Jump to content


- - - - -

Why liberals are so condescending?


#1 thrustbucket   CAGiversary! CAGiversary!   7942 Posts   Joined 14.8 Years Ago  

thrustbucket

Posted 09 February 2010 - 03:37 PM

Came across an article in the Washington Post that I thought would be great material for this forum.

Pasted below for the lazy.

Why are liberals so condescending?
Every political community includes some members who insist that their side has all the answers and that their adversaries are idiots. But American liberals, to a degree far surpassing conservatives, appear committed to the proposition that their views are correct, self-evident, and based on fact and reason, while conservative positions are not just wrong but illegitimate, ideological and unworthy of serious consideration. Indeed, all the appeals to bipartisanship notwithstanding, President Obama and other leading liberal voices have joined in a chorus of intellectual condescension.

It's an odd time for liberals to feel smug. But even with Democratic fortunes on the wane, leading liberals insist that they have almost nothing to learn from conservatives. Many Democrats describe their troubles simply as a PR challenge, a combination of conservative misinformation -- as when Obama charges that critics of health-care reform are peddling fake fears of a "Bolshevik plot" -- and the country's failure to grasp great liberal accomplishments. "We were so busy just getting stuff done . . . that I think we lost some of that sense of speaking directly to the American people about what their core values are," the president told ABC's George Stephanopoulos in a recent interview. The benighted public is either uncomprehending or deliberately misinformed (by conservatives).

This condescension is part of a liberal tradition that for generations has impoverished American debates over the economy, society and the functions of government -- and threatens to do so again today, when dialogue would be more valuable than ever.

Liberals have dismissed conservative thinking for decades, a tendency encapsulated by Lionel Trilling's 1950 remark that conservatives do not "express themselves in ideas but only in action or in irritable mental gestures which seek to resemble ideas." During the 1950s and '60s, liberals trivialized the nascent conservative movement. Prominent studies and journalistic accounts of right-wing politics at the time stressed paranoia, intolerance and insecurity, rendering conservative thought more a psychiatric disorder than a rival. In 1962, Richard Hofstadter referred to "the Manichaean style of thought, the apocalyptic tendencies, the love of mystification, the intolerance of compromise that are observable in the right-wing mind."

This sense of liberal intellectual superiority dropped off during the economic woes of the 1970s and the Reagan boom of the 1980s. (Jimmy Carter's presidency, buffeted by economic and national security challenges, generated perhaps the clearest episode of liberal self-doubt.) But these days, liberal confidence and its companion disdain for conservative thinking are back with a vengeance, finding energetic expression in politicians' speeches, top-selling books, historical works and the blogosphere. This attitude comes in the form of four major narratives about who conservatives are and how they think and function.

The first is the "vast right-wing conspiracy," a narrative made famous by Hillary Rodham Clinton but hardly limited to her. This vision maintains that conservatives win elections and policy debates not because they triumph in the open battle of ideas but because they deploy brilliant and sinister campaign tactics. A dense network of professional political strategists such as Karl Rove, think tanks such as the Heritage Foundation and industry groups allegedly manipulate information and mislead the public. Democratic strategist Rob Stein crafted a celebrated PowerPoint presentation during George W. Bush's presidency that traced conservative success to such organizational factors.

This liberal vision emphasizes the dissemination of ideologically driven views from sympathetic media such as the Fox News Channel. For example, Chris Mooney's book "The Republican War on Science" argues that policy debates in the scientific arena are distorted by conservatives who disregard evidence and reflect the biases of industry-backed Republican politicians or of evangelicals aimlessly shielding the world from modernity. In this interpretation, conservative arguments are invariably false and deployed only cynically. Evidence of the costs of cap-and-trade carbon rationing is waved away as corporate propaganda; arguments against health-care reform are written off as hype orchestrated by insurance companies.

This worldview was on display in the popular liberal reaction to the Supreme Court's recent ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. Rather than engage in a discussion about the complexities of free speech in politics, liberals have largely argued that the decision will "open the floodgates for special interests" to influence American elections, as the president warned in his State of the Union address. In other words, it was all part of the conspiracy to support conservative candidates for their nefarious, self-serving ends.

It follows that the thinkers, politicians and citizens who advance conservative ideas must be dupes, quacks or hired guns selling stories they know to be a sham. In this spirit, New York Times columnist Paul Krugman regularly dismisses conservative arguments not simply as incorrect, but as lies. Writing last summer, Krugman pondered the duplicity he found evident in 35 years' worth of Wall Street Journal editorial writers: "What do these people really believe? I mean, they're not stupid -- life would be a lot easier if they were. So they know they're not telling the truth. But they obviously believe that their dishonesty serves a higher truth. . . . The question is, what is that higher truth?"

In Krugman's world, there is no need to take seriously the arguments of "these people" -- only to plumb the depths of their errors and imagine hidden motives.

But, if conservative leaders are crass manipulators, then the rank-and-file Americans who support them must be manipulated at best, or stupid at worst. This is the second variety of liberal condescension, exemplified in Thomas Frank's best-selling 2004 book, "What's the Matter With Kansas?" Frank argued that working-class voters were so distracted by issues such as abortion that they were induced into voting against their own economic interests. Then-Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, later chairman of the Democratic National Committee, echoed that theme in his 2004 presidential run, when he said Republicans had succeeded in getting Southern whites to focus on "guns, God and gays" instead of economic redistribution.

And speaking to a roomful of Democratic donors in 2008, then-presidential candidate Obama offered a similar (and infamous) analysis when he suggested that residents of Rust Belt towns "cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations" about job losses. When his comments became public, Obama backed away from their tenor but insisted that "I said something that everybody knows is true."

In this view, we should pay attention to conservative voters' underlying problems but disregard the policy demands they voice; these are illusory, devoid of reason or evidence. This form of liberal condescension implies that conservative masses are in the grip of false consciousness. When they express their views at town hall meetings or "tea party" gatherings, it might be politically prudent for liberals to hear them out, but there is no reason to actually listen.

The third version of liberal condescension points to something more sinister. In his 2008 book, "Nixonland," progressive writer Rick Perlstein argued that Richard Nixon created an enduring Republican strategy of mobilizing the ethnic and other resentments of some Americans against others. Similarly, in their 1992 book, "Chain Reaction," Thomas Byrne Edsall and Mary D. Edsall argued that Nixon and Reagan talked up crime control, low taxes and welfare reform to cloak racial animus and help make it mainstream. It is now an article of faith among many liberals that Republicans win elections because they tap into white prejudice against blacks and immigrants.

Race doubtless played a significant role in the shift of Deep South whites to the Republican Party during and after the 1960s. But the liberal narrative has gone essentially unchanged since then -- recall former president Carter's recent assertion that opposition to Obama reflects racism -- even though survey research has shown a dramatic decline in prejudiced attitudes among white Americans in the intervening decades. Moreover, the candidates and agendas of both parties demonstrate an unfortunate willingness to play on prejudices, whether based on race, region, class, income, or other factors.

Finally, liberals condescend to the rest of us when they say conservatives are driven purely by emotion and anxiety -- including fear of change -- whereas liberals have the harder task of appealing to evidence and logic. Former vice president Al Gore made this case in his 2007 book, "The Assault on Reason," in which he expressed fear that American politics was under siege from a coalition of religious fundamentalists, foreign policy extremists and industry groups opposed to "any reasoning process that threatens their economic goals." This right-wing politics involves a gradual "abandonment of concern for reason or evidence" and relies on propaganda to maintain public support, he wrote.

Prominent liberal academics also propagate these beliefs. George Lakoff, a linguist at the University of California at Berkeley and a consultant to Democratic candidates, says flatly that liberals, unlike conservatives, "still believe in Enlightenment reason," while Drew Westen, an Emory University psychologist and Democratic consultant, argues that the GOP has done a better job of mastering the emotional side of campaigns because Democrats, alas, are just too intellectual. "They like to read and think," Westen wrote. "They thrive on policy debates, arguments, statistics, and getting the facts right."

Markos Moulitsas, publisher of the influential progressive Web site Daily Kos, commissioned a poll, which he released this month, designed to show how many rank-and-file Republicans hold odd or conspiratorial beliefs -- including 23 percent who purportedly believe that their states should secede from the Union. Moulitsas concluded that Republicans are "divorced from reality" and that the results show why "it is impossible for elected Republicans to work with Democrats to improve our country." His condescension is superlative: Of the respondents who favored secession, he wonders, "Can we cram them all into the Texas Panhandle, create the state of Dumb-[expletive]-istan, and build a wall around them to keep them from coming into America illegally?"

I doubt it would take long to design a survey questionnaire that revealed strange, ill-informed and paranoid beliefs among average Democrats. Or does Moulitsas think Jay Leno talked only to conservatives for his "Jaywalking" interviews?

These four liberal narratives not only justify the dismissal of conservative thinking as biased or irrelevant -- they insist on it. By no means do all liberals adhere to them, but they are mainstream in left-of-center thinking. Indeed, when the president met with House Republicans in Baltimore recently, he assured them that he considers their ideas, but he then rejected their motives in virtually the same breath.

"There may be other ideas that you guys have," Obama said. "I am happy to look at them, and I'm happy to embrace them. . . . But the question I think we're going to have to ask ourselves is, as we move forward, are we going to be examining each of these issues based on what's good for the country, what the evidence tells us, or are we going to be trying to position ourselves so that come November, we're able to say, 'The other party, it's their fault'?"

Of course, plenty of conservatives are hardly above feeling superior. But the closest they come to portraying liberals as systematically mistaken in their worldview is when they try to identify ideological dogmatism in a narrow slice of the left (say, among Ivy League faculty members), in a particular moment (during the health-care debate, for instance) or in specific individuals (such as Obama or House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, whom some conservatives accuse of being stealth ideologues). A few conservative voices may say that all liberals are always wrong, but these tend to be relatively marginal figures or media gadflies such as Glenn Beck.

In contrast, an extraordinary range of liberal writers, commentators and leaders -- from Jon Stewart's "Daily Show" to Obama's White House, with many stops in between -- have developed or articulated narratives that apply to virtually all conservatives at all times.

To many liberals, this worldview may be appealing, but it severely limits our national conversation on critical policy issues. Perhaps most painfully, liberal condescension has distorted debates over American poverty for nearly two generations.

Starting in the 1960s, the original neoconservative critics such as Daniel Patrick Moynihan expressed distress about the breakdown of inner-city families, only to be maligned as racist and ignored for decades -- until appalling statistics forced critics to recognize their views as relevant. Long-standing conservative concerns over the perils of long-term welfare dependency were similarly villainized as insincere and mean-spirited -- until public opinion insisted they be addressed by a Democratic president and a Republican Congress in the 1996 welfare reform law. But in the meantime, welfare policies that discouraged work, marriage and the development of skills remained in place, with devastating effects.

Ignoring conservative cautions and insights is no less costly today. Some observers have decried an anti-intellectual strain in contemporary conservatism, detected in George W. Bush's aw-shucks style, Sarah Palin's college-hopping and the occasional conservative campaigns against egghead intellectuals. But alongside that, the fact is that conservative-leaning scholars, economists, jurists and legal theorists have never produced as much detailed analysis and commentary on American life and policy as they do today.

Perhaps the most important conservative insight being depreciated is the durable warning from free-marketeers that government programs often fail to yield what their architects intend. Democrats have been busy expanding, enacting or proposing major state interventions in financial markets, energy and health care. Supporters of such efforts want to ensure that key decisions will be made in the public interest and be informed, for example, by sound science, the best new medical research or prudent standards of private-sector competition. But public-choice economists have long warned that when decisions are made in large, centralized government programs, political priorities almost always trump other goals.

Even liberals should think twice about the prospect of decisions on innovative surgeries, light bulbs and carbon quotas being directed by legislators grandstanding for the cameras. Of course, thinking twice would be easier if more of them were listening to conservatives at all.


Granted, it's an opinion piece. But I'm curious to see how many self-admitted lefties on this forum can acknowledge what's said in this article as being true. I think, if strictly judging on the Vs forum, just about everything said in this article is blatantly obvious.

#2 SpazX   13 Billion Years in the Making CAGiversary!   8346 Posts   Joined 13.6 Years Ago  

Posted 09 February 2010 - 03:47 PM

Both liberals and conservatives are condescending (along with anyone in-between). Done.

#3 Msut77   Occam's Shank CAGiversary!   6251 Posts   Joined 14.5 Years Ago  

Posted 09 February 2010 - 03:54 PM

Cons are plenty condescending at times, when this was pointed out to the writer he basically ignored it and mumbled to himself.

My favorite response.

http://politics.thea...ng_liberals.php

Only a hard core of "birther" zealots still believes that President Obama is not an American citizen, but many more are perfectly happy to believe that Medicare is not a government program. Not one in a hundred could tell you in even general terms what Obama's health care reform plan consists of, but that doesn't stop them from having strong opinions about it, which they offer to pollsters, who are the enablers of this particular bad habit. There is nothing condescending about telling your fellow citizens that they are being stupid or selfish. That is treating them as equals. Condescension is telling people that they have "bedrock common sense" simply because they're Americans and--on this occasion--agree with you.

-----------
Which brings me to:

http://www.nytimes.c...r=2&oref=slogin

-
Liberals will stop calling cons stupid when cons stop being so goddamned fucking stupid.

Edited by Msut77, 09 February 2010 - 04:05 PM.


#4 davo1224   CAGiversary! CAGiversary!   3040 Posts   Joined 12.0 Years Ago  

Posted 09 February 2010 - 04:18 PM

I wouldn't use condescending as the phrase to describe "liberals". I would probably use oblivious or pretentious. You're either on some blind chase to change something stupid that is based on bigotry/nepotism/tradition or you think anyone who doesn't enjoy nude sculptures of children is repressed.

I probably would use condescending to describe conservatives if anything. The general feeling I get from most is that anyone who isn't at their white male level position in society and history shouldn't be allowed to live unless it's to serve them.

#5 RAMSTORIA   fate is inexorable CAGiversary!   11980 Posts   Joined 14.8 Years Ago  

Posted 09 February 2010 - 04:21 PM

its only fitting msut should be one of the first to respond

#6 Msut77   Occam's Shank CAGiversary!   6251 Posts   Joined 14.5 Years Ago  

Posted 09 February 2010 - 04:36 PM

I probably would use condescending to describe conservatives if anything. The general feeling I get from most is that anyone who isn't at their white male level position in society and history shouldn't be allowed to live unless it's to serve them.


I agree with you, how many con politicians use some variation of "Real America"? Who has doubts about what they really mean?

What conservatives seem to be saying by using the word is that they think it is condescending to point out they bullshit and try to fleece the American people.

#7 speedracer   Banned Banned   3735 Posts   Joined 15.4 Years Ago  

speedracer

Posted 09 February 2010 - 04:56 PM

I have a question for you. Why are you so fat?
Posted Image
/hot

Edited by speedracer, 09 February 2010 - 05:16 PM.


#8 thrustbucket   CAGiversary! CAGiversary!   7942 Posts   Joined 14.8 Years Ago  

thrustbucket

Posted 09 February 2010 - 05:26 PM

its only fitting msut should be one of the first to respond


I have to admit I was thinking of Msut, among others, while I read this.

#9 speedracer   Banned Banned   3735 Posts   Joined 15.4 Years Ago  

speedracer

Posted 09 February 2010 - 05:40 PM

Msut doesn't suffer fools and he always refutes data with data. He almost always links to a story that either explains his train of thought (thereby not taking up 8 pages in a post) or plainly states his issue.

I almost blocked him once, thinking he never added to the conversations. Then I started reading what he linked to. Dude knows his shit and expects you to as well. Nothin wrong with that. If you're on the wrong side of his post you'd probably do better to actually try to debate him, though that never seems to turn out well for those that try either.

A++++ on the whining. As I believe Msut would say, your signal to noise right now is effectively zero.

#10 dmaul1114   Banned Banned   24688 Posts   Joined 14.3 Years Ago  

dmaul1114

Posted 09 February 2010 - 07:09 PM

Both liberals and conservatives are condescending (along with anyone in-between). Done.


Yep. Pretty much anyone with strong views has a tendency to be condescending to people with opposing views.

I mean, is there anyone who can say that a conservative pro lifer isn't condescending to pro choicers when they call people getting abortions murderers etc.?

Or that the rich libertarian CEO isn't condescending toward the poor who he thinks should get no handouts or government assistance because they should just work hard like he did to get rich?

Or that the uneducated, high school drop out with a blue collar job isn't condescending toward the intellectual elite, "latte sipping" crowd.

Humans by nature are condescending toward those with different beliefs and value systems of their own. It's hardly limited to us highly educated liberals looking down our noses at the unwashed conservatives. :D

Strongly opinionated folks are going to feel that their views are the correct one and look down on those who don't share them, and that holds true across all segments of society and is hardly exclusive to one ideological bent.

#11 depascal22   Daddy Fat Sacks CAGiversary!   10195 Posts   Joined 13.9 Years Ago  

Posted 09 February 2010 - 07:39 PM

Both sides are condescending. Creationists and hard core religious nuts seem to be the worst though. Maybe it's just because I'm coming from the left and that biases my view of the world.

#12 joeboosauce   Snarf! Get in the... CAGiversary!   826 Posts   Joined 10.9 Years Ago  

joeboosauce

Posted 09 February 2010 - 07:43 PM

Yep. Pretty much anyone with strong views has a tendency to be condescending to people with opposing views.

I mean, is there anyone who can say that a conservative pro lifer isn't condescending to pro choicers when they call people getting abortions murderers etc.?

Or that the rich libertarian CEO isn't condescending toward the poor who he thinks should get no handouts or government assistance because they should just work hard like he did to get rich?

Or that the uneducated, high school drop out with a blue collar job isn't condescending toward the intellectual elite, "latte sipping" crowd.

Humans by nature are condescending toward those with different beliefs and value systems of their own. It's hardly limited to us highly educated liberals looking down our noses at the unwashed conservatives. :D

Strongly opinionated folks are going to feel that their views are the correct one and look down on those who don't share them, and that holds true across all segments of society and is hardly exclusive to one ideological bent.


So, if everyone is condescending then isn't this a moot point? Even moderates/centrists are condescending as they will label those people left and right as "fanatics" and "extremists."

I say who cares if people are condescending? What I dislike more than arrogant people are arrogant people who have nothing to be arrogant about... unless it is a monopoly on stupidity. Which generally tend to be conservatives. Speaking of stupid, have you guys seem that Sarah Palin at it again?
http://buzz.yahoo.com/buzzlog/93375

#13 irideabike   no show CAGiversary!   6039 Posts   Joined 10.4 Years Ago  

irideabike

Posted 09 February 2010 - 07:48 PM

See, I never really got what was so stupid. Instead of cards, she wrote it on her hand? Who cares?

#14 depascal22   Daddy Fat Sacks CAGiversary!   10195 Posts   Joined 13.9 Years Ago  

Posted 09 February 2010 - 07:52 PM

I thought it was more telling that she defended Rush and slammed Rahm. Someone (either myke or msut) predicted it exactly last week.

#15 dmaul1114   Banned Banned   24688 Posts   Joined 14.3 Years Ago  

dmaul1114

Posted 09 February 2010 - 07:56 PM

So, if everyone is condescending then isn't this a moot point? Even moderates/centrists are condescending as they will label those people left and right as "fanatics" and "extremists."



Agreed. It's a moot point, which was the point of my post. It's silly to label anyone one ideological bent as condescending as every segment has condescending folks.

Some people just only see it when it's aimed at them, and thus label the other side as condescending. When they're probably being condescending toward the otherside themselves from time to time.

#16 thrustbucket   CAGiversary! CAGiversary!   7942 Posts   Joined 14.8 Years Ago  

thrustbucket

Posted 09 February 2010 - 08:00 PM

Obviously condescension knows no political boundaries. I think the point of the article was to say that it is, currently, pretty slanted to the left. So are you arguing that isn't the case, it's pretty balanced, and you could easily write an article prescribing just as much condescension to the right?

#17 depascal22   Daddy Fat Sacks CAGiversary!   10195 Posts   Joined 13.9 Years Ago  

Posted 09 February 2010 - 08:03 PM

Easily.

Anytime Sarah Palin says she only wants to do her book tour in Real America, it's a huge slap in the face to people in "blue" states.

Anytime a conservative decries a single mom on assistance as a money sucking welfare lazy ass, it's condescension at it's worse.

Do you honestly believe conservatives aren't as condescending as anyone else?

#18 dmaul1114   Banned Banned   24688 Posts   Joined 14.3 Years Ago  

dmaul1114

Posted 09 February 2010 - 08:08 PM

Yeah, easily. I don't think there's any slant or dominance on condescension.

If you're from the right, you'll think there's more from coming from the left.

If you're on the left, you'll think there's more coming from the right. One could easily write about the anti-intellectual condescension coming from the right. Or the condescension form religious extremists, or pro lifers etc. etc.

#19 SpazX   13 Billion Years in the Making CAGiversary!   8346 Posts   Joined 13.6 Years Ago  

Posted 09 February 2010 - 08:13 PM

Honestly, Palin's recent speech was unbelievably condescending. In fact I think almost all of what she said during the presidential campaign in regard to Democrats was condescending. I think Limbaugh, Beck, and Hannity have a ton of condescension in a lot of what they say.

Do you honestly believe that liberals are more condescending?

#20 thrustbucket   CAGiversary! CAGiversary!   7942 Posts   Joined 14.8 Years Ago  

thrustbucket

Posted 09 February 2010 - 08:14 PM

In general, I do think liberals are more condescending. But conservatives are possibly more stubborn.

I think the liberal argument more often than conservatives is that if most of America disagrees with their ideas, the answer is to figure out a better way to explain it, because it's clearly a no-brainer to any thinking intelligent person. It's somewhat rare for a liberal to simply admit that maybe their ideas are not popular with most of America and should be adjusted. It always has to either be the explanation at fault, or that the people don't understand the explanation.

Now, I can also admit that Conservatives are just as, if not more, stubborn in their beliefs. Often without an explanation that could be used in a court of law. Or often without much of an explanation at all. And that can be just as much a cause for a face-palm as condescension.

I do agree that both sides are equally as stuborn, perhaps more-so conservatives. But I think the article is right in that the lefts behavior, in general, is to treat those that don't agree with their clearly better researched, scientifically peer-reviewed, and more thought out ideas as somehow 'broken'.

#21 joeboosauce   Snarf! Get in the... CAGiversary!   826 Posts   Joined 10.9 Years Ago  

joeboosauce

Posted 09 February 2010 - 08:14 PM

Obviously condescension knows no political boundaries. I think the point of the article was to say that it is, currently, pretty slanted to the left. So are you arguing that isn't the case, it's pretty balanced, and you could easily write an article prescribing just as much condescension to the right?


First to determine if there is a slant, you need to determine where a slant could possibly go. You say a slant left. But most in this country really have a narrow conception of the political discourse that exists. What is considered "center" here is really right of center in the whole scheme of things. ie like the entire world that exists outside of the USA. I say that the presentation of political discourse in the mainstream media is easily slanted to the right. Simply look at the corporate media's coverage of media consolidation since the 80s. (Media Monopoly is a great book which you may be able to google for the text.) The coverage has been nil and of course this is in the interest of big business. This is a slant to the status quo and which is the position of the right wing.

There is a vast expanse of political thought left of center and left of what Americans call "liberal." The media and political establishment neuter American discourse because they cut off the "legitimate" discourse at the water-downed liberals who are really centrists if anything. I would say they are slightly right of center. There have been polls done of the American public that move beyond using this limited terminology of liberal/conservative. They frequently show that Americans fall to the left when polled on their values minus the polarizing button pressing phrases. I don't have time to look up those polls now. Maybe I will later, but don't let that stop you from doing your own research.

#22 dmaul1114   Banned Banned   24688 Posts   Joined 14.3 Years Ago  

dmaul1114

Posted 09 February 2010 - 08:18 PM

I think that's just your bias Thrust. Coming from the right, you're more sensitive to condescension, insults etc. coming from the left.

Just like I'm more sensitive to them coming from the right, especially all the anti-intellectual non-sense. I just realize that that's my bias ,and that I'm condescending toward the right--especially under educated folks--as are my peers on the left.

That just doesn't bother me so I don't notice it like I do condescension aimed at me directly or indirectly. But I acknowledge that it's there and that "my" side is just as condescending toward the opposition as the conservatives are towards the left.

Me saying some conservative with a high school degree just doesn't get it, is no more condescending than that person saying that highly educated folks are latte sipping elitists out of touch with reality.

The difference is you agree to some degree with one of those statements, and I agree to some degree with the other, and thus we're both more likely to feel the condescension in one case than the other. But the fact is that both statements are condescending.

#23 joeboosauce   Snarf! Get in the... CAGiversary!   826 Posts   Joined 10.9 Years Ago  

joeboosauce

Posted 09 February 2010 - 08:18 PM

See, I never really got what was so stupid. Instead of cards, she wrote it on her hand? Who cares?


She can't remember 3 BIG issues? Issues, as in the stuff that politicians work on? Ones that she wants to represent? This just demonstrates how woefully ignorant the woman is. If this is truly the direction our political system is going in then we might as well throw in the towel. Who has seen the movie Idiocracy or something like that?

#24 SpazX   13 Billion Years in the Making CAGiversary!   8346 Posts   Joined 13.6 Years Ago  

Posted 09 February 2010 - 08:25 PM

Thrust, all you're doing is trying to redefine condescension so that it's liberal. Perhaps they're condescending differently, but both conservatives and liberals are definitely condescending, and I can't think of any reason to really think that one is more than the other.

#25 dmaul1114   Banned Banned   24688 Posts   Joined 14.3 Years Ago  

dmaul1114

Posted 09 February 2010 - 08:28 PM

Thrust, all you're doing is trying to redefine condescension so that it's liberal. Perhaps they're condescending differently, but both conservatives and liberals are definitely condescending, and I can't think of any reason to really think that one is more than the other.


Exactly the point I was trying to make in the example above.

The condescension is different in form, and in the people it's aimed at etc. But it's silly to try to call it condescension when it comes from liberals and stubborness when it comes from conservatives.

It's all condescension, just aimed at different targets.

#26 Strell   LOBSTERS!....IN MY PANTS! CAGiversary!   26583 Posts   Joined 15.5 Years Ago  

Posted 09 February 2010 - 08:47 PM

Condescension has a well known liberal bias.

#27 GuilewasNK   No gimmicks necessary. CAGiversary!   21267 Posts   Joined 15.4 Years Ago  

Posted 09 February 2010 - 08:50 PM

All I know is that there seems to be a very smug vibe a lot (not all) of liberals give off. It may be unintentional, the line between confidence and arrogance is thin, but I see it a lot whether it is Hollywood liberals or just people in my community.

A lot of (not all) conservatives don't seem to be condescending as much as they are judgemental and holier-than-thou.

Then again those things are all kind of the same, and they lead me back to the same conclusion that government is broken because of these two groups and their attitudes towards each other.

#28 dmaul1114   Banned Banned   24688 Posts   Joined 14.3 Years Ago  

dmaul1114

Posted 09 February 2010 - 08:53 PM

All I know is that there seems to be a very smug vibe a lot (not all) of liberals give off. It may be unintentional, the line between confidence and arrogance is thin, but I see it a lot whether it is Hollywood liberals or just people in my community.

A lot of (not all) conservatives don't seem to be condescending as much as they are judgemental and holier-than-thou.

Then again those things are all kind of the same, and they lead me back to the same conclusion that government is broken because of these two groups and their attitudes towards each other.



Exactly. It's just different types of condescension. Liberal condescension has more of a smug/arrogant vibe to it, while conservative condescension is more judgmental/holier than though. The liberals are being condescending as they think they're better because they're more educated, better informed, more intelligent etc. Conservatives believe their better as they're living by the bible and feel they are morally superior and have the proper values etc. Speaking in generalities here of course.

But both are condescension toward the other side. And neither is more prevalent than the other. Probably a pretty equal proportion of each sides hold such attitudes toward the opposition.

#29 depascal22   Daddy Fat Sacks CAGiversary!   10195 Posts   Joined 13.9 Years Ago  

Posted 09 February 2010 - 09:01 PM

thrust, what about Fox News? The network has made a living out of condescension of liberals.

As for the condescension you speak of, I think you're referencing the global warming debate when you speak of liberal condescension. Many liberals have shown their distaste for conservative viewpoints even though there are some studies that show there is no way to control or predict it.

In the end, it's hard for us liberals not to be condescending towards people that willfully pollute the planet in the name of industry. It's ridiculous that we're sitting here in 2010 and coal is STILL our #1 source of power in the world.

#30 berzirk   I'm not so serious CAGiversary!   2506 Posts   Joined 11.0 Years Ago  

Posted 09 February 2010 - 09:02 PM

In general, I do think liberals are more condescending. But conservatives are possibly more stubborn.

I think the liberal argument more often than conservatives is that if most of America disagrees with their ideas, the answer is to figure out a better way to explain it, because it's clearly a no-brainer to any thinking intelligent person. It's somewhat rare for a liberal to simply admit that maybe their ideas are not popular with most of America and should be adjusted. It always has to either be the explanation at fault, or that the people don't understand the explanation.

Now, I can also admit that Conservatives are just as, if not more, stubborn in their beliefs. Often without an explanation that could be used in a court of law. Or often without much of an explanation at all. And that can be just as much a cause for a face-palm as condescension.

I do agree that both sides are equally as stuborn, perhaps more-so conservatives. But I think the article is right in that the lefts behavior, in general, is to treat those that don't agree with their clearly better researched, scientifically peer-reviewed, and more thought out ideas as somehow 'broken'.


Best post of the thread. In real life, I'm pretty much down the middle in terms of political views. Hard left on some, hard right on others. Centrist on many more. In CAG-world, Rush and I have dinner nightly, and I have a lifesized tattoo of Glen Beck.

I find that debates here tend to be more personal in nature when the liberals are arguing, "If you really think such and such, then you're a Fuck idiot!"

To me, if someone disagrees with my stance, it doesn't really phase me that much. I'll try to explain why I believe what I do, but I don't assume the person I'm arguing with is stupid, a racist, a homophobe, or anything else.