AM              

MR. McCLELLAN: No, they -- absolutely not, Connie. And I don't know what's happened with those gifts. I'll try to check into it.

posted October 01, 2004 01:09 PM            

Thank you for posting the article. I think that most people want to believe that the democrat party represents the poor, when infact the dem party really uses the poor and minorities to promote their own agenda. People would be surprised to learn that of the top 10 political donors at least 7 of them donate almost exclusively to the Democrat party. Not only that, but like you stated in that article, the trial lawyers association donates the most and out-donates by millions. Big oil and gun rights fall way below the top 20.

I will go through some of the past threads and post the site that lists all of the donors and recipients so that others won't think this is just more of that "vast right wing" conspiracy. LOL.

A -

Tax cuts went those that paid into the system. The cut was directly proportional to the amount that was taxed. It is proven that when people have money they tend to spend it which generates more business and therefore boosts the economy. We are at a stage right now, economically, similar to 1996 with Clinton. In 1996 the dems praised Clinton for the robust economy and job rate. Don't you think it is a bit odd that we now use those same numbers to discredit the current President without even considering the financial impact of 9-11?

Petron,

I would advise that if you have an actual smoking gun concerning the gifts then you should post it. Using a question from an ill spoken journalist as factual content and not doing the homework to back it up is pretty weak.

My father was an undercover narcotics agent that received gifts from drug dealers all the time. He had to document the gifts, which where then turned over for auction. He was not allowed to keep them. I am sure the same holds true in the case of the presidency. Most often gifts are turned over the government and placed either in the white house on display or in the Smithsonian. If they desire to keep the gift, they must pay for it. Don't you remember when so many of the gifts from the Clinton administration went missing? LOL...

posted October 01, 2004 01:12 PM              

I'm an equal oppertunity hater

Polititians (typically) are rat b*stards.

posted October 01, 2004 01:24 PM            

I'll see if I have the patience to find it LOL..I know it is posted here on GU because I had to use it in a few debates. I would rather find the link because the stats are so messy to repost again.

I am with you, I think that it is absurd for any politician to pretend they represent the "little" people.

One reason I chose to be Republican (among many of our similar beliefs) is that I feel that the party does not make me out to feel that as a minority I need special attention. I always found it embarassing to have some politician BS about how minorities need more points spotted to us on tests or to fill a quota for a job. It made my degrees and hard work feel less that what it was because others thought I received the special breaks. I didn't and in the job market I felt I had to work harder to prove I wasn't just some "quota filler".

posted October 01, 2004 02:00 PM              

"The Saudi royal family's gifts dwarfed those of other world leaders"

Published on Thursday, August 5, 2004 by Knight-Ridder http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0805-06.htm

posted October 01, 2004 02:56 PM            

How are you? The move went well, but I did have a few Merc retrograde problems. The movers showed up without mats and ended up scratching the majority of my good wood furniture. Oh well, at least my books and keepsakes stayed in good condition. That is what matters

We haven't set a date yet, but we are thinking sometime in 2005 (anytime between May and December). He may re-enlist in the Army for another year due to signing up for investigator school (he is an MP right now- K9-unit). I am currently checking out the area looking for work- there seems to be a few great leads How are you doing? Did you update your travel thread about how things went?

posted October 01, 2004 03:33 PM            

This is the data I came up for those that use the "tax cuts for the rich" mantra.
http://www.linda-goodman.com/ubb/Forum16/HTML/000618.html

posted October 01, 2004 03:56 PM              

A wedding between May and December for a girl who loves Leo fun? Maybe you should consider having it on Lughnasahd. It is an ancient Day of Power celebrated at the beginning of August. A lovely golden Leo time for a wedding.

I'm doing great. I also had a Merc retrograde moment when a power surge fried my office computer. It was kind of like a death and I lost way more stuff than I should have. OK, NOW I'll remember to back things up more often. I did write a thread about my summer adventures. I have pictures now, so I really should scan them and put them in for people to see. The beaches alone are worth looking at. Also, I have talked to an archaeologist friend named Two Eyes who was on the dig and had fresh info to share.

posted October 01, 2004 03:57 PM            

Of course, that wasn't the spin the Clinton's put on gifts given during the Clinton Administration. The Clinton's attempted to rip the US off and stole them or attempted to steal them. They got caught and had to return hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of "gifts" they had stolen from the White House.

Petron, if the left didn't have the lie, rumor, gossip, innuendo and character assassinations to put forth, they wouldn't have anything to say at all. In the case of the article you linked, the lie is in the question.

Like this Petron.

Questions remain about John Kerry. Is John Kerry a member of the International Communist Party.

Can Kerry's membership in the Communist Party be deduced from his actions immediately following his Vietnam tour of duty? Can his membership be deduced from his alliance with Viet Cong and N. Vietnamese Communists in the government there?

If one were looking for proof Kerry is a Communist Party member, could one find the proof in his voting record in the Senate where Kerry adopted and propounded the positions of Communist nations and voted for every bill to weaken both the military and intelligence services of the United States?

Is John Kerry a Communist or just a "useful idiot" marching in lockstep with world wide Communism?

posted October 01, 2004 04:32 PM              

March 30, 2002

Saudi $ for Clinton

WASHINGTON -- Bill Clinton not only received a $750,000 speaking fee for going to Saudi Arabia in January but came back with a hefty pledge for his presidential library in Little Rock, Ark., according to high-ranking Saudis. Estimates range from less than $1 million to $20 million.

A Clinton library spokesman told this column he had heard nothing about this contribution and would not tell us if he had. But Saudi sources say the pledge was made by the royal family, following a similar gift to the elder George Bush's presidential library. The Bush library lists a contribution by the family of Prince Bandar bin Sultan, Saudi ambassador to Washington, among "gifts of $1 million and above."

A footnote: Prince Talal bin Abdul Aziz, chairman of the Arab Gulf Fund for the United Nations, attacked Clinton's visit to Saudi Arabia because of the former president's pro-Israeli views. Talal often dissents from the royal family's mainstream

posted October 01, 2004 07:40 PM            

UGH!!! Sorry to hear about your computer. That is horrible. I had some kind of weirdo virus wreak havoc with mine a few months back,but luckily I didn't lose any valuable information.

I think that August sounds like a good time for a wedding- I know that the month ruled by the Lion might not be the best for my Taurus mate, but hmmmmm...he does have his sun in the first house.

OMG..speaking about weddings how is this for eerie... about a week ago I have this dream about my deceased grandmother telling me to look for something. Some documents or something of that nature. She said it would be important and have an impact on a decision.
About an hour ago I hooked up my VCR and TV and wanted to make sure it all worked. I grabbed the first VHS tape (yes, I know DVD's are the thing, but this is just for the guest room / my office). So I put in the tape and I almost choked. It was of my wedding to the Virgo in May 2000. That isn't what made me choke. There was my grandmother on the tape, smiling and watching me on that day. (She is a Leo by the way).

I watched at the pastor lead the ceremony and just kind of had this freak out moment. See, I NEVER watched the tape after the wedding. In fact, I never even made copies of the pictures to send or to blow up for the house. It was like the day passed and I just put everything away, that is until today. As I watched the tape for a few minutes, I asked myself "Can I really go through this again?"

Transit wise...well this is to be expected, the freak out spell that is. I have Mars, Jupiter, Mercury and the Sun all in my 1st house sending opposition beams to my Aries moon in the 7th house. LOL....

Mr. Taurus does love animals, not as much as me, but he has this wonderful affinity to attract animals and kids. He is extremely allergic to my cats, but he is dealing with it and he takes care of them when I am away.

WOW...we really did take over this thread didn't we?

Sorry if we bothered anyone

A -