NewsReal Contest: What is the Most Amazing Example of Leftist Condescension?
This morning I sent an email to David Horowitz ranting about one of my friends who was unhappy about me working for the DHFC. Specifically my friend didn’t care for my allegedly destructive, over-the-top, dogmatic rhetoric. He had to set me straight for how I was poisoning the world with my over-the-top denunciations of totalitarianism.
David responded with a link to this article in today’s Washington Post:
Gerard Alexander: Why are liberals so condescending?
By Gerard Alexander
Sunday, February 7, 2010; B01Every 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.
Really read the whole thing. It’s definitely top-notch.
David then suggested NewsReal have a contest: what is the most amazing example of leftist condescension you have ever encountered? Both NRB’s bloggers and readers are invited to respond in the comments to this post. Examples in the media are acceptable but personal, real life cases are preferred.
Whichever comment receives the most positive votes will be the winner.
And by leftist condescension I mean: how often have you been talking with someone on the Left and they’ve quite obviously, blatantly put themselves above you? Perhaps they’ve regarded themselves as a moral superior to you because of their opinions. They talk with you in an attempt to try and educate you about your bad behavior and bring you up to their level. (We get a lot of such condescending jackasses in NRB’s comment sections.)
Or perhaps they just think that you’re stupid. You have your opinions because you have not been educated and you just don’t know any better. You haven’t studied history at all so you don’t know how “progressives” are responsible for everything good in this world.
The worst though — and this is one that those of us doing this professionally especially get — is that we know full well that our conservative views are bunk but that we’ve been bought off by wealthy corporations. That is why we can say things that are so self-evidently false. We’re just whores peddling our goods on the corner who can be bought if you dangle a bit of cocaine in front of our noses. It gets no more condescending than that.
It’s rare when those on the Left actually approach the tenets of conservatism as legitimate philosophical propositions that intelligent, moral people could embrace. We’re not evil, dumb, or lying. We just have a different interpretation of the world. If you have a friend like that on the Left who can see your humanity in spite of your conservative affliction then be sure and hold on to them. And don’t regard them as you would a Chomskyite.
But while we’re waiting for more of such individuals to manifest, who’s got the best example of leftist condescension? Voting will remain open until midnight on Wednesday, February 10.
Maggie Gallagher’s War on Trollops
Hey Congress! Perhaps You Should Know How a Bill Becomes a Law
Nancy Below-C
The Democrat
HCR and the Long Retreat from Moscow
Democrats Drop Deem and Pass. Good News or Bad News?
Dagwood Sandwich: Kinetic whimsy – Rube Goldberg would be proud
Before I take on the Left, I would like to point out one thing that has always bothered me about the Right, and that is their continual use of "Hippie leftist" rhetoric. As a previous member of the "hippie movement" of the 60's and 70's, most of the folks I knew were not Leftist but Libertarian in our thinking. Actually Classical Liberals. The Yippies, in reality were who WE considered the Leftists. I have rarely seen anyone give an accurate account in recent history of the movements of the 60's but my politics have remained unchanged essentially since that time, the first vote I struck, in fact (after having fought for the 18 year old vote) was in 1980, for Ronald Reagan.
Hey Nalora. You're at the right place. I'm a staunch advocate of "countercultural conservatism." http://www.newsrealblog.com/2009/12/23/are-we-fig...
http://www.newsrealblog.com/2009/12/26/why-would-...
You're full of it. I grew up during the hippie movement, too. You folks weren't libertarians, but LIBERTINES. You wanted total freedom to screw your brains out and take drugs, but you wanted Big Government to provide free abortions and free sterilized needles. That about sums up the hippie movement. It was the New Left, the "anti-industrial revolution." Your heroes were Herbert Marcuse, Timothy Leary, John Kenneth Galbraith, Bobby Kennedy; not Henry Hazlitt, Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek, Milton Friedman, Isabel Paterson, Rose Wilder Lane, John Hospers, Walter Bloch, and Robert Lefevre. Those student sit-ins were not demonstrations for the sort of academic freedom and diversity of thought that David Horowitz has been championing for so long. The anti-Vietnam war demonstrations — now known to have been cultivated and manipulated by the former Soviet Union — were not a libertarian call for U.S. isolationism; it was very much PRO-communism, pro-Mao, pro-Khmer-Rouge. The hippie movement of the 1960s and '70s had nothing to do with any aspect of classical liberalism. That might be a nice way of trying to whitewash the hippie movement, but it's completely untrue.
The Counterculture and the Left are two separate movements as the two links I include above demonstrate.
When David Horowitz was a Marxist he was a part of the Left, not the counterculture. He embraced Marxist political ideas but did not embrace countercultural notions about drugs, sex, spirituality, and art.
Leftists and counterculturalists are different. They pursue changing the world in different ways.
Yeah, exactly. The hippies I grew up knowing were overgrown teenagers who were and remain angry at "the man" (read: Daddy who paid the bills). Nauseatingly over"educated" and spoiled. I have a hippie uncle who recently emailed me. I responded with my regular signature line at the bottom featuring a nice quote about individualism and acceptance of minorities. He blasted me back that I should avoid the Ayn Rand claptrap or I'd soon be "spouting" nonsense like that awful woman Margaret Thatcher!! This idiot is 67 years old- an early model hippie who was given a bachelors and masters degree and has continued to bite the hand that's fed him for all his unthinking life. Just a tiny drop in a big ocean of garbage put forth by that whole generation… whom I'd also like to thank for feminism, which has made it so much easier for women to be used, abused and disrespected.
Their belief that even with all the focus on their message on healthcare the American people didn't "get it" because they didn't break it down enough for the average stupid citizen… that the divide was because of the public being unable to understand instead of a rejection of the nanny state.
Eric Holders responce to a question directed at him during a Congressional Hearing. Hillary Cinton is not far behid with her retort in Africa from a member of the audience. Both displayed elitist arrogance, most prevalent with those on the left.
When I hear Obama say that we just didn't hear him on healthcare the first time, I am reminded of the stupid but arrogant tourist who thinks if he talks loud enough, the natives will understand him.
It's more like an 11 year-old who insists that you're just not listening because you disagree.
I have a couple real world examples. Here's one from a couple weeks ago. I was commenting that Boulder is getting less and less affordable for middle and lower income people, because of our land use policies, which are driving up real estate prices. One response I got was:
"So if you want inane soul-destroying suburbia, move to Thronton, Westminster, Arvada or any other Stepford Wives infested, ticky-tacky, identical boxed, Borgtown USA …"
Here's another from a month ago, though this was condescension towards "others". I was talking about "climate change" policy and how opinion polls should have an effect on that. A commenter responded:
"Public opinion should have a role in policy."
You forgot one word at the beginning – "informed".
To which I responded:
I agree that the public should be informed, but "informed" cannot be enforced, not on this issue or any other.
The commenter came back with:
Agreed – but opinions based on ignorance should be taken *very* lightly.
I wouldn't say that public opinion should be ignored, however, not all opinions are equal.
Suppose the majority of the public believes that (say) global warming isn't a problem because the Bible says that God will not destroy the earth again. Is that a valid basis for policy?
Sorry I didn't see your comment until just now.
I guess I wasn't clear. In my original comments I was focusing more on the impact that these polls will have on elections. In your hypothetical scenario I would agree that that should not be a basis for policy. Regardless of that, though, whoever ignores this sentiment may be voted out of office, and replaced with someone who believes it is a valid basis for policy. So I was saying, "Public opinion does matter when it comes to policy, whether it be informed or ignorant." The point I was trying to make in the original discussion is that the science is one thing. Policy making is another. The two are not necessarily connected, nor is it necessarily healthy for them if they are. Science is (or should be) about following one's intellectual curiosity, testing one's ideas, and opening them up to verification and criticism. Politics and policy are about finding a "happy medium" for organizing our society. They have different goals, just by their nature.
If most people are not convinced that a policy goal is warranted, then that sentiment is going to have far more of an impact on the process than any scientific information, unless the public is convinced by it, which in the scenario I'm presenting it is not.
In short I was saying that scientific findings do not equate to policy. Public opinion matters in the realm of the latter. It should have no bearing on the former.
a classic example comes from the Roger kimball blog post pointing out how the folks at Huffpo are chortling over Sarah Palin writing notes to herself on her hand.
http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerkimball/2010/02/07/s...
and yet we hear nary a word from them about Obama's or Biden's gaffes
Nor does anyone mention Obama's notes to himself written on his teleprompter.
YOU!!, …no…yoU!!!, ……NO, YoU!!!!!!, …..Nah aH, yooooh.
YOU
You
YOU YOU YOU
NO YOU YOU ya YOU YOOOOO
NO….
Etc :: ))
I think the best example of mine of a leftist talking down to me happens every time a Mohammedan tries to debate me. Someone whose writing is indicative of never having read a cereal box tells me that I need to read the "holly quoran" because my opinions must be totally informed by Fox News, which is ridiculously dhimmified anyway and actually rooted for Rifqa Bary to get murdered. Your average progressive does basically the same thing with only slightly better English. Both have maybe 40 phrases they ever use so these independent thinkers grow tiresome very quickly (cf. Obama).
My leftist example: My Vegan sister-in-law loves telling me what a horrible person I am for turning my horses into my slaves (beasts of burden or somesuch) and yet she has no problem keeping parakeets in a cage. She also claims to love animals but hates cats because they murder (her word for a cat’s hunting instinct) just for fun, so she tries to run them over with her car whenever she can. It’s the hyprocrisy and her smugly superior attitude that shocks me.
Love the story of the horses. Here's another example. A close friend is a great believer in global warming. I am not a total denier, but understand there's reason to doubt the doctrine. I learned to drive during Carter's gas crisis, so have always been a fairly good environmental citizen. Meanwhile, I reported recently to my friend that it was snowing like mad out my window (the biggest Feb. storm ever seen in these parts). To which my ever suspicious friend (3000 miles away) replied that the "national weather service states that you are having light snow showers". As if I was using the evidence of snow to deny global warming! Smug doesn't even come close. They are simply brainwashed!
Worse yet, implying that the snow you see when you look out your window is apparently a figment of your imagination because the "national weather service" says it's not happening (after all, if the national weather service says it, it MUST be TRUE, right?) — or perhaps you were simply LYING about the amount of snow you were seeing! (big ol' eye roll)
This entry gets my vote! I, too, had a friend who was big on "animal rights" (nothing wrong with that — don't get me wrong), yet kept tropical birds in cages, with an in-depth explanation about "banded" versus "non-banded" birds. I also remember driving behind a huge SUV, which was half in the regular traffic lane & half in the BIKE lane, with a bumper sticker about saving the whales or some junk. This was in an area of Florida where one dare not even mention the possibility of drilling for oil within sight of the beach. I'm not against whales or anything, but what about the PEOPLE on their bicycles — yea, verily, bicycles which are not burning any fossil fuels? That picture is wrong on many levels, IMHO.
I just wanted to add that I don't have a problem with anyone who keeps pet birds. What I don't understand is how someone who keeps them in a cage can turn around and accuse me of enslaving horses. I also really love cats. And dogs. I'm pretty sure every living creature has some purpose. Yet, to my liberal sis-in-law, I'm unenlightened?
Evergreen, I think that might have been my sis-in-law in the SUV in the bike lane in Florida. She's all about saving the whales.
My nephew decided to start pontificating at Thanksgiving that America deserved the 9-11 attacks, that Christians are all bigots brainwashed by FOX News, that Obama is the best president ever, called himself a fundamentalist athiest, and the whole family is against him for not agreeing with him. As we shot down each of his arguments, he got angrier and angier, started making outlandish ad hominem attacks and pointing his finger in peoples' faces and telling them to go to hell. My husband took him outside and called him out on his behavior. He started crying about how we're all mean and literally went crying to his momma who, of course, coddled the spoiled little ^$@%.
I'm trying to decide which is most appalling: My 41 yr. old high school who is a flaming "democrats can do no wrong" friend who should know better or my 24 yr. old brainwashed college student nephew. I'll post them both.
My friend posted on her facebook page an article about how cruise ships are polluting the ocean because they dump human waste into the water. I replied that the ocean is teeming with creatures that poop, that I'm pretty sure a blue whale makes a really big poop and that the ocean is hardly a cesspool in spite of all these living things pooping in it. She responds with a snarky lecture of the "wonders of the ocean" and how we are not part of the ocean's ecosystem and therefore have no business putting our poop in it.
Well. Silly me.
I've seen what Shutterbug is talking about in my neck of the woods. It doesn't sound so much like leftist condescension though, just irrationality. It seems to me it goes back to what Rush Limbaugh has said for years about the Left: They don't think. They feel. Now, I think the same could be said about the fundamentalist religious right as well. It's not a bad analogy. I've found that when dealing with those on the far left, what they believe in so ardently sounds more like a religious faith, even though they won't admit to such a thing. They don't have a god, per se, for this faith, though some conservatives have said their god is government, and that's debatable. This faith is mixed in with a political ideology. Most politically aware people identify it by this ideology. The Left doesn't have anything they would call a church, though they do have leaders who "keep the faith" and promote it.
What's bothered me the most is how the far left has at times used the credibility of science to justify what they believe. At times science comes close to justifying them, but I've found a lot of times it doesn't justify them at all. When you examine these lapses, you find that what they promote is pseudoscience, not science. Trying to get them to admit to it in these instances is like trying to do a root canal on them without anesthesia. The religious right has a similar characteristic with creationism and Intelligent Design.
In one interaction I had with some on the far left I finally found out that they don't like rational argument at all. What it comes down to for them, even if you strip away all of their rationalizations, is, "This is what I believe, and I'm sticking to it." There's no place to go with them once you hit that point. I finally realized that it was all a waste of time, because there's no possibility that their mind will be changed even if you totally flatten their argument. It's like trying to tell a devout Christian that God doesn't exist. I'd have more compassion for leftists, and be more willing to leave them alone, if they didn't try to impose what they believe on everyone else, which interestingly is the same complaint that liberals used to put forward about the religious right.