More whining and excuses from sore loser HRC.

[t-c]

We all have to admit there is a huge amount of blame on both sides, sure Trump ran a scare campaign against HC that a lot of the general public bought into but, (and here's the but) she had enough going against her that they were in fact able to do that successfully and there is a onus of blame on her own party for not recognising how unpopular she was. As a feminist I would like to think that wasn't purely because she was a woman, it was because she was essentially viewed as a dishonest non likeable woman.

However, I would like to add I'm sure Trump has done, is doing, and is going to do things that are 100% worse than she has or would have done, and that is why he obviously too is IMHO a completely unacceptable choice.

I see her as the lesser of the two evils, a few of you out there see Trump as the lesser of the two evils. I think the US should get their s@*% together and actually find some decent candidates worthy of the role.

What, exactly, is wrong about Hillary that made her simply a "lesser of two evils"? What did she do/say that would have you holding your nose to vote for her?

 

[redwood66]

I see her as the lesser of the two evils, a few of you out there see Trump as the lesser of the two evils. I think the US should get their s@*% together and actually find some decent candidates worthy of the role.

Arkieb1 some of us thought we had a good choice but there were more people that thought Trump was the better choice for the Republican party. This election was a farce either way. I wish it were different and that I could be saying President Cruz, but no, people had other ideas and now we have to live with it. Hoping every day that it will get better than yesterday. At least if he were president, something might be getting done on conservative issues. Someone said awhile back that people wanted to blow up the system, well that is what it looks like.

 

[arkieb1]

What, exactly, is wrong about Hillary that made her simply a "lesser of two evils"? What did she do/say that would have you holding your nose to vote for her?

I would have thought when she couldn't beat a candidate as bad and as completely inappropriate as Trump the answer speaks for itself....

 

[House Cat]

I certainly saw no doling out of responsibility to the voters, simply a statement of fact that we have low-information ones. But you published a screed on HRC's shortcomings, said it's her fault we are in the situation we're in, and told her to essentially STFU. It's no wonder I thought you were blaming everything on HRC.

Sigh... You are still assuming things about how I feel and about my politics.

I am a liberal, a TRUE liberal. With that in mind....

People do not have the ability to know what they don't know. I can't drag any of you into NASA and say "build the space shuttle" and have you do it. Although you may have the resourcefulness to figure out how to build it eventually, there are people in the world who don't have that ability. There are people in the world who don't know what they don't know.

We, as liberals use this argument all of the time in regards to those who are living in poverty.

Many of the Trump voters were living in chronic poverty. To take this one step further, many of them were living in chronic poverty for many generations. We liberals argue over and over again that chronic poverty has an affect on what a person knows, their learning ability, brain size, education, etc.

So then, with all of these things working against these people, how can we blame them for not knowing better? How can we blame them for being duped by an incredible con man who was a master as manipulation and marketing?

You want to blame a vulnerable population. That doesn't feel like the liberal thing to do to me. I am a true liberal, I don't blame the vulnerable. I believe in lifting up the vulnerable population, helping them, reaching them, and yes, inspiring them.

You can't know what you don't know. What did Maya Angelou say? When you know better, you do better. How will they know better when we are screaming at them, calling them stupid, and saying this is all their fault? I can think of so many other poverty situations where we made the people blameless. Maybe we need to look at this differently. The rich and powerful need to be held accountable as far as I am concerned.

 

[t-c]

I would have thought when she couldn't beat a candidate as bad and as completely inappropriate as Trump the answer speaks for itself....

You didn't answer the question. I didn't ask about what the US did. I asked about what you posted which is that you see her as the lesser of the two evils. So what is it about Hillary Clinton that in the choice between her and Trump, that you would have to hold your nose to vote for HRC?

...I see her as the lesser of the two evils...

There are lots of reasons why Hillary lost. She didn't connect with people (as @House Cat has pointed out). She is (irrationally) hated by a large faction of Republicans (so much so that they defend Russian interference in the election). Her policies don't go far enough to the left, according to Bernie supporters. Her policies go too far to the left, according to more conservative voters (elderly, soccer moms?).

I ask because I hear (and heard) the whole "lesser of two evils" over and over, yet no one has actually explained that. To me, Ted Cruz, whose very conservative outlook I do not agree with, would be the lesser of two evils if the other choice was Trump (actually, I take that back -- I'm not sure a Ted Cruz that could implement his agenda would be better than a Trump who bumbles along not accomplishing anything) But to me, the prospect of what Hillary would have done in office is sooo much more desirable than what Trump is doing. So I am asking because I was hoping you would be able to enlighten given you have time to formulate your thoughts and words on a forum. I wasn't asking for snark.

 

[monarch64]

WTH? HC, the people I know who got duped are those with at least a high school diploma, if not a college degree (at least the husband), and a solid middle class SES. Who the hell can blame those in poverty? They don't give a shit about politics. They are too busy worrying about how to get to their minimum wage job or taking care of their sick family or or or.

 

[Tekate]

Here's a breakdown of the Trump voters in the 2016 election, 20% are in the poor category. So I am not sure you can say many Trump voters have been living in chronic poverty.

https://www.voterstudygroup.org/publications/2016-elections/the-five-types-trump-voters

Education seems to have been the biggest factor in Trump voters (or lack of it whichever way you want to look at it).

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/education-not-income-predicted-who-would-vote-for-trump/

Trump voters were mostly middle class to rich.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ere-not-working-class/?utm_term=.84b7acf7a447

House Cat I think people can find a lot of information on the web, not necessarily how to build a NASA plant but they can go to websites run by the candidates and read what the candidate is saying and what they stand on. So I can blame those who voted for Trump that didn't read what is available on the internet. To quote Hayley Joel Osment "They only see what they want to see" and the rich who voted for Trump, they read and they want a tax cut. As you say, the rich and powerful, they own us as people like the Koch bros spend a lot of money on nasty political commercials.

I'm very liberal but I want concrete plans on how to pay for all my liberalness

So many Trump voters are white, and christian and they fear change to a darker America, muslims and 'their' America. I believe most immigrants meld right in.

Sigh... You are still assuming things about how I feel and about my politics.

I am a liberal, a TRUE liberal. With that in mind....

People do not have the ability to know what they don't know. I can't drag any of you into NASA and say "build the space shuttle" and have you do it. Although you may have the resourcefulness to figure out how to build it eventually, there are people in the world who don't have that ability. There are people in the world who don't know what they don't know.

We, as liberals use this argument all of the time in regards to those who are living in poverty.

Many of the Trump voters were living in chronic poverty. To take this one step further, many of them were living in chronic poverty for many generations. We liberals argue over and over again that chronic poverty has an affect on what a person knows, their learning ability, brain size, education, etc.

So then, with all of these things working against these people, how can we blame them for not knowing better? How can we blame them for being duped by an incredible con man who was a master as manipulation and marketing?

You want to blame a vulnerable population. That doesn't feel like the liberal thing to do to me. I am a true liberal, I don't blame the vulnerable. I believe in lifting up the vulnerable population, helping them, reaching them, and yes, inspiring them.

You can't know what you don't know. What did Maya Angelou say? When you know better, you do better. How will they know better when we are screaming at them, calling them stupid, and saying this is all their fault? I can think of so many other poverty situations where we made the people blameless. Maybe we need to look at this differently. The rich and powerful need to be held accountable as far as I am concerned.

 

[t-c]

Sigh... You are still assuming things about how I feel and about my politics.

I am a liberal, a TRUE liberal. With that in mind....

People do not have the ability to know what they don't know. I can't drag any of you into NASA and say "build the space shuttle" and have you do it. Although you may have the resourcefulness to figure out how to build it eventually, there are people in the world who don't have that ability. There are people in the world who don't know what they don't know.

We, as liberals use this argument all of the time in regards to those who are living in poverty.

Many of the Trump voters were living in chronic poverty. To take this one step further, many of them were living in chronic poverty for many generations. We liberals argue over and over again that chronic poverty has an affect on what a person knows, their learning ability, brain size, education, etc.

So then, with all of these things working against these people, how can we blame them for not knowing better? How can we blame them for being duped by an incredible con man who was a master as manipulation and marketing?

You want to blame a vulnerable population. That doesn't feel like the liberal thing to do to me. I am a true liberal, I don't blame the vulnerable. I believe in lifting up the vulnerable population, helping them, reaching them, and yes, inspiring them.

You can't know what you don't know. What did Maya Angelou say? When you know better, you do better. How will they know better when we are screaming at them, calling them stupid, and saying this is all their fault? I can think of so many other poverty situations where we made the people blameless. Maybe we need to look at this differently. The rich and powerful need to be held accountable as far as I am concerned.

You said you wanted to learn from this election, wouldn't that include figuring out why 40% of the voting population isn't voting -- and not just blaming the candidates for being inspiring enough? Shouldn't that include investigating and fighting the ways various voting laws disenfranchise groups of people? Shouldn't that include acknowledging and preventing external events could have affected people's desire to go to the polls (i.e. Russian propaganda on Facebook, email hacks and releases at (in)convenient moments, FBI announcement of an investigation and massive press coverage 2 weeks before an election that turned out to be the definition of a nothing burger (see France on how to handle this better re press)) -- instead of just blaming the candidate for bad strategy?

Acknowledging responsibility isn't simply placing or accepting blame. It is also accepting the responsibility to figure out what went wrong. I think Hillary's book is her way of doing that -- it is her (relatively more) candid thoughts on what happened -- while conveniently making gazzillion $$$.

You said in your

She blames everyone else for the reasons why she isn't president today, rather than saying "look, I screwed up. My campaign strategy stunk. I wasn't relatable to most of the country. My only good quality was that I wasn't Trump. I failed this entire country and the shit show that all of you are living in now is mostly my ****ing fault."

That would have been a great opening to her crappy ass book.

Hillary wrote in her book

I go back over my own shortcomings and the mistakes we made. I take responsibility for all of them. You can blame the data, blame the message, blame anything you want -- but I was the candidate. It was my campaign. Those were my decisions.

Is that enough for you? Or do you need her to commit seppuku?

 

[monarch64]

t-c, even if she went the seppuku route, if she forgot to tie her legs together people would hate her for that, too. Lord's sakes, she already wears pantsuits and those are the work of the Devil, you know.

 

[AGBF]

I wish it were different and that I could be saying President Cruz....

I was reading the posts in this thread in reverse order. Now I can say, "Lord, I do have something to be thankful for today! I thought I did not. I lost both my father and my beloved dog recently. I am very, very frazzled from dealing with my daughter. But you were kind to me! It's like "Footprints in the Sand". I just didn't see that you were carrying me!! You didn't allow Ted Cruz to become president!"

Deb

 

[arkieb1]

What, exactly, is wrong about Hillary that made her simply a "lesser of two evils"? What did she do/say that would have you holding your nose to vote for her?

What I meant specifically when I said I see her as the lesser of the two evils is that she is hardly a squeaky clean well liked candidate. She might be a lovely person in real life but unlike someone like the Obamas she never comes across as such and people that have worked with her don't describe her in those terms. So if we are being brutally honest she was a candidate that has a wide reaching history that the opposition could exploit in a negative media campaign about her, and yes I understand that is what occurs in politics but she clearly didn't recover from that campaign.

As far as being a good or a bad candidate overall - she has nothing on Trump, at least she is an intelligent critically thinking human that when push comes to shove I believe could be trusted to make credible decisions, but a lot of Americans not just the poor and disenfranchised didn't believe she could be trusted to make viable decisions and Trump could.

The fact they identified more with a man with a golden elevator and toilet than they did her should speak volumes. The fact they voted in a pathological liar over her should also speak volumes. Honestly the rest of the rational world sat back and went WTF when Trump won. There was no snark in my comments, I'm an Aussie sometimes what I write and the tone seems to get confused in translation.

 

[redwood66]

I was reading the posts in this thread in reverse order. Now I can say, "Lord, I do have something to be thankful for today! I thought I did not. I lost both my father and my beloved dog recently. I am very, very frazzled from dealing with my daughter. But you were kind to me! It's like "Footprints in the Sand". I just didn't see that you were carrying me!! You didn't allow Ted Cruz to become president!"

Deb

Aw Deb you are too funny. Still thinking about you and your daughter every day.

You must be the only one in this convo who doesn't have me on ignore. I thought arkie might respond. I would much rather Ted than Trump.

 

[Matata]

The fact they identified more with a man with a golden elevator and toilet than they did her should speak volumes. The fact they voted in a pathological liar over her should also speak volumes.

Sadly true. I think it speaks to the decline of rationality among his voting base and the ease with which people become sheeple and embrace the banality that dominates the American cultural stage. I call it the Kardashian Syndrome.

 

[t-c]

What I meant specifically when I said I see her as the lesser of the two evils is that she is hardly a squeaky clean well liked candidate. She might be a lovely person in real life but unlike someone like the Obamas she never comes across as such and people that have worked with her don't describe her in those terms. So if we are being brutally honest she was a candidate that has a wide reaching history that the opposition could exploit in a negative media campaign about her, and yes I understand that is what occurs in politics but she clearly didn't recover from that campaign.

As far as being a good or a bad candidate overall - she has nothing on Trump, at least she is an intelligent critically thinking human that when push comes to shove I believe could be trusted to make credible decisions, but a lot of Americans not just the poor and disenfranchised didn't believe she could be trusted to make viable decisions and Trump could.

The fact they identified more with a man with a golden elevator and toilet than they did her should speak volumes. The fact they voted in a pathological liar over her should also speak volumes. Honestly the rest of the rational world sat back and went WTF when Trump won. There was no snark in my comments, I'm an Aussie sometimes what I write and the tone seems to get confused in translation.

What people who have worked with her say they don't like her? I know one person personally who still thinks she's great. And a NYTimes article described her friendship with women from her Wellesley years. Several articles written when HRC appeared in public again described scenes when those who worked on her campaign showed up to support her.

Anybody who has been in politics for that long has "wide-reaching history". But if you're thinking of all the investigations and innuendos, those are Republican narratives. They put her through how many investigations that didn't pan out? How many hours of questioning on Benghazi? Do you know what she did to inspired such ire? For the life of me I can't recall -- maybe that's why I am so naive that I do not think of her as evil.

I think the fact that people thought a guy who craps on gold toilet, regularly stiffed contractors, filed bankruptcy 4 times losing investors' and lenders' money, and claims $400,000/month living expense WHILE he was in bankruptcy is more relatable than someone whose mother came from poverty, grew up middle class, relocated for her husband, took a law firm job to support her family while her husband pursued a political career, who went to the South to investigate housing discrimination as a law student, etc, says as much about them as it does about her.

 

[arkieb1]

t-c - I totally agree with you, but you must have read essay after essay before the election that the general perception she gives off in the media is at times a frosty one. I'm not sure if it matters if that is actually true or not because people obviously believed that about her regardless. I was amazed that the media and society even went as far as attacking her for staying with Bill. It was mentioned on this forum she stayed with a man who cheated therefore she must somehow be held accountable for that yet on the flip side of that you have Trump, a candidate who is a lying cheating misogynist who openly groped women and his supporters were happy to write that off as locker room talk and boys being boys.

Believe me, the irony of double standards of what your country was willing to accept in a man versus what was both portrayed in the media and perceived by a lot of voters as unpalatable in a woman is not lost on me.

My only point from the outset being that if any candidate is bad enough to lose to someone as inappropriate as Trump then obviously the Democrats need to reassess the direction they are going in.

 

[AGBF]

Aw Deb you are too funny. Still thinking about you and your daughter every day.

Thanks, red. I love many women on this group and I agree politically with a great many (although not all) of them. But I love you almost because of our political differences, rather than in spite of them. Nowadays. Now that we have learned to get along without the "snarkiness". (It would be more accurate to call what we used to do from time to time "b*tchiness".) Now I know that if I poke at you, you will know I am kidding you and mean no offense and want you to kid me back. We can talk seriously, but if we say "nasty" things, it is never meant to be mean. Anything that sounds actually nasty is a thing said in jest. Serious conversations are civil. At least that is my perspective.

Deb

 

[Karl_K]

..............................

 

[t-c]

t-c - I totally agree with you, but you must have read essay after essay before the election that the general perception she gives off in the media is at times a frosty one. I'm not sure if it matters if that is actually true or not because people obviously believed that about her regardless. I was amazed that the media and society even went as far as attacking her for staying with Bill. It was mentioned on this forum she stayed with a man who cheated therefore she must somehow be held accountable for that yet on the flip side of that you have Trump, a candidate who is a lying cheating misogynist who openly groped women and his supporters were happy to write that off as locker room talk and boys being boys.

Believe me, the irony of double standards of what your country was willing to accept in a man versus what was both portrayed in the media and perceived by a lot of voters as unpalatable in a woman is not lost on me.

My only point from the outset being that if any candidate is bad enough to lose to someone as inappropriate as Trump then obviously the Democrats need to reassess the direction they are going in.

To me "lesser of two evils" requires two bad candidates. And your reason for considering HRC to be a bad candidate seems to be because she lost to a terrible one. This is circular reasoning.

As for losing this election, you need to realize that Trump was always going to get most of the republican votes by virtue of being the republican nominee, and Clinton would get the democratic votes. So the election rested on the small number of independents and undecideds (who I didn't think were actually undecided; I mean if you still couldn't decide after the Access Hollywood tape came out, you were pretty much for Trump no matter how much handwringing you did in public). Among these independents were former Bernie voters who were still fighting for him and therefore not inclined to give their votes to Clinton. Add geography and the electoral college: there are more republicans in the sparsely populated states therefore their votes have greater weight in the electoral college (and the opposite for Democrats in densely populate cities). Stir in the reopening of the email investigation and the ridiculous press coverage a week from the election... and it's possible to see how HRC lost.

 

[arkieb1]

t-c - O.K I'll spell it out, I think she was a bad candidate to run against Trump because she came with too much preconceived (real or imagined) baggage. This allowed the other side to launch a negative media campaign that I don't think she ever really recovered from. Perhaps if she had less history politically it might not have been as easy for the other side to convince everyone she was all of the things they said she was, even if much of was untrue, people bought it and that did impact voting.

I dont think stating that she lost to one of the worst candidates in history therefore she also must have been a bad candidate is circular thinking, it's a logical linear assumption. She lost, therefore, logically next time the Dems should find a better candidate or conduct a different type or style of campaign (or both).

 

[t-c]

t-c - O.K I'll spell it out, I think she was a bad candidate to run against Trump because she came with too much preconceived (real or imagined) baggage. This allowed the other side to launch a negative media campaign that I don't think she ever really recovered from. Perhaps if she had less history politically it might not have been as easy for the other side to convince everyone she was all of the things they said she was, even if much of was untrue, people bought it and that did impact voting.

I dont think stating that she lost to one of the worst candidates in history therefore she also must have been a bad candidate is circular thinking, it's a logical linear assumption. She lost, therefore, logically next time the Dems should find a better candidate or conduct a different type or style of campaign (or both).

My original question was: why did you say she was the "lesser of two evils". I mean was it really because you thought she was going to lose to a terrible person? Was it really because she was frosty? Was it really because she had baggage?

And it is circular reasoning because:
1. She was a bad candidate.
2. She lost the election.
3. Therefore she was a bad candidate. (Unless you are saying that you didn't think she was a bad candidate in the first place and just jumped on that bandwagon because she lost the election).

 

[arkieb1]

She was married to a past president of course she was a candidate with an incredible amount of baggage some good and much of it bad. You are obviously a supporter of her. I would have voted for her if the choice was between her and Trump but I thought she was a bad choice of candidate before she lost for a number of reasons, that's why IMHO she was the lesser of the two evils. I'm probably of a more left leaning persuasion than she was or is. I can applaud that she would have been the first female president if she had of won but do I think she was a great choice? No I personally do not. Her defeat proves lots of voters out there, formed the very same conclusion.

 

[ksinger]

I'm only able to use my tablet, so I'll be terse. This thread is fun, BUT, while everyone is hand-wringing and finger-pointing about how Sanders was robbed (he wasn't) and Clinton was beaten because she was such a terrible candidate (she was no was worse than others who have won) can we ponder for a moment that she got millions more actual votes in both the primary and the general. Millions. I wonder how she'd have done without Comey and the Russians and cookies and Vince Foster and child sex rings and a bunch of people willing to believe the Dr Evil-esque worst without skepticism.

No matter how anyone feels about it, no matter the status of a gut, Bernie flat out didn't have the numbers to win, millennials be damned. He also could not build a real coalition if his life depended on it, as evidenced by his oh so white cheering section. He is a goad, not a leader.

Finally, reading "White Trash - The 400-year Untold History of Class in America", and "Team of Rivals". Highly recommend both, especially the first one. Takeaway on the first? Only Americans think we're a classless society. Both are researched to a fare thee well, and are footnote dreams.

Gotta go vacation some more now!

 

[Dancing Fire]

I wonder how she'd have done without Comey and the Russians and cookies and Vince Foster and child sex rings and a bunch of people willing to believe the Dr Evil-esque worst without skepticism.

She would be in jail today...

 

[Tekate]

Hi ARkie, what was much of the 'bad' baggage? for the life of me I can't understand why people think she had bad baggage. Thanks!

She was married to a past president of course she was a candidate with an incredible amount of baggage some good and much of it bad. You are obviously a supporter of her. I would have voted for her if the choice was between her and Trump but I thought she was a bad choice of candidate before she lost for a number of reasons, that's why IMHO she was the lesser of the two evils. I'm probably of a more left leaning persuasion than she was or is. I can applaud that she would have been the first female president if she had of won but do I think she was a great choice? No I personally do not. Her defeat proves lots of voters out there, formed the very same conclusion.

 

[Tekate]

Magical thinking.

She would be in jail today...

 

[arkieb1]

I'm only able to use my tablet, so I'll be terse. This thread is fun, BUT, while everyone is hand-wringing and finger-pointing about how Sanders was robbed (he wasn't) and Clinton was beaten because she was such a terrible candidate (she was no was worse than others who have won) can we ponder for a moment that she got millions more actual votes in both the primary and the general. Millions. I wonder how she'd have done without Comey and the Russians and cookies and Vince Foster and child sex rings and a bunch of people willing to believe the Dr Evil-esque worst without skepticism.

No matter how anyone feels about it, no matter the status of a gut, Bernie flat out didn't have the numbers to win, millennials be damned. He also could not build a real coalition if his life depended on it, as evidenced by his oh so white cheering section. He is a goad, not a leader.

Finally, reading "White Trash - The 400-year Untold History of Class in America", and "Team of Rivals". Highly recommend both, especially the first one. Takeaway on the first? Only Americans think we're a classless society. Both are researched to a fare thee well, and are footnote dreams.

Gotta go vacation some more now!

I haven't read either text but do Americans really think you are a classless society? From the outside looking in might not be as traditional as say England but you have greater class division along the lines of poverty or wealth than we do in Australia.

I guess the real question should be if Americans do think you are a classless society how do they define "class"?

 

[arkieb1]

Hi ARkie, what was much of the 'bad' baggage? for the life of me I can't understand why people think she had bad baggage. Thanks!

Ask DF and Red, I'm sure they would come up with a lot of them. Me I think being married to someone like Bill if going on the things that were said on this forum is anything to go by didn't necessarily help her. And one of the main points theorists listed after she lost, is that she was seen to be part of the political "establishment" so to speak, and that a lot of Americans wanted a change from that, that is how they identified with the man with the golden elevator and toilet more as a common everyday person and more like them than she was. I don't necessarily think that all of the "bad baggage" is true but there was a perception out there because of things she said and did in her political career and during Bills time in office, that she had a lot of it.

 

[AGBF]

I haven't read either text but do Americans really think you are a classless society? From the outside looking in might not be as traditional as say England but you have greater class division along the lines of poverty or wealth than we do in Australia.

I guess the real question should be if Americans do think you are a classless society how do they define "class"?

I should really read the books, but I do not know if I would have the patience to do so. I certainly enjoy the topic. And I would love to know how the author of the first book ksinger mentioned does define class. I am betting that it has a huge amount to do with money, rather than "background" here in the United States.

I remember being introduced to someone from England whom my husband had met while he was in school. A mutual friend (actually one off the two best men we had at our wedding), who was English himself, told me she had an upper class accent. A discussion of her rather straitened circumstances ensued, and the friend made sure I understood that in England her wealth was separate from her class. Having wealth (as he did coming from a middle class entrepreneurial family) might be pleasant, but in no way affected class. Her accent reflected where she came from more than the amount of money she had.

Recently I have been reading that "everyone" can buy luxury goods. Everyone can buy a Mercedes or a BMW or have a Gucci purse or a Louis Vuitton. "The New York Times" ran an article that said it was intangibles like education and culture that were, now, the hallmarks of the élite. They mentioned having a copy of, "The Economist", in fact.

Gotta go. Hope people write more about this. I want to read more!

Deb

 

[ksinger]

I should really read the books, but I do not know if I would have the patience to do so. I certainly enjoy the topic. And I would love to know how the author of the first book ksinger mentioned does define class. I am betting that it has a huge amount to do with money, rather than "background" here in the United States.

Deb

It is a whole book on class after all, so a succinct definition should not be expected. But it's very interesting that you say that about thinking it's money here but not in England. Consider this first few sentences from the introduction, entitled 'Fables We Forget By':
"We know what class is. Or we think we do: economic stratification created by wealth and privilege. The problem is that popular American history is most commonly told - dramatized - without much reference to social classes. It's as though separating from Great Britain, the United States somehow magically escaped the bonds of Class and derived a higher consciousness of enriched possibility."

 

[t-c]

Americans' notion of having a "classless society" has always been a myth. But it was a myth worth perpetuating as it gave people hope -- and for a little while, the gaps between classes were narrow enough and upward social mobility viable enough that it seemed real.

But perhaps "classless society" referred to how a person's class isn't displayed quite so openly in the US as it is in England, for example with the accent. (Although aren't accents in England getting BBC'ed and more uniform nowadays?). Of course, there still exists other hallmarks that could differentiate the classes: education, culture, leisure, along with money.

Anyway, I think this belief of a classless society in the US prevents us from fully addressing the issue of inequality. It also drives a lot of people to vote against their interest (e.g. Joe Plumber who earns $35K/year voting against tax increases on millionaires because he thinks he's going to be one one day). As the gap between the rich and poor widens, social mobility will drop and class levels will become entrenched, as economic, educational, and cultural opportunities advantage the rich even more (and the lack disadvantages the poor and middle class). Maybe then people would wake up.

As an aside, the title of the first book referenced by @ksinger (White Trash) reminded me of when I learned the term. I was a junior at university and talking with someone who complained about having to spend Thanksgiving with one side of her family that were "pwt". I had no idea what pwt meant. She looked at me, shocked and proceeded to explain "poor white trash" and how they are different from normal poor!