• Current Events & Politics
    Welcome Guest
    Please read before posting:
    Forum Guidelines Bluelight Rules
  • Current Events & Politics Moderators: tryptakid | Foreigner

What does the phrase, "liberal elite" mean?

Cyc

Cyc

Bluelighter
Joined
Sep 11, 2000
Messages
11,370
Location
Canada
I've heard this phrase thrown about for years on news networks, and by pundits. I've also seen it parroted on political boards. What exactly is a liberal elitist? I know what the wiki definition says, but it seems to be left intentionally vague. I'm curious to see what it means to the average republican when they hear it.
 
I will settle for a non-average whatever giving their best interpretation.

I have some thoughts on this, but I wanted to solicit a few opinions first.
 
I assume "liberal elite" refers to rich liberals or liberals with alot of influence. Buffet, Soros, Chomsky ect.

"Liberal elitist" is probably a pejorative for anyone who outwits a conservative.
 
I'd say that it refers more to the politicised humanities departments in most Western universities. David Horowitz has written extensively about the political activism that is considered "learning" in the various "XXXXX Studies" departments. Quick examples are; a professor teaching a subject called "feminist economics", yet having no degree in economics.
I myself have first hand experience in being shown propaganda in one of those ethics type subjects (they now force science students to do one "ethics" subject), the class was shown all three parts of "the power of nightmares" as if it were factual and rational, he also showed building 7 collapse in the last lecture and said that: "maybe in years to come we will know what happened". this is after a general course theme of "America/Australia/the West" are as bad as terrorists and responsible for all of the suffering in the world, past and present. It was shameful that it was considered learning. In an ethics subject I was prepared for and hoping to learn about classical and modern philosophy - silly me.
 
Last edited:
"There you go with that fag talk again.."

idiocracy%20justin%20long.jpg


Okay, to be fair, "liberal elite" is one of those useless, blanket dismissals in the same vein as "redneck" and "Bible-thumper". However satisfying the dichotomy feels, it will never bring either side closer to talking to rather than at each other.
 
beamers said:
I'd say that it refers more to the politicised humanities departments in most Western universities. David Horowitz has written extensively about the political activism that is considered "learning" in the various "XXXXX Studies" departments. Quick examples are; a professor teaching a subject called "feminist economics", yet having no degree in economics.
I myself have first hand experience in being shown propaganda in one of those ethics type subjects (they now force science students to do one "ethics" subject), the class was shown all three parts of "the power of nightmares" as if it were factual and rational, he also showed building 7 collapse in the last lecture and said that: "maybe in years to come we will know what happened". this is after a general course theme of "America/Australia/the West" are as bad as terrorists and responsible for all of the suffering in the world, past and present. It was shameful that it was considered learning. In an ethics subject I was prepared for and hoping to learn about classical and modern philosophy - silly me.
Click to expand...

Those type of teachers really suck. My ethics class was actually a philosophy class, but I did have an extremely feminist sociology teacher... She made me so mad because I feel pretty strongly about the topic and she kept focusing only on feminist aspects of sociology. She ultimately hurt her cause in my eyes by discrediting herself and her cause.
 
I'd imagine that a "liberal elitist" is something akin to a "limousine liberal."

In other words, it's easy for some liberals to take a stand on issues that they're so far removed from because of their money and influence.

For example, I might say to a friend, "Oh, here comes Rosie O'Donnell. She's a gun control nut, but I would be too if I had her entourage of private security guards..."

They're liberal elitists. It's easy for them to practice their "liberalism," if you will, because they're not the common folk... make sense? That's my take on it, at least...
 
beameerrrrz said:
Quick examples are; a professor teaching a subject called "feminist economics", yet having no degree in economics.
Click to expand...

Well, heterodox economic frameworks (not only Marxist, but also in particular those anthropological) have kinda been kicked out of mainstream econ to other disciplines. Mainstream econ itself tends to be propagandic, excluding models that shed key flawed axioms.

ebola
 
Liberal Elites: a hypothetical, non-instantiated caricature meant to present the illusion that conservatives' political enemies oppose any populist base.

ebola
 
verso said:
I'd imagine that a "liberal elitist" is something akin to a "limousine liberal."

In other words, it's easy for some liberals to take a stand on issues that they're so far removed from because of their money and influence.

For example, I might say to a friend, "Oh, here comes Rosie O'Donnell. She's a gun control nut, but I would be too if I had her entourage of private security guards..."

They're liberal elitists. It's easy for them to practice their "liberalism," if you will, because they're not the common folk... make sense? That's my take on it, at least...
Click to expand...

What about conservatives who take a strong stance on minimum wage laws, and social entitlement programs? Isn't that the same thing? They are certainly far removed from those issues.
 
To be a trailblazer in any academic field, one does not need to actually have studied the orthodoxy in that field at all or write reviewed papers that bring new functional models to bear. Wait, I think you'll find that there are economists that teach more than classical, neoclassical, rationality and actually have new models to contribute, rather than "racism, class, sexism" and repeat, "racism, class, sexism". The Biology department could start offering courses in "Jewish Science", wouldn't that just make sense?

"Patriarchal oppressors" is another good one.
 
Last edited:
Cyc said:
What about conservatives who take a strong stance on minimum wage laws, and social entitlement programs? Isn't that the same thing? They are certainly far removed from those issues.
Click to expand...

I think that's a very fair point.
 
beamers said:
To be a trailblazer in any academic field, one does not need to actually have studied the orthodoxy in that field at all or write reviewed papers that bring new functional models to bear.
Click to expand...

No, but one does to write a good paper.

Wait, I think you'll find that there are economists that teach more than classical, neoclassical, rationality and actually have new models to contribute
Click to expand...

Actually, within mainstream econ, there is little deviation from the model where rational choosers working from given preferences establish demand curves, and producers making marginally rational decisions to maximize profitability establish supply curves, the two meeting to create efficient equilibrium prices. Few alternative models are in use in mainstream econ.

rather than "racism, class, sexism" and repeat, "racism, class, sexism".
Click to expand...

These are social conditions pertinent to how economies are structured, correcting partially the oversight of mainstream economics.

"Patriarchal oppressors" is another good one.
Click to expand...

But these conditions are economically key. Take, for example, the allocation and structure of commodified and non-commodified labor.

ebola
 
Originally Posted by beamers
To be a trailblazer in any academic field, one does not need to actually have studied the orthodoxy in that field at all or write reviewed papers that bring new functional models to bear.
"No, but one does to write a good paper."
Click to expand...

I was parodying you, and I was expecting it to go straight over your head in the huff of trying to respond to my calling out such irrationality in an academic department - you had to reach too far. Remember my point was that to teach in a field (or a subject where the title mentions that field), one needs to have studied that field, you then made out that the opposite is the case and that it is possible to tap into some higher understanding because they have some third party objective view, untainted by "propaganda". It's laughable and a stain on academia that such things should happen.

But these conditions are economically key. Take, for example, the allocation and structure of commodified and non-commodified labor.
Click to expand...

"Patriarchal oppressors" allocating females' livelihoods away late into the night - a bit like the jew media or the NWO (we know that they are all connected and in it for themselves).
But they must have forgotten to allocate: workplace deaths, military deaths, the majority of job losses during the GFC, homelessness, high school drop-out rates, college degree completion, publicly funded medical research, judicial bias, academic bias, the normalisation of misandry/pathologising maleness, and the successful opposition of publicly funded programs that were to be focussed on areas where men were having specific issues (we can't let it get out that the "oppressors" have a hard time in any way).

These are social conditions pertinent to how economies are structured, correcting partially the oversight of mainstream economics.
Click to expand...

Have you ventured out of the "mainstream" at all? There is more than classical, neoclassical and rationality written by economists (that have actually studied economics). Textbooks and knowledge do grow in each department under the scientific method, however it is not the capability of the humanities department to re-write the syllabus' for other courses (well pretending to know better at least), it's just outright irrationality & consumer fraud. They should just write the economic model and get it reviewed, but there is none is there? Just political activism.

Utopia is just around the corner? It's just those people that don't think like me that are in the way. We've tried marxism, where all of this trite stems from. Trying to drown-out any findings or teachings in other academic departments that do not conform to marxist theory by creating parallel pseudo-courses in the humanities department. Race doesn't exist, men and women are the same. What would the biology department know about biology? What would the economics school know about economics? We've never studied them ourselves and yet we have all of the answers right here..."racism, class, sexism" - this is the sophistry (and orthodoxy) in the humanities department. It does not matter what the subject is called just add the deliberately vague "studies" to the end of it: "XXXXXX studies" (because when there is no real variation to the content it's hard to come up with a new name and we wouldn't want to give away that cottage industry) they all just have one tune and then politically attack anything that the other departments produce that contradicts that tune or occasionally they are somewhat polite and pretend that the biology department doesn't exist.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top