Why are Liberals So Condescending

[NW007]

I thought this recent Op-Ed article in The Washington Post is quite timely as it pertains to many of the posts in the CE&P forum in how various members react to other viewpoints that are expressed:


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/04/AR2010020403698.html


I look forward to fellow Jubbers responses after they have read the article

 

[JB3]

Where does this thread keep going? I've seen it posted two times previously but its disappeared every time.

 

[construct]

Where does this thread keep going? I've seen it posted two times previously but its disappeared every time.

I suspect that it's taken out for review. I tried posting to it once only to find that it had been poofed while I was still reading the article. Now it's back with only your post and mine. Oh well.



It's an interesting op-ed. It correctly outlines the substance of the four liberal narratives criticizing the right on the basis of "movement conservatives" and "the religious right." I think that the narratives are true as it relates to those two forms of conservatism. Indeed, the movement conservatives along with a few neo-cons like David Horowitz were the ones who created the right-wing noise machine, the echo chamber. Maybe there was a noise machine created by Joseph McCarthy and the John Birch Society, but I'm too young to remember that.

I do think it's useful to distinguish among various types of conservatives, but the base are largely influenced not by the paleo-conservatives or the economic conservatives. They're mostly mouthing the line of either the religious right or the movement conservatives. So the narratives correctly describe most of the conservative rhetoric and those who repeat it. For that reason, I don't mind sometimes painting with a broad brush in applying the four narratives to American conservatism in toto.

Call it condescending if you want. That's just fine with me. I AM the liberal elite.

 

[JB3]

I suspect that it's taken out for review. I tried posting to it once only to find that it had been poofed while I was still reading the article. Now it's back with only your post and mine. Oh well.

It's an interesting op-ed. It correctly outlines the substance of the four liberal narratives criticizing the right on the basis of "movement conservatives" and "the religious right." I think that the narratives are true as it relates to those two forms of conservatism. Indeed, the movement conservatives along with a few neo-cons like David Horowitz were the ones who created the right-wing noise machine, the echo chamber. Maybe there was a noise machine created by Joseph McCarthy and the John Birch Society, but I'm too young to remember that.

I do think it's useful to distinguish among various types of conservatives, but the base are largely influenced not by the paleo-conservatives or the economic conservatives. They're mostly mouthing the line of either the religious right or the movement conservatives. So the narratives correctly describe most of the conservative rhetoric and those who repeat it. For that reason, I don't mind sometimes painting with a broad brush in applying the four narratives to American conservatism in toto.

Call it condescending if you want. That's just fine with me. I AM the liberal elite.

I think part of what the article is identifying isn't just the criticism that those liberals were making, but the way in which they make it. Yours was intelligent, well thought out, and didn't paint with an overly broad brush or using derogatory and insulting terms and language.

 

[Sausy]

While I believe the article understates the appeal of hard right demonization of everything liberal,a very thoughtful and interesting article.The elitists in the left camp obviously don't know,or care to know,that the way you present your policies matters just as much if not more than certitude in the moral superiority of those ideas and policies.They are always right...those that believe differently are always wrong,stupid,manipulative,evil and/or easily manipulated.They are embarassed by "flyover" country....NOTHING of worth coming out of there.They don't engage their opponents...they could force the GOP to compete for the center if they applied pragmatically,minimizing ideological divisiveness,a Democratic vision of policies that best served the interests of ALL Americans if they could be creative rather than look to big government bureaucracies and high taxes to get America back on track.And moving so socially leftward they mock the prudence,caution and wisdom of so many Middle Americans of good character but practically more conservative outlooks and experiences. As conservatives would be best advised to steer away from emphasis on divisive social issues that cheer on bigotry and play on simplistic patriotic pieties that border if not outright cross the threshhold of demagoguery and rigid,uncritical support of free markets without emphasizing safeguards protecting from reckless endangerment by the business sector of the hard earned livings of ordinary Americans.

A battle of ideas,not rhetorical pie throwing(or bomb throwing at its ugliest on both sides) would only be of great benefit to America.Liberalism OR Conservatism as they have developed today are NOT the only worthwhile ,valuable,meritorious ideas.Throw things around,think OUTSIDE the ideological box.I am not taling about selling out principles...a compromise of the lowest common denominator.Obviously there are going to be different solutions legitimately held in principle that will be difficult if not impossible to accomodate.But more political leaders have to see beyond the coming election,the next election after that,the tangible personal benefits that are received should they remain faithful to their most connected interests.We need more statesman and fewer political hacks and party apparatchniks.Politicians should not work for business,labor,trial lawyers,pharmaceutical companies,etc..but ONLY with them.The only interest group they are accountable to ultimately are the American people.That's who they work for,and that's the only thing that matters.

A nice dream,at least.But a great thing to dream big.Earn your standing....don't feel entitled to it and superior to the opposition.You do what is right by yourself,the truly legitimate and compelling alternative voices,and the American people when you engage in that battle of ideas and consensus seeking because when the motivation to get into office prioritizes simply your side maintaining power NOTHING of consequence gets done.It's so easy and politically profitable for non stop finger pointing to ensue and the opposition simply learns to adopt those tactics should they get their turn...and the cycle never ends.I want to go back to dreaming of a different way.

 

[Sausy]

I suspect that it's taken out for review. I tried posting to it once only to find that it had been poofed while I was still reading the article. Now it's back with only your post and mine. Oh well.



It's an interesting op-ed. It correctly outlines the substance of the four liberal narratives criticizing the right on the basis of "movement conservatives" and "the religious right." I think that the narratives are true as it relates to those two forms of conservatism. Indeed, the movement conservatives along with a few neo-cons like David Horowitz were the ones who created the right-wing noise machine, the echo chamber. Maybe there was a noise machine created by Joseph McCarthy and the John Birch Society, but I'm too young to remember that.

I do think it's useful to distinguish among various types of conservatives, but the base are largely influenced not by the paleo-conservatives or the economic conservatives. They're mostly mouthing the line of either the religious right or the movement conservatives. So the narratives correctly describe most of the conservative rhetoric and those who repeat it. For that reason, I don't mind sometimes painting with a broad brush in applying the four narratives to American conservatism in toto.

Call it condescending if you want. That's just fine with me. I AM the liberal elite.

Your kind of thinking is one of the condescending perspectives liberals make.And your approach is a perfect reason why liberals are a minority of 20% or so and will continue to be so.Americans don't want to see liberals claim a mandate for progressivism when they elect Democrats to Congrees or the White House or conservatives claim that same mandate when 60% do not identify as conservatives.They want moves from failed excessive or unwise policies,and pragmatic ones put in place to make America work.Obama's election(and I voted enthusiastically for him,and was proud of the early scenes of jubilation by the millions in Grant Park in Chicago election night after Obama was projected the winner)is sadly becoming a wasted opportunity.We need more Evan Bayhs,more Jim Webbs,more Democrats who don't turn their noses at their "lessers" and are so sure they KNOW what is best for America.And FAR less of those who will decry the stupidity and duplicity of those red state dumbfuckistaners when Democratic margins of majority in Congress are either narrowed or even reversed.

 

[construct]

In large part I agree with you, Saucy, even though I'm certainly among the big government liberals. I particularly want to underscore this methodological part of your post.

The elitists in the left camp obviously don't know,or care to know,that the way you present your policies matters just as much if not more than certitude in the moral superiority of those ideas and policies . . . . They don't engage their opponents...they could force the GOP to compete for the center if they applied pragmatically,minimizing ideological divisiveness,a Democratic vision of policies that best served the interests of ALL Americans . . . .

This has been a problem for Democrats. For the past thirty years, we Democrats have had a terrible time selling our agenda (and I do think marketing rhetoric is appropriate). George Lakoff (criticized in the article) wrote two whole books (one long and scholarly, the other short and popular) about framing as a way to retake issues. His suggestions are pragmatic, and I believe they would be effective if they were ever implemented. Sadly, most of us have not taken them seriously enough to use them in shaping our party's rhetoric. If we had, we wouldn't be battling and denouncing these movement conservatives on their own terms. We would be showing how our party's agenda embodies the best of America's cultural values.

 

[construct]

Your kind of thinking is one of the condescending perspectives liberals make.And your approach is a perfect reason why liberals are a minority of 20% or so and will continue to be so.Americans don't want to see liberals claim a mandate for progressivism when they elect Democrats to Congrees or the White House or conservatives claim that same mandate when 60% do not identify as conservatives.They want moves from failed excessive or unwise policies,and pragmatic ones put in place to make America work.Obama's election(and I voted enthusiastically for him,and was proud of the early scenes of jubilation by the millions in Grant Park in Chicago election night after Obama was projected the winner)is sadly becoming a wasted opportunity.We need more Evan Bayhs,more Jim Webbs,more Democrats who don't turn their noses at their "lessers" and are so sure they KNOW what is best for America.And FAR less of those who will decry the stupidity and duplicity of those red state dumbfuckistaners when Democratic margins of majority in Congress are either narrowed or even reversed.

Yes, my unabashed identification with the liberal elite in the ivory towers of academia and the Hollywood mansions shocks and appalls the populist workers down at party headquarters. I once described myself as a "Hamiltonian Democrat" in the presence of several party organizers. I found the look of shock on their faces amusing. One said, "You mean Alexander Hamilton who said, 'Your people, sir, are a beast'?" to which I replied, "Yes, that one," and I smiled coyly.

 

[falconfan]

It has been my observation, based solely of the extremes on both sides, that liberals tend to think conservatives are stupid and conservatives tend to think liberals are evil soulless beings who are attempting to strategically destroy the moral fiber of the universe.

Quite frankly I'd rather people consider me dumb than (and I need look no deeper than the sheer title of conservative best sellers for these slanderous remarks) 'godless' 'evil' and 'treason[ous]'

 

[construct]

It has been my observation, based solely of the extremes on both sides, that liberals tend to think conservatives are stupid and conservatives tend to think liberals are evil soulless beings who are attempting to strategically destroy the moral fiber of the universe.

Quite frankly I'd rather people consider me dumb than (and I need look no deeper than the sheer title of conservative best sellers for these slanderous remarks) 'godless' 'evil' and 'treason[ous]'

I know that I'm one of the godless, evil ones. (I don't think I'm treasonous.) So which are you, dumb or evil?

 

[construct]

Construct, I enjoyed your commentary, but I have to ask how you define a "movement conservative"?

I think you were right in that Repubs/right-wingers love spouting the line of the religious right, but I have my own rather cynical view as to what is really at play. The corporate elite (economic conservatives, as you call them), by and large, is to some extent rather shadily using these wedge issues to distract Americans from the growing fascist element at work. The true Republican agenda is to serve corporate America as much as it can, all the while employing the guise of religion and family values. Does Michele Bachmann really believe her rhetoric about Obamacare being filled with sin? I sincerely doubt that, but the health insurance lobby certainly isn't going to stifle her in any manner.I would rather be principled and not give a damn what anyone else thinks - left, right, center, or on Mars.

I use the term "movement conservatives" to describe the young Turks who came of age politically under the shadow of Ronald Reagan and (often cynically) jumped on the bandwagon. So, most of the leading movement conservatives are five or ten years younger than me, i.e. in their early to mid-forties. These are the folk who say such outrageous things about "liberals" that you wonder whether they really believe what they're saying.

Michele Bachmann might be an example, but I've never actually heard or read even a single word from her. The examples that come to my mind are Ann Coulter, the late Barbara Olsen, and Dinesh D'Souza. I suppose people like Rush Limbaugh and Glen Beck would probably meet that description as well.

 

[NineOfClubs]

I love this!

This thread has devolved into a discussion of "conservatives", all stripes of them.

Forget the original topic! Liberals!

And who's driving the conversation? CONDESCENDING LIBERALS!

Damn, I can't wait until your heads are handed to you on platters in the 2010 elections.

 

[Kulindahr]

I find the article to be spot-on. In my experience, there is arrogance on the Right in the form of "God told me....", but on the Left there is a far more abundant arrogance in the form of, "Everybody I like believes it, so obviously it's true!" They're equally obnoxious, but there are far more of the liberal type in power, scrapping our rights at every turn, giving us college campus regulations which restrict free speech to a certain part of campus, regulations that encompass the whole country but only fit the part where the author grew up, and the sheer utter stupidity that thinks companies can just cough up more taxes without end -- but keep employing the same people at inflated wages.

As a handyman, I run into moronic regulations constantly. I have yet to encounter one that came from a conservative (so far no one cares about the morals of the guy who crawls under your house to thaw the pipes and repair the one that blew up). In every instance, the people who enforce the regulations treat them as some form of holy writ, and regard any criticism as heresy -- my favorite exception being the federal 'wetlands' definition, which if taken literally would make half the back yards in this town off limits to mowing, weed-killing, gardening, or anything but crossing to get off the property; that one's so stupid that even liberal arrogance falters in the face of the logical result of enforcement.

The arrogant conservatives I encounter are irritating only on a minor scale -- for example, the woman who swore that her yard layout design was "Biblically correct".... The arrogant liberals kill businesses, drive jobs overseas, force families off land held for generations -- all for our own good, of course.

 

[NineOfClubs]

There, there, there... *pats hand gently* ... It'll be alright. Here, have a cookie.

^ There's something very condescending about that gesture.

 

[construct]

Hmm, that's quite general in that I think they have viewpoints that are not unlike certain portions of the other three groups (specifically the e-cons and the religious right), but you are definitely describing a particular group. I think that's almost synonymous with the "neocon" movement. A central idea of theirs seems to be interventionist foreign policy, specifically in respect to the Middle East. The neocon interventionists and the e-cons are a perfect partnership - they form a symbiotic relationship wherein the neocons can feed the military-industrial complex through their policies.

Both groups themselves are fall too small, so they string along the theocons. Quite sad, really.

The biggest difference, as far as I'm concerned, between the neo-cons and the movement conservatives is that the neo-cons aren't particularly interested in demolishing the social safety net.

But you're right that there is a lot of overlap in viewpoints among the categories I'm using. That's because they're all conservatives of one "stripe" or another.

Ultimately, the article is a critique of rhetoric. It's not primarily a critique of the substance of the liberal agenda. George Lakoff is the person who has offered the most constructive contribution to the marketing of the Democratic Party. Still, he is castigated by the writer of the article who doesn't offer his own suggestions (besides to quit being so goddamn condescending). My complaint with the Democratic Party's rhetoric is that it hasn't taken Lakoff's message to heart.

Anyone who is expecting of me an admission that a flatly liberal agenda isn't what is best for our country can forget it.

 

[NineOfClubs]

Anyone who is expecting of me an admission that a flatly liberal agenda isn't what is best for our country can forget it.

Fine.

You think it's best for the country.

But the CONDESCENDING way you treat the rest of the country (not to mention posters in this very thread), your very approach, will guarantee that you won't succeed in helping the country.

If you don't get it, that's fine with me. I rather wish you wouldn't, because I want you and those like you to fail....

 

[construct]

Fine.

You think it's best for the country.

But the CONDESCENDING way you treat the rest of the country (not to mention posters in this very thread), your very approach, will guarantee that you won't succeed in helping the country.

If you don't get it, that's fine with me. I rather wish you wouldn't, because I want you and those like you to fail....

I don't think I have been particularly condescending to posters in this thread.

Look. I believe that the narratives that the article describes are in large part true, and I know that it's impolitic to say that in a lot of contexts. It's hard for anyone to hear that they have been duped--especially when they have been duped by people who may not even believe their own shit.

So, there's no need to talk about all that as a marketing theme. It doesn't work, so it shouldn't matter from a marketing standpoint that a significant minority of the American people have been duped. Lakoff's ideas about framing issues would get us back on message in terms that are attractive to potential buyers.

 

[Kulindahr]

I don't think I have been particularly condescending to posters in this thread.

Right there is the worst thing about it: arrogant liberals are so certain of their righteousness and superiority they can't even see it.

 

[Kulindahr]

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.

And if libertarians ran everything, this conversation would never had been necessary.

 

[construct]

Right there is the worst thing about it: arrogant liberals are so certain of their righteousness and superiority they can't even see it.

Well, let me explain it a little differently. If I did not believe that the policies I support were the best policies for our nation, then I would abandon them and figure out or adopt different ones.

And as for arrogance--I have adopted the arrogance of some of our founders such as the ones who came up with the electoral college to protect the country from the demagoguery that would be the inevitable result of direct elections. Unfortunately, we decided to bind the electors to vote for particular candidates so that they can't exercise their independent judgment when it comes time to cast their votes. The protection that led to the creation of the electoral college is the kind of arrogance I was talking about when I described myself with the oxymoron "Hamiltonian Democrat." It is directly opposed to Jeffersonian and Jacksonian Democrats.

So at this point, I shall revert to what I said in my first post. "Call it condescending if you want. That's just fine with me. I AM the liberal elite."