jps
11-05-03, 12:52 AM
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1077949,00.html
This is an interesting take on American politics, and particularly, the Bush strategey.
Of particular interest to me is the discussion of the effort to shift people's focus from economic elitism to cultural elitism, and to make the republican party, the party of,by, and for the wealthy, into the party of ordinary people.
The band pumped out brassy dance tunes, many dedicated to the gritty urban realities of New York. A few couples in the black tie and taffeta crowd found a space to dance, but most milled about in the packed ballroom, gravitating towards the stage as they waited for the president.
Republicans used to detest New York as a heaving pit of liberalism, but since September 11 the city has become a patriotic icon. This Republican fundraising gala was in a Washington hotel, but the imagery was a pastiche of New York streetlife, complete with street signs and a mock facade of the Yankees' stadium. The catering followed the same theme.
These politically charged dinners are normally five-course affairs eaten off white linen, but the folksiness of the Bush White House has by now pervaded the Republican party. The menu on this night was hot dogs and peanuts, served from food carts and eaten standing up.
"I think it's great because I thinks folks would rather be eating hot dogs with President Bush than sipping wine and nibbling cheese with Hillary Clinton," declared George Allen, a Virginia senator.
Note the final quote, which implies that this individual believes the clinton's to be elitist snobs whereas bush is a regular hot dog eating guy. Now if you look at the backgrounds of the two, you'll find that the clinton's come from far more ordinary backgrounds then Bush.
The article goes into more detail on how Bush pretends to be a populist who cares about working people by having his supporters dress up like workers, etc. while his administration is one of the wealthiest in history(every member a millionaire) and is clearly working in the interest of the wealthy, with tax cuts of which more than half go to the top 1%. and makes some interesting historical comparisons.
I'm left with the question of why do the democrats let him get away with this? Why don't they call him on it? How can they let bush get away with calling them elitist snobs?(i mean, really, both parties are made up largely of elitist snobs, but the democrats policies are certainly more in line with working people) How come we don't see any democratic candidate stand up and say "We're going to get this rich bastard aristocrat, who's never worked a day in his life and has no conception of ordinary people's lives out of the white house!" Why let him get away with such an obvious deception?
This is an interesting take on American politics, and particularly, the Bush strategey.
Of particular interest to me is the discussion of the effort to shift people's focus from economic elitism to cultural elitism, and to make the republican party, the party of,by, and for the wealthy, into the party of ordinary people.
The band pumped out brassy dance tunes, many dedicated to the gritty urban realities of New York. A few couples in the black tie and taffeta crowd found a space to dance, but most milled about in the packed ballroom, gravitating towards the stage as they waited for the president.
Republicans used to detest New York as a heaving pit of liberalism, but since September 11 the city has become a patriotic icon. This Republican fundraising gala was in a Washington hotel, but the imagery was a pastiche of New York streetlife, complete with street signs and a mock facade of the Yankees' stadium. The catering followed the same theme.
These politically charged dinners are normally five-course affairs eaten off white linen, but the folksiness of the Bush White House has by now pervaded the Republican party. The menu on this night was hot dogs and peanuts, served from food carts and eaten standing up.
"I think it's great because I thinks folks would rather be eating hot dogs with President Bush than sipping wine and nibbling cheese with Hillary Clinton," declared George Allen, a Virginia senator.
Note the final quote, which implies that this individual believes the clinton's to be elitist snobs whereas bush is a regular hot dog eating guy. Now if you look at the backgrounds of the two, you'll find that the clinton's come from far more ordinary backgrounds then Bush.
The article goes into more detail on how Bush pretends to be a populist who cares about working people by having his supporters dress up like workers, etc. while his administration is one of the wealthiest in history(every member a millionaire) and is clearly working in the interest of the wealthy, with tax cuts of which more than half go to the top 1%. and makes some interesting historical comparisons.
I'm left with the question of why do the democrats let him get away with this? Why don't they call him on it? How can they let bush get away with calling them elitist snobs?(i mean, really, both parties are made up largely of elitist snobs, but the democrats policies are certainly more in line with working people) How come we don't see any democratic candidate stand up and say "We're going to get this rich bastard aristocrat, who's never worked a day in his life and has no conception of ordinary people's lives out of the white house!" Why let him get away with such an obvious deception?