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…
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).
The whole thing is well worth your time. This phenomenon is quite prevalent within the “local” blogosphere, I’ve noticed, especially on certain sites, but you can certainly see it on a national level. For example (as the column notes), Democrats and those on the Left have convinced themselves that healthcare reform has lost support because, by golly, the American people aren’t sophisticated enough to “get” their high-minded legislation. They’ve used too many big words when talking about it, and of course the White House bully pulpit plus a mostly sympathetic media are no match for those evil “special interests” who wave shiny things and distract us all from the goodness that is ObamaCare. They’re just really bad at splainin’ stuff, you understand. And libs always know best.
Consider, too, the uproar over the pro-life Super Bowl ad slated to air later today, featuring Tim Tebow’s mom discussing the CHOICE she made to have her son. The National Organization for Women declared the ad, which no one has yet seen, “extraordinarily offensive and demeaning.” Really? Saith Sally Jenkins of The Washington Post:
I’m pro-choice, and Tebow clearly is not. But based on what I’ve heard in the past week, I’ll take his side against the group-think, elitism and condescension of the “National Organization of Fewer and Fewer Women All The Time.” For one thing, Tebow seems smarter than they do…
Pam Tebow and her son feel good enough about that choice to want to tell people about it. Only, NOW says they shouldn’t be allowed to. Apparently NOW feels this commercial is an inappropriate message for America to see for 30 seconds, but women in bikinis selling beer is the right one. I would like to meet the genius at NOW who made that decision. On second thought, no, I wouldn’t.
And the debate over global warming, too. Nevermind that organizations and agencies promoting “climate change” have been caught including false and misleading data, or cherry picking the most convenient to their agenda, to support their claims. We are to just accept their findings regardless…and rub our faces with asbestos, natch.
Should you knuckledragging simpletons need this post explained to you gooder, I haz pictures I can drawz fer u.
UPDATE: Below the fold, you’ll find one of the Tebow ads running during the Super Browl pregame show. Please observe an official strong content warning for, um, the offensive and demeaning ‘celebrate family, celebrate life’ message. The horror-
#1 by Amelia on February 7th, 2010
| Quote
Obama’s desire to repeal “Don’t ask, don’t tell” can actually help to fulfill the “days of Lot” (Luke 17, cf. Gen. 19), the fulfillment of which will hurry up the return of the Heavenly Commander-in-Chief who will make all things straight (pun intended)! Interesting Google articles include “Obama Supports Public Depravity,” “Separation of Raunch and State” and “David Letterman’s Hate Etc.”
For some dessert visit Yahoo and type in “Obama Avoids Bible Verses.”
PS - You’re invited to use these new pro-life slogans: “Unborn babies should have the right to keep and bear arms - and legs and ears and eyes etc.!” and “Unborn babies should have the same right to be born alive that abortionists had!”
PPS - Super Bowl suits me to a T - Tim Tebow!
#2 by Roger D on February 8th, 2010
| Quote
The only people who think that libs are condescending, are the inferior conservatives. It is a known fact that many, many,many more libs have high school and college educations unlike the “conservatives.” They have the capacity to think on their own so they don’t need Limbaugh, Beck, foxnews or organized religion. This intellectual independence frustrates the libs during elections because the candidate has to give them a rational reason to vote from them. Unlike the simple folk on the other side if the aisle who know that therie uneducated base won’t respond to rational thought. Their trigger is primitive emotions like fear and anger. Scare the cons and you get results so….we are constantly told that terrorists may be living next door, that mexicans are going to invade this country, that liberal policies will bankrupt this country…..blah, blah, blah…
#3 by Deb SF on February 9th, 2010
| Quote
The author of the piece you reference, Gerard Alexander spent the bulk of today’s Washington Post online Q&A acknowledging that conservatives are also plenty condescending to liberals.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/04/AR2010020403698.html
And interestingly enough, the author didn’t submit the piece, the Post actively sought him out and *commissioned* him to write it for the op-ed section.
#4 by Tiny Tim on February 9th, 2010
| Quote
Roger, As an independent voter I usually avoid sensitive political discussions but I cant agree with you.
“It is a known fact that many, many,many more libs have high school and college educations unlike the “conservatives.”
I was always under the impression that Democrats represented the hard working poor and Republicans represented the rich. If what your saying is correct, the rich is less educated than the poor.
“This intellectual independence frustrates the libs during elections because the candidate has to give them a rational reason to vote from them.”
President Obama was a very popular candidate by being very vague, so I cant follow you on this either.
#5 by Deb SF on February 9th, 2010
| Quote
Looking at the actual data, according to the GSS,
http://www.norc.org/GSS+Website/
there is a slight correlation between education level and voting preference. People with advanced degrees are slightly more likely to be Democrat than Republican. People with only a high school education are also slightly more likely to be Dem than Repub. But people with some college up to a Masters degree (equivalent - the GSS measures years of education rather than by degree completed) - are almost equally Dem and Repub.
#6 by Phil Chroniger on February 9th, 2010
| Quote
I like how Roger D says libs aren’t condescending…but then goes completely over-the-top in sounding very condescending in his attitude towards conservatives.
Also, I don’t see how the Tebow ad was very controversial. Hell, if I wasn’t looking for it, I wouldn’t have known it was supposed to be anti-abortion.
#7 by Deb SF on February 10th, 2010
| Quote
From Kinsey:http://politics.theatlantic.com/2010/02/condescending_liberals.php
If believing that you are right and that people who disagree with you are wrong amounts to condescension, then we are all condescending. Of course, on any given issue, liberals tend to think that they are right. So do conservatives. It’s a free country, and people can believe whatever they want. If evidence or reason persuades them that some opinion they hold is wrong, they are free to change it. So at any given moment, we all believe that our own beliefs are correct and anyone who disagrees with us has some explaining to do. …………
In a society where the only snobbery with any real power is reverse snobbery, being condescended to is something to brag about, something to exaggerate or exploit–or to imagine. Conservatives are, by-and-large, the ones who have deplored the “culture of grievance” in which everyone becomes, as was said about John O’Hara, “a master of the fancied slight.” Meanwhile, they encourage grievance and resentment when it suits their political purposes. If you had a friend who was wrecking his future by making bad choices, it would not be “elitist” to tell him so. It would be treating him as an adult–and as an equal. In the end, which is more condescending? To tell citizens that they are behaving like children or like fools, or to praise them for their “bedrock common sense”?
#8 by Frank J Witt on February 10th, 2010
| Quote
here is a perfect example…http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2010/02/gibbs-vs-palin-talk-to-the-hand-redux/1?csp=hf
Laugh at your enemies, and soon you will be left behind.
#9 by Andrew Clem on February 11th, 2010
| Quote
Like some of the participants in the WaPo online chat with Gerard Alexander, Roger D (unwittingly?) provides a perfect example of at least three of the types of liberal condescension described in the article. Or perhaps it is just satire.
To be “fair and balanced,” I would say that a very small portion of the condescension is deserved, or perhaps I’m just a wanna-be elitist.