So you want me to guess how would you set up this hypothetical and then guess again what would be the outcome?
Is the idea that we can argue afterwards about what the outcome of that imaginary situation could be, using words like “realistic”? X-D
What, never? Well, hardly ever.
Individual politicians, sure. That’s just the accusation of being a traitor to the “masses” or, alternatively, of being a LINO (Left In Name Only, see RINO and DINO). Plus, of course, you just throw all the mud you have and see what sticks :-/
But I don’t recall many accusations of Democrats (or Labour) as a political movement of being just a front for the elites, other than from the certifiably extreme left.
So you want me to guess how you would set up this hypothetical and then guess again what would be the outcome?
Not if you think the answer is highly sensitive to the details of how you guess. I don’t think it is, but evidently you do.
(Which is, as I said two comments upthread, an answer to my question of which of my guesses about the outcome of this hypothetical experiment you disagreed with.)
Individual politicians, sure. [...] But I don’t recall many accusations of Democrats (or Labour) as a political movement of being just a front for the elites
Ah, I see. Yup, I’ll agree that that accusation is sometimes made by lefties about the Right as a whole (or at least big chunks of it) and very rarely if at all by righties about the Left as a whole (or big chunks of it). I’m not sure this makes for an actual compelling argument—the context, recall, was whether it’s more unreasonable for lefties than for righties to complain that their political opponents are pandering to the masses instead of listening to the wisdom of the elites. Remember (not that I expect you need reminding) that “the elites” and “the rich” are not the same thing. The people some lefties are accusing some righties of not listening to are not really the same people as those some lefties are accusing some righties of being in the pockets of.
(Note, by the way, that if someone on the right accuses someone on the left—or indeed anyone at all—of being ‘a traitor to the “masses”’, then unless they’re just saying “of course I have no problem with that, but you guys should” they are in fact claiming to speak for those “masses”.)
By the way, you said that the left and the right changed over the past 20 years so that there is no “by default” association of the left with the masses any more. Why do you think so? It sounds like an unusual position to me.
I think the political right tries harder than it used to to appeal to those masses. The left says to the masses “Unlike those bastards on the right, we are going to look out for your economic interests”. The right says to the masses “Unlike those perverts on the left, we are going to respect your values”. (Of course I am caricaturing in both cases, and of course both sides say a little of both those things, and of course the Left/Right dichotomy is a simplification, yadda yadda yadda.)
So, if Team Blue claims to act in the interests of the masses and Team Red claims to share the values of the masses, which one is acting more hilariously/hypocritically if it criticizes its opponents for ignoring the opinions of the elites?
Well, people like Thatcher or Reagan were popular—notably, with the masses—and they predate the shift that you are talking about.
In the US context that would imply that during the Clinton years the Republicans decided they needed to “appeal to those masses” and the result was the success of Bush Jr. That doesn’t look terribly persuasive to me—Bush wasn’t that appealing to the lower classes. The rightist rants for family values and against the degeneracy of the left were also pretty standard fare for more than a couple of decades.
In the UK context this means that after Tony Blair came to power the Tories decided they need more mass appeal and again, I don’t see much evidence for this suggestion. Just like Bush, Cameron was a fairly standard conservative leader.
So you want me to guess how would you set up this hypothetical and then guess again what would be the outcome?
Is the idea that we can argue afterwards about what the outcome of that imaginary situation could be, using words like “realistic”? X-D
Individual politicians, sure. That’s just the accusation of being a traitor to the “masses” or, alternatively, of being a LINO (Left In Name Only, see RINO and DINO). Plus, of course, you just throw all the mud you have and see what sticks :-/
But I don’t recall many accusations of Democrats (or Labour) as a political movement of being just a front for the elites, other than from the certifiably extreme left.
Not if you think the answer is highly sensitive to the details of how you guess. I don’t think it is, but evidently you do.
(Which is, as I said two comments upthread, an answer to my question of which of my guesses about the outcome of this hypothetical experiment you disagreed with.)
Ah, I see. Yup, I’ll agree that that accusation is sometimes made by lefties about the Right as a whole (or at least big chunks of it) and very rarely if at all by righties about the Left as a whole (or big chunks of it). I’m not sure this makes for an actual compelling argument—the context, recall, was whether it’s more unreasonable for lefties than for righties to complain that their political opponents are pandering to the masses instead of listening to the wisdom of the elites. Remember (not that I expect you need reminding) that “the elites” and “the rich” are not the same thing. The people some lefties are accusing some righties of not listening to are not really the same people as those some lefties are accusing some righties of being in the pockets of.
(Note, by the way, that if someone on the right accuses someone on the left—or indeed anyone at all—of being ‘a traitor to the “masses”’, then unless they’re just saying “of course I have no problem with that, but you guys should” they are in fact claiming to speak for those “masses”.)
By the way, you said that the left and the right changed over the past 20 years so that there is no “by default” association of the left with the masses any more. Why do you think so? It sounds like an unusual position to me.
I think the political right tries harder than it used to to appeal to those masses. The left says to the masses “Unlike those bastards on the right, we are going to look out for your economic interests”. The right says to the masses “Unlike those perverts on the left, we are going to respect your values”. (Of course I am caricaturing in both cases, and of course both sides say a little of both those things, and of course the Left/Right dichotomy is a simplification, yadda yadda yadda.)
So, if Team Blue claims to act in the interests of the masses and Team Red claims to share the values of the masses, which one is acting more hilariously/hypocritically if it criticizes its opponents for ignoring the opinions of the elites?
Well, people like Thatcher or Reagan were popular—notably, with the masses—and they predate the shift that you are talking about.
In the US context that would imply that during the Clinton years the Republicans decided they needed to “appeal to those masses” and the result was the success of Bush Jr. That doesn’t look terribly persuasive to me—Bush wasn’t that appealing to the lower classes. The rightist rants for family values and against the degeneracy of the left were also pretty standard fare for more than a couple of decades.
In the UK context this means that after Tony Blair came to power the Tories decided they need more mass appeal and again, I don’t see much evidence for this suggestion. Just like Bush, Cameron was a fairly standard conservative leader.