Elitism is a concept often deliberately misconstrued by conservatives for political gain. It is simply another semantic manipulation of information.
I have asked many conservatives about elitism. Most present that the elitists are people with those fancy college degrees who think they know better just because they’re educated. They think they are better than common folk and they think common folk opinions as less than theirs.
These conservatives seem to have too often heard their affiliates call Obama an elitist. So this is yet another perceptual constriction founded on ignorance. It is the pot calling the kettle tarnished. Turning your own faults into criticisms of others.
Prior to hearing the word elitism start to be thrown around heavily when Obama arrived on the national political scene, my primary reference to the idea was purely sociological and very different from the republican sublimation of the word (solid into gas). It now seems to be a nebulous impact term. It certainly is accusatory. But I understand I feel so exclusively due to the powerful conditioning associated with the Republican twist.
Elitism is indeed a sociological construct. A theory that proposes - in larger societies, some individuals will rise to elite positions of wealth, power and influence over those societies. It is most often contrasted by the theory of pluralism. Pluralism presents that although people will rise to significant positions of power and influence in specific domains of expertise (medical, business, education, religious, law…), and with those achievements often comes wealth, people are unlikely to rise to such levels of influence over an entire society.
The contrast of these two theories, their implications and the policies that influence them are very interesting, particularly given the ignorance and manipulation presented by some. It should be clear that elitism intrinsically implies and requires inequity – socioeconomic inequity in particular.
Certainly one can understand the obvious relationships between wealth, power and influence in modern American society. It sure seems as if power and influence at the societal (elitist theory) level, are more likely to be obtained via the accumulation or inheritance of wealth, while domain (pluralism) level of influence can only be obtained via hard work.
Unfortunately, in modern elitist policy ridden America, the relationship of hard work to equitable earnings has been intentionally weakened, while the returns on wealth investment has been immensely overemphasized by comparison. Is this not elitist?
The power of money is hard to deny in modern America. It is equally hard to deny that particular policies have been intentional advanced to increase the ability to purchase power and influence over the creation of policy itself. Government policy and election results driven by money are undeniably elitist.
As citizens of a democratic society, we are obligated to question the moral and functional implications of supporting and advancing a system and policies that allow the inheritance and accumulation of wealth to be used to obtain power and influence at the societal level (Elitism). Therefore, we are obligated to review the very policies that would advance the concentration of wealth in the hands of fewer and fewer persons; for these policies directly and unquestionably advance elitism in modern American society.
Furthermore, such policies are seemingly undemocratic and contrary to the principles upon which America was founded. The elitism of King George, the aristocracy and the global trading companies intent on raping America for every penny certainly facilitated and directly preceded the American revolution.
Elitist societies are evidenced by history to be the inevitable result of the concentration of wealth and resources in the hands of few persons. That is the face and defining characteristic of elitist societies. Elitism and its economic and social consequences are the primary situation that inspired the French and American revolutions and birthed democracy.
Kings, nobility, aristocrats, rulers, governors, (Elitist societal positions) are not and should not be produced by the circumstances of birth. Ones position in society should be determined by one’s own choices and behavior. No man should be able to own, achieve or inherit an elitist level of influence over society. In a democratic society influential leadership positions should only come via the democratic process of election and temporary holding of such power under strict constraints and consent. But most importantly, these positions are to be used exclusively to protect and advance the interests of the entire society with diverse and at times utilitarian considerations.
The strongest variable influencing the advancement of elitism is a society’s tax system. It should be obvious that a more progressive tax system and a strong inheritance tax are the primary methods of limiting and lessening elitism and maintaining democracy.
In modern America they also act to promote greater equality. They prevent extreme privilege of birth as well as calm greed related behavior and corruption. The only way to combat elitism in America is to reduce the ability to purchase power and influence or to reduce the ability to accumulate extreme wealth. Therefore, either an anti-elitist tax system or a separation of money and politics must exist if democracy is to be maintained.
In a democratic society the rules of the society need to be determined based on the interests of the people as a society, not simply maintaining and advancing the interests of wealth-power brokers. Such elite positions have no place in a democracy. Supply side economic principals, the flattening of the progressive tax system and the reduction/elimination of the inheritance tax have done the most damage in promoting elitism in America.
Comments
Oh boy.. Another elitist looking down his/her nose at the dumb conservatives who just don't seem to be bright enough to understand how stupid they are. It never gets old does it?
When the "elites", ..those of wealth and power... demand more from an economy than it can maintain...they tend to find their heads lopped off like King Louis..
It would take a min. wage worker 120,00 years to earn the equivalent of a billion dollar bonus. If he began working under King Tut making bricks for pyramids, he'd still have 117,000 years to go.
If he's lucky, he can afford to get an abcessed tooth pulled. If not, than the elites are probably demanding more from an economy than the majority can supply. Some are stuck with a painful, abcessed tooth, and some, like happened to a kid in Denver, will die from it..
As former Fed Chairman Friedman noted in his book, "Money Mischief"....The money supply at any given time is finite.... and while it isn't obvious...., for one to have more, another has to have less"
Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"
I didn't get that from Jah's essay. How is he an "elitist looking down his/her nose at the dumb conservatives"? What was it in his posting that gave you that idea?
"So this is yet another perceptual constriction founded on ignorance." Enough said?
Or was it that a Poly tactic was pulled where a word, in this case elitism, is redefined to fit the poster's argument and then the ensuing strawman pummeled. If I was smarter, I might know. :o)
Elitism is defined as "the belief that society should be governed by a select group of gifted and highly educated individuals." For my part, I would prefer to be governed by someone smarter than I am and who is able to meet and deal successfully with the heads of other world governments -- not someone I would like to have a beer with.
I don't think most conservatives are dumb, but there is no doubt that they have been mislead by their "elite" leaders, who would prefer that their constituents believe that Democrats think that conservatives are not very smart. What really puzzles me is the fact that most Democrats are working people, not highly educated, and just trying to make it in this difficult world, while, until the right wing decided it would be beneficial to their side to appeal to fundamental religious groups (think "Moral Majority"), they were the ones who were considered "the elite."
I find it ludicrous that anyone would call our president an elitist -- this is a man who worked his way through college, with the aid of part-time jobs and college loans, which he didn't get paid off until years after his graduation, and whose first job after graduation was that of a community organizer. Hardly fits the description of elitist, does it?
Sometimes, a little education can be a dangerous thing. Educated people on a professional level tend to be specialists. In today's technological world, that is more true than ever. A narrow view of reality may result in narrow-minded thinking.
Or was it that a Poly tactic was pulled where a word, in this case elitism, is redefined to fit the poster's argument and then the ensuing strawman pummeled. If I was smarter, I might know. :o)
Guess I'm just too dumb to understand all this fancy talk.
A power elite, in political and sociological theory , is a small group of people who control a disproportionate amount of wealth, privilege, and access to decision-making of global consequence. The term was coined by Charles Wright Mills in his 1956 book, The Power Elite, which describes the relationship between individuals at the pinnacles of political, military, and economic institutions, noting that these people share a common world view.
Mills argues in his book that the US power elite consists of members of society characterized by consensus building and the homogenization of viewpoints. This power elite has historically dominated the three major sectors of US society: economy, government, and military. Elites circulate from one sector to another, consolidating their power as they go.[2]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_elite
The term elite is common in sociology and isn't limited to a skilled craftsman. Monarchs were elites. If they played their cards right, the bulk of their nation's wealth was in their own treasuries. Of course, from time to time they took so much of their country's wealth, they got their heads lopped off..
Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"
Paleo, I don't know why you are so hard on yourself? You are a man who has lived all over the place, you seem to have a rather open view of the world. Yet, you are so keen to be seen as dumb by progressives.
Are you embarrassed to tell your conservative friends you were an expatriate for many years? Do you feel they may think you are being an elitist?!! ;)
Elitism is such a broad term that it can be applied to the belief system of any group that is believed to be elite by the rest of society or that has set itself up as such.
A whole lot can be said about educational elitism. One of the saddest things about it is the reverse classism applied to the educated by the uneducated and undereducated, such as the Tea Baggers. They despise the educated and write them off as "elite." They ignore the fact that especially in this era, many of the well-educated on the progressive side of the aisle have scrimped, saved, sacrificed, and done all kinds of low-paying, menial jobs to get the educations the Tea Baggers so deeply resent. Lots of us weren't born rich, so we had to work for our educations, unlike the spoiled scions of the economic elite, who coasted through college on "Gentlemen's C's" and Dad's money, after which they landed instant millionaire jobs simply through connections, rather than brainpower, demonstrated competency, or hard work.
Judging from Tea Bagger interviews I've heard, especially of some at Beck's recent Nuremberg Rally, most Tea Baggers haven't been trained to think critically, which is perhaps the greatest legacy of a good education, and that's why they're so easily manipulated by the empty rhetoric of the Becks, Hannitys, and Limbaughs of the world. It's also interesting to note that a very large number of GOP and conservative movers, shakers, doers, and elected officials were educated at those same "pointyheaded intellectual Ivy League colleges" they sneer at while inciting class resentment against the educated in the heads of their non-thinking followers.
At its core, the Right wants Hoffer's "True Believers," and critical thought is anathema to any essentially totalitarian ideology. Philistinism as manifest in undereducation is required by the Right, because philistinism is the antithesis of culture, which always accompanies a well-rounded education. One of the national Nazi leaders filmed speaking in Triumph of the Will said, "Whenever I hear the word 'culture,' I reach for my revolver."
If reactionaries think the educated have screwed up the world (and they have), are they willing to go back to letting the uneducated run it?
C F R
One of my main contentions is that elitism is a highly manipulated term. I clearly stated the primary conservative interpretation as well as the classic sociological definition as I learned it back before the word had been manipulated for political purposes.
The modern use of the term has become broad and nebulous by design. However, the root of the concept lies in societal level versus domain level influence. Scale is the differentiating factor.
In other words, "educational elitism, medical elitism, intellectual elitism..." are oxymorons. They utilize a term related to pluralistic or domain levels of influence rather than that over entire societies.
The concept originated as a sociological construct. Nothing more than a theory of what "naturally" occurs in societies with certain characteristics. Contrarily, those that disagreed tended to reject the theory on the matter of scale. They believed that the levels of influence people tend to obtain are limited to specific domains of expertise. This is elitism versus pluralism.
Now, if I tend to believe that elitist wealth-power brokers have emerged in modern American society because certain policies have been advanced that have allowed this to occur, am I an elitist?
What if I believe elitism indeed exists, but I believe it is a bad thing, am I an elitist? What if I advocate a progressive tax system, a progressive inheritance tax, and a constriction of the influence money can purchase from government, would that make me an elitist? No, that would make me an active opponent of elitism.
Another way to see it is the concept of elitism has been reinterpreted from a sociological to the psychological level. When someone uses this term, they are usually accusing someone else of thinking they know more. It is as if they are calling them pompous. This is a rather ignorant use of the term. And, you will constantly find this coming from conservatives. Yes, I am a bit pompous when talking with many conservatives, but that does not make me the elite or elitist.
"Educational elitism"? As far back as 600BC the sons of kings were sent to receive the best education available. Furthermore, some of this education was to prepare the princes of nobility and commerce to rule and govern the masses.
Even in modern America the sons of the elites are sent to attend Oxford, Yale, and Harvard etc; although there are now achievement based paths to such an education. Again, the elites tend to be able to purchase what should only be obtainable via effort.
When your car breaks down, you take it to a mechanic for a reason. That's because he has been specifically educated. Is he an automotive elitist because he knows more than you about cars?
Let’s suppose you possess money, power and influence over American society and government policy. Maybe you are one of Forbes Magazine’s most influential people, in other words, a member of the societal elite. Chances are you did not obtain that position because you earned your way into Harvard and prospered in your field of expertise. Chances are you got into and graduated from Yale because you came from an elite family.
Real elitism exists. It is dangerous and undemocratic. Using that term creatively seems to have disguised and degraded its true and classic meaning. When someone uses the term elitist or elitism, chances are what they are doing is calling someone pompous.
Elitism is a sociological theory, not an individual attitude or domain specific achievement of knowledge. It has only become so in popular culture , intentionally and to the advantage of the elite and the policies they forward. This is no different than calling an inheritance tax the "death tax" or equating abortion to murdering babies. It's just another part of the psycho-semantic game of redefining and manipulating perception, salience, scale and proportion.
The term used to successfully defeat Stevenson when he ran for Pres. was "egghead'. A reference to his outstanding intellect.
Americans seem to prefer idiots like Reagan as long as they can read a script well...or lacky's like Bush who can swagger like Clint Eastwood or John Wayne..Flowery rhetoric that says nothing is also a sure winner. Obama comes to mind.
While not among the "ubber rich elites" themselves, they've been assured a place at their table by serving them very, very well.
On-going outsourcing is a bonanza. The $11.4 trillion in bailouts and guarantees was the biggest single wealth transfer, ..bottom to top....in the history of the world.
As Chris Hedges notes, "We have experienced a slow-moving coup d'état." Wolin seems to agree with him in "Democracy, Inc. - Inverted Totalitarianism", Princeton Univ. Press.
Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"
"Elitism" is a just another snot-nosed term like "limousine Liberal" used by losers like Hannity to make his audience feel like martyrs. He loves to manipulate touchy whiny conservatives--as if there were any other kind of conservative.
Jah, very well articulated. Thank you.
Here are the lyrics to a song I wrote called "What I Feel":
Well you can bathe in the blood of my fathers when they die.
Charge a fair price for water falling right from the sky.
That's alright.
(chorus) You can take what I do, and even what I say, but you can't take what I feel.
Tell me Jesus never turned no water to wine.
Take the sweat off my back and sell it back to me on time.
I don't mind.
(repeat chorus)
Keep your freedom in a lockbox if you please.
Take great care making sure nobody finds the key.
Don't phase me.
(repeat chorus)
Keep making fools of the working class.
Throw their kids in jail because they won't kiss your ass.
You've got no class.
You can take what I do, and even what I say, and take what I feel.
I read your lyrics a few times. I picture an acoustic guitar. I interpreted them in several ways. Isn't that the very nature of art? It allows people to find their own unique meaning in your creation. Cool.
By contrast, the meanings of other things should not be as open to individual or group creative interpretation. Certainly in a social context, differential construal must be limited if communication and shared experience are to exist.
It is differential construal that makes it difficult to communicate with many conservatives. Words have different meanings and their thought process is quite different.
The concept of elitism has been reframed by conservatives from an undesirable societal condition based on socioeconomic inequity into a name you call the knowledgeable and well educated when you don't have the intellectual capacity to present a counter argument.
What is the outcome of this?
Confusion.
What do we call those who advance and advocate the methods that allow the purchase of socioeconomic policy that maintains and advances the consolidation of power, influence, wealth and resources into the hands of few persons, families or groups with ever greater inequity as compared to the majority?
We call them Republicans, Tea Partiers, conservatives and elitists. Their overt behavior and ideology always results in not only greater socioeconomic inequity, but in the strengthening of the societal policies that allow wealth to purchase influence and advance the interests of the purchaser at the expense of the citizens. Free market policics, ain't that America.
Would it surprise anyone if they disassociate themselves from such a fitting characterization? What a better way than to change the way the word is used in a political context. Redefine it, Reframe its meaning and popular usage. Project it. Turn it against those who would characterize them as such. A very sofisticated form of I'm rubber-you're glue.
Association and emotional attachment to words is very powerful, particularly with the conditioning of conservative cognitive processing. When certain words are used, they elicit strong emotion and specific meaning consistent with advancing a goal. That goal is always self-serving to those that utilize such methodology. It is pure manipulation.
I've found that some ideas are really hard to express with a research paper. The feelings behind them may actually be shared by author and audience, but sometimes the specifics of how the author came to the idea from those feelings turn the audience in a different direction. I try to convey the feelings with songs and let the audience have their own specifics. It's not fool proof by any means as songs are ambiguous by nature, but it is a different approach to communication--sometimes effective. I've played that song in front of redneck crowds, artsy crowds, older crowds, younger crowds, etc. and almost always get a good response from them. The idea of the wealthy being oppressive and manipulative I think is definitely in that song. That idea is present in people of all different mindsets.
Anyway, I really enjoyed reading your post. It was very well written and I agree with you.
Jah, I must say that I think educated people underestimate the intellectual capacity of uneducated people. Obviously, there's probably some difference, but I think more often the uneducated have plenty of capacity but have a harder time articulating their thoughts. I remember throughout school never being able to learn from my math teachers. They were smart, and understood the material themselves, but could not explain it well. I always had to learn from the book. More importantly, I think this pompous attitude and societal division of white collar/blue collar workers is something that has been framed by the elite. By portraying blue collar people in film and television as stupid, this perception of them has been exaggerated. If a blue collar person is not portrayed as stupid, then they are portrayed as living a devious double life or something. This is similar to how, during slavery, blacks were portrayed as closer to animals. Then, the lines were predominantly racial. Nowadays the line of separation is education. The middle class(educated) are led to believe that the working class' living conditions and wages are far lower because they are stupid. The middle class then says nothing while the elites exploit them. The elites use this exploitation to dominate economically over the middle class and eventually push more and more of them into the lower class.
Just as blacks resent whites(even if they, or their family didn't own slaves) uneducated people resent educated people for this. The pompousness is divisive to society.
Working class members of my neighborhood understand very well what outsourcing has done to them. They don't need a sensible economist to explain it to them....and they get pretty clearly that the economic prostitutes who say they've benefited from outsourcing are twits.
What they've yet to perceive is that class warfare is being waged upon them.in a well thought out manner.
“There’s class warfare, all right,” Mr. Buffett said, “but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.” - Warren Buffett
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/26/business/yourmoney/26every.html?_r=2
Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease".
We could look at elitism in an international context as well. As an American living in Europe, over the past few months, I have over heard conversations such as;
Americans, well they are all fat...
Americans, well they are all idiots...
Americans, well they are all so loud...
Of course, I am condensing bits of conversations I have overhead. But I have noticed a theme to what the common thought about Americans tends to be.
So are Europeans elitist because they hold such stereotypes of Americans?
A seed planted doesn't grow and produce overnight. Adding disdain as fertilizer will only kill it. Bridges are very important public works.
So let me get this straight, being rich is not elitism, but being intelligent is.
Hmmm, that is one uniquely American definition.
(I have to say, I am not surprised at the POV my fellow Europeans have of my compatriots.)
Meljomur, I'm sorry, I didn't realize that comment was directed at me. Being intelligent isn't elitist or pompous. Elitist refers to all of the power of a nation being in the hands of a few economically elite. The OP clears that up. Being pompous is treating others as if they aren't intelligent, or are on a lower level than you. If Europeans expect any advice they have for Americans to sink in, they will drop the pompous approach. Likewise, if educated Americans (notice, I didn't say intelligent Americans as intelligence is not limited to the educated) expect any advice they have for uneducated Americans to sink in, they should also drop the pompous approach. I think this would be wise for Progressives because all Americans vote.
I'm surprised that our friend polycarp2 didn't also mention a certain professor and writer from the past at the University of Chicago: Thorsten Veblen, author of the book, The Theory of the Leisure Class. Veblen was a social critic, particularly of our economic system, and he I think he was concerned with elements of economic elitism which seem just as relevant today as when he wrote the book. If polycarp2 has any thoughts on Veblen's analysis, I would be interested in reading them.
Veblen incidentally wrote another book called The Higher Learning in America. In that one, he compared the bobbing bald head of the dean sitting on the stage at graduation ceremonies to an elephant rider in a circus parade. He is known for his acerbic wit and sardonic tone and writing style as much as for the content of his books.
Meljomur, I'm sorry, I didn't realize that comment was directed at me. Being intelligent isn't elitist or pompous. Elitist refers to all of the power of a nation being in the hands of a few economically elite. The OP clears that up. Being pompous is treating others as if they aren't intelligent, or are on a lower level than you. If Europeans expect any advice they have for Americans to sink in, they will drop the pompous approach. Likewise, if educated Americans (notice, I didn't say intelligent Americans as intelligence is not limited to the educated) expect any advice they have for uneducated Americans to sink in, they should also drop the pompous approach. I think this would be wise for Progressives because all Americans vote.
You've made some very good points here. Anybody who confuses ignorance with stupidity and treats people accordingly is stupid himself/herself. Conversely, one of the hardest things to stomach is willfully and aggressively ignorant people who don't want to be bothered by facts demanding a full and equal say on how everything should be run. This describes a large portion of the Tea Bag crowd.
I think it is important to realize while on these boards that many people who are on the fence politically come to browse without posting comments themselves. When you come across one of the hard headed people who do post, don't be baited into making pompous remarks. This may be just what they want as it will turn people off to what you're saying. From what I've gathered, most Progressive thought is sound and people will see that if not turned off. Plant seeds.
Ulysses, I'm not trying to offend you or accuse you of anything. Jah stated on a previous post:
Many, if not most of the think tanks genuinely believe in 'only elite can rule' only elite should rule [W yes, not Clinton, not Obama].
David "he's not one of us" Broder thinks that.
"Morton Blackwell works with Plinio de Correa de Olivier's Tradition, Family & Property and endorsed Olivier's book, Nobility & Analagous Traditional Elites, on the necessity of restoring traditional Nobility & Elites to rule the world. In the Forward Blackwell wrote: 'One does not have to accept Papal infallibility to appreciate a case persuasively made, using theological, moral, and prudential arguments. This book will convince many readers, whatever their faith, that good elites are legitimate, desirable and, yes, necessary.'
/colin-kidd/the-irresistible-itch that conservatives dare not scratch.
Ever since the rise of Margaret Thatcher, personal responsibility has been the irresistible itch that the Conservative Party dare not scratch – at least not in public. Notwithstanding the party’s boosterish slogans of enterprise, freedom and low taxation, many of its elderly members – and some of its politicians – have long held to a more cautious ethos of middle-class respectability, restraint and downright frugality. In theory, these Conservatives wished to roll back the restrictions of the socialist state; in practice, many of them reckoned that wartime rationing had been good for the moral fibre of the nation, and took the view that the softness of modern consumerist lifestyles had raised a society of degenerates. It was but a small step from inside lavatories and quilted toilet paper to long-haired decadence, dysfunctional families and drug addiction.
However, as Thatcher learned in the months before she became leader of the party, it was a mistake to broach too obviously the ethics of personal responsibility. Had not her ally and mentor Keith Joseph seen his own leadership aspirations shrivel in the aftermath of his notorious Edgbaston speech? When Joseph addressed the Edgbaston Conservative Association at Birmingham’s Grand Hotel on 19 October 1974, the Conservatives, under Ted Heath, had just lost a general election and Joseph had emerged as the likeliest alternative leader. However, in a speech which deliberately departed from economic issues to denounce the permissive society, Joseph undermined his political credentials.[b] He warned that Britain’s ‘human stock’ was ‘threatened’ because a high and rising proportion of children were being born to adolescent mothers ‘in social classes four and five’, some of whom were ‘of low intelligence, most of low educational attainment’. Joseph believed that these mothers were ‘producing’ the ‘delinquents’ of the future, ‘denizens of our borstals, sub-normal educational establishments, prisons, hostels for drifters’. To prescribe birth control for these girls was perhaps ‘immoral’, but surely, Joseph calculated, it was the lesser of two evils. Although Joseph’s message resonated with the Conservative base and beyond, his invocation of eugenics[/b] undermined his reputation with the broadsheet press. The influential journalist Alan Watkins described him as ‘a saloon-bar Malthus’.
http://www.george-orwell.org/Politics_and_the_English_Language/0.html
I've noticed that I don't always understand posts on this board because of generalized terms that mean different things to different people. I can appreciate eloquence, but it's sometimes hard to understand. I like the six rules at the end.
If everybody agrees in advance to the Marquis of Queensbury rules, observes them, is held to them, and gets sanctioned if they're violated, everybody is rewarded by a fair fight, win or lose. It would be great if that happened, all the time. But when only one side does it, it doesn't work. Additionally, if some have immunized themselves to objective facts and truth, they will forever remain neither reachable nor reached, and they do not discourse for the sake of doing so, but for the sake of winning the macrobattle and the war, by whatever means they can use. So be it, but figuratively speaking, I, like many other progressives, am past the point of taking knives to gunfights.
"With reasonable men, I will reason. With honorable men, I will plead. But to tyrants I will give no quarter, nor waste arguments where they will surely be lost."
William Lloyd Garrison
I had trouble making sense of this particular speech, but the author and speaker has a following, and gets tv interviews. Maybe it's just red state dialect, eye contact with the camera and a wink can replace substance and facts.
Alaska's vast resources probably help that BS fly up there, also. I doubt that speech would work as well in West Virginia. I know Palin complains about her unfair media coverage, but bad media is better than no media. I doubt that most of her media coverage is bad anyway, contrary to how she frames it, as she is all about money and the media is owned by money. Progressives get little to no media coverage since they are against money (by money, I mean elite special interests such as oil, insurance, pharmaceuticals, military contractors, large manufacturers which have moved operations abroad, etc.). That's what makes it all the more important to make good impressions on people during the little bit of exposure they get to progressive ideas without the spin of big money media.