From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article or section may contain original research or unattributed claims. Please help Wikipedia by adding references. See the talk page for details.

Liberal elite and liberal elitist are terms used by some ideological opponents of liberalism to refer pejoratively to affluent liberals, who, their opponents claim, are elitist and disconnected from the rest of society (note also the US term limousine liberal, the Irish term "smoked salmon liberal", or latte liberal as synonyms). The feelings stem from the populist movement of the late 19th century.

Contents 1 United States 2 United Kingdom 3 Australia 4 References 5 See also

In the US, the term is most often applied to residents of the U.S. Northeast, especially New England, and to people with advanced degrees who are left leaning (see Boston Brahmin). Such people are perceived to be politically liberal, to lead a metropolitan and "fancy" lifestyle, and to be bookish or intellectual.

It is considered a political disadvantage for a campaigning US politician be associated in the minds of the electorate with the "liberal elite" because they would then seem to be not only out of step with mainstream opinion, but also privileged, and therefore unfamiliar with the concerns of the typical American voter. Thus it is often used by right-wing media commentators and politicians to apply to their opponents.

In the US, the lifestyle of liberal people is often considered noteworthy.^{[citation needed]} The "liberal elite" are often characterized as having an affinity for European cultures, especially the culture of France. French cheeses and wines, expensive coffee, and foreign films are often associated with the liberal elite. This association can be applied to suggest that someone is unpatriotic, and disdainful of American life and culture.

A political ad from the supply-side organisation Club for Growth which attacked the Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean summed up many of these stereotypes: "Howard Dean should take his tax-hiking, government-expanding, latte-drinking, sushi-eating, Volvo-driving, New York Times-reading, Hollywood-loving, left-wing freak show back to Vermont, where it belongs."

In the US, objections are raised to the term elite, based on the claim that the Republican Party contains a much larger percentage of the American upper class than does the Democratic Party, and that Republican economic policies benefit the wealthy more than those of Democrats; thus it is the Republican Party that should be called elitist, similarly in the UK the hereditary peers who formerly sat in the unreformed House of Lords disproportionately belonged to the Conservative Party.

However, there do exist regions of the United States that are characterized by both material affluence as well as political liberalism, such as the aforementioned U.S. Northeast and the San Francisco Bay Area. Additionally, in the U.S. Congress, Democratic representatives have an average personal wealth greater than the Republicans^{[citation needed]}. A 2004 article in The Economist, claimed that in the 2004 U.S. presidential election, people worth $1m-10m supported George W. Bush by a 63-37% margin, whereas those worth more than $10m favoured John Kerry 59-41%.

In the book What's the Matter with Kansas? by Thomas Frank, the idea of a liberal elite is suggested to be similar to the character of Emmanuel Goldstein in the George Orwell book Nineteen-Eighty Four, the hated enemy of the people who did not actually exist. Frank argues that anger directed towards this perceived enemy that keeps the conservative coalition together. He says that while the Republican economic policies do not benefit them, Republican social policies are more attractive than those of "liberal elitists".

In the UK, the term similarly refers to people, often residents of northern suburbs of London such as Hampstead or Islington, who may be involved in the media or the liberal professions, and who are perceived to exert political influence out of proportion to wider popular support for their opinions. Certain organisations are sometimes accused of being under the influence of a liberal elite - hence terms such as "BBC-Guardian axis".

In Australia, chardonnay socialist is used as a derogatory term to describe those on the political left with comfortable middle-class (or better) incomes, tertiary education, and a taste for the finer things in life. (Chardonnay is a style of white wine.)

It is similar in thrust to the American term limousine liberal, though without quite the same taint of great wealth attaching to it.

The term "chardonnay socialist" is regularly used by people from throughout the political spectrum to criticise opponents. For example, Australian left-wing "true believers" levelled it at supporters of the failed republic referendum of 1999 (where the vote was split not along conventional party lines but very much along socio-economic divides, with the rich overwhelmingly supporting the change while the less well-off were opposed – a superficially bizarre pattern for a non-economic issue). Staunch Australian right-wingers, on the other hand, level it at those who support such things as government funding for the arts, free tertiary education, and the ABC – all causes which are described by critics as "middle-class welfare".

The older term for this or a similar kind of person was "salon communist."

• The Economist, The Fear Myth http://www.economist.com/world/na/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3400772
• Larry M. Bartels (2006), "What's the Matter with What's the Matter with Kansas?", Quarterly Journal of Political Science: Vol. 1:No. 2, pp 201-226.
• Joshua Kurlantzick, The New Yorker (2004) "Pardon?" http://www.newyorker.com/talk/content/articles/040419ta_talk_kurlantzick?040419ta_talk_kurlantzick

• Culture war
• Left-wing politics
• East Coast liberal
• Left Coast