Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for February, 2010

The Washington Post recently published a story by Gerard Alexander entitled “Why are liberals so condescending?”

What started out as a legitimate and long overdue inquiry still ended up falling short of the goal of getting to real answers, but I think I still give it a ‘B’ because it shows that some of the legacy media are starting to awaken to their responsibilities.

It contains pithy observation:

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.

Some insightful analysis:

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  a spoonful or two of FAIL!:

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.

Overall, it is worth reading, but the best part, by far, were the comments, where the self-appointed liberal intelligentsia felt compelled to demonstrate many of the characteristics that the author had the bad taste to publish for public consumption.  A few of my favorites:

Maerzie wrote:
You just haven’t figured it out, have you, Mr. Alexander! It isn’t that liberals are any MORE condescending than conservatives; it is that liberals are THINKERS, so are smarter, and their comments work their way successfully to the EXACTLY correct point! Conservatives, on the other hand, the ones who criticize and TRY to be condescending are usually not even TRUE Republicans (the multi-millionaires of the country who their policies benefit)! RARELY, do any of these “conservatives” make even a single MILLION dollars a year, muchless MULTI-MILLIONS, but they STILL can’t figure out that they’re REALLY Democrats in Republican clothing, so ignorant of politics, that they vote AGAINST themselves and their own families, which is why they are called “FAUX Republicans”!!

Or it could be that we would rather try to triumph on our own achievements, rather than enriching a corrupt political class with overly large donations of the fruits of our labor in the hopes that their idea of what might be good for us would actually be letting us have back more than a minute percentage of our compulsory contributions.

mathteacher wrote:
I think the author has Obama wrong. I take him at his word that he is not an ideologue. But I wonder, how can true conservatives support the overwhelming power of corporations in our society? How can true conservatives support the awarding of the presidency to the man who actually did not win the election? How can true conservatives support the actions of a Supreme Court who sought out the opportunity to overturn many years of precedent to give corporations , lifeless entities who should be serving people , the rights of personhood?
 
mathteacher is demonstrating that trademark liberal intellect by parroting falsehoods delivered by an ideologue as part of an annual address, rather than taking the time to learn the facts.  Corporations have had many of the rights of natural persons for centuries, and as I noted a few posts down, the law that was overturned was a case from 1990, and a federal statute from the 1970s.  A few decades does not a century make, but thank you mathteacher for demonstrating how liberals often confuse having a degree with being intelligent.
 
lexiesmaid wrote:
Liberals are not condescending. They are educated thinkers, those who took the college track in high school. They are the ones who care about little people, people most in need, those passed by, the unnoticed or the spat upon. I’d prefer to call them thinkers who care. By the way, the terms liberal and conservative are way too stereotypical. They do nothing but serve to divide.
 
lexiesmaid, I took the college track in high school, and then I took the political science track in college, where I learned to be a self-absorbed, navel-gazing liberal.  However, when I was earning the J.D. at law school after, I started to understand that the liberals-the people with all the answers- actually had very few answers…at least for anyone seeking substance, logic, consistency, or loyalty to our history.  By the time I finished my LL.M., my transformation was complete, and I would no longer bathe in the intellectual darkness that masquerades as “liberal enlightenment”.   That is why I know that the liberal’s self-professed concern for the little people, people most in need, those passed by, the unnoticed or the spat upon actually has far more to do with assuaging their beliefs that they, through the auspices of government, can and should solve those problems, and why I marvel at the way that people possessed of such great intellect (or so they keep telling us) can believe that the solutions they offer, which only seek to perpetuate and swell the ranks of those dependent upon the government’s largesse, are truly beneficial to the recipients of such assistance.  The architects of our nation and its liberties would be horrified at how eagerly our brethren don these shackles and hold their bowls up to their new masters and say “More, please.”
 
 
 
 
 
 

Read Full Post »

I cruised over to the Politico this afternoon and I was greeted by this particularly odious bit of excrement served up by delusional Dhimicrat shill David Axelrod:

Excuse me?

White House senior adviser David Axelrod described Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito’s reaction to the State of the Union address on Sunday as one of a growing number of “unusual outbursts” during speeches.

“In this weird political season we have become accustomed to unusual outbursts in the chamber during these speeches,” Axelrod said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

Alito caused a stir by apparently mouthing “not true” when President Barack Obama criticized a Supreme Court ruling that the president said would open the floodgates to corporate money in elections.

Axelrod declined to say whether Alito’s behavior was appropriate. 

Outburst?  Outburst?  What outburst?

From the Random House Dictionary:

out-burst  noun

1.  a sudden and violent release or outpouring: an outburst of tears.

2.  a sudden spell of activity, energy, etc.

3.  a public disturbance; riot; outbreak.

4.  a bursting forth; eruption.

Alito’s “response” was mouthed, imperceptibly.  The “outburst” came from the members of Congress assembled, many of whom are attorneys themselves, applauding in approval of the disrespectful and unprofessional condemnation of the Court with lies easily dispelled by a simple reading of the Citizens United case.  The “unusual” part of those events was a sitting President using the State of the Union speech to criticize a co-equal branch of government not afforded the opportunity to rebut the President’s untrue claim and undeserved criticism.  It was equally unusual to see a sitting President attack guests at a government function, or for an attorney to recklessly criticize the judiciary without regard to the truth, as a means to damage the perception of the integrity of the judicial process, and not see the ABA, the self-appointed voice and conscience of the legal profession so much as say “Boo!”, or the state bar association that made the President an honorary member issue an admonition for this unprofessional act.

Only in a world gone mad would people be talking about the “outburst” of the victim a President who used an institution to act in a churlish manner.  Only in a press devoid of professional integrity, would there even be an implication that a Justice who mouthed something quietly in response to an attack rooted in lies, at an event where such attacks would be inappropriate even if it wasn’t unprofessional and unethical.   Congratulations, “Meet The Press”.  Thank you for playing to the dumbest common denominator.

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts