But Isn't He Also One of the Elite?

Rafique, that is a very legitimate question. You are not Bush-bashing...far from it. You are asking for fairness in image. I don't know why W is everyman while Kerry and Edwards are Brahmin. The accent perhaps?

Rachel

All in the image.

Bush is indeed a scion of the elite, while Edwards got his own (Billy Holiday reference, for anyone interested...). My personal contempt for Edwards is the same contempt I have for many plaintiff's attorneys who have gotten healthy on questionable cases.

The only part I would really disagree with is the equating of "elite" with "contempt for the common man." Bush simply comes across better to the "common man" by being able to talk the same language. Why that's so is your own mileage--but he spent a fair amount of his youth in bars. ;-)

Edwards didn't start from poverty, but it was definitely a working family background with both parents working. I may not like the way he made his pile, but he didn't get a boost.

People respond more to the way you speak and behave than they do to your background per se, which they may not even know about.

Take 2 "patricians" from the same background. One embraces privilege and appreciation of the finer things it provides. that person develops a certain aesthetic about people and about what matters. They care about wine, opera, literature, and so on. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Meanwhile, the other takes a journey across the tracks and to some extent rejects the high culture aesthetic. In college, this person hangs out with the regular guys. By demeanor, he becomes a regular guy. It's as simple as that. It's as simple as that. The general public responded as they did to Kerry's and Bush's demeanor. You only resnent someone's more privileged background and upbringing when they come across as an "other." Kerry comes across that way. Bush doesn't.

BTW, one way for privileged important folks to really alienate regular folks is to fake enthusiasm for something the regular folks really care about, especially if you get it wrong, and are exposed as as someone who doesn't actually care enough to know. Remember when Ted Kennedy introduced Sammy Sooser and Mike Maguire.. Don't TRY, Ted!

Rafique, your question seems to presume that one's background defines one's character. Would you say of the son of a mill-worker that he couldn't be an intellectual, because of his relatively impoverished upbringing?

One can indeed be wealthy and still have a "regular guy" disposition, and hostility to those who consider themselves "elite." Whether President Bush truly has such an attitude or is simply good at acting it, I cannot say.

Sen. Edwards generates contempt in some circles because, in what appears hypocrisy, he denounces the wealthy while enjoying the fruits of great wealth. President Bush does not.

Similarly, Senator Kerry acts as if he knows best, and anybody who disagrees with him is just stupid, or doesn't properly "understand" what's really going on. He acts and speaks as if he has some sort of noblesse oblige to come down among the rest of us and tell us how we ought to be doing things. President Bush says, hey, you know what to do, I'm going to get out of your way (in domestic economic matters, at any rate).

Beyond political positions, it's also a matter of attitude about how he likes to spend his time, who he likes to talk with. My old boss, the former governor of our state, is a wealthy man, and came from a family of some privilege. He's not Bill Gates-wealthy, but he is "I like that helicopter, I think I'll buy it" wealthy. Given the choice, at a big formal affair at the mansion, he'd much rather be in the kitchen talking with the staff and security guards rather than his fellow rich folk and powerful politicians. He's one of the richest men I know, personally, and he's also one of the most grounded, down-to-earth, and humble men I know.

I don't know whether President Bush is really like that or not, but the issue is one of character, not background.