WaPo looks at liberal condescension

dogtowner

dogtowner

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 24, 2009
Messages
17,849
Location
Wandering around
good read

they probably need to realize this is why they have lose the middle so quickly. but I doubt they will.


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."
Click to expand...
 
Werbung:
Gee.....what an unbiased-opinion.....

:rolleyes:​

"Let me go on the record as saying that I am no fan whatsoever of intellectual condescension. I think there is way too much of it on my side of the aisle. So I should be at least somewhat sympathetic with this author, one Gerard Alexander of the University of Virginia.

But here’s the problem. He gets my book’s arguments almost entirely wrong. First, I don’t argue that conservatives “disregard evidence.” The problem is that they make up their own evidence, using their own “scientists” to do so. They then use this pseudo-expertise to disregard expertise and consensus–a very different thing.

Second, I never argued conservatives were arguing “cynically.” It was obvious they believed what they said on matters of science. After all, they had their pseudoexperts to bank on.

If there is ever a case for being intellectually condescending–and I’m not sure that there is–perhaps it’s to someone who critiques you while getting your arguments wrong."
Click to expand...

Yeah, how could Gerard Alexander help but be unbiased?

:rolleyes:​

Gerard Alexander Consulting - We are an executive search & recruitment firm that specializes in the placement of mid to senior level management executives in the healthcare industry.
Click to expand...
 
"Every political community includes some members who insist that their side has all the answers and that their adversaries are idiots."

Since in this community every member insists that their side has all the answers and that their adversaries are idiots, I'm not sure what your point is. Unless you've come to see the light over what a meaningless tactic that is and have decided to turn over a new leaf.

If that were the case, I'd certainly applaud your decision to raise the level of debate above its current state.
 
dogtowner said:
I guess I'd be looking for tangents too if I were one of y'all.
Click to expand...

Tangents?

How is it a tangent (diverging from an original purpose or course : irrelevant) to point out the very attitudes the author attributes to liberals are found in both liberals and conservatives in this forum? That certainly doesn't seem tangential to me. It sounds quite germane.

Do you suppose it's because I'm a blind idiot? ;)
 
citizenzen said:
Tangents?

How is it a tangent (diverging from an original purpose or course : irrelevant) to point out the very attitudes the author attributes to liberals are found in both liberals and conservatives in this forum? That certainly doesn't seem tangential to me. It sounds quite germane.

Do you suppose it's because I'm a blind idiot? ;)
Click to expand...


because its tradition as opposed to anecdotal and its national as opposed to this petrie dish.


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.
Click to expand...
 
dogtowner said:
because its tradition as opposed to anecdotal and its national as opposed to this petrie dish.
Click to expand...

One would have to wonder where the "traditional" stereotype of liberals being touchy-feely, intellectual, peaceniks comes from.

And speaking of anecdote, did you notice the article was printed in the opinion section? (washingtonpost.com > Opinions > Outlook & Opinions) His findings aren't based on a scientific study or poll. His article is the definition of anecdotal (based on casual observations or indications rather than rigorous or scientific analysis), so I'm not sure how you arrive at your conclusion that it is somehow more than anecdote.
 
citizenzen said:
One would have to wonder where the "traditional" stereotype of liberals being touchy-feely, intellectual, peaceniks comes from.

And speaking of anecdote, did you notice the article was printed in the opinion section? (washingtonpost.com > Opinions > Outlook & Opinions) His findings aren't based on a scientific study or poll. His article is the definition of anecdotal (based on casual observations or indications rather than rigorous or scientific analysis), so I'm not sure how you arrive at your conclusion that it is somehow more than anecdote.
Click to expand...


I was amused that the WaPo would print it period.

His piece stands the history I've observed. Condescention need not be touchy-feely, or peacenic or even intellectual.
 
dogtowner said:
His piece stands the history I've observed.
Click to expand...

Of course! You're a conservative.

Each side thinks they are dismissed by the other. Each side can point to a long history to back it up. What I don't understand is how either side could try to paint themselves as the victim. It is a case of mutual abuse and distrust and disrespect.
 
citizenzen said:
Of course! You're a conservative.

Each side thinks they are dismissed by the other. Each side can point to a long history to back it up. What I don't understand is how either side could try to paint themselves as the victim. It is a case of mutual abuse and distrust and disrespect.
Click to expand...


its actually served the conservatives well. the left makes itself it's own victim everytime this aspect of its persona is shown.
 
dogtowner said:
its actually served the conservatives well. the left makes itself it's own victim everytime this aspect of its persona is shown.
Click to expand...

I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean.

We make ourself our own victim when it's shown that we pay conservatives the exact same respect they show us?

Please pardon my confusion.
 
dogtowner said:
your confusion is in always trying to change the point... tangents
Click to expand...

Asking you a question that seeks to clarify your post is trying to change the point?

You probably don't see any irony here between how you're responding to me and the article that you quoted, do you?
 
Werbung:

Similar threads

GenSeneca
Deconstructing the Liberal Funny Bone
Replies
7
Views
2K
Lagboltz
Lagboltz
Back
Top