Is Liberal, Intellectual Condescension Really the Problem?
Saturday 13 February 2010
by: Glynn Wilson, t r u t h o u t | Op-Ed
(Photo: lewishamdreamer)
A conservative professor of politics at the University of Virginia recently wrote a column in the Washington Post asking the question: Why are liberals so condescending?
In the setup, he writes, "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."
Later on, he adds, "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."
Rather than posting a comment on the Post's Web site to point out how the professor has it so wrong, let's take his argument apart here.
First of all, he starts out with an obvious bit of false spin, just like the conservative commentators on TV he seems to try to defend.
"Even with Democratic fortunes on the wane, leading liberals insist that they have almost nothing to learn from conservatives."
On the wane? President Barack Obama's personal popularity is the same as Ronald Reagan's after one year in office, and the Democrats still have a majority in both houses of Congress. Just because TV pundits are saying the Democrats may lose a few seats in the mid-term election in 2010 doesn't mean their fortunes are totally "on the wane."
In fact, it has been pointed out over and over again that the Republican Party is all but dead, except among white males mostly in the South. Just because one Republican won a Congressional race in Massachusetts doesn't mean the Republicans are about to take back the country tomorrow. The election is still 10 months away. Anything can happen and probably will.
"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,'" according to the professor.
Well, isn't that true? Conservatives are good at oversimplifying things into wedge-issue sound bites. The administration of George W. Bush proved the anti-government party couldn't govern.
Bashing government is a campaign ploy, not an alternative plan to get rid of the deficit.
While seeming to dismantle liberal thinking, the professor simply bolsters it.
He writes, "Prominent studies and journalistic accounts of right-wing politics ... stressed paranoia, intolerance and insecurity, rendering conservative thought more a psychiatric disorder than a rival.... 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 appears to be way more true today than it was in the 1950's and 1960's. I wonder if the professor bothered to catch any of the coverage of the Tea Party convention in Nashville?
The professor talks of four major narratives about who conservatives are and how they think and function, and rather than offering a real counter to that, the professor proves the case.
The first narrative is the "vast right-wing conspiracy," a vision that "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."
All true. Where's the evidence it's not true? The professor doesn't offer any. He just calls liberals "condescending." For what? Being right?
He goes on to prove the case.
"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."
Yes, and your point? We know that the Bush administration spent eight excruciating years using industry lobbyists to run just about every government agency. That is an indisputable fact. Every news organization in the country, including the conservative Wall Street Journal, documented the war on science at the EPA, the Interior Department and on and on.
Is it an equal political argument to say it is a "liberal conspiracy of condescension" and use innuendo to imply that there was no war on science?
Perhaps the professor should visit one of the hard science departments at the University of Virginia and ask some of them what they think. Or are all scientists just liberals who scapegoat Christian conservatives for standing in the way of progress on solving real problems, like the energy crisis and climate change due to human-induced global warming?
The professor says, "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."
Duh. What is untrue about that? They all learned it from George Wallace in Alabama in the late 1960's and 1970's, which is what allowed Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush to be elected president in the first place. There is a host of scholarship on the "Dixie Strategy." I mean, just Google it.
There is not a serious political scholar anywhere who would really deny this at the end of the day. Politics is a game of words. Half the population has no clue about the facts. Whoever wins the spin war wins the election. That is politics American-style.
Obama has it right. The Democrats should keep hitting the Republicans where they live, in the land of Oz, and they will stay on top.
What the professor could have said, if he wanted us to take his case seriously, is that the Democrats have to prove they can govern by getting some concrete things done. Otherwise, they will lose enough of the independent vote to cost them elections.
Of course, it is hard to get things done when "the party of no" filibusters every good idea just to stop progress so they can maybe win an election.
Obama has already said he will listen to their ideas. He has bent over backwards to try to work with the GOP, even to the consternation of many liberal Democrats who have tried to tell the president they won't listen, they have no ideas and they won't help govern because it is not in their political interest to solve problems.
It is in their interest to flash Tina Fey glasses and ignorant, extremist sound bites at the masses, hoping to fool enough of the people some of the time. That was Sarah Palin's job in Nashville. She has no chance of getting elected to anything. She is a spoiler who keeps the anti-Democrat crusade going another day on TV.
Alabama's very own Ten Commandments Judge called Obama immoral. Does the professor really think that is true and that it will win elections? Where is the alternative governing strategy in that?
Answer: There's not one. It is nothing but spin. Is it condescension to point that out? I think not ...
This work by Truthout is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 United States License.
Comments
This forum is moderated by software. Please allow up to 15 minutes for your comments to go live and avoid posting the same comment multiple times.
The most condescending
Sat, 02/13/2010 - 11:17 — Uppity Woman (not verified)The most condescending people I have ever had the misfortune to endure were privileged, conservative males who feel compelled to lecture everyone on their views, constantly. In fact it sounds like the Post article is that typical, conservative blend of whining and condescension we hear from these people all the time.
"Is Liberal, Intellectual
Sat, 02/13/2010 - 12:25 — Anonymous (not verified)"Is Liberal, Intellectual Condescension Really the Problem?"
Only if you're an insensitive and stupid conservative.
It is, if you buy into the
Sat, 02/13/2010 - 12:33 — Peter (not verified)It is, if you buy into the Conservative spin machine. A machine that completely dismisses the Liberal Founding of America and the notion of a Democracy by the People.
Perhaps we come off as
Sat, 02/13/2010 - 12:59 — Anonymous (not verified)Perhaps we come off as condescending because we're right and they can't stand it that they're wrong.
This guy is a professor at
Sat, 02/13/2010 - 13:34 — Ravenna (not verified)This guy is a professor at UVA?
Conservatives call it condescension because they know Liberals are right and they just can't stand to admit it.
More like the unending
Sat, 02/13/2010 - 13:43 — Anonymous (not verified)More like the unending barrage of conservative tripe the demeans and belittles the term liberal virtually out of existence.
It is interesting to see the comments in the original article, as they would appear to be directed more at Democrats than liberals or progressives in general.
Which brings up another point that the author of the rebuttal seemed to miss, and that is that, I suspect, there are far more liberals and progressives out there with third party or independent labels than there now are in the Democratic Party , but the piece is written as tho we are all in that Big D tent. Not true.
And the Obama administration, that useless paragon of DLC 'centrism' is expert at smoke and mirrors, bait and switch and stealth candidacies, so the old warning caveat emptor applies to the Democrats as well.
Time for us all to move beyond the two major party paradigm and get behind real populist candidates where ever possible.
Pots calling kettles black!
Sat, 02/13/2010 - 13:44 — Doug (not verified)Pots calling kettles black! I certainly won't disagree that there are very condescending liberals out there, but aren't Fox News, the Limbaugh-ilk talk show hosts, and the vast majority of Republican speeches PURE condescension?
He says that liberals view their views as "correct, self-evident and based on fact and reason, while conservative positions are not just wrong but illegitimate, ideological and unworthy of serious consideration." But isn't the main conservative complaint about liberals that we're wishy-washy? That we change our mind? That we set up committees and bring in all opinions? While conservatives are steadfast, with clear views. "Why, that George W Bush was no intellectual, but he sure was strong, and stuck to his moral beliefs!"
What's even funnier is that, whenever they want to prove that liberals are out-of-touch intellectual eggheads, they always quote a right-wing think tank! Just think about that one!!!
Here's the truth:
Sat, 02/13/2010 - 14:08 — Liced-Christ (not verified)Here's the truth: Conservatives have changed the rules of debate. Once upon a time, there were two indisputable things: facts and objective reality. When you debate "a conservative" today you must abandon these two things. This is known as "the conservative viewpoint" or what liberals term pitiable and unrepentant stupidity. Watch O'Reilly and you will see what conservative debate is actually all about: having a tongue ruled merely by its muscles. Muscular tongue twisting and forceful delivery absent of fact and empirical reality equals the conservative talking machine. If they are not stupid, then we just need to coin a new term that means stupid. They are worse than stupid, they are evil dummies living in an aggressive and reptilian brain.
The ignorance that runs all
Sat, 02/13/2010 - 14:24 — Regina (not verified)The ignorance that runs all through Republican cant is evidence of the failure of American education. Their party line goes counter to American history, economics and all natural sciences, defying logic at every turn. It is impossible to confront these "true believers" with facts in any category. Those who try are dismissed as "elitists" -- so anyone with an IQ above 10 is non grata (pardon my elitism, I took Latin in high school).
The idea that liberals are
Sat, 02/13/2010 - 14:49 — georip (not verified)The idea that liberals are condescending is simply name calling, an effort to appeal to those in sympathy with the 'conservatives", on the lowest level of debate. Those without good arguments often resort to denigration of their opponent's values or to outright ridicule.
I am reminded of another attempt by "conservative" spinmeisters who throughout the 90's kept complaining that all of our media were "liberals" , that we had a "liberal' media. Judging from the surveys it seems that it was indeed true that most journalists in the MSN of the day were in fact liberals.
I don't mean to sound condescending, but to me that meant that those most in the know, those whose daily job it is to keep up with the news as it happens, those most likely to have well reasoned opinions based on widespread awareness of the world, they tended to believe that the wisest choice is the liberal choice.
Once "conservative" media became aware of this they became much more rigorous in signing only those reporters who would show a conservative bias. Their bias has only become stronger and stronger ever since. They are a force of great obstinance, witness their exploding of the Town Hall meeting on healthcare last summer.
I find myself condescending
Sat, 02/13/2010 - 14:53 — Curt (not verified)I find myself condescending when I am lied to by someone in order to serve what they believe to be their own ends, and they know full well they're lying. Condescension is a more appropriate response than violence when someone "urinates down your back and tells you it's raining" as the old saying goes, and the conservative voices that get heard are doing exactly that. Matter of fact many of the so-called "Blue Dogs" are doing it too.
They aren't interested in constructive debate, they are interested only in you acquiescing to their demands and believing in their propaganda.
The spitball throwing
Sat, 02/13/2010 - 15:24 — Mike in NYC (not verified)The spitball throwing between “educated” state-worshipping libtards and “uneducated” Jeeboo-worshipping patriotards notwithstanding, the standard liberal attitude toward conservative whites isn't just condescension, it's outright contempt, coupled with a not-so-veiled desire to see them vanish from the face of the Earth. The liberal fantasy of a “tan everyman” Utopia is every bit as nutty as anything I’ve heard come out of the mouths of religious fundamentalists. Worse even, as transcendentalist claims can’t be disproven, while the downsides of “diversity” present themselves to me in glorious Technicolor every livelong day.
Bush wasn't the only one
Sat, 02/13/2010 - 16:37 — Anonymous (not verified)Bush wasn't the only one good at stationing agencies with industry lobbiests whose clients the activities of those departments effect. Look at Obama's treasury department. Terrible. When will real change be on the front burner in this country????
Rarely has there been a
Sat, 02/13/2010 - 18:00 — herbr (not verified)Rarely has there been a more convincing account of one's own political or ideological bankruptcy than this supposed "indictment" of one's so-called "opposition's" ideas.
Onward !
How did Obama get into
Sat, 02/13/2010 - 18:44 — Anonymous (not verified)How did Obama get into this?
He's no progressive.
Liberals are always fighting
Sat, 02/13/2010 - 19:23 — Anonymous (not verified)Liberals are always fighting for the people, which is the opposite of condescending. It is conservatives who are not just condescending, but dishonest and completely evil. The Republican party is the party of death. When have they ever fought for anything that promoted life (other than the life of an unwanted fetus)? The answer is never. They only go along with life-promoting actions when they are forced to. They worship death.
re: The Spitball
Sat, 02/13/2010 - 19:28 — Doug (not verified)re: The Spitball Throwing...
Oh Mike, you've just proven the argument completely. I'm a self-described liberal, and I've known a lot of liberals, and:
a) I don't wish, nor have I ever expressed a wish, for all conservatives to vanish from the face of the Earth. Nor have I ever heard another liberal have that wish.
b) I don't have a "tan everyman" Utopian fantasy, nor have I ever heard anyone else have one.
Making up opinions and saying someone else has them is really the ultimate form of condescension.
Conservatives live by the
Sat, 02/13/2010 - 19:39 — Scott Carlo (not verified)Conservatives live by the mantra "More than enough is a good place to start"....
Dick Cheney, George Will,
Sat, 02/13/2010 - 19:56 — Duke (not verified)Dick Cheney, George Will, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Riley, Pat Robertson, etc..... who could be more condescending? It is not condescension to point out that those who follow the conservative ideology are usually choosing the easy, quick, lazy attitude...blame someone else (minorities, Democrats, liberals,) for anything that is wrong and then have no solutions of your own. If you are a low-information person you can latch onto Rush's babbling and memorize a few 2-word sound bites (framing as George Lakoff describes) and get back to watching "24", CSI, or American Idol. You do not have to know all sides or the facts (the Tea-baggers do not even know why the Boston Tea Party occurred). Finally, follow the money, check if this professor is bankrolled by a con think tank (grants, book sales, etc.) or how else he personally profits from his spin. It can be very lucrative, Rush L. recently signed a new contract for $400 million for his hate radio and Pat Robertson is a billionaire.
Also, Obama is no liberal, he is to the right of the old Eisenhower Republicans.
True, Obama is no liberal.
Sat, 02/13/2010 - 20:35 — Anonymous (not verified)True, Obama is no liberal. He is slightly right of center. Mores the pity.
For decades, it seems, Republicans have fabricated a narrative of "poor Me." They foist the narrative of their "victimization" on the country while they set us at each other's throats for their benefit. Not only do they want to bully the rest of us and rob us blind, they want us to pretend to like them while they are doing it. No, I will not pat your head after you bite my hand.
It is not condescension they experience. It is utter contempt for their malicious manipulations. If they don't like it, then they can grow up and behave like responsible adults - no lies, no insults, no faux rage over feeling "misunderstood." We understand you all too well. You are not stupid, Mr. Republican, and neither am I.
Thank you, Doug. You said
Sat, 02/13/2010 - 21:24 — Austin Loomis (not verified)Thank you, Doug. You said everything I wanted to say to Mike, and much more politely than I could have brought myself to.
Mike, any time you want to name some of the actual liberals who are promoting this "'tan everyman' Utopia" you impute to liberalism, I'd be happy to listen. But remember what your math teacher used to say: show your work. (If your math teacher didn't use to say that, this may be part of the problem.)
Thank you, Duke and others,
Sat, 02/13/2010 - 23:07 — Ken Hall (not verified)Thank you, Duke and others, including the author of this article, for pointing out the errors of logic that are presented as conservative doctrine. Let's be absolutely clear, it is conservative programs, in ascendance for the past three decades, that have brought the US middle class to its knees. It has failed, and failed stupendously, ruinously! That any person would want to continue "free market" economics or "smaller gov't", tax cuts for the wealthy, outsourcing of the US industrial base, deregulation of financial institutions, union busting, carte blanche for corporations to do their worst, non-inspection of drugs, food sources and basic commodities, the "privatization" (read profitization) of the commons, etc, reveals either a lack of common sense or an income of six figures.
Conservative ideology, while benefitting the small percentage elitists, has failed the US majority! Why would anyone with a brain listen to their blathering fulminations and think it had any validity? Let the ditto-heads continue to follow like the sheep they are, the rest of us have to save something from the ruination and chaos the conservatives have created. The battle against ignorance and fascism will be long and uphill, but other democratic countries work well for their citizens, who enjoy universal healthcare and universal education (through graduate levels, BTW). It could happen here in the US but not if conservatives have any say in governance.
Didn't Rush Limbaugh
Sat, 02/13/2010 - 23:20 — Anonymous (not verified)Didn't Rush Limbaugh recently refer on air to a liberal convention of sorts as a "retard summit" after Rahm Emmanuel referred to liberal democrats as "f-ing retarded"? When Dick Cheney was asked in an interview about 18% approval ratings he coldly replied "so". And people like Pat Robertson...where do you begin with a man who is absolutely sure in his mind that the reason for this horrible natural disaster in Haiti is because the Haitians signed a pact with the devil?
Here's two: Noel "abolish
Sat, 02/13/2010 - 23:31 — Mike in NYC (not verified)Here's two: Noel "abolish whiteness" Ignatiev and Susan "the white race is the cancer of history" Rosenblatt a/k/a Sontag (the latter no longer with us, happily, but her spirit festers on). If the assumption that a majority non-white US could continue as a technological superpower isn't utopian, then nothing is.
I knew it before I looked it
Sat, 02/13/2010 - 23:37 — Glynn Wilson (not verified)I knew it before I looked it up. Gerard Alexander is not only a professor of politics at the University of Virginia, but according to his bio at the conservative National Review, he’s a right-wing think tank scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.
For more:
http://blog.locustfork.net/2010/02/07/is-liberal-intellectual-condescension-really-the-problem/comment-page-1/#comment-40614
Garcon get Ken Hall a table
Sun, 02/14/2010 - 00:03 — windskull (not verified)Garcon get Ken Hall a table dance, cheroot and magnum of dom (sorry because I exist 300% below poverty level on federal disability income)...on the taxpayers tab which in this instance is far more easily justified than ANY of the flagrant malfeasance coming from stink tanks on crapital hill!
Mike in NYC, just as a point
Sun, 02/14/2010 - 00:31 — Lane Baldwin (not verified)Mike in NYC, just as a point of fact, Japan is a technological superpower, and that is a non-white nation. Korea is up and coming as are other Asian nations, most especially China. Then, of course, we have India and Brazil.
Then again, we could look at the non-white people who added to our own technological superiority, starting with the cotton gin, for instance...
Just a thought...
~~ Lane Baldwin (.com)
East Asian nations are
Sun, 02/14/2010 - 02:03 — Mike in NYC (not verified)East Asian nations are racially/ethnically homogeneous, giving them an internal coherence and stability decidedly lacking in the waning multicultural West. India's recent economic advances have occurred in spite of its "diversity." Brazil is the perpetual Country of the Future, a beneficiary of natural bounty doomed to be perpetually hobbled by social cleavages born of, you guessed it, "diversity." BTW, I glanced at a portrait of Eli Whitney, and he looked decidedly non-non-white.
Mike, your rabid racism
Sun, 02/14/2010 - 08:45 — Curt (not verified)Mike, your rabid racism blinds you and causes you to come up with nonsensical explanations for far too many things. There are many diverse cultures in Europe that are doing well, and Brazil seems to be doing quite well, in fact Brazil ended up with thousands of high tech jobs taken from Americans (China is not the only place the jobs go) and they're doing a decent job. The country itself has political issues that result not from diversity but from the intervention of right-wing influence from the US, the same folks that are the power behind the "conservarives" here in the US. Their economy is doing much better than ours.
Obviously you have personal experiences that you feel justify your racism, and you cannot rise above them to see that the cause of the poverty is not the impoverished but the rich, and see how it is the white man putting every obstacle imaginable between people of color and the "American dream", mostly for the purpose of having someone handy and powerless to blame. You convict "diversity" without a trial or evidence, but diversity is not simply having people that are "different" in the scenery, diversity implies equality, and we've never allowed the black man or the red man to be equal. Homogenity of a culture generally has little to do with it's success, and Brazil is a shining example of this. Inequality has a great deal to do with unsuccessful cultures and many areas of the US are "shining" examples of this.
You may try to claim I'm naive about your situation, but I've had non-white "gangstas" from NYC out to kill me on more than one occasion and what kept me alive was having "ears" on the street that knew I was not racist (ears of all different colors), and all I had to do was lay low and change routes for a bit and eventually the authorities (without me "dropping a dime" as they say) having to take any action. You won't get "ears" and you won't get help from those communities if all you do is direct hatred at them.
The Washinton Pot should
Sun, 02/14/2010 - 09:20 — Anonymous (not verified)The Washinton Pot should never be taken seriously.
This is a marketing effort, and data indicates this will promote lucrative ad revenue. Expect the Post to regurgiate more tactful commentary, including supporting the Palin ticket if sensible business dictates.
Republican-conservative-right
Sun, 02/14/2010 - 11:18 — S.O. Teric (not verified)Republican-conservative-right wing-Tea Partying whatevers don't exactly lie: they make stuff up. Just like THE ENQUIRER. The so-called "reporters" have an editorial meeting and they just make stuff up and publish it. It's more fun that way.
Consider a whole group of people who are rich or ideologically support the rich through Ayn Rand narcissism [called "individualism"] and who have all the privileges accorded to wealth. They are in fact the Elite. But Pat Buchanan tells Nixon, "Hey, you know what working-class guys down at the beer hall hate? They hate being reminded that they're not educated. You can pin this 'Elitist' badge on college professors and anybody who's a professional. Yeah! The Volvo-driving, latte drinking, suburban college-educated elite are the Elite, not us, the Wall Streeters, no, sir!" [In other words, "dirty tricks" can be fun, if entirely unethical--though, ha! come on, ethics? are you kidding? Can't you just see Pat Buchanan chuckling on Chris Matthews?] So the latest version is "condescending." As long as Democratic liberals are essentially laissez-faire capitalists with a bad conscience about slicing off a teeny fraction of the wealth of the wealthy to help people with health care, for instance, the charge will STICK.
As long as 'they' keep
Sun, 02/14/2010 - 15:16 — Anonymous (not verified)As long as 'they' keep making you think there are 2 parties then you will waste your time bickering.
If you are a democrate or republican are your elected officials doing the right thing? NO. It is one party, bought and paid for buy the elite global corporations. You have an illusion that there are two to keep you busy, focused elsewhere. All the while they plunder any and all nations natural resources and use slave labor while they are at it. Wake up.. Read '1984' we are living it..
Mike In NYC is famous for
Sun, 02/14/2010 - 19:07 — Liced-Christ (not verified)Mike In NYC is famous for sticking his head up his ass (on this forum) and then speaking out loud. Notice "Mike" calling liberals state worshippers, when that's perhaps the most prominent "anti-big government" characteristic of pro-state REPUBLICANS. Mike is a just your typically news-illiterate, blind shit-flinging, that is, indiscriminately angry, conservative. He's angry as hell, goes into a dark room and starts swinging, never knowing who his real foes are. This kind of ignorance is often attributable for Fox News and their 10% reporting 90% editorializing and doing this in such a way that you never know when they're doing one or the other.
Interesting deconstruction
Sun, 02/14/2010 - 21:38 — Robert Walters (not verified)Interesting deconstruction of Alexander's WaPo op-ed. In a somewhat more sophisticated (in both senses of that term) vein, he is following the old Lee Atwater/Karl Rovian tactic of accusing "the enemy" of your own brand of conduct, then condemning him for it. Same tactic as the current Rethug practice of blocking any of Obama's or the Democrat's initiatives via parliamentary maneuvers, then squalling to the MSM and the gullible public that Obama/the Democrats "can't get anything done."
Curt, Lane, Liced-Christ: "Mike in NYC" is a troll, paid or unpaid is not clear. One reason his comments seem so often to be nonsensical and/or irrational is because he (I assume it's a 'he') seeks to irritate/rile those of us on the site who genuinely wish to engage in thoughtful discussion/dialogue, or simply wish to commiserate with fellow progressives. Responding to the nonsense Mike posts is utterly futile, just as responding to the nonsense/irrationality/outright idiocy of many of the "tea-baggers" is a useless exercise. It's safe to ignore.
Robert, being that the
Mon, 02/15/2010 - 09:52 — Curt (not verified)Robert, being that the public at large reads the posts here, and being that many are gullible having preconditioned by propaganda, I generally consider it best not to ignore posts of a right-wing-racist-rant nature. Without a logically based counterargument some may see opinions of that nature as legitimate, as evidenced by the tea-party leadership, and we can't count on them not reading TruthOut.
And although Mike is a troll, he may well be 'genuine'. One postulated that he was a NYC cop, and if that is so it may be that he 'sees it every day'. If he's not then he's making it up, because he sure as hell isn't living in Harlem, and likely not the South Bronx, and to see what he claims he sees it would have to be one or the other. I personally lean toward the just plain paid/unpaid troll based on the responses that he fails to respond to, but one can never tell.
I DO suggest that folks not use epithets and venom when they respond to such posts, as much of their content appears to be bait to elicit such responses, and if we fall for the bait and respond accordingly we're just allowing debate to sink to that level. Our message will be more likely to be embraced if we avoid lacing it with venom, and their messages are easy to discredit using simple truth. We can express hatred for the message without expressing hatred for the messenger, and black/white/yellow/red racist/homophobic etc. etc. they are all our kin on this planet.
Original URL of article is
Tue, 02/16/2010 - 19:39 — Anonymous (not verified)Original URL of article is at:
http://blog.locustfork.net/2010/02/07/is-liberal-intellectual-condescension-really-the-problem/
No, Curt: While you are
Mon, 02/22/2010 - 14:42 — Frances in California (not verified)No, Curt: While you are evidently the most civilized and certifiably one of the most articulate of T/O Commenters, the people hurling doo-doo at Mike in NYC are absolutely correct: he really does start with his head up his butt; once in two years I read something by him that was halfway intelligent . . . only halfway (had to do with the vagaries of GM agriculture). He's way to heck and gone down the road to deserving the insults people throw BACK at him, by virtue of his sociopathic attitudes toward other human beings and their rights. He may have been raised by a coterie of people who also had their brains in their butts, but he's had x-years to figure out right from wrong and is too lazy to do it.
I always find it interesting
Wed, 02/24/2010 - 18:12 — Ian, London, UK (not verified)I always find it interesting how people respond to posts.
I think the funniest responses are those who, in response to an article labeling all liberals as condescending, immediately respond with how stupid and insensitive conservatives are. How childish...
The concepts of liberal and conservative don't really apply to US politics--both parties mix and match as they see fit. Hence, as a political scientist, I hate how both terms have been bastardized by a polarized American population prone to labeling each other as not worth listening to. This last point is quite frightening, actually.
I've met a lot of insensitive, headstrong, outspoken, condescending, xenophobic and ignorant "conservatives". Strangely enough, I've met a lot of insensitive, headstrong, outspoken, condescending, xenophobic and ignorant "liberals". The only difference is that the "liberals" equate progressivism with a holier-than-thou-art moral high ground, while the "conservatives" equate libertarianism and civic religion (Conservatives in the US mix the two) with the foundation of the United States and refuse to adapt or reassess.
My point is that anyone who blindly labels a large group of people with opposing viewpoints as "liberal", "conservative", "stupid", "ignorant", or "condescending" is guilty of being the exact monster that he is accusing his opponent of being.