TNR BLOGS

July 05, 2009 | 4:05 PM
July 05, 2009 | 12:13 PM
July 04, 2009 | 11:18 PM

March 09, 2009 | 5:19 PM
March 09, 2009 | 5:16 PM
January 07, 2009 | 12:20 PM

July 05, 2009 | 12:02 PM
July 01, 2009 | 10:33 PM
June 30, 2009 | 8:42 AM

July 26, 2008 | 2:24 PM
July 23, 2008 | 1:55 PM
July 17, 2008 | 3:56 PM

July 03, 2009 | 10:13 PM
July 02, 2009 | 12:57 PM
July 01, 2009 | 7:02 PM
COLUMNISTS
TODAY'S STORIES
21.08.2008
What Rich Conservatives? Oh, Right, Those Ones

Jonah Goldberg, insisting on The Corner that conservatives have little presence among the wealthy elite:

There was a time when there really was a   rightwing cultural elite that could be described as "the rich." The old money crowd of blue bloods, fat cats and the like had a powerful cultural presence, often fueled by   anti-British sentiment. But those days are largely over, thanks largely to the democraticization of wealth and also in part to the cultural implosion of the old aristocracy of wealth.  Old money foundations – and lots of old money rich people – are culturally liberal today. The remaining nominally conservative old guard has no real presence in the culture save perhaps as clichés in novels, TV shows and, of course, in the liberal press. So when liberal politicians attack “the rich” as culturally alien, it really doesn’t work the way they think it should. Which rich? The Kennedys? The Kerrys? George Soros? Warren Buffet? Hollywood producers and directors? Manhattanites?

Mark Hemmingway, writing on the same blog, posting three minutes earlier:

McCain Captures Oenophile Vote   [Mark Hemingway]

I'm told this is good wine by a friend; however, the marketing is most interesting: "2008 National Convention Celebration Reserve" to be "enjoyed for the ultimate celebration — or collected in honor of — the nomination of the 44th President of the United States." What really got me was the description of the wine on the back of the label:

The grapes were some of the finest in Sonoma — grown in the turbulent summer of 2007 — crushed in the fall as a phoenix rose from the desert and a path to victory was established.

Our wine aged in oak, amidst surprise in New England, victory in the sunshine state, a toast in the promised land, and February presumption with old, yet distant, friends.

Though his name is nowhere on the bottle, somebody thinks McCain's unlikely campaign trajectory is inspiring enough to sell fine wine.

--Jonathan Chait

Posted: Thursday, August 21, 2008 9:45 PM with 6 comment(s)

Comments

You must be logged-in to comment.

Not a subscriber? Click here to get a digital or print and digital subscription to The New Republic!

propositionjoe said:

Goldberg is channeling his inner-Nixon and is basically plagiarizing from Kevin Phillips's The Emerging Republican Majority. This guy is deeply unoriginal: change some names and that excerpt could come from 1969. The rich are in the tank for acid, amnesty, and abortion, and the GOP is stocked with rock-solid, moral hard hats who like to (rightfully) beat up arrogant, effete, Un-American hippies like Obama and Bill Ayers. Call it old wine in new bottles, with newer, even dumber labels.

August 21, 2008 10:09 PM

Peter.k said:

Isn't everyone on the national level today rich?  Both parties are spending more money then most people will ever see, even if they win the powerball.  The rank and file of both parties are probability equally not-rich, but for either national candidate to pretend to not have gobs of cash is dishonest.  

August 21, 2008 10:43 PM

raylward said:

The difference (in perception) between Reagan and GHWB was that Reagan represented the voters who are already rich and the voters who wanted to be rich whereas GHWB represented only the voters who are already rich.  The outcome of this campaign depends on whether McCain is perceived as Reagan or GHWB.  The difficulty for Obama is to cast McCain as representing only the rich without demonizing the aspirations of those who want to be rich.

August 22, 2008 6:05 AM

rriley said:

Raylward makes a good point.

I can't believe Chait (a great writer) is as demographically dim as this post suggests.  Goldberg is pointing to the phenomenon of upper class liberals and Democrats, who have been a feature of U.S. politics at least since Boston brahmins were abolitionists and Mexican War opponents - or even since Virginian aristos like Jefferson founded the Democratic Party.  Mark Hemingway is talking about an entirely different social class.  Anybody to whom that wine label appeals is, believe me, not upper class.  That kind of marketing is about as middle brow as it gets.  "Wine aged in oak" - wow!  That is not, brother Chait, what the plutocrats pine for.

August 22, 2008 9:46 AM

asistos said:

Indeed.  A 2007 as a "reserve"?  Are you kidding?

August 22, 2008 10:39 AM

prnoonan said:

This is such bullshit, it really needs to stop.  Yes, there are a lot of people who live upper-middle-class lifestyles ($100k-300k/yr) who are Democrats.  Largely, they are urban professionals who live in wealthy areas of the country (Boston-DC corridor, Bay Area, LA, Chicago), although they can probably be found in any metro area (I'd bet even Tulsa sports a Whole Foods).  These people are not, however, "the wealthy elite."  Their income is largely EARNED income (salary, for the lay person... not stock options, dividends, bond coupons, etc.) and if they stopped working tomorrow, there wouldn't be that much coming in the door.  They don't make business decisions for large corporations (vs. corporate CEOs, CFOs, etc.).  They may have one vacation home -- not eight.  They don't cut $50k checks to the political parties.  They are comfortable.  They are not POWERFUL in any meaningful sense of the term, no matter how much white wine and free-range chicken they consume.

And cut the shit with the anecdotes.  People who make over $200k per year vote for the Rs 2:1 (www.cnn.com/.../epolls.0.html), one of the most significant demographic splits.  People in the media, yes including our dear friends at NR, see reasonably well-off people in NY and DC voting for Democrats and think that's the case everywhere.  But that is not the national norm; in fact, it's an aberation.  It's a shame we lack more granuar surveys, because I would love to see the numbers for $500k+ and $1m+ in income; NY bankers and financiers were huge supports of Dubya in both his elections.  And outside of large coastal+chicago cities, people making over $200k actually have some power.  They tend to be the owners, executives and decision-makers at their companies and organizations.  They are the "bosses" (a term which might get me thrown off TNR).  And people making over $1m/yr have "power" no matter where they live.  Who do you think is more "the elite" -- college dropout Bill Gates or someone living in Montgomery Co, MD with a M.S.W. degree??

August 22, 2008 12:14 PM