Hillary Clinton’s revealing economic elitism

The idea that personal virtue creates economic success is often associated with conservatism. But the Democrats’ 2016 presidential nominee just showed that liberals have their own warped version of this bogus myth, too.

At a conference in India over the weekend, Hillary Clinton was asked about the forces that led to Donald Trump’s presidential victory. In the middle of a long answer, she said this: “I won the places that represent two-thirds of America’s gross domestic product. So I won the places that are optimistic, diverse, dynamic, moving forward. And his whole campaign, ‘Make America Great Again,’ was looking backwards. You know: ‘You didn’t like black people getting rights, you don’t like women, you know, getting jobs, you don’t want to, you know, see that Indian-American succeeding more than you are, whatever your problem is, I’m going to solve it.'”

Clinton’s numbers are right. While far fewer counties voted for her, those counties accounted for a whopping 64 percent of America’s GDP. Crudely put, pro-Clinton areas are responsible for two-thirds of America’s economy.

Now, this doesn’t mean that wealthy people supported Clinton and poorer people supported Trump. In fact, Trump actually had a slight edge among voters who make more than $100,000. And obviously, there are plenty of wealthy Republicans in blue counties.

But there’s still a clear pattern. The economy is doing better in blue communities, while many communities that went for Trump are left behind, as Clinton put it.

To what does she attribute this? Optimism, diversity, dynamism, “moving forward.”

That’s nonsense.

This is just the liberal version of Republican claims that self-discipline, hard work, and traditional lifestyles drive economic success. Clinton simply removed the classic conservative virtues and substituted characteristics and ideals championed by college-educated urban liberals instead. (As such, it took near-cosmic chutzpah for the Republicans to get huffy over the remarks.)

But both sides’ narratives still lead to the same conclusion: If communities are suffering, it’s not the economy that needs to be fixed — they need to be fixed. The demise of unions, a stagnant minimum wage, cuts to regulations and public investment, Wall Street-friendly monetary policy, or rising monopoly power all go unmentioned. Instead, economic success or decline is chalked up to cultural je ne sais quoi.

I do not bring this up to rehash tired arguments over whether Clinton was a bad candidate or a bad person. My point is …read more

Source:: Business – The Week

(Visited 7 times, 1 visits today)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *