Democrats must learn some respect
This article is not the first to note the cultural contradiction in American liberalism, but just now the point bears restating. The election may turn on it.
Democrats speak up for the less prosperous; they have well-intentioned policies to help them; they are disturbed by inequality, and want to do something about it. Their concern is real and admirable. The trouble is, they lack respect for the objects of their solicitude. Their sympathy comes mixed with disdain, and even contempt.
Democrats regard their policies as self-evidently in the interests of the US working and middle classes. Yet those wide segments of US society keep helping to elect Republican presidents. How is one to account for this? Are those people idiots? Frankly, yes - or so many liberals are driven to conclude. Either that or bigots, clinging to guns, God and white supremacy; or else pathetic dupes, ever at the disposal of Republican strategists. If they only had the brains to vote in their interests, Democrats think, the party would never be out of power. But again and again, the Republicans tell their lies, and those stupid damned voters buy it.
It is an attitude that a good part of the US media share. The country has conservative media (Fox News, talk radio) as well as liberal media (most of the rest). Curiously, whereas the conservative media know they are conservative, much of the liberal media believe themselves to be neutral.
Their constant support for Democratic views has nothing to do with bias, in their minds, but reflects the fact that Democrats just happen to be right about everything. The result is the same: for much of the media, the fact that Republicans keep winning can only be due to the backwardness of much of the country.
Because it was so unexpected, Sarah Palin's nomination for the vice-presidency jolted these attitudes to the surface. Ms Palin is a small-town American. It is said that she has only recently acquired a passport. Her husband is a fisherman and production worker. She represents a great slice of the country that the Democrats say they care about - yet her selection induced an apoplectic fit.
For days, the derision poured down from Democratic party talking heads and much of the media too. The idea that "this woman" might be vice-president or even president was literally incomprehensible. The popular liberal comedian Bill Maher, whose act is an endless sneer at the Republican party, noted that John McCain's case for the presidency was that only he was capable of standing between the US and its enemies, but that should he die he had chosen "this stewardess" to take over. This joke was not - or not only - a complaint about lack of experience. It was also an expression of class disgust. I give Mr Maher credit for daring to say what many Democrats would only insinuate.
Little was known about Ms Palin, but it sufficed for her nomination to be regarded as a kind of insult. Even after her triumph at the Republican convention in St Paul last week, the put-downs continued. Yes, the delivery was all right, but the speech was written by somebody else - as though that is unusual, as though the speechwriter is not the junior partner in the preparation of a speech, and as though just anybody could have raised the roof with that text. Voters in small towns and suburbs, forever mocked and condescended to by metropolitan liberals, are attuned to this disdain. Every four years, many take their revenge.
The irony in 2008 is that the Democratic candidate, despite Republican claims to the contrary, is not an elitist. Barack Obama is an intellectual, but he remembers his history. He can and does connect with ordinary people. His courteous reaction to the Palin nomination was telling. Mrs Palin (and others) found it irresistible to skewer him in St Paul for "saying one thing about [working Americans] in Scranton, and another in San Francisco". Mr Obama made a bad mistake when he talked about clinging to God and guns, but I am inclined to make allowances: he was speaking to his own political tribe in the native idiom.
The problem in my view is less Mr Obama and more the attitudes of the claque of official and unofficial supporters that surrounds him. The prevailing liberal mindset is what makes the criticisms of Mr Obama's distance from working Americans stick.
If only the Democrats could contain their sense of entitlement to govern in a rational world, and their consequent distaste for wide swathes of the US electorate, they might gain the unshakeable grip on power they feel they deserve. Winning elections would certainly be easier - and Republicans would have to address themselves more seriously to economic insecurity. But the fathomless cultural complacency of the metropolitan liberal rules this out.
The attitude that expressed itself in response to the Palin nomination is the best weapon in the Republican armoury. Rely on the Democrats to keep it primed. You just have to laugh.
The Palin nomination could still misfire for Mr McCain, but the liberal reaction has made it a huge success so far. To avoid endlessly repeating this mistake, Democrats need to learn some respect.
It will be hard. They will have to develop some regard for the values that the middle of the country expresses when it votes Republican. Religion. Unembarrassed flag-waving patriotism. Freedom to succeed or fail through one's own efforts. Refusal to be pitied, bossed around or talked down to. And all those other laughable redneck notions that made the United States what it is.
« John McCain's speech | Main | More on Democrats and respect » Democrats must learn some respect09 Sep 2008 08:26 am
My column in yesterday's FT prompted more emails from readers than any other article I have written. I usually get 10 or 20 letters or emails. I got hundreds about this one and they're still coming. I expected to get a few from Republicans praising me (they would ignore the positive things I say about Democrats in general and Obama in particular) and a few from Democrats attacking me (these would be spluttering and furious: "are you kidding me? are you kidding me?", and so on). And so I did. But these were outnumbered--vastly outnumbered--by emails from ex- or wavering Democrats who say they feel disappointed or betrayed by the party's spokesmen and advocates. Who knew this strand of opinion even existed? Later today I'll post one or two examples, together with responses to critics who made good points and some further thoughts on the subject. Here is the piece:
Comments (79)Comments on this entry have been closed. |
Today's Headlines From The Atlantic |
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
Clive, not to be unkind, but if you look around the internet, you'll find a lot of false flag Democrats, whose writing and comments reveal that they are nothing of the sort. You can't believe everything you see, and recently there has been a proliferation of such people. I'd suggest you rethink the claim that these are Democrats, unless you have stronger proof.
I'll respect the GOP when they stop lying about about the wars they wage supposedly on my behalf.
I don't know how to email Clive but if I did I would have told him I agreed completely.
I was astonished to see the media and "liberal" Democrats moralizing about Sarah Palin, denigrating her family, her background and her experience in the most snide and reprehensible manner. Who knew that the Democrats found teenage pregnancy more morally horrifying than the Republicans or that they believed women with a lot of children shouldn't be ambitious.
I also agree with Clive that the media and the Democrats still don't get it, they appear to be in agreement that the correct response is racheting up the criticisms of her, personally, as opposed to her record is the correct response. This strategy has already backfired, in a huge, huge way, but in typical liberal fashion, they can't ever see their own mistakes.
I supported Gore and Kerry but I've come to the view that the Democrats are exactly the same as the Republicans in terms of smearing, lying and holier than thou attitudes.
Mr. Crook, what determines what carries over to the Atlantic and what doesn't? I ask because on page 2 (at least in my edition) of yesterday's FT you had a nice little op-ed on the GSE nationalization. I mean, I can do without seeing it here (because I've already read tha mutha, as we say here in America) but I think it's surely of interest to _Atlantic_ readers.
This is fine so far as it goes, but places all the blame on half the participants in the phenomenon. What about the equally obnoxious cultural complacency of the Republicans? I'm no Democrat, but I still found Ms. Palin's "triumph" to be smug and condescending in its own right, not so much anti-intellectual as anti-thinking, and a function primarily of social conservatives' shared belief that pious white Protestants *are* the proper definition of American culture. Not to mention the difference, which Republicans seem unable to discern, between "unembarrassed, flag-waving patriotism" and a blind belief that anything Amurka does is by definition good.
Sarah Palin will be a success only as long as everyone is distracted from her actual flaws. I think the Republicans will have a tough time keeping that facade intact for two months straight.
I agree with most of this. But really - most of the media - liberal? Here is a question for you Clive - Why would large multi-national corporations - that have nothing to gain by Democrats coming into office - put up with a liberal media? Answer - ok- there are some fairly perfuctory ways that the media goes about appearing liberal (yes, lots of sob stories about poverty, the savagery of war, gender, race, and class equality). But in ways that matter? No. Not liberal. Far from it. Why is it- Clive - that the most prevalent narrative throughout media and popular culture is the rags to rishes story? And the second most prevalent - the riches to rags story? Because these stories falsely provide the impression that we are a a society that distrubutes its rewards according to ones worth. This is of course laughable. But everyone believes it. Because it is all over the media. I could name others - but this will suffice for now.
Brilliant piece, Clive. The lack of perspective on the part of the Democrats never ceases to amaze me. They fail to grasp the fundamental nature of the American temperment: We don't like anyone who thinks they're better than us, and we really don't like people telling us what to do.
The irony, of course, is that we think we're better than everyone else, and we love to tell them what to do. Maddening, but true.
"Why would large multi-national corporations - that have nothing to gain by Democrats coming into office"
You've got to be kidding me. Have you seen Hillary Clinton's corporate donor list???
CC, I agree with your analysis. Even though I like the candidates better this time (than 2000 & 2004). I believe we are headed to another close and bitter election because the process is still the same.
The Democrats and liberals that you refer to are the wealthy ones funding the campaigns. They dont care much about life in Ohio, Michigan, or Pennsylvania so winning those votes is merely a step for them.
There are plenty of good people in each party, but the fundraising part makes them act badly.
My hope is not that we will proactively make a change for the better, but that soon we have an an election so tasteless that no one will have the desire for the same things for many years.
Going after pregnant teenagers is getting close to the end I suspect.
Well, Clive --I had no idea you were a Luddite.
"Know Nothingism" has severe practical limitations.
This column is disingenuous.
Regards.
I do think that Democrats need to better understand and appreciate the culture and beliefs of the "average American." But I think the far greater problem is the rampant anti-intellectualism presented by the Republican party, which claims that a sports journalism graduate is just as qualified as a Harvard law graduate.
It's not elitism to state that some people are smarter than others, is it?
Clive,
Is it true you deepthroated a gorilla?
I think that is exactly the kind of elitism he's talking about. George Bush is a Harvard graduate. Enough said. Most of the architects of the Iraq war went to Ivy League schools and have graduate degrees from Ivy League schools. It didn't seem to help them.
Clive's article is typical self-pitying, media persecution complex crap. The "liberal media" and their condescension towards the working class . . . and as an example you site Bill Maher? If I judged all Republicans by the words coming out of Pat Robertson's mouth, you'd say something to the effect of, 'Pat Robertson doesn't speak for most Republicans', though Pat Robertson speaks for far more Republicans than Bill Maher speaks for Democrats. Excluding the lack of support you offer your argument, lets look at your argument alone. Democrats talk down to the working class, not respecting the messy aspects of their life (poverty, lack of education, too many babies - I'm assuming this is your thesis) . . . and what do Republicans do exactly? Republicans talk about guns and hunting as if to say, 'see, I'm one of you.' Their obvious phoniness is taken at face value by rubes like Clive Cook and yes, they win elections. Their act is every bit as condescending and insulting to the working class as Bill Maher, more so if you compound it with their policies of giving tax breaks to billionaires and companies that ship jobs over seas. So was your article. Further, your article is an insult to journalism, the English language and the practice of composing thoughts on paper. Nice work as always, jackass.
Some people are smarter than others, but choice of college doesn't always reveal the ranking. People have a lot of reasons for going to state colleges close to home. A Harvard diploma does seem to show some brains, but the lack of Harvard diploma does not show the reverse. Plenty of smart, successful people don't have college diplomas at all.
This is an example of the problem, isn't it?
The central problem is that American politics has descended to the level where each side attacks their own stereotypical caracature of the other side, without regard to nuance, truth or reality.
Like every stereotype out there--dumb jock, ghetto thug, gun toting red neck, Jesus freak, limosine liberal--there is a kernel of truth from which the rest was built. But, when the stereotype becomes the other side's reality, then the opportunity for dialogue disappears.
"Why would large multi-national corporations - that have nothing to gain by Democrats coming into office - put up with a liberal media?"
Do corporations really do that bad under Democrats? I don't seem to recall corporations suffering under Clinton.
And why wouldn't large multi-national corporations like a socially liberal party that's less wedded to nationalism? (Not that I'm fond of nationalism myself) Especially if they're in entertainment or news. Time Warner and Disney have consistently given more money to the Democrats. Even in 2002 when the party was about nowhere in government.
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/contrib.php?ind=B&cycle=2002
Bryan Caplan wrote a book called "The Myth of the Rational Voter," which persuasively argues that most voters are simply wrong about many things. (The New Yorker's Louis Menand reviewed it: http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/books/2007/07/09/070709crbo_books_menand?currentPage=all )
Mr Crook certainly has a point, but in the case of Ms Palin, she deserves some mockery and her selection does too, even as it reinforces Republican attitudes. Did the McCain team anticipate this polarizing effect? Does McCain really want to "change the tone" in Washington? Accounts of the selection process say that McCain was ready to choose Lieberman, but his pro-choice views would have caused outright rebellion in the party. If watching Republican presidential politics being held hostage to domestic mullahs -- whom McCain previously had the sense to deride -- doesn't deserve scorn, what does?
A large part of the electorate believes in intelligent design/creationism, as Ms Palin does -- we can only hope the VP debate will be entirely about this. And polls show that McCain has now pulled ahead among white women, which would bring out the cynic in Pollyanna.
The Lexington column in the Economist made a good case that Palin's selection simply shows poor judgement on McCain's part, and this is the most troubling thing.
AlexG,
I'll start respecting Dems when they stop whining about wars they voted to authorize.
"Democrats regard their policies as self-evidently in the interests of the US working and middle classes."
You seem to accept this belief judging by your opinion that the targets reject the policies essentially because they are offered with scorn. You (and Frank Rich) are wrong about the middle class, there is a basic difference between middle class Reps and Dems.
Democrats may be sympathetic but put off by the attitude. Republicans simply reject the policies. Most Democratic policies provide a marginal positive effect for a small number of people in exchange for a larger and longer-term negative effect for everyone. Over time the negative effect is larger even for those who benefit in the short term. Most other Democratic policies reduce "inequality" by significantly penalizing the successful but provide little to no actual relief for anyone.
There's no reason to resort to to psychoanalysis to understand why middle class Republicans reject government interferences. Most of them realize the best method to improve economic results for everyone is to let the economy grow. You may have a groundswell of responses from Democrats who agree with you. Extrapolating those results to the entire middle class is a mistake.
And I will not suck any Democrat cock until I hear that apology.
VP candidates are chosen to confer a strategic advantage on the campaign. That's all there is to it. They aren't chosen because they are the 'second best' qualified for president, or because they are the closest ideological match for the candidate. They are used to reach out to a key demographic, bring in a key state or shore up a perceived weakness of the candidate.
I think you're onto something. I think it explained the "shock" that resonated over Bill Clinton's negative remarks about Obama during the campaign. I think such remarks were, for Clinton, candid but not unexpected. The Clintons are old-line liberals who've spent a great deal of their lives prostelytizing on behalf of minorities and the downtrodden. When those minorities and downtrodden decide they want to support someone else, maybe one of their own, these old-line liberals feel betrayed. After all, don't the minorities and the downtrodden owe it to them for all they've done in the past?
I don't think these sorts give a damn about the middle- and lower-classes. But pretending they do elevates their sense of self-esteem. These classes are a cause, not a reality.
I am no fan of the Democrats. I've never voted for a Dem in a national election. But I must say, this article disregards several key points.
I'm sure voters in small towns and suburbs wince at many of the insulting comments made about Palin. I did. But what had to happen first--before the liberal media provided the insults--for this phenomenen to take place?
Palin had to be Republican, she had to be pro-life, and she had to remind us that the Democrat across the aisle was an elitist. Plain actually being "one of us" only lends credence to this argument.
But Obama is "one of us" in many of the same ways Palin is. Will we ever accept him as "one of us"? No. Will we become outraged when petty insults are cast upon him? No.
No matter how hard Obama tries, we will never be convinced that he is "one of us" because the Republicans have stolen the moral highground.
It's true that the media's petty stories about Palin fuel the fire. They make it even more possible for us to become outraged and place the blame squarely on the Democratic candidate. Doesn't matter that candidate rejects the petty stories. Doesn't matter that candidate is also one of us. He's a liberal. He's pro-choice.
And there it is. Vote Republican!
Mr. Crook: (1) Anytime you generalize about a subset of people as broad as "democrats" you are wrong most of the time. (2) Why not lambast "republicans" for not being respectful when some of them insinuate that Barack Obama is Muslim, among other forms of debased discourse. (3) The media attention to Palin and her family could not be avoided when someone the country does not know about is catapulted onto the national stage -- to paint this attention as fierce attacks when the national media has given her a free ride on flat-out lies (e.g., opposed the bridge to nowhere when she was actually for it). (4) In fact, the media's love affair with Palin is helping McCain by giving him a free ride and allowing him to continue to pose as a maverick without examining his record and his complete lack of command over the issues.
I think your piece in general is on to something...having once worked for half a decade for a Dem congressman, I saw first-hand the conviction in Dem circles that a) government always has an answer for any problem, and b) government (and Democrats) know better than you do and will save you from yourself.
The fact is that outside of urban Dem strongholds, most voters do not care for government controlling their lives or values...although there is a strong Democratic tailwind in this election, I think it would be a mistake for the party to take that as a ratification of their approach to perceived societal ills.
The request from Mr. Coates for specific examples of liberal condescension gets a response here: http://noleftturns.ashbrook.org/comment.asp?blogID=13018#comments
So many commentators are hyporcitical in their comparisons. Insinuating Bill Maher speaks for Democrats is as accurate as saying the vile ramblings of Rush Limbaugh (and his criminal behavior)accurately depict Republican values.
Attacking pregnant teenagers is no less offensive than blaming a wife, by means of being "smarter than" her husband and presuming she "nags" as a result, for her husband's unfaithfulness. I haven't seen any evidence that Obama supports or participates in attacks on Palin's personal situation just as basically all Republicans distanced themselves from Limbaugh's outrageous statments.
Facts should precede conclusions... not the reverse.
I have to agree with other posters that while these perhaps some truth to this description, the Republicans have been selling this notion of the Democrats hard for years now.
It's much of a chicken and the egg question than you're acknowledging. When a wealthy Democrat runs for office, he's quickly seen as out-of-touch and fake. When a wealth Republican runs, he's "one of us" so long as he waves a flag and is pro-life.
But really, what's most frustrating as a Democrat, is that the hypocrisy of some Democrats is seen as spoiling the whole bunch when the hypocrisy of some Republicans (including our current President's perceived folksy-ness despite his elite upbringing) is acknowledged and ignored.
One more thought: the discussion of Palin's daughter's pregnancy has been disturbingly partisan on both sides. While the whole question is irrelevant, the so-called "policy" or "issues" discussions it has raised have been wholly self-interested on both sides.
Conservatives have focused on praising the "decision" to keep the baby. That's fine. But where's the criticsm of premaritial sex and teenage promiscuity that we hear every time a famous teen starlet (ala Jamie Lynn Spears and others) gets pregnant?
Democrats are being selective too; they're ignoring that real "choice" ought to mean letting families make a decision which reflects their values. Roe v. Wade was decided on privacy grounds; this ought to be a private matter.
Since when does pregnancy equate to PROMISCUITY?
If you actually look back at what the right said on Spears, they praised her for having the baby, and only Rush really criticized her.
Nicely written article. I remember my grandfather telling me that he was a "life-long" democrat but he voted for Reagan. When I asked him why, he said "I didn't leave the democratic party, they left me".
I have to say that I don't agree with everything the Republican Party preaches but the nomination of Palin had me rejoicing because I felt that "one of us" has been nominated. This Ivy League East Coast mentality definitely rubs me the wrong way. Just hearing her talk once during the campaign, not only what she said but how she said it, was enough for me to trust her both as vice president and as president. Some might question that type of judgment but I assessed that most presidents surround themselves with advisors as she will as well.
I want one of us to be making those decisions not one of them.
"I think your piece in general is on to something...having once worked for half a decade for a Dem congressman, I saw first-hand the conviction in Dem circles that a) government always has an answer for any problem . . .."
As a traditional conservative, I think this comment is on to something. One ramification of the notion that the government has an answer for any problem is that one must be extremely smart and competant to deliver on this expectation. I think that is why some liberals think that they will able to discredit Palin by showing she is not a policy wonk.
I have no doubt that Obama is a good deal more intelligent than Palin. He will have to be if he wants take over 1/6th of the economy (i.e. health care) without making a complete mess of things.
From the conservative perspective, however, Palin appears to be smart enough to know the limits of what the government can and cannot do effectively. For that reason, I am more impressed by the "common sense" she exhibits than the Ivy League degrees O'Bama possesses. For conservatives, its like the match up between Jimmy Carter, and Ronald Reagan. Many here may disagree with me, but I think I have described part of the divide we see in the political scene today.
Sara Palin is a liar (do an internet search for the details -- there's plenty written about her multitude of lies). We've already had a liar in office for the last 8 years. We don't need another one. We alread know McCain will say anything to get elected, and his lies are legion. Do an internet search on his voting record for our troops and veterans. It's horrible. Do an intenet search on his voting record on women's issues. It's equally horrible. Neither McCain nor Palin are right for this country.
I agree that Democrats can be condescending. There's no denying that. Having grown up in Central Illinois, and seeing how Chicago dems don't care about the rural parts of the state, I have have experienced this better than many people. But Republicans get away with condescension that is just as bad or worse. Under Republican thinking, anyone who lives in a city is not really American. Anyone who lives on the coasts cannot possibly understand America. Racism is not overt, but the tone is usually there. Anything metropolitan lacks all value. People with white collar jobs aren't hard working. Being smart, accomplished and cultured is somehow a negative. The list goes on and on. I cannot vote for any party that laughs at its convention about terrorism suspects being read their rights, as if there is something funny about that.
For those advocating Palin as an avatar of commonsense, let's remember that as Mayor of Wasilla, population about 6000 at the time, she raised taxes by 38%, raised spending by 33%, and left a debt of $20 million. Her pet project, a sports center, is tied up in litigation 7 years later, because she didn't bother to do due diligence on who owned the land. All this took place after she hired an administrator to run Wasilla, as well as a lobbyist to generate pork. Given these facts, I'd like to know why any self-respecting fiscal conservative, or moderately rational human being would argue that she has shown anything but incompetence, abuse of the public trust, and a monumental incapacity to manage money.
Mr. Crook,
very astute piece with on exception. Obama does not play well, really, because he is erzatz. He's had much handed to him. Yes, let's be pefectly frank, affirmative action. The usual charade of the liberals and the media that this is a touching testimony to the underlying ability of the recipient who was denied a chance is nonsense. We all know he didn't pass the test. The working men and women to whom the left turn every four years for votes know that the Obamas of the world have taken the places of their children in the classrooms of elite institutions, relegating the Sarah Pains of the world to the University of Idaho. Nobody is fooled.
Also, it might help his credentials if Obama ever had a job. He needn't have been a farmer or a mechanic, but good God, the folks in Nebraska don't turn down a good job to be a ten grand a year community organizer no matter how noble the left thinks this farcical role may be. Obama is an Alinsky follower. Rule for Radicals; agitation and shakedowns of governmental entities; i.e., just recycling the money of productive people. No businesses were started or assisted, no capital built, nothing constructed. People know this is a societal fraud. The Huffington Post may defend this baloney, but we the people sniff out the truth and all it does is engender resentment from the peasantry.
Thank God the Donkeycrats don't seem to get it. They are all still undergraduates at heart.
Well, if you want to see what a bigoted cracker looks like, Steven Marshall is your man.
Clive, look at the wretched excuse for a comment by Steven Marshall, and tell me whether you would want to associate with a dishonest, lying, racist piece of scum like this. If you do, you qualify to be a Republican in 2008. If not, you might just be a misguided conservative.
"all it does is engender resentment from the peasantry"
Steven Marshall
Patronising elitism much, you arrogant little toad? Steven Marshall, people who hold real jobs would kick your lying ass through your teeth, if they weren't too busy laughing at you.
Nathan -- thanks for articulating my immediate reaction to Crook's piece, especially because I hadn't seen your points sufficiently covered among the journalism/commentary I've been reading. I remember only Judith Warner's "The Mirrored Ceiling" NY Times op-ed (http://warner.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/04/the-mirrored-ceiling/?em) recently addressing this.
I assert along with Nathan that the U.S. Republican party has its own brand of disrespect for its targeted demographic, one compounded by support for anti-middle/working-class policies. But I go a bit further: It is really a triple-whammy, because the 1) acting folksy while 2) legislating in the corporate interest rests on 3) deliberate misrepresentations to voters; misrepresentations which rely on those voters' inability or lack of resources to dig out the truth. For example, their portrayal of the estate tax as an economic injury to the middle- and working-class. Now I've just remembered their portrayal of Vietnam war vets triple-amputee Max Cleland and John Kerry as unpatriotic--a subspecies of this compound disrespect, especially given that it came from the campaign machine of two draft dodgers.
That someone like Crook doesn't see this is almost
incredible to me. So, to avoid disrespect, I have to assume he is also aware of it. Unfortunately, then, I have to question his motives in addressing only one--and I'd say the lesser--side of the topic.
Barry McPhee
Most of us don't want the Democrats' largesse and are offended by the offer. We want to make and keep our own money. The top 1% of taxpayers (yes) 1%) pay 40% of income taxes. The bottom 50% of taxpayers pay less than 4% of all taxes. Does anyone think this is fair? Lower taxes and keep the federal government off our backs and out of our business. That's what we want. Why is it so hard for liberals to understand that? We don't want or need them.
If "the rest" of the media were liberal, then we would hear about labor organizing, about opposition to NAFTA, about single-payer health care plans, about total withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan, about the recent extreme widening of the gap between rich and poor... we would hear mockery of terms like "death tax" and "compassionate conservative" and "tax relief" instead of assenting acceptance of their frames... The fact is that at least since Reagan the two poles of discourse in this country have been right vs. center, with the left silenced and belittled. Sorry for that inconvenient truth, Clive, but your shock ("Who knew this strand of opinion even existed?") reveals the actual absence of a liberal point of view in mainstream discourse.
Didn't read all the comments but why isn't Clive as upset about how smug and condescending Sarah Palin, Rudy G. and Mitt Romney were at the GOP convention when talking about Obama's history of involvement in community service before he went to Harvard Law? What about George Bush's hilarious "No weapons of mass destruction here?" routine done in a video shown at one of his yearly press galas several years ago? No doubt the Democrats would be better-served by the mindset that comes with "assuming a superior opponent" in the political battlefield. But to say that Republican spokespeople aren't smug, condescending liars is to discount the evidence provided every day when the White House spokeperson goes before the press to "answer questions."
johnjohn1007 -- I make a six figure income and I consider it an honor to pay taxes in order to support worthwhile infrastructure, public safety and health, and social service programs. (I'm less honored for paying for our military -- about 500x more than we need to defend our country -- and for various corporate welfare bailouts and earmarks, but I know they come with the territory.) I just think "what if the tables were turned" and realize I'd like to live in a society where people support each other to the best of their abilities. I also think it's kind of laughable for people who use public roads and who eat food that the FDA ensures doesn't contain salmonella says they want the government off their backs. Bwahahaa!
So tell me again, what it is I don't understand?
Oh, and by the way, Obama wants to cut taxes for the middle class by more than McCain does.
Clive, this all seems like overthink to me. Since Nixon, the Republican Party has known that they can carve away a large slice of lower middle class voters simply by appealing to social issues: the proverbial god, guns, and gays. The granite foundation for this social strategy -- a/k/a the "Southern strategy" -- is xenophobia and racism, which is prevalent among many middle and lower middle class whites in this country. This strategy marks the height of political cynicism, but it has the undeniable advantage of being highly effective. The modern Democratic Party has a hard time competing with it not because it's base consists of a bunch of latte-drinking elitists who hate Uh-mer-ic-cans. It's because the party's base consists in part and largely of the very minority groups at which the hatred of so many "Middle American" whites is directed.
Stop lecturing the Democratic Party about chauvinism. The Republicans have cynically manipulated a far more insidious kind of chauvinism for far too long. That's what you should be writing about.
Well, Freddy, whose members are you sucking? It can't be Republicans --McCain's been keeping them busy.
Voters in small towns and suburbs, forever mocked and condescended to by metropolitan liberals, are attuned to this disdain. Every four years, many take their revenge.
--Yeah and how's that working out for us?
I'll agree only that we have "media." Their political leaning is "money." What we don't have are media which provide factual, useful information. We have talking heads who are "experts" at everything under the sun, with some corporate sponsored think tankers thrown in, spewing gossip, enjoying themselves. On serious issues, sound bites will do for us dumb proles. We couldn't possibly understand the complexity of issues but we suspect our celebrity "journalists" don't either (and if they do, they're not telling).
Once upon a time, we had documentaries and news specials shown in prime time and people actually watched and listened. I know, I'm showing my age. What passes for news media is pathetic and makes me grind my teeth. I rarely watch anymore.
I agree with a previous poster: The very existence such a hand-wringing column by Clive Crook proves that the axis of ideological debate in the United States these days runs between right and center, leaving the left silenced and mocked. Somehow, despite liberals' support for policies that help the working and middle classes, they still take it on the chin for their "arrogance." That argument is bankrupt, and sad proof of the effectiveness of Republican spin.
One could find ample examples of reverse conservative elitism. The shining star in that field is Sarah Palin's snide remark at the Republican National Convention: That being a small-town mayor is like being a community organizer (aka Barack Obama), except that you have "actual responsibilities." If you believe Crook, then you assume liberal arrogance is inherently deserving of scorn, while conservative reverse-arrogance - what the left often calls its anti-intellectualism - makes total sense. How you can perform that gymnastic mental feat, I don't know, but I yearn for the day when it's no longer a viable political strategy to belittle thoughtfulness and compassion.
On the "economic best interest" thing. Wyoming, Idaho, Utah, Nebraska, the Dakotas, and Virginia generally have very low unemployment. Of those only Idaho has an above average rate of poverty. I believe that in the last forty years these states have always gone Republican in Presidential elections. (Virginia may vary this election)
http://www.statemaster.com/graph/eco_une_rat-economy-unemployment-rate
http://www.statemaster.com/graph/eco_per_bel_pov_lev-economy-percent-below-poverty-level
Possibly Republican Presidents really aren't hurting their economies or driving their people, as a whole, into penury. Maybe the GOP is okay for states heavy on agribusiness and mining.
Curiously it might be the Deep South's switching to Republicans that's odd if you only look at economics. They are and were poorer states. They liked Carter whereas Utah or even Virginia were more cool on him. Tax plans that burden the rich and help the poor could be more appealing to them. And here I think it is plausible that cultural factors might hurt the Democrats. In the last 44 years they won the Presidency when they ran Southerners. (LBJ, Carter, Clinton. Okay LBJ might be more Southwestern, but Texas is sort of both-ways) However I think at least some Liberals are seen, even if unjustly, as not really like Southerners. Not even if they're liberal Southerners who went to Emory University or somewhere similarly respected.
"If you believe Crook, then you assume liberal arrogance is inherently deserving of scorn, while conservative reverse-arrogance - what the left often calls its anti-intellectualism - makes total sense."
Both are worthy of scorn. (Although I'm uncertain why being a community organizer is particularly intellectual.) However from an election perspective anti-intellectualism is more of a "winner" because relatively few Americans are intellectuals or think well of intellectuals. Plus some of our more intellectual Presidents actually weren't that good. Politics requires a different kind of skill-set from intellectualism. In politics you have to deal with, and speak for, uneducated people of average intelligence. People who'd see "creationism" as a neutral or even positive characteristic in a politician. You may never have to do such a thing as an intellectual.
I agree with a previous poster: The very existence such a hand-wringing column by Clive Crook proves that the axis of ideological debate in the United States these days runs between right and center, leaving the left silenced and mocked. Somehow, despite liberals' support for policies that help the working and middle classes, they still take it on the chin for their "arrogance." That argument is bankrupt, and sad proof of the effectiveness of Republican spin.
One could find ample examples of reverse conservative elitism. The shining star in that field is Sarah Palin's snide remark at the Republican National Convention: That being a small-town mayor is like being a community organizer (aka Barack Obama), except that you have "actual responsibilities." If you believe Crook, then you assume liberal arrogance is inherently deserving of scorn, while conservative reverse-arrogance - what the left often calls its anti-intellectualism - makes total sense. How you can perform that gymnastic mental feat, I don't know, but I yearn for the day when it's no longer a viable political strategy to belittle thoughtfulness and compassion.
Sarah Palin was a brilliant choice by McCain's handlers. She appeals to all the rural white yahoos whose teenage daughters have gotten pregnant out of wedlock. And there are plenty of them. Half of rural Americans are Christian fundamentalists like Palin who believe in creationism and the literal interpreation of the bible. The other half of rural America are alchoholics and meth heads. Palin and McCain appeal to both of these groups in a variety of ways.
Any high school student in rural America who excels in academics is treated as a socal outcast. If they are fortunate, these students go away to college and never come back. Republicans despise anything intellectual.
The bar with Palin was set even lower than it was with GW Bush. Let's see how the mainstream news media treats the upcoming debates and will they twist reality again like they did in 2000 and 2004.
"If you believe Crook, then you assume liberal arrogance is inherently deserving of scorn, while conservative reverse-arrogance - what the left often calls its anti-intellectualism - makes total sense. How you can perform that gymnastic mental feat, I don't know, but I yearn for the day when it's no longer a viable political strategy to belittle thoughtfulness and compassion."
Posted by Evan | September 10, 2008 11:44 AM
Please. Palin's "reverse arrogance," if that's what you want to call it, was merely a response to the very palpable and ubiquitous arrogance of the left. The fact that she did it cleverly, and with such panache, was a shock to the liberal system. They're not used to seeing themselves mocked, seeing someone from the "other side" treat them to the same kind of witty ridicule that their buddies in the media use against conservatives on a regular basis. (Yes, I'm talking about Maher, Stewart, Colbert, Olbermann, Matthews, etc...) Sarah Palin could make clever speeches for the next twenty years, and couldn't possibly make up for the scorn that's been heaped upon conservative Americans for the last few decades.
Her best line: "The presidency isn't supposed to be a journey in self-discovery." Man, that was good! She got you guy pegged :)
Bill Maher isnt' a democrat, he's a libertarian. They are basically group tht says: I got mine, now you go off and die. Kind of like Republicans.
THe only reason Maher is supporting Obama is because He hates women SO much, he'd never support a party that has a woman candidate. He hates minorities, the handicapped and babies too, but not as much as he hates women, especially successful smart women.
He's a nazi troll who should never be allowed on air again.
The fact is that outside of urban Dem strongholds, most voters do not care for government controlling their lives or values...although there is a strong Democratic tailwind in this election, I think it would be a mistake for the party to take that as a ratification of their approach to perceived societal ills.
Posted by NRS | September 9, 2008 12:40 PM
Funny how the red states have no problem living off the federal dole, ain't it?
"The only reason Maher is supporting Obama is because He hates women SO much, he'd never support a party that has a woman candidate." LW
TR: I don't agree with that. I mean he doesn't care for women, but I don't think that's his reason for this.
The thing he intensely hates is George W. Bush and religion. They even asked him about Obama's "religious language" and he said something like "I hope he's just lying." I think he's believing that Obama-Biden will be less religious and less like Bush. The fact that there are Obamaists who go on more about creationism and religion, rather than policies Palin has been active in that could actually harm the environment or economy, indicates many are on the same page there.
What seems the loopiest about Clive's argument is that it completely buys the GOP-concocted line that cultural resentments, justified and unjustified (of which both exist) should be the primary subject of debate.
The bottom line is this - the Republicans have been promising for 25+ years to "get government out of people's way". Except that when you look earnestly at what the government spends its money on, people like what government provides - free roads (Americans really like those, and they cost a good chunk of money), safe, affordable cars (American do spend a lot of time in those), a food supply and medical devices and drugs that largely work (well, someone guts the FDA's budget), an efficient pension system that keeps people out of poverty, guaranteed medical care for the elderly, free public education for all, transparency rules to make your automatic stock investments (like 401k) be managed sensibly and honestly. Republicans claim to be against all that, because it's "government getting in your way", but they never manage to cut any of it in earnest. Instead they manage only to cut taxes, run huge deficits and then tell everyone the Laffer Curve Fairy's going to make up the difference. The reason is modern Republicans are not interested in the onerous work of making government function better.
If you start from a different premise - that the government is the inevitable arbiter of disputes and the one who ends up (like it or not) with the long-term responsibility for many, many society-scale problems (from epidemics to destitution to nuclear waste), the question becomes how can we have the least burdensome and expensive government THAT STILL DOES ITS JOB. That's what Main Street Republicans used to want, and that's what most center-left Democrats want. It's fine and often true to say that Democrats are too quick to think government can solve problems and Republicans are too quick to dismiss the need for government, but the Republican party and particularly the McCain campaign has abandoned any semblance of caring about making government do its job well while being lean. That has nothing to do with how conservative or liberal you are, its about real debate being abandoned in favor of endless recitation of how condescending one side jerks are as opposed to the other side's jerks.
Surely snubs and condescension Clive's gotten from jerky liberals (no shortage of jerks on either side) are regrettable, but writing about them as the subject of debate is really more of the same distraction. And if life back in small-town "real" America (notwithstanding that this is a nation of suburbs now) was so great, perhaps Clive would be motivated to live in that milieu rather than going to Oxford and living in Washington. So it sure seems to be like there's a good dose of nostalgia mixed in there, too.
In representative democracy, we elect people to government to get that government do stuff on our behalf. So what do you want government to do or not do, and why?
I am an independent who is leaning toward Obama. I am an intelligent person who thinks for herself – emphasis on “thinks”. I find that Obama’s approach to problems to be very well thought out. I despise the lies, half truths, and sleaze that the Republicans throw to win elections. I have had great difficulty understanding how so many people fall for these lies. I could not understand how half of the electorate could find Palin to be wonderful. My husband (who grew up among these people) told me that it has to do with emotions. I still didn’t get it and found myself becoming more and more angry at the hordes of voters who are apparently very stupid.
This is a football game to them, an EMOTIONAL FOOTBALL GAME — one that they must win and the Democrats are the other team. That’s why they shout “USA, USA…” It’s emotional, not intellectual. That’s what Bill Clinton understood; that is why he was elected twice. My husband said that a person can explain to these voters again and again about how the Democrats' policies will make life better for them, but they don’t care because Dems don’t wrap up in the flag.
Until reading this article today, even with my husband trying to explain it to me, I did not understand the Republicans and their followers. I believe those running the Obama campaign also lack the same understanding.
If Dems could better understand the hearts and minds of these voters, they would have a better chance at winning. These voters really do care more about the emotional issues: God, guns, country (being warriors), the ten commandments, etc. It isn’t intellectual...it’s emotional. So, their eyes glaze over when Dems explain the details about how their tax program will help 95% of the working middle class. It’s not what these voters want to hear. The Dems should say that their tax program will give most people about $1100 more in their pockets and McCain will only give them $400 and leave it at that. No details.
THEN THE DEMOCRATS SHOULD WRAP THEMSELVES IN PATRIOTISM and speak about how they love this country and want to protect it and its people from harm from terrorists and illegals.
Clive’s article has helped me to better understand this Republican emotional subculture. I found his perspective interesting. But I still think that people who fall for the Republican lies and vote emotionally, as if this were a football game that must be won at all cost (the end justifies the means), without giving any thought on how the economic and international policies of the Republican administration has pulled this country down and how McCain would continue the same policies, are stupid.
I guess that's why the Republicans call the intellectuals "elite". These voters remain emotionally and mentally in high school where smart people are made fun of and the "cool" people are the cheerleaders and jocks. The Republican leadership (who are also intellectuals but hide it) knows this and uses it to their advantage.
Mae Stephens
Sorry about posting twice. I hit the "refresh" button and should not have. Somehow it caused by comment to be posted twice.
I apologize.
I find Sarah Palin to be likeable and admirable on many levels, she's got a unique story, she certainly pulled herself up without any help from an affluent family, she lives by her values. I have found the media and the liberal personal attacks on her to be vile and disgusting. The "neutral" media going out of their way to paint her as a hick, speaking in tongues religious nut, liar hasn't done them any credit.
That doens't mean I agree with her stance on the issues, the only thing I agree w/her on is the Second Amendment. She lost me from a policy standpoint at trying to de list polar bears and shooting wolves from helecopters.
That also doesn't mean that I can't recognize lies and mischaracterizations about her record as far as her expenses, earmarks and the bridge to nowhere.
I fail to see how Democrats continuously insinuate they are better than other people more than Republicans. At the RNC, it seemed that the likes of Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani were telling people they should hate Barack Obama because he's better than they are, more educated, elite, etc. Obama never said that.
Palin, at least, isn't from a wealthy background, but sneering at community organizing seems dismissive and condescending, as if it isn't real work.
Republicans continually mock Democratic candidates for being highly educated and high-achieving (Obama, Kerry, Gore). I don't see how it's better to have gone to a fine school such as Yale (Bush) or the Naval Academy (McCain) and do poorly. Most of the regular working people of many different levels of education I've ever known wanted their kids to do well.
I'm sure there are plenty of Democrats who sneer at conservatives, small-town folks, religious conservatives, etc. There is also a continuous stream of insults from the right about liberal elites (Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity), and somehow Bill Maher's comment drowns that out?
There is a double standard. When a liberal makes a snide comment about a conservative, the liberal is insulting real American values. But when the insult comes the other way, it's deserved. How come insulting community organizers is fair game, but using the phrase "lipstick on a pig" isn't?
I think you've pretty cogently summarized the Democratic attitude toward the Palin pick. What you haven't done is provide a shred of evidence that the Democratic attitude isn't the correct one. I guess the question is: Do Democrats want to get elected or do Democrats want to be right? It's a horribly difficult position to be in for Dems like me.
What really chafes is that John McCain and Sarah Palin and the entire Republican apparatus are lying their asses off on an hourly basis and the religious,unembarrassed flag-waving patriots you glorify as the Essential Americans are believing it and making decisions about how they'll vote based on this disinformation campaign.
I'm not sure what exactly you think Democrats should do in a situation like this. Are you encouraging them to adopt the tactics and strategies of their opponents? Are you suggesting that they embrace ignorance and irrationality, and not just embrace it but learn to love it? What exactly is your prescription?
There is an article making its way around the tubes today; I've gotten it from a half-dozen different people. You may have seen it: http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/haidt08/haidt08_index.html . It's a reasonable description of exactly the kind of voter you celebrate, the kind that fills me with terror. If you haven't read it, it might be worth a glance.
For my part, just once in my life, I'd like to see the American electorate vote for a candidate based on a well-reasoned analysis of the issues instead of on who would be more fun to hang out with or who's "just plain folks", because I'm "just plain folks" and I wouldn't want me anywhere near the White House or No. 1 Observatory Circle.
Interesting and carefully articulated.
Mr Crook,
I believe that one could replace the 'Democrat' with 'Republican' and vise versa, while replacing your 'small town residents and values' with 'urban residents and their values', and make the mirror argument.
While you seem to take offense at the hands of those 'others', as many of your tribe are exacting the same disparaging harangue on the other side.
I offer the the real issue is not city/country and blue/red, but the use of Them vs. Us.
You anoint one group to be 'chosen' and 'correct' at the expense of the other
Nobody likes to be painted with that brush but it's apparently the only political tool in the box.
How about we all consider that we're in this together?
And while we're at it, how about accepting that lot's of people are very curious about sudden unknown's being picked to run on a major party ticket and that attention of the press is appropriate. Look, the other 3 guys have gone through years of it, and often is was ugly.
It has nothing to do with hockey or moose hunting or lattes or The New York Times or condos or log cabins
Be honest with yourselves and open your minds to views outside of your team's.
Respect cuts both ways, disrespect cuts always.
Play nice, all of you!
I remember a long time ago a kind of big rule in political bodies (especially democratic legislative bodies) was that people on opposite sides of issues should not question the opposition's intentions, loyalty, or good faith.
I think that was a good rule.
I don't think people hold that rule as important anymore. People opposed to each other regularly question their opponents good will and intentions.
It is hard for me to generalize about who (individuals) and what groups do this the most. I think we definitely see it more in television 'attack ads'. I cannot tell if one side does more than the other. I think we also hear this attack on intentions and motives a lot from talk radio.
It has also become a tactic in campaigns to use these kinds of attacks on motives and intentions. This started to become a big tactic in the 1968 presidential campaign.
When a candidate (or a serious surrogate) attack's another party's motives or intentions, and then goes on to win the election it makes governing very difficult. It creates a polarized environment that makes it difficult to accomplish anything in government.
Instead of attacking intentions and motives it is perfectly OK and civil to discuss possible consequences of a proposed policy.
"Adressing his own political tribe in the native idiom" is a cleverly turned phrase, but demonstrates that smugness that says, "we know we are right, we just need to be more careful where we say it.."
You still do not get it. Your writing is still condescending and presumes that your point of view is the only correct one..we can express it among ourselves, but must be careful when we talk to others...You will keep losing...
Forgive me if I sound ignorant but I've now read your article through a few times Clive and each time I come to the conclusion that what you are trying to convey isn't necessarily how 'good' or how 'bad' any particular party is; the essence of what comes through for me is that to gain the vote of 'ordinary' people (I use that word advisedly), a healthy dose of respect is in order by those who are trying to garner such votes.
These may be considered 'folksy' comments but no matter:
My father always taught me to not talk down to anyone, and particularly to neither disdain nor talk down to those who have no perceived right to talk back to me. This training has given me a healthy respect for differences between people, cultures, principles, beliefs and between “big” people and “little” people.
My father also taught me that even a CEO of a multi-billion dollar organization, however many dollars he/she may earn, is simply still an employee, much like the junior clerk in the printing room is; and although worth more in dollars per hour, also reports to someone (even if the someone is a group of shareholders). This cemented my posture on respect for who people are as people, not necessarily for their credentials or for what they have on their business cards.
My father taught me that with 'great freedom comes great responsibility' (I'm not sure who the original author is of this quote). I learned that whatever I do, I will experience a response for which I was solely responsible. From this I gained self-respect.
My father taught me that it’s always the wiser choice to respond to rather than to react to a situation and that I should always do so with the most information at my disposal.
He taught me too that “kneejerk” reactions can come up and hit me on the chin and I have the scars to prove him right.
My father also taught me that to be in Public Office of any kind is to be in the service of the people. He used to say 'That is why they're called 'Civil Servants', yet I see little of this in those in Public Service.
Lastly, my father taught me to seek the essence within the comments and I hope I did that Clive. I agree that until those who are seeking gain, can respect those from whom they wish to gain, they will not be successful. Thank you for a well thought-out article.
F Burns
"They will have to develop some regard for the values that the middle of the country expresses when it votes Republican. Religion. Unembarrassed flag-waving patriotism. Freedom to succeed or fail through one's own efforts. Refusal to be pitied, bossed around or talked down to. And all those other laughable redneck notions that made the United States what it is."
You forgot to add anti-intellectual to your list of Republican values.
Ever see a redneck read The Atlantic, Clive?
Ever see a redneck read The Atlantic, Clive?
How many rednecks do you suppose Clive has ever seen? All I can tell you is that I'm a diehard Republican (albeit a relatively prosperous Jewish one), and I subscribe. That said, 'rednecks' are by definition poorer and ignorant - if you read the Atlantic, then by definition you're not really a redneck.
I understand the desire to have somebody in office with whom you can relate. Familiarity begets trust. However, I have heard this argument that liberals are condescending for years now, but the assertion never ceases to amaze me. Liberals fail to connect not because they are condescending, but because of a cultural divide. "Middle America" has a much less diverse population who are more likely to not venture too far from where they were born. Conservatives have tapped into this population by pushing the "they're not like us" narrative as their main course. Hence you hear the words “West Coast/East Coast Liberals” and “Cosmopolitan ideas”. They raise the specter of condescension as seasoning for the meal they have already served up. It is human nature to surround yourself with people who are like you, and so it is not without reason for people to want to elect people who are "like them".
What is disheartening to me is that when conservatives speak about "real Americans", I am usually left feeling like they would rather ignore that I exist. When they speak of real Americans they are referring to White Americans. I grew up in a mid-sized, mid-western town, daughter of a West Virginian and a West Indian. I would get one pair of shoes at the beginning of each school year that would have several holes in the soles by the end of the year. Both of my parents were college graduates with higher level degrees, but they scrimped and saved to make ends meet. My dad was unemployed for most of my teenage years. I lived in an all white neighborhood and was never allowed to forget it. My white friends would tell me I was like an Oreo cookie, black on the outside but white on the inside...I was marginally accepted. The blacks called me an Oreo, but I wasn't okay. I didn’t fit in. The teachers liked me, I was the good black kid who conformed, spoke proper English. I went to church every Sunday. I spent Christmas in Mullins, WV. I was an honor student, graduated in the top 10% of my class, played two instruments, etc. and was accepted into every school I applied to. I attended a very competitive small liberal arts college on scholarship and loans. I knew we didn't have a lot of money, but I didn't know how poor I was and the sacrifices my parents had made for me until I found out what qualifies you for a Pell Grant last year. I've been out of college for thirteen years. I’m now married, have a nice family and am doing fairly well. But, according to conservatives, I am not American enough to them. Conservatives minimize and show disdain for my accomplishments by touting affirmative action and saying to real Americans---“See what she has stolen from you?”
It doesn't matter what you do in America to try to live the so-called American Dream, conservatives still don't classify my story as American enough. I don't overtly express my patriotism, I don't proselytize about God's goodness to everyone I meet, I believe a woman can have an abortion although I would never have one myself, I don’t like guns because they kill animals and humans in the most brutal way, I do believe you have the freedom to succeed or fail on your own but that the deck shouldn’t be stacked against you either. I have conformed in every way to America’s “values”, but I will never be American enough for the conservative brand.
Admittedly, liberals do lack the simplistic branding that conservatives have mastered. Perhaps liberals naively try to understand our complex society and correct apparent injustices. What is clear, however, as I read these posts is that the difference between liberals and conservatives is not a condescension resulting from an air of intellectual elitism; conservatives and liberals alike have their share of elites. It is that in America, we still have a huge cultural chasm that conservatives have seized upon. The resounding message is essentially that liberals have ideas that are too different to represent “real Americans”.
Are Democrats supposed to show the same respect bestowed upon them by talking-Republicans? Pls review the speeches, for example, by the failed Presidential candidates Giuliani, Thompson, Huckabee and Romney. Plus the snide putdowns by Ms Palin. (And that guy John McCain approves the messages.) Not to mention the screeds of propagandists like Hannity, Ailes, and th blow-dried blondes of FOX? When Dems respond to the bullying, it's considered a vice; when Repubs do it, it's just politics. People hate the hypocrisy and the smug & whiny self-righteousness it represents. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
"Are Democrats supposed to show the same respect bestowed upon them by talking-Republicans?" theod
TR: You're missing his point in a pretty severe way. I don't think he was talking about Democratic politicians respecting Republican ones or vice versa. From what I can tell he's talking about respecting, and really listening to, working-class voters who may vote Republican the majority of the time.
Traditionally the liberal or Democratic view of these voters is that they are dupes, mentally ill, or bigots. All these things might actually be true of a significant minority of them, but it's not very useful to say "I didn't get your votes so I'm going to explain why that's your fault."
Do Republicans do the same of people who vote Democrat? Well yes as many of them see Democratic voters as moral degenerates. Still they might not be doing so to the same extent. So far as I know Republicans don't write books wondering why wealthy New Englanders vote Democratic when they used to be solidly for Coolidge and Hoover. Republicans will fondly quote Democratic Presidents from the last sixty years and indicate the party had some good qualities at times. Democrats seem more based in the idea that Republicans have been scum pretty much since Lincoln was assassinated. (I'm not sure quoting a moderate Republic Prez, say Eisenhower, would even go down well at a Democratic convention and some of his descendants are Obama-backers) Many Democrats are quite willing to bash the party and its voters, which puts them in a bad position to gain swing voters. The Democrats don't really have anything equivalent to "Reagan Democrats" as the "Obama Republican" thing seems somewhat limited to a few professors and lawyers.
I live in the Northeast Corridor. Two years ago I went to Mass at a rural RC church in western PA. The congregation was middle to lower income. The sense of alienation from and anger toward national politicians and especially the media was strong. It was almost a siege mentality. I sympathize with them. There is hardly a day that goes by when either the media or a liberal politician does not insult my religion, my fellow patriotic Americans, my intelligence or my life as a working mother. The day I saw US flags lowered for the death of Pope John Paul II brought tears to my eyes, because for the first time in years consideration was shown to our feelings as Catholics.
my comments about our local mayoral race apply to the presidential campaign as well.
i think mr. crook would find wilhelm reich's book "the mass psychology of facism" to be interesting and relevant.
just because most rank-and-file republicans are too busy emoting to think straight doesn't mean that most elitist democrats are that much better. the real problem we have is bigness, and if we are lucky oil depletion & climate change will take care of that.
it's been suggested that "the love of money is the root of all evil." if this is true, i believe it is because loving money is like preferring means to ends.
my comments about our local mayoral race apply to the presidential campaign as well.
i think mr. crook would find wilhelm reich's book "the mass psychology of facism" to be interesting and relevant.
just because most rank-and-file republicans are too busy emoting to think straight doesn't mean that most elitist democrats are that much better. the real problem we have is bigness, and if we are lucky oil depletion & climate change will take care of that.
you know, this would be a good time for the atlantic to re-run a really interesting piece i read back in the early 1990s, about how when rush limbaugh started out he was an equal opportunity satirist, but then bush the elder got to him and turned his head to the right by catering to his insecurities, whether class or personal.
it's been suggested that "the love of money is the root of all evil." if this is true, i believe it is because loving money is like preferring means to ends.
So what’s a poor Democrat to do then, Clive? We are all for people practicing whatever religion they choose, but NOT OK with being told we must all practice the “only true one”…Isn’t that something our founding fathers fought against? We recognize the importance of wanting to express love/pride of country, but bristle at the hypocrisy of this patriotic philosophy: “We don't like anyone who thinks they're better than us, and we really don't like people telling us what to do. The irony, of course, is that we think we're better than everyone else, and we love to tell them what to do. Maddening, but true.” (from Chris Yeh’s comment to your piece). Are we “elitist” to point out this base hypocrisy? We’re all for people pulling themselves up by their bootstraps, we just realize they first need bootstraps to pull up, because we believe a strong (and educated) middle class is important to a democracy. This is another cornerstone of the formation of our country, not lockstep thinking. We knew a Dubya prezdincy would swiftboat us down the river, and how fast and furious those rapids were, leaving us and the world in a wake of devastation. How can we “respect” that, and the fact that there are (many) folks out there who will turn around and vote for him in a skirt? This is the main grievance against Palin, but how could we not be outraged at the hypocrisy of her party’s two-faced attitudes about “sexism,” and “motherhood.” So, if these realizations are indicative of the demonized "liberal elitist" beliefs, what’s a poor Democrat to do, Clive?
We have found out in this election that Dem-elites are Republican-wannabes who really have no use for the working or middle class other than pandering for votes at election time. Whatever idealism Democrats professed in the past, that idealism is dead, done and gone. It is interesting that Senator Clinton managed to tap into lost idealism during the primary, but with the selection of Obama, Democrats have proved that they are enamored with Rovian tactics, celebrity, money and power. Democratic ideology has been completely corrupted and the American voting public, however uneducated or - heaven forfend! - 'rural', is enlightened enough to recognize that stench of hypocrisy and vote Republican as the lesser of two evils.