Category: 

What is a Limousine Liberal?

The term, limousine liberal, is used to describe wealthy, left-leaning politicians.
Article Details
  • Written By: Tricia Ellis-Christensen
  • Edited By: O. Wallace
  • Last Modified Date: 28 November 2014
  • Copyright Protected:
    2003-2014
    Conjecture Corporation
  • Print this Article
Free Widgets for your Site/Blog
Peruvians eat more than 60 million guinea pigs a year.  more...

December 21 ,  1933 :  Dried blood serum was first produced.  more...

Limousine liberal is a term coined by a New York City mayoral candidate Mario Procaccino, in 1969. He used the term to describe his opposition, John Lindsay, who won the race for mayor. The term limousine liberal referenced Lindsay, and the financial status of many of his supporters. Lindsay was wealthy, and had the backing of numerous wealthy people, hence the term limousine, but was liberal, a leftist in politics, in many of his decisions.

When limousine liberal is used it’s often pejorative because the person claiming to represent the people tends not to have very much in common with the constituency. The person isn’t poor, so any social programs — like the busing that occurred in the 1970s — isn’t likely to affect him or her, since the person can send his or her children to a private school. Some of the programs limousine liberals propose may not require their participation at all, and will only affect people of lower socioeconomic status. For instance, such a person could propose greater funding for schools by raising taxes on lower and middle class folks, and avoid having to pay higher taxes as a member of the upper class or through tax loopholes.

Ad

In the starkest cases of limousine liberalism, the person so named expresses deep concern about an issue affecting the world, a specific class of people or otherwise. For instance, a person who supports environmental change and drives an SUV, or really is chauffeured about in a limousine is expressing limousine liberalism to the core. The quote “Do as I say, not as I do” is apropos.

It is not the case that people who support a strong left view of government have to be poor in order to have credibility. Rather, limousine liberals act against their own policies or aren’t affected by the laws they champion. There are plenty of wealthy people who have liberal political views and are willing to back up those views by paying more in taxes instead of demanding tax cuts. For instance, many were surprised by this viewpoint as expressed by Warren Buffett, in Barack Obama’s book The Audacity of Hope. Buffett willingly supports greater taxation for the wealthy in order to support numerous programs that benefit the poor and the middle class. He is not, as described by Obama, a limousine liberal.

Even a show of wealth by a person with leftist views of the government may evoke the title of limousine liberal. When Senator John Edwards campaigned in the Democratic primaries in 2008 on the platform of helping the impoverished and being “one with the poor,” he was roundly criticized as a limousine liberal for getting a $400 US Dollar (USD) haircut. Some believe that this damaged his credibility as the anti-poverty candidate, and claimed he couldn’t possibly represent the poor if he could, without thinking, pay that much for a haircut.

Other related terms to limousine liberal are used in countries outside the US and Canada. In the UK for instance, the pejorative term may be champagne socialist. In France, caviar left (gauche caviar) is used.

Ad

More from Wisegeek

You might also Like

Discuss this Article

anon239366
Post 4

After reading both the Limousine Liberal selection and the IOKIYAR selection, and being myself a far-left-wing supporter, I must say that I felt them both to be relatively fair.

While I might wish the Limousine Liberal article had more examples to put the two on a closer playing ground, I can't be offended by the nature of pointing out hypocrisy where it exists in either political party, despite my own personal beliefs. In this, I hope you all may have a little patience and understanding that the authors are doing the best they can, and presenting the information as best they know how, and you must put your own personal viewpoints aside when reading something that attempts to strictly state the facts on a delicate issue such as religion or politics.--Nathaniel

anon127539
Post 3

Typical right-wing propaganda. If you’re a Democrat, you must be poor, unwilling to work, and waiting for a hand-out. If not, you must be disingenuous. It saddens me that you would show your obvious right-wing slant by fostering this kind of thinking.

If your aim was to offend, you’ve done it. Way to be divisive. This type of one-sided biased article does not make me smarter.

anon79282
Post 2

Well of course, there are those who have a team-game mentality when it comes to politics.

Whenever there is anything they can interpret as criticism of their leadership, the messenger/author/etc will be insulted, generalisations about the "other team" will be spewed, a bunch of people will pin the "socialism" label on liberals as if it's a bad thing!, everyone except themselves will be to blame including the "liberal media" (ie. all media except Fox News) and outrage will predictably ensue.

Fortunately, most of them aren't like that but with Fox News propaganda putting partisan blinkers on all who trust them, they're bound to push a few fringe lunatics to the point of insanity -- and those few will explode if they think anyone is criticising "their team," even when their team's leadership really is full of corrupt sleazebags.

anon62609
Post 1

It's kinda funny how on the IOKIYAR article, none of the guys complaining there even spoke up here, nor did anyone else even comment. Guess you guys showed them something to keep them quiet, lol.

Post your comments

Post Anonymously

Login

username
password
forgot password?

Register

username
password
confirm
email