The key question is not whether leftist politicians have become elites (they do regularly) but whether their agenda supports elites and whether they get support from the elites, which happens very rarely. There is a lot of self-serving political decisions made by both left and right politicians from which politicians benefit, but the left politicians are nevertheless still more connected with lower classes than the right politicians.
Somewhat special example were/are communist countries where the non-political aspects of social status are reduced and the groups of communists and elites have large overlap. These countries, when compared internationally, are “left”, but in the internal politics there is usually little place for using “left” and “right” as the left and right are relative characteristics which are useless when there is only one political party.
The key question is not whether leftist politicians have become elites (they do regularly) but whether their agenda supports elites and whether they get support from the elites, which happens very rarely.
I wasn’t just referring to politicians, but to the liberal intelligentsia.
but the left politicians are nevertheless still more connected with lower classes than the right politicians.
I don’t know what the situation is in the Czech Republic, but in the US while this was probably somewhat true a generation ago, it’s highly dubious today. (Although of course liberals like to think it’s still true.)
I don’t know what the situation is in the Czech Republic, but in the US while this was probably somewhat true a generation ago, it’s highly dubious today.
I’m reminded of a quote from a hippy band during the Vietnam War. Paraphrased:
We thought we were representing the working class. Then we realized the working class were the ones beating us with nightsticks.
I don’t know what the situation is in the Czech Republic, but in the US while this was probably somewhat true a generation ago, it’s highly dubious today. (Although of course liberals like to think it’s still true.)
Especially when you consider things like gay marriage or free immigration, causes universally approved of (in public, at least) by the liberal intelligentsia, but very unpopular among several core Democratic groups.
The key question is not whether leftist politicians have become elites (they do regularly) but whether their agenda supports elites and whether they get support from the elites, which happens very rarely. There is a lot of self-serving political decisions made by both left and right politicians from which politicians benefit, but the left politicians are nevertheless still more connected with lower classes than the right politicians.
Somewhat special example were/are communist countries where the non-political aspects of social status are reduced and the groups of communists and elites have large overlap. These countries, when compared internationally, are “left”, but in the internal politics there is usually little place for using “left” and “right” as the left and right are relative characteristics which are useless when there is only one political party.
I wasn’t just referring to politicians, but to the liberal intelligentsia.
I don’t know what the situation is in the Czech Republic, but in the US while this was probably somewhat true a generation ago, it’s highly dubious today. (Although of course liberals like to think it’s still true.)
I’m reminded of a quote from a hippy band during the Vietnam War. Paraphrased:
Especially when you consider things like gay marriage or free immigration, causes universally approved of (in public, at least) by the liberal intelligentsia, but very unpopular among several core Democratic groups.