Why are Liberals So Condescending

[iman]

I don't think that it is a matter of being "condescending", but rather a massive inferiority complex among the folks that make up the conservative voting base. Much of the conservative/Republican base is made up of white folks that did not want to compete with blacks and now do not want to compete with hispanics or people in other countries and for whom fear and insecurity are the primary motivators. All one has to do is look at Palin, Tancredo, Limbaugh, Beck, Will or many others to see that the fears of the conservative base being continually manipulated and legitimate political discourse is nonexistent.

It is a real problem for the Dems. How do you reason with these people? How do you tell them the truth and have them set aside their irrationality and fears? How does one reassure these people who seem to savor their fear and need a bogeyman lurking in the dark? How does one appear not to be condescending when dealing with True Believers and Teabaggers?

The author, like other conservative media figures, knows he is addressing folks that feel inferior and insecure and boosts their damaged egos by portraying "liberals" as arrogant and elitist rather than advance any legitimate arguments against liberal causes. Never in the several pages did the author ever seek to dispute what he thinks are liberal slanders - he can't, the "slanders" are mostly accurate. That's not arrogant or condescending, it's simply the truth.

Here's a challenge for conservatives - stop lying and get some leaders that normal people can have some respect for.

 

[NW007]

I don't think that it is a matter of being "condescending", but rather a massive inferiority complex among the folks that make up the conservative voting base. Much of the conservative/Republican base is made up of white folks that did not want to compete with blacks and now do not want to compete with hispanics or people in other countries and for whom fear and insecurity are the primary motivators. All one has to do is look at Palin, Tancredo, Limbaugh, Beck, Will or many others to see that the fears of the conservative base being continually manipulated and legitimate political discourse is nonexistent.

It is a real problem for the Dems. How do you reason with these people? How do you tell them the truth and have them set aside their irrationality and fears? How does one reassure these people who seem to savor their fear and need a bogeyman lurking in the dark? How does one appear not to be condescending when dealing with True Believers and Teabaggers?

The author, like other conservative media figures, knows he is addressing folks that feel inferior and insecure and boosts their damaged egos by portraying "liberals" as arrogant and elitist rather than advance any legitimate arguments against liberal causes. Never in the several pages did the author ever seek to dispute what he thinks are liberal slanders - he can't, the "slanders" are mostly accurate. That's not arrogant or condescending, it's simply the truth.

Here's a challenge for conservatives - stop lying and get some leaders that normal people can have some respect for.

This entire post of yours is exactly what the author of the Op-Ed piece was talking about. Your post exemplifies every point the author was making. That is why the "liberals" represent a small percentage of the American population. Their philosophy is why too far left for the majority of the American citizens. That is why you are seeing the beginning of the political pendulum to swing back to the center after the President has only been in office for 12 months and the Democrats have controlled Congress for just a few years.

 

[NW007]

Because conservatives are the ball and chain of America.

If conservatives ran everything, gay people would never have equal rights in the United States.

I've never met a gay conservative who would actually ever admit that. I suppose that vain pride has something to do with it.

^LOL, sometimes I wonder where you come up with such random "personal" thoughts. And what exactly is a "gay conservative" from your definition standpoint. Are you talking politically, economically, sociall, or what. It certainly can't be a label put on a "gay" by what political party they belong to. I know many Democrats that politcally are more Conservative than some of the Republicans I know.

And keep in mind that there is more a battle going on within the Deomcratic party between its various factions right now; than there is between the Democrats and the Republicans. So are going to say that your Conservative Democrat friends are the problem too.

Sometimes, in your threads I get the feeling that anyone(whatever party they belong to) who is to the right of you; is a "ball and chain" from your standpoint

 

[Centexfarmer]

That is why you are seeing the beginning of the political pendulum to swing back to the center

Back to the Center from where?

For more than 16 years since the Republicans controlled both houses of congress that pendulum never got anywhere near the center. So anything to the left of right was characterized by the "right" as LEFT or Libural.

For modern day "Conservatives" I see them painting "Liberals" as Neo-Communists/Socialists/Fascists, and in anyway possible.

They need a boogy-man, and we haven't had one of those here in America since the fall of Communism.

Oh, sure they've tried; Gays, Abortionists, Hollywood, Sectarians, Immigrants, Ivy League types, and now they've come right out and have focused upon "Condescending Liberals."

IMO Liberals are the true idiots because they've allowed the conservatives to define the debate by dismantling the Fairness Doctrine (and this took place when the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress under Reagan and Bush), which gave way to the likes of Fox News, and let's not forget the countless number of alledgedly "free thinking" Think Tanks funded by "ear marks" to perpetuate "conservative idealogy" within our major Universities, thus giving credence to their view that being a "conservative" was and is good, while being a "Libural" bad.

after the President has only been in office for 12 months and the Democrats have controlled Congress for just a few years.

Point of fact, the Democrats controlled the House of Congress for nearly four decades.

The GOP Conservatives under Newt Gingrich successfully portrayed the Democratic Party as "corrupt and out of touch."

The GOP was able to maintain control for only 16 years before screwing up so badly that the American electorate elected an African American as POTUS with the highest margin in any POTUS election since LBJ beat Barry Goldwater in 1964.

So you're right.

At the rate things are going Obama will be a "one-term" President, and just like the Democrats in 2006 and again in 2008, when power was granted to them by the electorate, the GOP (the "conservatives") will be in power again, and just like the Democrats it will be more as "default" rather than principle, position, idealogy, or "contract."

And by the time the 2012 POTUS primaries come around, Sarah Palin will be on the ticket, and suddenly those "Condescending Liberals" won't sound so bad.

In fact, they actually might start sounding somewhat "edumacated."

Provided that enough Children got left behind, who will be of legal voting age at that time, who can still think for themselves.

 

[iman]

Actually, I don't think of myself as "liberal" and I certainly don't think of Obama as "liberal". The problem is that if one seeks a pragmatic solution to a problem, one seldom adopts an ideological conservative remedy and any remedy that is not ideologically conservative is labeled as "liberal".

This is the kind of dumb shit that Dems have to put up with (I hope that's not too condescending).

 

[KTheLibra]

Back to the Center from where?

For more than 16 years since the Republicans controlled both houses of congress that pendulum never got anywhere near the center. So anything to the left of right was characterized by the "right" as LEFT or Libural.

For modern day "Conservatives" I see them painting "Liberals" as Neo-Communists/Socialists/Fascists, and in anyway possible.

They need a boogy-man, and we haven't had one of those here in America since the fall of Communism.

Oh, sure they've tried; Gays, Abortionists, Hollywood, Sectarians, Immigrants, Ivy League types, and now they've come right out and have focused upon "Condescending Liberals."

IMO Liberals are the true idiots because they've allowed the conservatives to define the debate by dismantling the Fairness Doctrine (and this took place when the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress under Reagan and Bush), which gave way to the likes of Fox News, and let's not forget the countless number of alledgedly "free thinking" Think Tanks funded by "ear marks" to perpetuate "conservative idealogy" within our major Universities, thus giving credence to their view that being a "conservative" was and is good, while being a "Libural" bad.

Point of fact, the Democrats controlled the House of Congress for nearly four decades.

The GOP Conservatives under Newt Gingrich successfully portrayed the Democratic Party as "corrupt and out of touch."

The GOP was able to maintain control for only 16 years before screwing up so badly that the American electorate elected an African American as POTUS with the highest margin in any POTUS election since LBJ beat Barry Goldwater in 1964.

So you're right.

At the rate things are going Obama will be a "one-term" President, and just like the Democrats in 2006 and again in 2008, when power was granted to them by the electorate, the GOP (the "conservatives") will be in power again, and just like the Democrats it will be more as "default" rather than principle, position, idealogy, or "contract."

And by the time the 2012 POTUS primaries come around, Sarah Palin will be on the ticket, and suddenly those "Condescending Liberals" won't sound so bad.

In fact, they actually might start sounding somewhat "edumacated."

Provided that enough Children got left behind, who will be of legal voting age at that time, who can still think for themselves.

While I do agree with everything else you've said, I'm not so sure about the Obama having a one-term thing. Especially now that he's publicly reaching out to Republicans and opening things up for discussion and compromise and ideas (which they don't have, which is making them look more and more useless). A bit off-topic, but I just wanted to throw my two cents in about that. But I do agree with everything else.

 

[NW007]

Back to the Center from where?

For more than 16 years since the Republicans controlled both houses of congress that pendulum never got anywhere near the center. So anything to the left of right was characterized by the "right" as LEFT or Libural.

For modern day "Conservatives" I see them painting "Liberals" as Neo-Communists/Socialists/Fascists, and in anyway possible.

They need a boogy-man, and we haven't had one of those here in America since the fall of Communism.

Oh, sure they've tried; Gays, Abortionists, Hollywood, Sectarians, Immigrants, Ivy League types, and now they've come right out and have focused upon "Condescending Liberals."

IMO Liberals are the true idiots because they've allowed the conservatives to define the debate by dismantling the Fairness Doctrine (and this took place when the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress under Reagan and Bush), which gave way to the likes of Fox News, and let's not forget the countless number of alledgedly "free thinking" Think Tanks funded by "ear marks" to perpetuate "conservative idealogy" within our major Universities, thus giving credence to their view that being a "conservative" was and is good, while being a "Libural" bad.

Point of fact, the Democrats controlled the House of Congress for nearly four decades.

The GOP Conservatives under Newt Gingrich successfully portrayed the Democratic Party as "corrupt and out of touch."

The GOP was able to maintain control for only 16 years before screwing up so badly that the American electorate elected an African American as POTUS with the highest margin in any POTUS election since LBJ beat Barry Goldwater in 1964.

So you're right.

At the rate things are going Obama will be a "one-term" President, and just like the Democrats in 2006 and again in 2008, when power was granted to them by the electorate, the GOP (the "conservatives") will be in power again, and just like the Democrats it will be more as "default" rather than principle, position, idealogy, or "contract."

And by the time the 2012 POTUS primaries come around, Sarah Palin will be on the ticket, and suddenly those "Condescending Liberals" won't sound so bad.

In fact, they actually might start sounding somewhat "edumacated."

Provided that enough Children got left behind, who will be of legal voting age at that time, who can still think for themselves.

^ hope you feel better after that rant

 

[iman]

And keep in mind that there is more a battle going on within the Deomcratic party between its various factions right now; than there is between the Democrats and the Republicans. So are going to say that your Conservative Democrat friends are the problem too.

Most Presidents have problems their first year and thanks to Bush this President has more problems than most. I don't think the Dems are anymore divided than usual, calling each other "fucking retards" is pretty mild stuff for Dems. The Teaparty folks should be a major concern for Republicans - they can't win with them and they can't win without them.

 

[Centexfarmer]

While I do agree with everything else you've said, I'm not so sure about the Obama having a one-term thing. Especially now that he's publicly reaching out to Republicans and opening things up for discussion and compromise and ideas (which they don't have, which is making them look more and more useless). A bit off-topic, but I just wanted to throw my two cents in about that. But I do agree with everything else.

You may be right. Obama still has three more years regardless of how the midterms turn out this fall.

So is Obama now being a "Condescending Liberal" by forcing the Republicans into their debate?

IOW, put up or shut up! Me likey.

^ hope you feel better after that rant

Thanks NW007, I think that I can sleep better tonight.

 

[NW007]

While I do agree with everything else you've said, I'm not so sure about the Obama having a one-term thing. Especially now that he's publicly reaching out to Republicans and opening things up for discussion and compromise and ideas (which they don't have, which is making them look more and more useless). A bit off-topic, but I just wanted to throw my two cents in about that. But I do agree with everything else.

^Obama is playing pure politics. He is not really open to discussion and compromise. His view of compromise is for everyone who disagrees with his philosophy to shutup and just roll over. He does not get it, that its not the Republicans that don't want the current version of the healthcare bill for example, its the American voters.

If you are truly having open discussion, you start with a clean slate and put together a truly bi partisan discussion where all ideas are put on the table and thoroughly examined. You don't use the existing flawed House and Senate bills as a starting point. You go back to square one and do the whole process correctly and openly. And please don't repeat the stale argument that the Republicans have no ideas.

The President so far is only doing this because he has boxed himself into a corner and is trying to find a way out. Hopefully, the Republican leadership will be careful they don't fall into Obama's politcal theater trap that he is trying to create with his rather shallow attempts at claiming to be reaching out.

 

[Lefty]

I've got to swing by here more often. The cat fights and the sandbox dust

ups are fun. But boy howdy, I do love a good macho pissing match.


Kinda like....Hey Joe ...you quit beating your wife yet?

or

John asks:Joe, why do you hit yourself on the head so often?

Joe replies: Because stupid...It feels so good when I stop.

are too... aren't either...are too...aren't either....fuck you...no, fuck you

and your dog...no, fuck you and.....well et cetera....yes, thats entertainment.

 

[NW007]

^ LOL, love it Lefty, thanks.....................

 

[Centexfarmer]

If you are truly having open discussion, you start with a clean slate and put together a truly bi partisan discussion where all ideas are put on the table and thoroughly examined. You don't use the existing flawed House and Senate bills as a starting point. You go back to square one and do the whole process correctly and openly. And please don't repeat the stale argument that the Republicans have no ideas.

Oh, I'm sorry.

Were the Republicans on some sort of extended Holiday since 2006 where their voices weren't being heard?

That some how or other they were excluded from all of the committees, hearings, and day to day business in both Houses of Congress for the first 365 days that Obama was in office?

Now that the electorate has shown more than a mild frustration with the House of Congress, and we're just a couple of weeks away from early voting in the primaries the Republicans want to play nice, and/or victim?

Rereading what I posted there, if it were any other time, I think myself cynical.

 

[NW007]

Oh, I'm sorry.

Were the Republicans on some sort of extended Holiday since 2006 where their voices weren't being heard?

That some how or other they were excluded from all of the committees, hearings, and day to day business in both Houses of Congress for the first 365 days that Obama was in office?

Now that the electorate has shown more than a mild frustration with the House of Congress, and we're just a couple of weeks away from early voting in the primaries the Republicans want to play nice, and/or victim?

Rereading what I posted there, if it were any other time, I think myself cynical.

As a matter of fact they were there, but many of their proposals were not permitted to be brought to a vote by the Democratic leadership. And must I remind you that most members of both parties were not a party to many of the final solutions as they were kept in the dark by the backroom, out of public view, and secret deals. The Repulicans aren't the ones changing their behavior, its the President, who has lost the confidence of the voters ,has realized he needs to change and be more forthright and honest.

 

[Centexfarmer]

As a matter of fact they were there, but many of their proposals were not permitted to be brought to a vote by the Democratic leadership. And must I remind you that most members of both parties were not a party to many of the final solutions as they were kept in the dark by the backroom, out of public view, and secret deals. The Repulicans aren't the ones changing their behavior, its the President, who has lost the confidence of the voters ,has realized he needs to change and be more forthright and honest.

Seems to me that, at the very least, he was just mimicking Republican behavior during the 16 years that they were in control of Congress in regard to how they treated their fellow Democrats.

Maybe I haven't given Obama, and the Democratic Party the credit that they deserve?

In reality the Republicans NEVER changed their behavior he just gave them a taste of their own medicine, and now they're crying like a bunch of school girls with their skirts pulled up over their heads, and in sight of the upcoming elections NOW want to appear to be doing something beyond appearing as "obstructionist," even if it means calling "Liberals So Condescending."

If things were only as cut and dry, or black and white.

 

[NW007]

Seems to me that, at the very least, he was just mimicking Republican behavior during the 16 years that they were in control of Congress in regard to how they treated their fellow Democrats.

Maybe I haven't given Obama, and the Democratic Party the credit that they deserve?

In reality the Republicans NEVER changed their behavior he just gave them a taste of their own medicine, and now they're crying like a bunch of school girls with their skirts pulled up over their heads, and in sight of the upcoming elections NOW want to appear to be doing something beyond appearing as "obstructionist," even if it means calling "Liberals So Condescending."

If things were only as cut and dry, or black and white.

I respect your inputs as I know you are very active in Democratic politics in your own state and I have read your many posts since I jopined JUB back in Feb 2006. I originally posted this article and thread as I thought it was more thoughtout than the normal mug slinging that goes on these days. We most likely disagree on various political topics and that is fine. My biggest criticism of the Obama Presidency is this:

I have said from back before he was elected that I consider his two biggest weaknesses are that:
1. He is thin skinned
2. He can't take criticism well

And so far that is proving to be the case. He has little openness to genuine philosophical differing thoughts or ideas and he depicts people who hold such views as obstuctionists or "just say no" folks.
I further believe that he and his advisors made a gross miscaluation of why the voters elected him and they tried to turn it into some massive mandate which it never was. This misreading of the 2008 election plus their terrible methods of trying to cram legislation down Congress's throat at all costs has placed them and the country in the predictament that we find ourselves today.

My third criticism is that he has never made the transition from campaigning to running the country through effective leadership. That is probably due to a lack of ever having been in a leadership position prior to being elected President. You should not run the country as if you are constantly campaigning, which is what he does. I should probably wrap this up as I am rambling and not sticking to the topic of "Liberals(not to mention the President) are Condescending"

 

[Centexfarmer]

I respect your inputs as I know you are very active in Democratic politics in your own state and I have read your many posts since I jopined JUB back in Feb 2006. I originally posted this article and thread as I thought it was more thought out than the normal mug slinging that goes on these days.

I appreciate your sharing it for discussion, but personally I see it as a continuing dialogue from the right wing/conservative elements to attempt to shut down any form of debate against their agenda to acquire and maintain power.

We most likely disagree on various political topics and that is fine. My biggest criticism of the Obama Presidency is this:

I have said from back before he was elected that I consider his two biggest weaknesses are that:
1. He is thin skinned
2. He can't take criticism well

I've found nothing to disagree with you on in your observation. One of many criticisms that was made against him from within the Democratic Party during the 2008 Primaries was his "inexperience" as a "Legislator."

IMO those criticisms still stand, and he's done little if anything (despite those that he's surrounded himself with who should know better) to change any of that.

And so far that is proving to be the case. He has little openness to genuine philosophical differing thoughts or ideas and he depicts people who hold such views as obstuctionists or "just say no" folks.

So what you're saying is that he's playing "reactionary" to the "knee jerk reactionaries."

I agree, not much "leadership" for change.

I further believe that he and his advisors made a gross miscaluation of why the voters elected him and they tried to turn it into some massive mandate which it never was.

I'm confused.

Bush was appointed by the U.S. Supreme Court back in 2000, but Bush ran roughshod over the U.S. Constitution and his own GOP Controlled Congress AS IF he had some sort of a "mandate," but Obama gets elected by the largest margin since LBJ defeated Goldwater in 1964 and somehow there isn't a mandate?

If Obama and the Democrats are guilty of anything, IMO, is that they've been too tepid in actuallizing any REAL change in Washington, and that will be the down fall of this Administration and the Democratic Party IMHO, and not some ankle biting minority that seeks nothing but power at any cost.

This misreading of the 2008 election plus their terrible methods of trying to cram legislation down Congress's throat at all costs has placed them and the country in the predictament that we find ourselves today.

Yeah, and the Republican party some how is attempting a way to find themselves "blameless" in this malaise that we Americans have now found ourselves in.

Makes me proud how about you?

My third criticism is that he has never made the transition from campaigning to running the country through effective leadership. That is probably due to a lack of ever having been in a leadership position prior to being elected President. You should not run the country as if you are constantly campaigning, which is what he does. I should probably wrap this up as I am rambling and not sticking to the topic of "Liberals(not to mention the President) are Condescending"

Well, I'm glad that we settle that.



I'm off to bed!

 

[Kulindahr]

This is one of those times I could wish a certain Tom Clancy novel would become reality, and we'd have to elect an entirely new Congress......

 

[Lefty]

Kuli.

Congratulations on making the 50 GRAND club




A troll in Golden Gate Park

 

[Royal Heart]

The author misses one important piece of information: Liberalism exists outside of America, too. So it's not strictly an American Tradition.