In response to:

How Liberals Live

USNbubblehead Wrote: Mar 02, 2013 1:21 PM
"What do these groups have in common? Nothing. They rarely meet. And if they did they wouldn't like each other. " This is the thing that's always baffled me about the two groups. Certainly the 'privileged' side look right down their noses at the unwashed underprivileged, I see it every day. It's one of the traits the Democrat Party elite have that I find so repellent. To me, it is reminiscent of the pre-revolutionary European class system, with its aristocracy, nobility, and peasantry. One of the things that impressed visitors to the early U.S. was the very small disparity between the richest Americans and the poorest ones. Of course, this was before the industrial revolution.
AZYaateeh Wrote: Mar 02, 2013 3:01 PM
You know aristocracy and nobility are the same thing, right? And that peasants were—by definition—landowners?

The French Revolution actually happened because the royal reforms acknowledged and enfranchised clergy, aristocrats, AND PEASANTS; it was the urban professional class they ignored, because the political theory still saw the economy as primarily a matter of land, when it was already becoming intellectual and industrial capital. Hence why the entire leadership of the French Revolution was urban professionals—Danton was a lawyer, St. Just a doctor—and most of the actual peasants were the source of the monarchist uprisings the Revolutionary government periodically put down.

The Democratic Party has two reliable groups of adherents: the rich and the poor.

Not all of the rich, of course. Not all of the poor, either.

But a large swath of wealthy people, especially those whose wealth was inherited rather than earned, wouldn’t dream of voting for a Republican. Ditto for a large number of poor people who have discovered how to sign up for various welfare programs and intend to remain on the dole for the rest of their lives.

What do these groups have in common? Nothing. They rarely meet. And if they did they wouldn't...