Across the board, the left is often accused of being elitist. This
criticism is expressed in two ways. First, there are terms like
'limousine liberal', 'champagne socialist' or 'gauche caviar' which
describe politicians who claim that their political origins lie with
labour and emancipatory movements but lead the luxurious lifestyle of
those they criticise. Second, it attempts to paint left-wing politicians
as being removed from the reality on the ground, safe in their ivory
towers of academia, out of touch with what 'the people' really want.
I'll take on the latter first. In my lifetime, I can't recall an
instance of hearing a mainstream left-wing politician claim to speak for
'the people' at all. Rather, it's usually the domain of populist right-wing parties. In addition, with the catastrophic breakdown of the
world's banking systems and economies due to the adherence to
neo-liberal policy orthodoxies and the vicious ways in which the "1%"
keeps interfering with international politics, I don't think the right
gets to say that the left is somehow removed from reality. What they
really mean, and what a real anger is that the right can tap into, is
that the left always appears as though it knows what's best for the
people, even if it is against their will. That suspicion is not entirely
unwarranted. But it consciously conflates the notion of a parliamentary
democracy with freedom of speech with the idea that somehow, the people
are always right. If that were true, homosexuality would still be
illegal, women wouldn't have the right to vote and gruesome death
penalties would still be normal. An avant-garde advocating piecemeal social progress and greater equality for all is not a bad thing, as long
as it's kept in check.
As far as the idea goes that left-wing politicians betray their own
principles by having their own drivers and leading a comfortable,
wealthy life, I'm not so sure why that's a problem. Apparently, the
right gets away with it - it's even expected of them. It's ridiculous to
assume you must be poor to champion the cause of the less fortunate.
However, that criticism does hit a very important point, and one that
frequently gets overlooked. With professional politicians coming more
and more from the same class, ideas stagnate and politics become more a
question of clan affiliation and byzantine networking. When was the last
time, in Europe, someone who truly was 'from the people' (i.e. lower
middle or working class) held a position of power? Both right and left
love playing up the image of the outsider, but true outsiders are extremely rare.
It's been since the '70s that new political movements broke any
ground in the West, with the greens. Ever since, there have been plenty
of fresh ideas to solve the challenges that we face, but precious few of
them have trickled down (or rather, up) to the leading class. Why? Since the '80s,
social mobility has steadily been eroding. Well-off people's life
expectancy has skyrocketed, and with it, the amount of time they have to
hold on to power and groom others to follow in their footsteps, often
their very own sons and daughters. Some countries have introduced voting thresholds, ostensibly to keep out extremist parties, while other
systems are locked in a two-party struggle that has led to unhealthy
amounts of partisan bickering over non-issues.
It's painfully obvious that each time the system gets adapted, it
serves the interests of the ruling caste of politicians. It's
disingenious that a lot of them claim to keep speaking for the people,
though not as disingenious as the media, who willingly participate in
whipping up controversies where there are none, or focus on
distractions. What good is freedom of speech if not every voice has a
chance to be heard equally? What good is voting if perceptions get
skewed by corporate-owned media with a vested interest in 'business as
usual'? The left is elitist - sure, there's some merit in it. But coming
from the right, it's like the West lecturing China on neo-colonialism.
