Decius wrote:
Republicans have long attacked "elite" segments of society (by which they mean well educated, rather than rich)...

Well... not really. As a political term, "elite" is normally used (primarily, by those on the right) to refer to those (primarily on the left, but of any political leaning) who (elite in their own minds) think they know how to run the lives of most other Americans better than those Americans know how to run their own lives. Those who think that way are justly criticized. Within that context, the term "elite" does not specifically refer to education or wealth, but an unjustified attitude of superiority that flies in the face of the phrase "we the people."

While there are certainly those on the right who tend to resent science when it contradicts their religious beliefs (e.g., evolution vs. creationism), there are also those on the left who resent science when it's inconvenient for them (e.g., denying that human life begins at conception). Those positions are sometimes referred to as being "anti-intellectual" or "resenting the well-educated," which is probably accurate more often than not, but that's different from criticism of the "elite" by the right (mainly Republicans).

As for Hillary Clinton's use (or misuse) of the term, she'll say anything that she thinks fits the moment. The gas tax holiday (as proposed by McCain and Clinton) is a silly idea, and those who oppose it (Obama) are simply applying common sense.

Decius wrote:
Its a bipartisan consensus! Being smart or informed is bad!

It's been that way for a long time, my friend. I agree with you, but I don't see this as anything new.

Stefanie wrote:

Decius wrote:
Republicans have long attacked "elite" segments of society (by which they mean well educated, rather than rich)...

Well... not really. As a political term, "elite" is normally used (primarily, by those on the right) to refer to those (primarily on the left, but of any political leaning) who (elite in their own minds) think they know how to run the lives of most other Americans better than those Americans know how to run their own lives. Those who think that way are justly criticized. Within that context, the term "elite" does not specifically refer to education or wealth, but an unjustified attitude of superiority that flies in the face of the phrase "we the people."

I agree with most of what you've said here but I think you are being disingenuous when you argue that the term "elite" is used to refer only to those who think they know how to run other people's lives. Conservatives are constantly trying to sell the idea that their party is interested in individual liberty and "leaving well enough alone" and frankly I don't find it credible at all. The term "elite" is constantly used by conservative commentators in the context of attacking law professors and the supreme court when the constitution is interpreted in such a way that it prevents conservative efforts to control people's lives with legislation. For example, a google search for "liberal elite" aclu returns about 13,000 results. Show me someone who thinks that Republican party is the party of individual freedom and I will show you someone who has rationalized that freedom and power mean the same thing.

Decius wrote:
I agree with most of what you've said here but I think you are being disingenuous when you argue that the term "elite" is used to refer only to those who think they know how to run other people's lives.

Anyone can misuse the term (knowingly or not), but when used appropriately in this political context, "elite" does refer to the control freaks who think that freedom is overrated (be they on the right or left). To equate the use of the term "elite" on the part of the right (be they conservatives, capitalists, or more specifically, Republicans) with an anti-education or anti-intellectual position is... disingenuous.

I do agree with you that politicians (broadly speaking) would rather keep us as uninformed as possible, and I think it's always been that way. I disagree that "anti-elite" and "anti-intellectual" mean the same thing, or that either the right or left has a particular animosity toward intellectuals. Both sides rely on them.

Decius wrote:
The term "elite" is constantly used by conservative commentators in the context of attacking law professors and the supreme court when the constitution is interpreted in such a way that it prevents conservative efforts to control people's lives with legislation.

Oh? One could just as easily assert that the term "elite" is constantly used by conservative commentators in the context of attacking law professors and the supreme court when the constitution is interpreted in such a way that it allows liberal efforts to control people's lives with legislation.

Decius wrote:
Conservatives [Republicans] are constantly trying to sell the idea that their party is interested in individual liberty and "leaving well enough alone" and frankly I don't find it credible at all.

On that point, I agree, and that's why I stopped supporting Republicans back in the late 1980s. Throughout high school and for most of my college years, the "lesser of two evils" concept was enough to keep me on board, but I eventually concluded that both major parties serve only themselves, not the people as a whole, nor even their constituents. The Libertarians aren't perfect, but at least I don't consider them to be merely the "least of three evils"... yet.

Decius wrote:
For example, a google search for "liberal elite" aclu returns about 13,000 results.

Yes, and without the quotation marks, there are 244,000 results. Also, there are 173,000 results for legislating from the bench. I'm not sure how that serves either of us, though. lol

Decius wrote:
Show me someone who thinks that Republican party is the party of individual freedom and I will show you someone who has rationalized that freedom and power mean the same thing.

THE party of individual freedom? No. More so than the Democratic Party? It depends. Are you talking about firearms or gay marriage? Are you talking about burdensome taxes that forcibly redistribute our wealth in the name of "fairness," or are you talking about the power to bypass warrants for searches, seizures, arrests, spying, etc. in the name of "security"?

In the image below, the spaghetti represents our individual freedoms. Does it matter which dog is the Democrat and which is the Republican?

Stefanie wrote:
Anyone can misuse the term (knowingly or not), but when used appropriately in this political context, "elite" does refer to the control freaks who think that freedom is overrated (be they on the right or left). To equate the use of the term "elite" on the part of the right (be they conservatives, capitalists, or more specifically, Republicans) with an anti-education or anti-intellectual position is... disingenuous.

I don't think thats true. The very word "elite" implies something different from just "control freak." Here are a few sources on the word "liberal elite."
Wikipedia: In the US, the term is most often applied to residents ... who often hold advanced college degrees and are politically left-leaning.
World Net Daily Ah, the hoity-toity pretenses of America's academic elite...
Peggy Noonan (Sorry for the annoying link but its the best reference I can find.) That leaves America's elite--the politicians, wise men, think-tank experts, academics, magazine and editorial-page editors, big-city columnists, TV commentators...

In sum this tends to a kind of anti-intellectualism. If you don't agree with the opinions of learned people you need simply accuse them of being part of the "elite" and ignore what they are saying. Its ad hominem.

Decius wrote:
Oh? One could just as easily assert that the term "elite" is constantly used by conservative commentators in the context of attacking law professors and the supreme court when the constitution is interpreted in such a way that it allows liberal efforts to control people's lives with legislation.

I rest my case. Sure, they raise the "liberal elite" card in cases like Kelo where the court failed to overturn a law they didn't like. They also raise the "liberal elite" card in cases like Griswold, where the court overturned a law they liked.

My point is that you are being disingenous when you say that they raise the "liberal elite" card specifically in cases where they are talking about powerful people controlling everyday Americans. They raise it in every context, whether they are fighting for more freedom or more control. Furthermore, in general they seek more control over people's lives, not more freedom, as you concede.

The Libertarians aren't perfect, but at least I don't consider them to be merely the "least of three evils"... yet.

I'll be the last person who'll tell you that the Democrats are fighting for freedom. Frankly, I'm not too impressed with Libertarians either. Most people I speak to who claim that philosophy are really partisan Republicans who are sometimes fair weather friends of social freedom but would never take a tax increase in exchange for it, but at the same time they are willing to accept all manner of social constraints from politicians who'd give then a tax break. Libertarian circles on the internet seem crawling with the most right wing people these days.

Stefanie wrote:
There are also those on the left who resent science when it's inconvenient for them (e.g., denying that human life begins at conception).

Do you have a reference for a widespread argument among the left that there is some resentment of or disagreement with the scientific conclusion that human life begins at conception? I don't actually think that such a disagreement or resentment exists, or in any event I've never come into contact with it, but I'm open to being persuaded otherwise if you have a reference.

My understanding is that the fulcrum of the abortion argument is not whether or not the fetus is alive, but whether or not the fetus deserves the same sort of legal protections that an infant has, particularly in late trimester cases where there is a health risk to the mother, and in early trimester cases at all, given the balance of social costs associated with aborting early pregnancies versus the social costs associated with banning those abortions. There is obviously room for debate about that question.

However, the left also argues (correctly I think) that the overall combination of conservative opposition to sexual education, opposition to the availability of contraceptives, opposition to abortion, and opposition to government programs for unwed mothers amounts to a situation which inevitably puts people in hard circumstances. There are many different ways to reduce the frequency of abortion with the obvious goal of eliminating it entirely. This sort of "tough shit" approach does not constructively pursue that goal and leaves all sorts of problems in its wake that all of us have to live with.

Decius wrote:
Do you have a reference for a widespread argument among the left that there is some resentment of or disagreement with the scientific conclusion that human life begins at conception? I don't actually think that such a disagreement or resentment exists, or in any event I've never come into contact with it, but I'm open to being persuaded otherwise if you have a reference.

This one is just my personal experience in both online and offline conversations. I've actually had arguments with individuals who take the position that a zygote is not a human being. Some even suggest that doctors who say so are being paid by "anti-abortion types." Now that you bring it up though, I'm curious as to whether there's anything in the way of an organized group that seriously argues this point. I need to run a search or two.

Decius wrote:
My understanding is that the fulcrum of the abortion argument is not whether or not the fetus is alive, but whether or not the fetus deserves the same sort of legal protections that an infant has, particularly in late trimester cases where there is a health risk to the mother, and in early trimester cases at all, given the balance of social costs associated with aborting early pregnancies versus the social costs associated with banning those abortions. There is obviously room for debate about that question.

We do have different legal standards for adults and minors, but I don't see any difference between a fetus and an infant when it comes to protecting life. As with killing adults, the killing must be justified, or it is murder. Just as we legally define justification for killing adults in certain circumstances, the same argument can be made for fetuses, such as an unusual, life-threatening complication for the mother.

In either case, that's a matter of justification of a particular action, not the recognition of human life. If a two-day old infant deserves recognition as a human being, why not a fetus two days prior to birth? What's so different about two weeks, two moths, etc. that a completely different legal status as a human being is required?

Anyway, I didn't mean to debate the abortion issue itself, but I wanted to illustrate the nature of the debate in response to your question. I think we agree on where the real debate lies, but nonetheless, I do still run into the "zygotes aren't people" argument, at least on the street.

Decius wrote:
However, the left also argues (correctly I think) that the overall combination of conservative opposition to sexual education, opposition to the availability of contraceptives, opposition to abortion, and opposition to government programs for unwed mothers amounts to a situation which inevitably puts people in hard circumstances. There are many different ways to reduce the frequency of abortion with the obvious goal of eliminating it entirely. This sort of "tough shit" approach does not constructively pursue that goal and leaves all sorts of problems in its wake that all of us have to live with.

Agreed, for the most part (and not just because I'm tired of typing). :)

Stefanie wrote:
In either case, that's a matter of justification of a particular action, not the recognition of human life. If a two-day old infant deserves recognition as a human being, why not a fetus two days prior to birth? What's so different about two weeks, two moths, etc. that a completely different legal status as a human being is required?

I don't want to get into this debate either, mostly because I'm not convicted about it. :) I'll offer for the sake or argument that a zygot doesn't have feelings. I'm not sure whether or not this matters, but I feel like it probably does, particularly when I weigh the value of protecting it against the consequences of forcing people to bring unwanted pregnancies to term. If we afforded other similarly complicated organisms with similar legal protection it would be illegal to use windex. There is a line. I'm not sure where it is.

So many fun debates, so little time...

Stefanie wrote:
So many fun debates, so little time...

Nod...

Decius wrote:

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton on Sunday dismissed the "elite opinion" of economists who criticized her gas tax proposal, using a term that has dogged rival Barack Obama in recent weeks.

This is so idiotic it feels like a Simpson's episode. Apparently the social hierarchy of American junior high schools has come home to roost in our adult society. Republicans have long attacked "elite" segments of society (by which they mean well educated, rather than rich) for being "out of touch." Now Democrats are doing it too. Its a bipartisan consensus! Being smart or informed is bad! We're going forward with our gas tax holiday, and damn those pencil neck nerds who say it won't work! What the hell do economists know about the economy anyway!? USA! USA! USA! Whoohoo!

Elite? Really, Mr. Stewart? Would you care to weigh in on the issue? http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=166074&title=gaffe-in (it's near the end of the whole thing)