Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Are Democrats Now the Party of the Rich?

The Trump rebranding of the GOP as a working class party coincides with a number of super-rich Democrats winning high-profile elections.

Maybe it's time to rebrand the Democrats as the party of the rich.

This month saw the election of Jay Robert "J.B." Pritzker as governor of Illinois. Pritzker, an heir to the Hyatt hotel fortune, is worth an estimated $3.2 billion, and spent $171.5 million to get himself elected, according to Money magazine.

Another winner was Edward M. "Ned" Lamont Jr., in the Connecticut governor's race. Lamont, an heir to the J.P. Morgan banking fortune of his great-grandfather Thomas Lamont, estimated his assets in 2006 at between $90 million and $300 million, and showed reporters tax returns last month with income totaling $18 million over 5 years.

The winner of the election for governor of Colorado, Jared Polis, filed financial disclosure forms as a member of the House of Representatives indicating estimated wealth of more than $300 million.

Pritzker, Lamont, and Polis are all Democrats.

The Democratic Party's list of possible presidential contenders for 2020 includes Michael Bloomberg, whose fortune is estimated by Forbes at about $47 billion. A declared presidential candidate is a Democratic congressman from Maryland, John Delaney, who is worth an estimated $90 million. John Forbes Kerry might have another go at it, having recently acquired an $11.75 million, 18.75-acre property on Martha's Vineyard to go with his $10 million house on Boston's Louisburg Square.

And the list of potential successors to Nancy Pelosi as speaker of the House includes a Democratic congressman from Massachusetts, Joseph Kennedy III, whose disclosed wealth of about $42 million stems primarily not from the Kennedy side of his family but rather from his mother Sheila Brewster Rauch's status as an heir to the Standard Oil fortune.

When President Trump named an initial team that included Rex Tillerson, Wilbur Ross, and Betsy Devos, the press was quick to label it a cabinet of plutocrats. "Trump's wealthy cabinet choices hark back to gilded age," was the headline The Financial Times put over it.

Somehow, the wealth of Pritzker, Lamont, and Polis has gotten less attention, perhaps because it doesn't so easily fit the country-club Republican stereotype. Instead of writing about the limousine liberals who are so rich they make the Trump cabinet look like a bunch of paupers, the press has been obsessing about how a newly elected congresswoman from the Bronx, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, can't afford to rent a place in Washington until she starts collecting her congressional salary.

The mention of Washington apartments is a reminder that there's plenty of precedent for Democratic Party politicians who were personally at some economic distance from the working people they purported to champion. Harry Reid, who was the Democratic leader in the Senate, resided in a Ritz-Carlton luxury condominium, prompting the New York Sun editorial headline, "Reid of the Ritz." Neither Senator Edward Kennedy nor President Franklin Roosevelt were from what you'd call humble origins, though both were effective.

It may be too much to hope that Democratic politicians with some money will, John Kennedy-style, favor policies that will enable and encourage the creation of new fortunes, or even that they would be sensitive to the desire of other wealthy people not to have their money either taxed away at confiscatory rates or eroded by inflation.

I'd settle for an end to what seems like the constant vilification of "millionaires and billionaires." Or simply a recognition that, as a professor of political science at Williams College, Darrel Paul, put it after analyzing wealthy congressional districts, "the big story of the 2018 election is the swing of the rich toward the Democrats."

It's not clear whether that will be a long-term realignment.

Part of the dynamic is surely that even an incumbent President Trump is in some ways a change candidate, voicing popular discontent with policies advanced by coastal elites. Some of the wealthy understandably prefer to defend the status quo under which they have prospered.

Also, the campaign finance donation limits that liberals have championed in the name of getting money out of politics have had the paradoxical effect of favoring wealthy candidates who can self-fund.

Republicans may be tempted to attack the wealthy Democrats with class warfare rhetoric of their own.

Maybe it wouldn't be a bad thing for the country, though, if wealthy voters do become a swing constituency to be courted by both political parties, rather than a group to be insulted, scapegoated, or taken for granted. If any of these politicians can articulate how their wealth was a reward for hard work and innovation rather than the result of mere luck, they'll be enriching the conversation.

The sweet spot is for politicians to be rich enough that they understand and appreciate wealth creation, but not so rich that they are entirely remote from the reality of ordinary Americans. If Pritzker, Lamont, Polis, Bloomberg, or Kennedy manage to achieve that Trump-like feat, one of them may eventually even follow him into the White House.

Ira Stoll is editor of FutureOfCapitalism.com and author of JFK, Conservative.

Photo Credit: EVAN SEMON/REUTERS/Newscom

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • damikesc||

    They've been the party of the rich for a long while now. The Democrats ceased pretending to give a shit about the working class quite a few years ago.

  • Mongo||

    Since the mid-90s, the Dems joined the Reps as the party of the rich.

  • MatthewSlyfield||

    JFK, FDR...

    A hell of a lot of Democrat Presidents from long before the mid 90's came from money.

    When were the Democrats not the party of the Rich?

    Same with the GOP, for all their claims and rhetoric, if you judge by their actions when they have been in power, the GOP has NEVER been the party of small government.

  • UnrepentantCurmudgeon||

    True, but the Dems have regularly worked harder than the Republicans to attract the rich, if only always behind closed doors. The Dens, starting with Tammany (more or less), understood that the best way to keep power safe was to bring the poor and lower classes into line by giving them a seeming pipeline to some measure of power for themselves. This is how they built their support and elevated poverty pimps like Adam Clayton Powell in the 1960s. By having showpiece props in power they could say "see, everything is possible" while conservatives refused throughout to play "identity politics". And of course the rich went along with it, because their wealth and power was protected in the game. Is any of this really mysterious?

  • Eric L||

    Same thing is happening in England with the Labour Party.

  • Fancylad||

    They went right past rich, and became the party of the global aristocracy about twenty years ago. And those that aren't trust-fund scions and haute bourgeoisie are wannabe parvenus like Kirkland and chemjeff.
    Have you heard how they talk about the working class?

    In any other era I would have been considered a bleeding-heart liberal. In the twenty-first century I'm regarded as a reactionary, that's how fucking insane things are.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    I don't like the disaffected bigots.

    "Working people" deserve respect. Unless they're bigots who disdain science, education, liberty, and progress, in which circumstance they deserve to be presented as examples of how not to be.

  • buybuydandavis||

    "I really hate the peasants"

  • NoVaNick||

    You have gotten to be beyond tedious, Artie. Most progressives I know have not taken a science course since high school and have a visceral fear of all things quantitative. They also want to restrict the liberty of everyone around them, and although they may be educated in having attended college or grad school, they have not actually produced any useful ideas or products, ever; their idea of progress would be to go back to 1969. If you want to talk about bigots, these same people refuse to send their kids to the local public school because they are afraid of black people roughing up their precious little ones. I know this because I live and work among these people.

  • TxJack 112||

    Oh anyone who disagrees with him is a bigot or whatever he claims so he can justify trashing them and looking down his nose at them. Just another elitist leftist.

  • 0x1000||

    Serious challenge (unless you can't keep up): abstain from your comma key for a week. Every comment you make is a tedious list of semi-related words plucked hastily out of a thesauruses. If you're really so superior it shouldn't be hard to articulate a reasoned argument without resorting to such a dull rhetorical device.

    Look there— I just did it myself. Can you?

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Every comment you make is a tedious list of semi-related words plucked hastily out of a thesauruses

    It's not a thesaurus, it's Arthur L. Hicklib's programming macro kicking on.

  • Longtobefree||

    Correct: Sometimes artificial intelligence is no more intelligent than the average bot programmer.

  • UnrepentantCurmudgeon||

    "Sometimes"?

  • KevinP||

    A small section of Republicans certainly have some issues with the teaching of evolution and creationism in schools, but the left side of the spectrum has far more emotional and science-free pet projects that they would like to ram down the throat of EVERYONE.

    Here's an excellent article that describes anti-science behavior on the Left and how it has had a tremendous impact:

    City Journal: The Real War on Science: The Left has done far more than the Right to set back progress


    Quotes (but read the whole article):
    First, there's the Left's opposition to genetically modified foods, which stifled research into what could have been a second Green Revolution to feed Africa. Second, there's the campaign by animal-rights activists against medical researchers, whose work has already been hampered and would be devastated if the activists succeeded in banning animal experimentation. Third, there's the resistance in academia to studying the genetic underpinnings of human behavior, which has cut off many social scientists from the recent revolutions in genetics and neuroscience. Each of these abuses is far more significant than anything done by conservatives, and there are plenty of others. The only successful war on science is the one waged by the Left.
  • TxJack 112||

    The Republicans you refer to are not actual Republicans but simply vote formthem because they have more in common than they do with Democrats. Religious conservatives are not actual conservatives but theocrats since they attempt to use the government to impose their values on ofhers just as progressives. They do not seek compromise or agreement but conformity and control. Progressives think and act exactly the same but with different goals

  • VOTE MILES||

    You will never ever get tony or the idiotic "Reverend" to acknowledge the ends-justify-the-means-anti-reality-bias of the left. Ever.

  • Longtobefree||

    Exactly. I am still waiting in vain for the post-DDT-ban study to determine how many children died of malaria .vs the number of eagle eggs that did not hatch.

  • UnrepentantCurmudgeon||

    Artie sayeth: "Working people" deserve respect". Thank you oh so very much. I bow before your gracious condescension. Now kiss my pucker

  • Wise Old Fool||

    Hehehe and the GOP never even pretended yet their unabashed followers thing they give a fuck about Constituents.

  • jello.beyonce||

    Ahhh, the intellectual constraint via the ancient human instinct of "Dichotomous Thinking".
    "This or that", "either/or", "in-group" vs "out-group" mentality.

    Here's a question:
    WHY CAN'T THE MINDLESS MASSES CONCEIVE OF BOTH PARTIES AS BEING PARTIES OF THE RICH?

    Regardless whether "Dem" or "GOP", the same ultra-wealthy continue to gain ever-more wealth, the same-ultra-powerful gain ever-more power.
    The WTID wealth inequality index has continued its massive rise under both the "GOP" and "Dems".

    Yet the rest of us continue to lose pace to highly under-reported inflation, as we continue to lose ever-more rights, freedoms, liberties, and justice.

    The .001 percent, and their corporations continue to receive HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS in TAXPAYER monies, via subsidies, ANNUALLY.

    Meanwhile, the sheepish followers of the "left" and "right" are kept busily distracted, blaming & fighting each other over who's "leaders" are most corrupt, whilst the .001 percent, the NEO-FEUDAL LORDS escape accountability and blame.

    That same .001 percent own & control the highly-concentrated media that continue to support the tribalism-like divisiveness between the partisan followers.

    That .001 percent are profiting whilst playing both sides against each other.
    SUCKERS!

  • Lawn Darts||

    Agreed, Jello. Good observation.

  • Dillinger||

    now?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    The Democratic Party is the party of slavery.

    The Party of the KKK.

    The Party of segregation.

    The Party of Jim Crowe laws.

    The Party of inner city projects and welfare slavery.

    The Party of institutional racism.

    The Party of "mainstream" Socialism in the USA, just like Nazis were the "mainstream" Socialism in Germany.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    The Party of Eugenics.

    The Party of Jacksonian decimation of the AmerIndians.

    The Party of Progressivism which is code for Socialism.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    The Party of Japanese-American internment.

  • What's that smell?||

    And German- American internment, Italian- American internment and Native- American internment.

  • Entropy Drehmaschine Void||

    #ORANGEMANBAD

  • Fancylad||

    Stellar rebuttal.
    Just out of curiosity, which statement was inaccurate?

  • TuIpa||

    It's times like this, when there is absolutely no reason to do anything that might in any way look like a defense of Democrats, that PB chooses to pipe up and show his true colors.

    No, I don't care that your excuse will be that you were just insulting lovecons, your post and your motivation for it are completely transparent.

  • TuIpa||

    "To be accurate I talk about conservatives, liberals, and progressives"

    Yes, you slurp progressives and hate on everyone else.

    Which was exactly the point you proved. AGAIN.

  • TuIpa||

    "Sarah Palin's Buttplug|11.12.18 @ 8:54PM|#

    Liar."

    Why did you put your sig before the rest of your post?

    Face you sad ass prog farce, you're a transparent joke and all your bellyaching won't make a whit of difference.

  • TuIpa||

    "I have repeated said Bernie Sanders is too incompetent to be in national office."

    Hey fuckwit, I didn't say you slurped EVERY progressive you illiterate cousinfucking clown. Why is reading so hard for you? It isn't paying a bet, so you shouldn't struggle.

    "Hi I'm PB and I think I can deflect from my prog slurping by pointing out a single old socialist I dodn't slurp!!! That will make everyone ignore all the progs I slurp all the time!!!"

    That is what you sound like slurpo.

  • TuIpa||

    What's wrong with having my cock sucked?

    Is it any weirder than your fetish for getting your skull fucked by progs?

    You're a liar and a clown. You hate it and rage against it because you know it's true.

  • TuIpa||

    "You talk about some politician and you start imagining sucking his cock. It is not Freudian - its just submissive gayness on your part."

    No one cares about what you said to your therapist.

  • TuIpa||

    So is that it? A few "liars" and a couple of lame homophobic attempts at dick insults that I easily turned back on you and made you look like an idiot for attempting?

    Don't you pretend to some level of intellectual ability? And THAT is what you offer?

    I must have you completely tied up in knots.

    How fucking sad for you.

  • JesseAz||

    Hey dumbass, the South didn't flip red until bill Clinton you ignorant twat. After the generation of the KKK largely died off. How damn ignorant are you?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    All those old racist Democrats are still around. Its why there are still so many Democrat votes in the South.

    Why would racists want a black candidate to win? Control the other blacks while the Uncle Tom in office gets their strings controlled. Democrats cannot win most national elections with minorities. Its the deal with the devil.

    Its always fun to ask a black Democrat why they would want to be in a party that was founded to support slavery. That is about as Uncle Tom as you can get.

  • Arizona_Guy||

    "most Southern Democrats were conservative"

    They were staunch New Deal Democrats who happened to be segregationist. Not that FDR had an issue with the latter.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Conservatives ARE the ideology of the Klan and most Southern Democrats were conservative before Reagan lit the racist bat signal in the 70s/80s to attract them to the GOP.

    OL--Shriek the hicklib is so triggered he can't even get his middle-school history talking points straight.

  • Agammamon||

    Hey buddy - what does it feel like to be on the side of the rich white racists officially?

  • DenverJ||

    Also, a Democrat was the only person in history to order the use of atomic weapons.

  • TuIpa||

    Against Non-Whites. So racist.

  • Wise Old Fool||

    The democratic party of today has nothing to do with the Jim Crowe era or KKK. Go do a poll of racists and see what party they associate with. Your grasp on current events is pretty fucking pitiful.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Black democrats voted for Obama because he was black and that is better.

    The black democrats think abrams is better because she is black.

    Nobody discusses issues as to why Obama was better for the USA or Abram's policy positions being better for Georgia.

    Thats racism. Its black supremacy.

  • Marcus Aurelius||

    Maxine Waters...

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Go do a poll of racists and see what party they associate with.

    Spoken like an upper-middle class white liberal. You haven't actually spent much time around people other than your own kind, have you?

  • Eric L||

    Rebranding the Democrats as the party of the rich and now Reason is only noticing? This shift has been happening for some time especially among elected politicians and the elite of this country. When talking to people about politics for the past several years I've been bringing up this dichotomy between the rhetoric and the reality of the Democrats as the party of and for the poor and working class and the Republicans as the party of and for the rich.

    This shift has been happening for some time. For example, from my experience just look at the party affiliation of who can afford and sends their children to private (non-secular) schools.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    The Democratic Party has always been the party of the rich.

    They were slave owners and used the black slaves to keep them in power in the South. The Northern Democrats used immigrants to keep them in power. The Democrats running the AmerIndian tribes out West looted too to keep power.

    Now the Democratic Party uses black people and immigrants to keep them in power in Washington DC.

  • What's that smell?||

    This

  • Here for the outrage||

    "Now the Democratic Party uses black people and immigrants to keep them in power in Washington DC"

    Boom

  • DiegoF||

    You probably mean private nonsectarian schools, no? Those are the ones you pay through the nose for. Except many of the bougier sects (Episcopalianism, Quakerism, Reform Judaism) are usually plenty expensive themselves too, especially since they do not have a comprehensive tradition of providing their own educational services, and especially since they have doctrinally degenerated into little more than country clubs at this point. Ditto on the "weak educational tradition" account evangelical Christian schools. Even Catholic schools are bifurcating at this late date into "poor kids'" and "rich kids'" schools to some extent.

  • Eric L||

    'You probably mean private nonsectarian schools, no? ' Yes, thank you and I say that as a nominal Episcopalian. From my personal experience you are correct about describing them as little more than country clubs.

  • OpenBordersLiberal-tarian||

    Some of my progressive friends unfortunately still have an anti-rich-people bias, but I've had success helping them overcome it. I remind progressives how similar their political views are to those of movie stars, who clearly belong to "The One Percent." I name-drop prominent wealthy Democrats mentioned in this article like John Kerry. Finally, I point out how billionaires like the Koch Brothers are among the major advocates of unlimited immigration, which is a policy increasingly being embraced by the left in this country.

    Indeed, Democratic acceptance of extreme wealth is key to strengthening the progressive / libertarian alliance. Don't let the emergence of a few "democratic socialists" scare you.

  • Fancylad||

    Golf clap

  • Fats of Fury||

    Fat Ass Pritzker saved $300,000 in taxes by removing the toilets in one of his mansions and claiming it as a distressed property. But in all fairness he passed those savings on to me in increased property taxes.

    Fat Ass Pritzker is recorded conspiring to buy a government job from Gov Rod Blagojovich. Only one of them went to jail.

    Fat Ass Pritzker spent 171 million bucks to run for a job that pays lest than $200,000 but hes convening a tak force to tackle the brokest state in the union's finances. Gee, I wonder who'll be paid back first?

  • Eddy||

    (Ignoring for the moment that you're confusing education with schooling)

    So the poor blacks and Latinos with HS educations at most are the most reliable Republican voter blocs?

  • Eddy||

    Of course you didn't *say* it.

  • TuIpa||

    Checkmate.

  • Eddy||

    Also, I presume that Gender Studies is a more rigorous college major than Engineering, since I strongly suspect there's a higher proportion of Democrats among Gender Studies graduates than engineering graduates.

  • Cyto||

    He's an idiot, but he's not wrong.

    Academic research scientists skew heavily "progressive", just like the rest of the faculty.

    But not so much engineering. Probably part of the mindset. And being less of a grant-based research world.

    Living off of government grant money in an academic setting where everyone with any clout is a hard-left political activist is going to have an impact on the makeup of the faculty, even in biology and physics.

  • bevis the lumberjack||

    Actual engineer here. Silicon Valley is not the hotbed of engineering. It's the hotbed of one type of engineering, but there are plenty of engineering disciplines that have nothing to do with SV. And their liberal lean is very self-selecting, as they tend to chase off those that don't believe in the orthodoxy.

    Houston is a hotbed of a different type of engineering, as you point out. More than one type in fact. Believe it or not, Wichita is a hotbed of engineering, as is Huntsville in Alabama. Boston, Denver, San Diego. All different types of engineers with different perspectives and different political philosophies. And unlike the folks in Silcon Valley, in a lot of these other places the engineers don't actually give a shit what your political leaning is.

  • Sevo||

    Sarah Palin's Buttplug|11.12.18 @ 6:26PM|#
    "Well, I have worked with engineers my entire life and they tend to be more independent than any other occupation I know of -"

    Get back to us when you do something other than empty their trash, turd.

  • Agammamon||

    No, but you did say that the more education and income you have the more liberal you are. Which would include engineers.

  • Tony||

    Which would include engineers.

    I don't think that's a given.

  • Marcus Aurelius||

    You got the first three words right...

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Well, I have worked with engineers my entire life

    Yeah, cleaning their toilets.

  • Fancylad||

    The hotbed of engineering (Silicon Valler)
    Lol

  • Longtobefree||

    Not withstanding the fantasy of most programmers, IT is not an engineering field.

  • JesseAz||

    The pew study that included sociology, psychology, and various other non objective studies as "Science." Do you have any data that isn't dumb?

  • Cyto||

    Ok, that also is a fair point. "social sciences" are marginally science, at best.

    Sorry if I stepped on any toes there, but I worked with an interdisciplinary group for a while and tried to bring some semblance of the scientific method to these areas. I fully acknowledge that properly designing a scientific experiment in the social sciences is extremely difficult. But even with that caveat, the stuff that passes muster in a psychology journal wouldn't make it into a student poster session in genetics, biochemistry, physics, etc.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Those are called "soft sciences" for a reason.

  • Agammamon||

    You're only 8% self-described libertarian.

  • Agammamon||

    So you're saying poor blacks and hispanics are 'backward rubes, slow, and ignorant' then.

  • Vernon Depner||

    Poor Mexicans are Southern rednecks turned up to 11.

  • TxJack 112||

    Only to those arrogant asses like you on the left.

  • TxJack 112||

    Only to those arrogant asses like you on the left.

  • Eddy||

    Better turn the government over to the scientists, then, or at least vote the way they tell us.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Progressivism in a nutshell.

  • Cyto||

    There has been a lot of successful propaganda on this point, at least dating back to the 80's. (I used to work in the research field).

    When your livelihood is dependent on government largess, it is easy to conflate "we want more money for our stuff" with "those evil republicans who insist on balanced budgets are anti-science".

    Of course, that "fiscal responsibility" bit left a long time ago, but the impression lives on.

  • JesseAz||

    It's worse than that. The study mixed in subjective sciences as "Science." Econ, sociology, psychology, etc. You know the "Sciences" that have a reproducibility rate under 50%.

  • Cyto||

    This is a good point that touches on a larger debate that has never been had - namely, should "science" as an academic discipline give these subjects some sort of probationary status, as they don't have a rigorous appreciation for the scientific method (some of that being due to "it is really hard to properly design a controlled study", and some of it being due to a culture that accepts "opinion" as "scientific conclusion".)

    That being said, my experience is that in the biological sciences (microbiology, genetics, medicine, pharmacology, biochemistry, etc.) it is just a base underlying assumption that you are a progressive liberal democrat. And the nature of grant based research is that "reputation" is at least as important as anything written in the grant when it comes time to hand out the cash. So getting a "reputation" as being "not a progressive" would be a dangerous thing. All of which leads me to conclude that any conservatives out there are going to be pretty circumspect about letting anyone in on that little secret.

  • JesseAz||

    Ahh. Biological sciences... Health sciences... Where every other week eggs are bad or good based on a coin flip. A science so soft at lower levels they refuse to even acknowledge hereditary differentiations amongst people while pretending to understand what evolution means. Their orthodoxy on politics makes them completely ignore evolutionary concepts in humans; worse than evangelicals.

    There are of course good scientists on the domain, but most of the ones I knew in college in those majors barely passed intro marh or chemistry courses. I know because I tutored a ton.

  • Cyto||

    That's "dietary science". Not really directly hard-science biology. I'm talking more about gene expression, phosphorylation, cell membrane motility, protein folding, viral coat mutations, etc. Quantifiable and repeatable study of the fundamental building blocks of life. The kind of thing that brought us mutant corn with bacterial genes for bug resistance and the CRISPER system for gene editing.

  • Echospinner||

    " I know because I tutored a ton."

    Obviously science is your domain.

  • DarrenM||

    those evil republicans who insist on balanced budgets

    All 6 of them?

  • Gaear Grimsrud||

    Yeah scientists. Didn't those guys invent the food pyramid and that whole eugenics thing?

  • TuIpa||

    And lobotomies, and PB is unfortunately aware of from his own experience receiving 6.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Dont forget scientists developed a very effective technique Zylon B.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Many conservative people dont want to pester people with money, politics, or religion. Those can be divisive topics and a lot of people want to go alomg to get along.

    Lefties make hostile work environments as the propaganda must flow daily. If your not a Lefty, you can give an unpopular opinion or keep topics light.

  • Eddy||

    So confining ourselves, as you do, strictly to white people - those who are marinated in an academic environment for a lengthy period come out more liberal in general, while those with experience in the University of Adversity tend toward the Republicans?

  • bevis the lumberjack||

    So, what you're saying is that - if you put enough conditions on it - that people with college educations (i.e., those that tend to have higher incomes) tend to identify more Democrat than those with high school educations (i.e., those that tend to have lower incomes). So rich whites tend to lean Democratic. Meaning that you're agreeing with the point of the article that the Democrats are now the party of the rich.

  • Nardz||

    Shallow progressive agrees with shallow progressive publication.

    Super surprising

  • Nardz||

    Sarah Palin's Buttplug|11.12.18 @ 7:25PM|#

    "Gee, one of us doesn't belong here.

    Must be you - the wingnut conservative. Bratfart is open you know."

    Totally not the stock response of a progressive...

  • Sevo||

    Sarah Palin's Buttplug|11.12.18 @ 6:13PM|#
    "It may surprise you but I may agree with Reason articles more than any other poster here."

    Which is a worthless claim in that you lie more than any other poster here..

  • Entropy Drehmaschine Void||

    "It may surprise you but I may agree with Reason articles more than any other poster here."

    Of course you do. The Cosmos cite you all the time.

    Your point being, other than #ORANGEMANBAD?

  • JesseAz||

    SPB, now do something intelligent like look at how much of the college enrollment is indoctrinated in victims studies, education majors, etc. It may shock you to learn that a large percentage of college is putting out semi worthless degrees and declaring victory.

  • JesseAz||

    What spurious claim are you asking me to prove dummy? That victims studies majors exist? You have the same problem as chem Jeff, you on care about facial analysis of facts because more than that is too hard. You do know that Lew research puts out a larger PDF than what gets posted in the headline of a media matters headline, right? Go see how they defined scientists. Go Google about reproducibility problems. Go look at the growth rate of social, victim studies, and other soft majors. There's a well known engineering crisis in American colleges for fucks sake.

    Do you ever try to think past a headlines worth of thought?

  • TuIpa||

    Ok, I will. The survey gives equal weight to scientific disciplines that do not have equal levels of peer review or reproducibility. Conflating them like that is by any measure a flaw, and needs to be weighed when assessing the validity of the conclusion.

    You got Tulpa'd.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    No, you are shifting the goalposts and making unsubstantiated claims.

    At least Buttplug cited a Pew study. You want us to believe that all of those scientists who are Democrats are really sociologists and anthropologists? Now it's your turn to cite your source.

    Here's my source:

    http://fivethirtyeight.com/fea.....democrats/

    Bottom line: Scientists tend not to be politically active, but those who are, support Democrats.
    And no they don't define scientists to be "victim studies majors".

  • TuIpa||

    Who the fuck are you talking to jeff, because your post isn't response to mine, and it doesn't look like a response to anyone else's either, and I only kick you around when you deserve it which is almost always but maybe not now.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    The JesseAZ strategy:

    "Because your data is not perfect, therefore I will use the slightest flaw to invalidate the entirety of your claim without considering it in good faith, while simultaneously bashing you for not presenting perfect data in the first place".

  • TuIpa||

    I'll leave you to bore him in peace then.

  • JesseAz||

    Yes... those PhDs in victim studies are the top of the education food chain! You say some stupid things.

  • Mock-star||

    So then why are the flocking to the DNC, which is quite possibly the most il-liberal party in the US? (Im sure that there is some c- or d-tier party that beats them, Im just unaware of them)

  • Longtobefree||

    We still have a communist party in the USA - - - - - - -

  • Agammamon||

    Hey buddy - what does it feel like to be on the side of the rich white racists officially?

  • Longtobefree||

    Great, actually.

  • Fats of Fury||

    Don't forget bullionaires (As Bernie would say) like Bloomberg, Steyer and Soros who openly finance the dems, and plenty more that do it discreetly.

  • JeremyR||

    Erm, it's been like this for quite some time.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    For ~30 years now, yes. Started happening after Vietnam really. But that kind of thing doesn't just happen overnight. It takes a generation to really kick in.

  • SchillMcGuffin||

    I can't recall a lot of working-class prominent Democrats pre-Vietnam either. I guess Truman would count.

  • Fats of Fury||

    One of the most emblematic shifts was the unseating of Richard J Daley's delegates at the 1972 McGovern convention and handing it to Jesse Jacksons unelected group. Daley, odious as he was, represented the working class. Jackson represented the shiny new radicalism. McGovern went down with humiliating losses.
    Looking down at the "Deplorable" working class didn't start with Rodham. Archie Bunker was 1960s Hollywood version of someone who didn't know what was good for him and deserved to get it good and hard.

  • Cyto||

    Except Archie Bunker was 70's TV.

  • Cyto||

    In no way does that make any sense.

    Archie Bunker was a fictional, working class stiff with archaic views representative of a Hoover era upbringing. He existed as a foil to demonstrate the superiority of 70's liberal views.

    Rush Limbaugh is a self-made multi, multi-millionaire(inching toward billionaire territory) radio host who engages in what he describes as "political entertainment".

    Aside from being white and a bit on the portly side, they have very little in common. But, you know, conservative. So that makes it OK I guess.

  • Tony||

    Wasn't Jeff Christie the name he was using when he was soliciting gay sex?

  • Tony||

    It's possible he's childless because, you know... the logistics.

  • Fats of Fury||

    Lear stole Archie Bunker from Alf Garnett. He stole Fred Sanford too.

  • Gaear Grimsrud||

    The sixties started with the summer of love and ended with Charles Manson's ill fated race war. At least that's how I remember it. Shortest decade ever.

  • Fats of Fury||

    Missed it by that much.

  • Eddy||

    "If any of these politicians can articulate how their wealth was a reward for hard work and innovation rather than the result of mere luck, they'll be enriching the conversation."

    Some rich Democrats (the Kennedy heirs and John Kerry come to mind) are fully aware that they got their wealth through strictly non-meritocatic ways. They had rich daddies and/or married into wealth.

    So of course they think of wealth as something that comes by "luck."

    Even those rich people who worked like demons to get where they are did so within the existing regulatory framework. Whether or not they'd have been able to make their pile in Libertopia, it's not a chance they want to take!

  • Gaear Grimsrud||

    "Why would I try to best my competitor in the marketplace when I can use the power of government to exclude him?"
    Attributed to John D. Rockefeller.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    The kennedys got rich via bootlegging during the prohibiton.

    Criminal enterprise.

  • markm23||

    Government-created monopoly.

  • CLM1227||

    Invention is usually the domain of meritocratic wealth.

    And I think there's an inventor who claimed invention is the domain of the lazy - someone who devised a method to do something hard with less work.

    Wealth requires more than hard work, or there would be many who have used their bodies in repetitive manual labor who are wealthy.

    I wrote somewhere else that there are two types of rich liberals - those that use government to keep down their competition (Rockefeller Rich) and those with survivor's guilt who can't square their success with the failure of others around them.

  • Eddy||

    And don't forget how Trump is a rare politician who not only campaigns on promises to the working classes, but carries through on these promises.

    Many of the rich have reached the top of Maslow's hierarchy and can afford to toy with bright ideas about cultural warfare, where they often side with Democrats. I mean, for a "party of the people," the Dems certainly have a lot of policies which appeal to rich hedonists - widespread birth control, abortion, gay marriage, and the like.

  • Eddy||

    And don't forget the availability of a pool of cheap labor.

  • Eddy||

    Plus policies which, in general, the rich are insulated from in their gated communities.

    (Not a slap at gated communities as such, just a plea for a bit more empathy on behalf of not screwing things up for the non-gated)

  • loveconstitution1789||

    +1

  • ||

    They're the party of the retards.

  • End Child Unemployment||

    That's unfair to mentally handicapped people brah

  • ||

    For that, I apologize.

  • Cyto||

    When Reagan won the nomination I remember that exact conversation. The Democrats always say they are the party of the working class, but the net worth of the DNC convention attendees was about double that of the RNC attendees.

    I don't think that this has ever been different. They view themselves as the aristocracy, and as such understand politics as a tool for assuaging the masses (while lining your pockets). Hence the "pay their fair share" mantra, always offered up in the third person by someone who is solidly in the 1%.

    Trump is kind of an outlier for the Republicans... and he was tight with the DNC for most of his career.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Trump clearly played both teams to survive the business world in NY and NJ.

    Not sure what Trump senior's politics were.

  • Dillinger||

    Kennedys, both dead and alive...

  • DiegoF||

    Brains, both bad and good...

  • Dillinger||

    nice. flags, both black and white

  • Entropy Drehmaschine Void||

    Pistols, both Sex and concealed.

  • Arizona_Guy||

    Fronts, both Agnostic and Judean People's

  • ||

    Oof. The Financial Times. The publication that had Chrystia 'Screech Cringe' Freeland as its editor.

  • DiegoF||

    What is the "Screech Cringe" story with Ms. Freeland?

  • Nardz||

    Says the faggot (stronger together!)

  • ||

    "It may be too much to hope that Democratic politicians with some money will, John Kennedy-style, favor policies that will enable and encourage the creation of new fortunes, or even that they would be sensitive to the desire of other wealthy people not to have their money either taxed away at confiscatory rates or eroded by inflation."

    And too much it would be.

    Here, Frick and Frack Trudeau and Morneau (it rhymes!) who inherited (or married into) their massive wealth, have done nothing but push through new financial rules that actually hurt our chances at achieving wealth.

    That's what makes them so unlikeable. They're full of shit faux feminists to boot.

  • DiegoF||

    What are the demographic profiles/stereotypes of the Canadian political parties?

  • ||

    Hm. Traditionally, Canadian politics isn't overtly 'ideological'. It's kinda meh as both major parties pull towards the centre not unlike the USA. They draw support from everywhere.

    The Tories/Whigs split is long gone. In the 1990s the Conservatives (formerly the Progressive Conservatives/Tories) rebranded under the Reform Party out West. The Conservative party in its current form was rebuilt in Alberta (with American neo-con help). The Liberals were called "the nature governing party" (it's always worth noting Liberal/progressives have held power the majority of the time in North America throughout the 20th century) and got their support from all walks of life (especially immigrants and the yutes) while the PC were seen as 'stuffy" conservatives - until Brian Mulroney came and changed that somewhat with his close relationship with Reagan. The NDP are just socialist sluts.

    Now? The Liberals, like the Democrats, are embracing stupid identity politics nonsense while the Conservatives (like their GOP counterparts) are just 'not identity politics'.

    It's the best I can come up with after three glasses of bourbon.

  • ||

    And Maxime Bernier's 'People's Party' is adding yet another (welcomed in my view) dimension to all this. Of course, the media up here is characterizing it as 'Trump inspired populism' but he's more libertarian than anything. Ironically, he has enough gravitas to maybe impact things more than American libertarians have in U.S. elections.

    I will definitely consider him.

  • Fancylad||

    It always astounds me that the Quebecois elected Maxime Bernier. Kudos, I guess.
    I always thought their snouts were too deep in the government trough to elect someone like that.

  • ||

    *Technically" his Federal riding when he was a Conservative MP elected him.

    Whether Quebec would elect him as a party independent remains to be seen should he get official party status.

    He's never run in provincial elections. He was always at the Federal level.

    Quebec is a strange place. I don't think it's as crazy as California for example.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    The Democrats are the party of the educated, the accomplished, the skilled, the modern . . . attributes often associated with income and wealth.

    They should avoid becoming the party of the selfish, though. And, although it is understandable that some regard for our can't-keep-up stretches has diminished in connection with a hard turn toward backwardness, superstition, and intolerance, the Democratic Party should strive to be a party of compassion for the poorly educated, the economically struggling, the disadvantaged, and above all children.

  • ||

    You're always out of order.

    But unlike 'Open borders', I still can't figure out if you're a parody. I pray to my cat you are.

  • DenverJ||

    "...and above all children"
    Either parody or an incredibly close match to a true believer. I vote for the second.

  • ||

    I'm afraid I agree.

    He's all NPC.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Decent people don't fault a child for having losers for parents. Our society should provide a strong foundation -- health care, education, safety -- for children, even when the parents are substandard. If Democrats continue to chart the course of American progress, it will.

  • Agammamon||

    I like swords!

  • Tony||

    The existence of children presents a rather large problem for laissez-faire advocates, don't they?

  • Sevo||

    Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland|11.12.18 @ 6:23PM|#
    "The Democrats are the party of the educated, the accomplished, the skilled, the modern . . . '

    You left out "the liars", asshole.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    It could be distilled to "your betters," you half-educated, disaffected, right-wing, faux libertarian bigot.

  • Sevo||

    Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland|11.12.18 @ 8:12PM|#
    "It could be distilled to "your betters," you half-educated, disaffected, right-wing, faux libertarian bigot."

    It could be distilled to fucking lefty ignoramuses, you fucking lefty ignoramus.

  • TxJack 112||

    Thank you for proving my point. Your bigotry on display for the entire world to see.

  • TxJack 112||

    I love it when you and other progressives assume anyone who disagrees with you is "uneducated". The only uneducated person in those conversations is you because you are too stupid to grasp the basic defintion of bigotry. Bigotry is when you assume that a person or groupmof people is inferior to you based on your assumptions of who who they are and/or what they believe without any actual proof. Progressives such as you are without a doubt the most bigoted people encounter online. If you want to see the true bigots in this country, look in the mirror.

  • vek||

    Arty, you're an idiot.

    The Democrats are MOSTLY the party of the college indoctrinated cubicle worker.

    Most of the MOST successful people in society are not that into communism. Sorry brah.

    But the colleges sure did do a bang up job brain washing most of the technocrats and middle management types out there. Of course the truly intelligent who ARE in the Democratic party aren't true believers... They're just in it for the power, same as how Stalin was. That makes them assholes I guess, but not idiots... That is reserved for all those in the middle that the brainwashing actually worked on.

  • SIV||

    Most under-reported "libertarian" story of the day?

    Ve haff vays of making you endorse Comrade Gary Johnson!

    Zuckerberg pressured Mr. Luckey to publicly voice support for libertarian candidate Gary Johnson, despite Mr. Luckey's yearslong support of Trump.
  • SIV||

    Proving once again capital "L" Libertarians are useful idiots.

    Fuckin' dupes

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Thanks. Interesting info.

  • Tony||

    Cherry pick much? Whine like a bitch much?

    Some Democrats are rich. Hold the fucking dick, oh my god, it's abominable.

  • ||

    Not the point Toe-knee.

    The point is the Democrats and their left-wing idiots keep yapping on about money ruining everything and how bad capitalism and wypippo are desire being WEALTHY themselves.

    Do you even irony brah?

  • ||

    despite

  • Tony||

    One of the dumbest bits of rhetoric in all of politics. You're only allowed to aspire to be rich if you're a Republican? You're only allowed to be greedy if you're maximally greedy? And hate brown people?

  • DenverJ||

    You 'specially have to hate brown people otherwise it doesn't count.

  • ||

    No one is saying that. It's just that one side with more wealth talks shit about it.

  • Cyto||

    Yeah, I'm not following you.

    The point is that a bunch of inherited-wealth rich folks are the core of the national DNC, yet their rhetoric centers on "republicans are evil, greedy, rich folks" and "capitalism is totally bad and only benefits the 1%". The DNC line is that they are going to force "the rich" to "pay their fair share". But the DNC is in fact "the rich", much more so than the RNC.

  • Tony||

    Well you guys like to equate having wealth with virtue and intelligence, so what does that tell you?

    No Democrat billionaire even came close to Sheldon Adelson, so I don't know where you're getting your comparisons. You're still saying it's hypocritical for a Democrat to be rich, which is absurd. A rich Democrat is simply a rich person with a conscience.

  • ||

    You truly live in a vortex of the voices in your head.

    Who ever said or asserted that?

  • Tony||

    "It's only cool to buy American politics if you're evil."

    --Every libertarian, I think

  • DenverJ||

    Isn't there a rule that any headline in the form of a question is answered "no"? Well, here's the exception what proves it.

  • Gaear Grimsrud||

    "The sweet spot is for politicians to be rich enough that they understand and appreciate wealth creation, but not so rich that they are entirely remote from the reality of ordinary Americans. If Pritzker, Lamont, Polis, Bloomberg, or Kennedy manage to achieve that Trump-like feat, one of them may eventually even follow him into the White House."
    Yeah but virtually every politician cited, including Trump, was born wealthy. The guy that owns the auto repair shop on the corner knows more about wealth creation than any of these bozos.

  • ||

    Did Bloomberg inherit his? I don't know.

  • ||

    I was just asking because I didn't know.

    But keep 'going high when they go low'.

  • Fancylad||

    Did Bloomberg inherit his?
    No, he started at the bottom.

    "Bloomberg is the son of Alexander "Elick" Bloomberg. The Bloomberg Center at the Harvard Business School was named in Elick's honor.
    Bloomberg attended Johns Hopkins University, where he joined the fraternity Phi Kappa Psi. In 1966 he graduated from Harvard Business School with a Master of Business Administration.
    In 1973, Bloomberg became a general partner at Salomon Brothers, a bulge-bracket Wall Street investment bank, where he headed equity trading and, later, systems development. Bloomberg went on to set up a company named Innovative Market Systems. In 1982, Merrill Lynch became the new company's first customer, installing 22 of the company's Market Master terminals and investing $30 million in the company. The company was renamed Bloomberg L.P. in 1987. By 1990, it had installed 8,000 terminals. Over the years, ancillary products including Bloomberg News, Bloomberg Message, and Bloomberg Tradebook were launched."

    Like most progressives he's had a rough life.

  • Fancylad||

    "As of June 2018, Bloomberg's net worth was estimated at $51.8 billion, making him the 8th-richest person in the United States and the 11th richest person in the world."

    Sniff, so brave.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    His story, honestly, sounds a lot like Trump's.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    In the sense that both Trump and Bloomberg were born into wealth and privilege, and used that position to build businesses of their own.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Buttplugger trips and falls with claim that Democrats are far richer than Republicans.

    Haha. He is such a maroon.

  • TxJack 112||

    Not million but 1 million. His father only gave him one million to start his business and if he failed he was on his own. Yes he got a million but considered the wealth of his father, that was a very small amount

  • loveconstitution1789||

    I got $10 from my father to start a lemonade stand. I turned that into some serious summer money and my next business summer business which was lawn care.

    I paid my Dad back the $10.

    Its all relative on amounts. Rich people give more to get started.

    In the end it does not matter, since Trump is the best president in 80+ years and he learned those skills from somewhere.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    $1 million dollar daddy investment to save America from Lefties is a bargain.

  • lap83||

    Democrats are the party of urbane and sophisticated unemployed underprivileged minorities and women who can't do anything for themselves yet are vastly intellectually superior to the Republican hillbillies who nevertheless have all the money and power.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    All the Lefty propaganda narratives get crossed like the ghost buster streams.

    It creats the disaster that is the Democratic Party.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    With your House prediction behind us, are you prepared to call the culture war for conservatives?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    I am 4 out of 5 guesstimates, so I got you beat.

    You and your Lefty pals are 0 out of 10000000000000.

    Poor Lefties, so sad.

  • esteve7||

    People think the correlation between money and Dem/GOP is linear (Poor = Dem, Richer = GOP), but it's not, it's a curve.

    Poorest vote Dem, then once you get into middle and upper middle income, it's GOP, then you pass a point where it trends back towards Dem when you are rich enough.

  • Tony||

    Same with education levels.

  • bevis the lumberjack||

    Even if it's true, and I haven't seen anything that says it is or isn't, you're trying to equate education with intelligence, which isn't all that great of a correlation. The R squared is nowhere close to one.

  • bevis the lumberjack||

    What, did both of the GOP voters you know tell you that? Generalize much?

  • Tony||

    What other reason could there possibly be?

  • bevis the lumberjack||

    I saw a tweet from one of the all-identity 24/7 SJWs last week complaining that the majority of white women voted R in several races in Georgia and Florida, and in the Cruz/Beto race in Texas. The tweet was racist as fuck. But this idiot didn't even think about what he was saying. Why - if his (and your) premise that people only vote based on identity politics was correct - would whites support a Cuban-American over an Irish-American like Beto?

    Maybe they want taxes to be lower. Maybe they don't want the SC to swing left. Maybe they don't want open borders. Maybe they just don't appreciated being called Nazis. Or maybe they simply don't like the way one or the other of the candidates carries himself or herself. Who knows? More than 8 million people voted in the Cruz/Beto race and their reasons for voting how they voted are myriad. People are individuals, not homogeneous members of groups.

    Just because you and the Plug think in terms of identity, don't attribute that to the rest of us out here.

  • Tony||

    Your problem is you're not treating white racial grievance as identity politics, when white racial grievance is like 80% of the conversation in the GOP.

  • bevis the lumberjack||

    I'm sure you've got a source for the 80% number that is something other than you pulled it out of your ass.

  • vek||

    I fully admit it is turning into white identity politics...

    BUT ONLY because the left forced it on white people.

    When you make somebody, as a group, your number one enemy... It tends to put them on the defense... And eventually the offense. The left has been attacking whites for a long time without calling it that, but in recent years they've been dumb enough to actually say it out loud.

    It pissed white people off. Surprise surprise! Whites are still in the defensive stage... God help all you commies (and minorities!) out there if whites ever get pissed enough to truly go on the offensive. You do remember what happened the last time around when Europeans decided to get offensive don't you? Global hegemony of some sort ensued IIRC. This time we'll share it with the Asians because they have their shit together, and are pretty fuckin' rad.

    But 4serious... You people need to quit it with the honkie bashing. Otherwise shit may get a little too real for all the cat ladies and soy boys to handle.

  • Sevo||

    Sarah Palin's Buttplug|11.12.18 @ 8:39PM|#
    "Poorly educated people of every race tend to vote based on identity politics."

    We've noticed, poorly-educated person.

  • KevinP||

    LOL, the classic Democrat defense: We supported slavery, Jim Crow and the KKK for hundreds of years, but those people are now Republicans!

    New York Times: Demographic Delusions of the Democrats


    ———Begin quote———
    The accepted wisdom is that the Democrats hamstrung themselves many years ago, when they passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and thereby lost the Solid South forever. It's a nice story, one that allows everyone to feel good: liberal Democrats and Clinton-Obama Democrats.

    The only trouble is, it's not true.

    ...
    Going into the 1994 elections [30 years after the Civil Rights Act], Democrats still held 16 of the 30 United States Senate seats from the 15 Southern states, and nearly two-thirds of the Southern seats in the House. On a state level, the figures were even more one-sided. Democrats held 12 of the 15 Southern governorships, and 29 of the 30 state legislative chambers.

    It's only in the last two decades that these numbers flipped...

    Democrats did lose the South, but they didn't lose it because of the Civil Rights Act. Instead of waiting for all those mean old Southern white men to die, Democrats might be better off asking themselves why so many of them were still voting Democratic just 22 years ago.
    ——End quote——
  • loveconstitution1789||

    All the Dixiecrats are still around, they just got outvoted by young Republicans of Gen X.

    Its why we still had so many votes for Democrats since 1965. Lefties would have you believe that only black people vote Democrat in the South until recently.

    There are a shitload of racist white Democrats who constantly try and control blacks via welfare, free housing, drug laws, and gun control.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Sorry... All the Dixiecrats were around until they started dying off...

  • TxJack 112||

    First, Christian Identity is not Christianity. It is a perversion of the faith used by White Supremacists to justify racism. Second, the move of the center of the country and south in particular did not happen until the 1980s and 90s. The move was due to aroogant jackasses such as you telling conservative Democrats they were no longer welcome and to leave the party, so they did. As for the 1960s, if not for the GOP, the Civil Rights act would have never beem passed. Democrats opposed the law, not Republicans. You may need to go read some history books because during the 1960s all those poor white racists were Democrats, not Republicans. What you are claiming is complete and udder bullshit.

  • Juice||

    I know you're not a breaking news or investigative journalism outfit, but do you all have nothing to say about the election shenanigans going on in various places, especially Florida?

  • AlmightyJB||

    It takes time cause the Dems are bad at math and can't figure out how many more votes they need to manufacture to win.

  • Vernon Depner||

    The Democrats have an hourglass demographic—heavy on the rich and the poor. The middle belongs to the Republicans.

  • buybuydandavis||

    "Also, the campaign finance donation limits that liberals have championed in the name of getting money out of politics have had the paradoxical effect of favoring wealthy candidates who can self-fund."

    Paradoxical, he says.

    Note also that it favors the party that controls the MSM.

  • Tony||

    Democrats control the MSM!

    FOX News kicks your skinny liberal ass in the ratings!

    Not so much cognitive dissonance as abject idiocy, I think.

  • Sevo||

    Tony|11.12.18 @ 9:13PM|#
    "Democrats control the MSM!"
    Yes.

    "FOX News kicks your skinny liberal ass in the ratings!"
    Yes.

    "Not so much cognitive dissonance as abject idiocy, I think."
    Yes, your comment is of abysmal idiocy. Control of the media does not rule out the rejection of that media by those who happen to think for themselves.
    Which you have shown many times to be beyond your very limited mental abilities.
    What a fucking idiot.

  • Tony||

    People who absorb every Sean Hannity mouth shit into their stupid faces lecturing about thinking for oneself.

  • Sevo||

    Tony|11.13.18 @ 8:05AM|#
    "People who absorb every Sean Hannity mouth shit into their stupid faces lecturing about thinking for oneself."

    When you find someone like that, you might mention it, you fucking lefty ignoramus.

  • jello.beyonce||

    "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"
    -Charles Darwin-

    Ok, genius, now go to morningstar dot com and do a search on the largest institutional shareholders of CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, and other corporate media.

    You'll see the same firms own each.
    These are the folks that control the "MSM", the .001 percent.

    Then, read the book "The New Media Monopoly" by Ben Bagdikian.
    "Five global firms 'operating with many of the characteristics of a cartel' own
    most book publishers, newspapers, magazines, movie studios, radio stations
    and TV stations in the United States.
    Time Warner
    Walt Disney
    New Corporation (Murdoch)
    Viacom
    Bertelsmann (Germany)

    "The 'product' of media are entertainment, news and political programs and
    the big 5 indulge in mutual aid and share investments in the same product."

    You sir are proving the Dunning-Kruger effect correct.
    Congrats!

  • AlmightyJB||

    Don't try to make me like them. It's not going to work.

  • sarcasmic||

    Rich people seek political power. More at 11.

  • Sevo||

    Happen to be re-reading "The Age of Gold" ( H. W. Brands) regarding the CA gold rush (plus some over-reach at the end).
    Leland Stanford was elected the (R) governor of CA in 1861. After the election, he wrote to his brother: "Everything confirms the view I long since took that the struggle is one between the Democratic [not the party] and the Aristocratic element of our country"...
    Now, you can reject mob-rule ('pure democracy') two ways:
    1) You can erect 'dams' in the form of 'super majority' requirements and/or the similar, impounding still-water ponds, if you will, slowing the overheated political flow of shitbags like Tony et al, allowing enough time for those with some reserve of intelligence to think it over, while still accepting the vote; IOWs, you can organize a 'Republic'.
    Or
    2) You can allow the rise of a monarchy, or its equivalent; see Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc.
    AFAIK, there are no other options. Pace our annoying asshole, above:

    Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland|11.12.18 @ 6:23PM|#
    "The Democrats are the party of the educated, the accomplished, the skilled, the modern . . . attributes often associated with income and wealth..[more bullshit]..."

    Wanna guess which side this scumbag favors?

  • BunkerBill||

    What else is new? Socialism is and has always been a tool of the super rich used to keep themselves wealthy and powerful by containing the wealth and power accumulation of anyone else.

  • Rossami||

    Rebrand? They've always been the party of the rich.

  • John C. Randolph||

    Are they NOW? They always were.

    -jcr

  • Stephen Lathrop||

    I don't want to subtract anything from complaints about the Democrats selling out ordinary workers. I have been griping about that since before Bill Clinton. But it's pretty rich to see the subhead in the OP, "The Trump rebranding of the GOP as a working class party . . . " Wouldn't that read more accurately if it said, "sucker-class party?"

  • TxJack 112||

    Democrats have been the party of the wealthy for many years. Their claims of helping "working families" is a pretense just as their claims of helping the poor. Democrats have been the party of the wealthy coastal elitists for many years which is why do have such distain for those people living in the center of the country. Democrats do not understand middle America because like the Good Rev. Kirkland here, they think they are better than us and therefore we are not worthy of their concern or attention. They assume that anyone who lives in rural America is uneducated because educated people always choose the crowded confines of urban life. Sadly they are too arrogant and/or stupid to grasp many very well educated people leave urban life behind and choose to slow down and enjoy the finite time we have on the earth.

  • TxJack 112||

    Democrats have been the party of the wealthy for many years. Their claims of helping "working families" is a pretense just as their claims of helping the poor. Democrats have been the party of the wealthy coastal elitists for many years which is why do have such distain for those people living in the center of the country. Democrats do not understand middle America because like the Good Rev. Kirkland here, they think they are better than us and therefore we are not worthy of their concern or attention. They assume that anyone who lives in rural America is uneducated because educated people always choose the crowded confines of urban life. Sadly they are too arrogant and/or stupid to grasp many very well educated people leave urban life behind and choose to slow down and enjoy the finite time we have on the earth.

  • ILuvPolitics||

    "they would be sensitive to the desire of other wealthy people not to have their money either taxed away at confiscatory rates or eroded by inflation."

    Explain this? Because i'm pretty sure only the top .2% or something ridiculous pay inheritance tax. And inflation has basically been close to nil for quite some time.

    Hopefully these "limousine liberals" will indeed be in line with founding principles and general decency and show it with personal sacrifice of their wealth, bringing the inheritance tax and income tax structure back to a reasonable rate.

    Taxes are the lowest they've been in at least 70 years, and wouldn't you know it, we have a terrible debt problem, which in turn, will lead to that inflation that you're concerned about.

  • GoatOnABoat||

    The rich elite have ALWAYS controlled both parties.

  • vek||

    One thing I have seen several times before, which most seem not to know... Is it's not "the rich" per se that vote Dem.

    It's the college educated. AKA brainwashed.

    Unless something has changed dramatically in the last few years, in most polls super wealthy people tend to be conservative. Business owners tend to be conservative. It's basically the college educated middle manager or technocrat that tends to be liberal.

    My reading of this is that it's essentially the "mediocre" above average types. The ones the brain washing worked on at school. The ones who are brighter than average... But not quite brilliant.

    Thing is, there are a lot of those sorts. IMO it is purely this way because of the level of indoctrination in schools nowadays. Back in the day college graduates DID NOT have this massive swing politically, yet as the schools became more left leaning, they magically do now.

    The fact that most business owners, the actual badasses, DO NOT lean left says it all to me. Who is really the smartest guy in the room: The founder/CEO, the accountant, the IT guy, etc? I'm going to go with CEO most of the time, and they're the ones that aren't commies.

    At least not most of the time. In the situations where they are, I think it's less actually being true believers, and more being in it for the power/to rig the game in their favor. Somebody like Bill Clinton doesn't believe all the BS the Dems spew, he just wants power and money. Probably the same for a Zuckerberg etc.

  • Uncle Jay||

    Yes, the democrats are the party of the rich.
    So what?
    They became rich because they're so much smarter than everyone else.
    They attended private snob farms like Harvard, Yale, Columbia, etc., so yeah there so much wiser than all us little people. They show their superior intelligence by knowing the difference between dark chocolate and milk chocolate, day and night, sitting down and standing up, the sun and the moon, and a host of other complicated differences we hoi poloi could never understand.
    So let the democrats enjoy their elitist stance, their millions and billions, their soirees.
    After all, such wise people should mingle with blue collar types, truck drivers, factory workers, construction workers, and other yukky people.
    Otherwise the untermenschen in this country might start to think rich liberals are full of shit.

  • Lester224||

    Tell all the black people who vote 90% democrat that it's the party of the rich. More like it's the party of the guilty rich plus minorities (well minorities now) and well educated suburban women (who are middle class or rich- mostly).

  • GoatOnABoat||

    Because the democrats traded in iron chains for the chains of welfare.

  • Vernon Depner||

    You can't feel your chains if you don't struggle against them.

  • jello.beyonce||

    Ahhh, the intellectual constraint via the ancient human instinct of "Dichotomous Thinking".
    "This or that", "either/or", "in-group" vs "out-group" mentality.

    Here's a question:
    WHY CAN'T THE MINDLESS MASSES CONCEIVE OF BOTH PARTIES AS BEING PARTIES OF THE RICH?

    Regardless whether "Dem" or "GOP", the same ultra-wealthy continue to gain ever-more wealth, the same-ultra-powerful gain ever-more power.
    The WTID wealth inequality index has continued its massive rise under both the "GOP" and "Dems".

    Yet the rest of us continue to lose pace to highly under-reported inflation, as we continue to lose ever-more rights, freedoms, liberties, and justice.

    The .001 percent, and their corporations continue to receive HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS in TAXPAYER monies, via subsidies, ANNUALLY.

    Meanwhile, the sheepish followers of the "left" and "right" are kept busily distracted, blaming & fighting each other over who's "leaders" are most corrupt, whilst the .001 percent, the NEO-FEUDAL LORDS escape accountability and blame.

    That same .001 percent own & control the highly-concentrated media that continue to support the tribalism-like divisiveness between the partisan followers.

    That .001 percent are profiting whilst playing both sides against each other.
    SUCKERS!

  • jello.beyonce||

    A Pew Research Center poll from last year found that about 40 percent of both Democrats and Republicans belong to their party because they oppose the other party's values, rather than because they are particularly aligned with their own party.
    Yet studies show they are highly unaware of what those values truly are.

    But what if Americans' views of the parties, particularly whichever one they don't belong to, are, well, kind of wrong? That's the argument of a study by scholars Douglas Ahler and Gaurav Sood that was recently published in The Journal of Politics.

    They had the polling firm YouGov ask American adults to estimate the size of groups in each party. For example, what percentage of Democrats are black, or lesbian, gay or bisexual? What percentage of Republicans earn more than $250,000 a year, or are age 65 or older?

    What they found was that Americans overall are fairly misinformed about who is in each major party — and that members of each party are even more misinformed about who is in the other party.

    Reason has published articles by Ilya Somin, whom wrote "Democracy and Political Ignorance", which highlights a similar theme.
    Somin argues that people are ignorant and irrational about politics and that this creates problems for democracy.

    Read about "Confirmation Bias" and the "Backfire Effect".

    "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"
    Charles Darwin
    The Dunning-Kruger effect.

  • AD-RtR/OS!||

    Have been for quite some time......have you been sleeping?

  • Liberty Lover||

    Traditionally Democrats and Republicans had both a conservative and liberal wing. Traditionally Democrats supported labor while Republicans supported business. Gerrymandering and intensive lobbying changed all that. As the parties became more polarized the party in power tried to guarantee success with gerrymandering, meaning you had to lean farther right or left to win your parties nomination. The increase in lobbying, with big business giving money to both sides to guarantee they won no matter what party gained power, also made the Democrats beholding to the rich donors. The decreasing power of the Unions meant less money from labor. Also the rich celebrities guilt about there own money led them to support big money Democrats. What you end up with is both parties now support the rich, as that is where their re-election funds are found.

  • UnrepentantCurmudgeon||

    Who the hell are you kidding? The Democrats have been the party of the rich for as long as I can remember. Their pals in the media just don't bother mentioning that fact is all. Remember Nixon talking about Pat and her "good Republican cloth coat"? Can you imagine Michelle -- the woman who famously spent $900 on a tote bag in Obama's first year in office -- wearing a cloth coat? Not hardly. And it was not Republicans who built up a $2B war chest for the 2016 elections. That the Dems get away with pretending to be the party of the poor is just the newest manifestation of the wisdom of Kiser Sose: "the greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he doesn't exist".

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online