What is the "Establishment?"

So a few weeks back, I made a thread here where I posited that to hate the Establishment is to hate having a majority. And in that post, I very briefly noted my definition for the establishment as being synonymous with political experience. I got a large amount of push back on that point and some individuals noted, correctly, that Bernie Sanders is an example of someone who is not part of the establishment, or at least not the Democratic establishment, and yet has a great deal of political experience. I have noticed, as I am sure that everyone else who follows politics has noticed, that the label of the "establishment" has risen in significant popularity and it is often used derisively against someone that does not support your particular candidate without much regard for a consistency in the use of the term.

And so, I wanted to establish a thread devoted specifically towards trying to define what qualifies as the "establishment?" Does it refer to a significant amount of political experience? Does "establishment" refer to individuals that are specifically linked and arguably beholden to special interest groups?

My current theory is that the "establishment" refers to political leadership - that is to say, that if you obtain a position of political leadership or influence within your party, you are part of the establishment. This would explain both sides of the aisle as Bernie Sanders was not, for the vast majority of his political career, a technical member of the Democratic party and therefore was not a leader within the party.

What say you?

Good idea for a thread. I am sure there will be some different answers. When I think of The Establishment I am thinking of the collection of politicians, corporations, and media entities that put the welfare of the rich and powerful above the interests of the People as a whole. If you are a politician who is influenced more my your biggest donors than by the wishes of the majority of your constituents then you are part of the establishment.

Why is it called the "establishment"? Because right now it is the established way of doing things. If most people approved of the way business is being done then "establishment" wouldn't be the negative word it is right now.

BrewerBob said:

Why is it called the "establishment"? Because right now it is the established way of doing things. If most people approved of the way business is being done then "establishment" wouldn't be the negative word it is right now.

Click to expand...

When it's not a negative term, it's not a term that gets used at all; it's just the way things are done. It's actually a struggle to think of examples, but probably no-one really talks about the cheese-making 'establishment' - but they may well mention religious or corporate or union 'establishments.'

It's nothing more nor less than a marginally more pejorative synonym for status quo.

I think the catchphrase use of "establishment" this year is used for the RNC and DNC almost exclusively. Trump has "shaken" the RNC and Sanders has "shaken" the DNC is synonymous with those two candidates "shaking the establishment".
When I disagreed that "the Establishment" was equal to majority rule is purely in intention. The RNC and DNC do not want majority rule and would be much happier with delegate rule.
Majority rule is found in a democracy (and as far as choosing our President, I believe it should be so). That's where I was going in your other thread though I don't know if I explained it that well.

Curiously, the only other time I've heard it really recently is to describe Congress when the GOP took it over by a few people and even then not as strongly as its been used this election year.

The only establishment I'm worried about is the RNC. They want to do the same thing again; take a growing (slowly) economy and turn it around by cutting revenue thinking this will go into jobs and not bubbles, put war on credit, hand over an economic crisis with debt trajectory, blame the other Party, stall the recovery and run about crying, "Failed recovery!" when it was only they who killed it.

RNCers like to cry, "the establishment," as if the other Party is responsible for this.

IMHO, the establishment has historically been the ones that are in charge, regardless of who "they" are. In the 1960's the establishment was considered to be pretty much who is considered to be the establishment now. It may seem like we have a new definition of who "they" are, but we really don't. "They" are just not "us." "They" are in charge and we are not, so we don't like "them."

Every generation or so, "we" go through a phase of hating "them." We're at that point again. Each time we determine that "they" have gone too far doing whatever it is we don't like, we take up the banners and signs and take to the streets. Some get violent (BLM and similar groups this time around), but the majority just get pissed and protest peacefully. Eventually we get over it, the "establishment" makes some minor, insignificant changes that make us feel better, and we put down our banners and signs and go back to living life - until "we" get pissed off at "them" again, or... we become them, like the generation from the 1960's has done (John Kerry, et al).

The establishment is the collection of political players who have brought us to where we are. They do things in self interest rather than the common good. Would any other politician do it better? Who knows? People are just angry at what they have at the moment. Pretty obvious and not hard to understand.

Thanks for starting this thread. I've been asking people to define this "Establishment" for quite some time. Damned if I know what it is.

For instance, I'll bet a lot of Trump supporters would say that Mitt Romney is part of this "Establishment", and I'd challenge that. What is it based on? He holds no official position in either an elected office nor the RNC.