Dear Nautico,
The term "Limousine Liberal" is a term describing, indeed, a liberal
person (not necessarily a politician), who " expresses a deep concern
for poor people yet does not spend any considerable portion of his/her
wealth to help poor people. It can also mean a wealthy person who does
in some way want to help the poor, but is oblivious to the costs of
doing so to the working-class." (SOURCE: Wikipedia, "Limousine
liberal", <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limousine_liberal>).
The origin of the term is New York City Democratic mayoral hopeful
Mario Procaccino, who used it "to describe Mayor John Lindsay and his
well-heeled Manhattan backers. Procaccino criticized the patrician
Lindsay for favouring unemployed blacks over working-class white
ethnics." (ibid).
Your second question is a matter of opinion. In my opinion, it is not
necessarily hypocritical for a "rich politico" to advocate entitlement
programs for the poor. After all, a politician could be convinced that
liberal policies are better for the poor. The question is, whether he
is enacting these policies also on himself and his cronies. Wikipedia
give the example of Edward Kennedy, who promoted school integration
and bussing of white children from rich neighbourhoods to urban black
schools and vice versa, but sent his own children in the same
neighbourhood to a private school. Same thing with school policy could
be seen in the UK, where "champagne socialists" would send their
children to private schools (called public schools in the UK ;-).
However, I could think of at least one politician (a local one,
therefore I know his habits, but therefore his name would tell you
nothing), that lives by his socialist principles, despite being of a
richer status. The point is not being rich and supporting what you may
call "entitlement programmes", the point is supporting those
programmes for others people (and not for yourself), or only in order
to attract votes, without really believing in it.
Humour, caricature: Limousine Liberal - The Magazine For Those Who
Know What's Best - For Everyone
<http://www.flashbunny.org/content/limoliberal.html>
I hope this answered your question, please contact me if you need any
clarification on this answer before you rate it.
Search strategy: "limousine liberal" |
Request for Answer Clarification by
nautico-ga
on
07 Jun 2004 11:34 PDT
I must confess I continue to have a problem with the notion that rich
liberals who don't live by the policies they advocate for the poor are
hypocrites or reprehensible for other reasons. So what if Ted Kennedy
sent his kids to private schools while advocating public school
programs that benefitted poor families? If those poor families were
better off, they, too, would send their children to private schools.
Since Kennedy isn't in a position to provide real wealth to the poor,
why do so many consider his motives for doing the next best thing he
can for them questionable? It would make little sense for the rich to
"live like the poor" just to lend credence to the programs they
advocate. Liberals follow the I-am-my-brother's-keeper maxim, as
opposed to the sink-or-swim, survival-of-the-fittest premise
characteristic of conservatives. Yes, I know that it makes more sense
to teach someone to fish as opposed to simply providing the fish, but
isn't it admirable to provide a few fish while the poor are learning
to handle a rod and reel?
|
Clarification of Answer by
politicalguru-ga
on
07 Jun 2004 17:56 PDT
Nautico,
Well, of course you could view it the way you'd like and I understand
your interpretation of the event.
However, one could claim, the bussing children and integration are meant:
- To enhance educational opportunities for all kids in the area;
- To promote contacts between kids of different background;
The contention is that the integration would not adversly affect the
educational level of the better-off kids, and would in fact benefit
them, by bringing them together with children of less affluent
background. If it is so good for the society as a whole, why not send
them to a public school?
Even if you ignore the two assumptions regarding integration, another
question remains. The nature of integration dictates, that children
from both groups would study together. If the rich begin collectively
to send their children to private schools, the integration is less
successful. If one cares much about integration and its success, they
should act according to their own words. Sending the strong students
to separate schools does not promote integration and in fact, when one
serves as an example (since he is a public figure), could encourage
other well-to-do parents to do the same.
I hope that explained to you why some view it as Limousine Liberalism.
|
