As promised in my previous post, some examples of the hundreds of messages I am getting about this article. (I know you only have my word for it, but I promise you these instances are quite representative. And something to bear in mind perhaps if you are sceptical about the writers' bona fides is that these extracts are, as I say, from emails and not from comments on the blog intended for publication.)
The divorce [between working class Americans and Democrats] started long ago, about the time of George McGovern. His candidacy drove my father, for example, to vote Republican for the first time in his life. As for myself, I strongly oppose most of the policies of the Republicans, but, frankly, being in the same room with liberal Democrats and listening to them talk, alienates me, too. The arrogance and condescension is so thick you could cut it with a knife.
---
I was a liberal once, serving as general counsel of the Peace Corps..., and it was some years later that the attitude you so aptly describe began to really alienate me from my former allegiance. It wasn't so much the policies, although I've also moved to the center/right over the years, as it was the smugness, the patronizing attitude, and the almost pervasive hypocrisy that made the left intolerable. You give them credit for being well-intentioned, and I think you're right, but they're getting awfully mean this year.
One of the ironies is that I'm not really a member of the right either. The left drove me out, but I'm not comfortable with a lot of the conservative positions. The one thing that makes the right fundamentally more acceptable, though, is that for all their faults, the right wing politicians by and large do not think they are smarter than the left or the people of this country. The left is utterly convinced that the only reason others don't agree with them is that they're too stupid. Unfortunately for the left, the people are at least smart enough to pick up this attitude.
---
[Good piece] on Palin. I say this as someone who would like to see Obama win. I'm amazed at how ugly and counterproductive the behavior you describe on the part of of out-of-touch media/lefty blogs etc has been.
---
I am a Democrat and African-American and I found your article to be dead-on accurate. You could detect the snideness of liberal Democratic reactions a mile away. I find that Democrats from those parts of the US not located on the coasts tend to understand this, too. If you support his campaign you can only hope that it does not fall for this same mindset - something that so far they have avoided doing, hence its appeal in the Midwest and the West.
I want to reflect more carefully on the many emails I've received that take issue in a thoughtful and courteous way with my argument (as opposed to merely screaming about my duplicity, stupidity, ethnic origins and intellectual corruption) and I will come back to the subject again. But here is part of an email from a dear and esteemed American friend that I wanted to post and respond to straight away.
You are painting the entire Democratic party with the same brush thereby doing to them exactly what you are accusing them of doing to the Republicans. Being in (and from) small town America, I am constantly amazed at the thoughtful discussions I have had with both Republicans and Democrats on the candidates with no personal attacks or animosity expressed. It has been really interesting - very different than the last few elections. Perhaps the column needs to be more directed to the media.
The second thing that annoyed me is the final paragraph: "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."
Except for the religious reference (I cannot abide mixing politics and religion), I can't understand why you think that these are primarily Republican traits (I don't like "values" references either). I think of everyone who told me how they cried during Obama's speech (me included) because they felt hope and that surge of patriotism that they had been missing. And I know of no one who isn't proud to succeed or fail on their own, or refuses to be pitied, bossed around or talked down to. I know you are making a point but I think this paragraph took away from the power of the piece.
Well said, Jana. I certainly intended no disrespect to grass-roots Democrats: my complaint is chiefly addressed to the party's spokesmen--Obama is the exception--and advocates in the media. I believe they are letting the wider liberal movement down. I will say, though, that good-natured discussions between ordinary Democrats and Republicans might be harder to find in Washington DC, New York City and other metropolitan liberal redoubts than they are for you in Idaho.
As for the idea that those values or cultural affinities are widely shared or even universal, this has not been my experience. Obviously I am moving in the wrong circles, but the metropolitan liberal, in my experience, regards overt religious identity as vulgar, and evangelical Christianity as an infallible marker of mental retardation. Flag-waving patriotism is seen as a joke and an embarrassment. My point about refusal to be talked down to, and so on, was not intended to imply that only Republican voters think that way. What I was trying to say is that the liberal elite seems to forget that ordinary Republican-leaning Americans are proud people who want to be treated with some respect, that they are in fact entitled to it, and that their insistence on it is a quintessentially American idea.
What about Republican talking down to people?
Did you listen to Mitt Romney's convention speech? Rudy? Fred? They were every bit as bad, talking about people on the left as if they're stupid traitors just waiting for an opportunity to sell their nation out to the nearest scary muslim.
Before I became familiar with Obama and his campaign, I supported John Edwards; though I wanted to support Clinton. I didn't feel she could win in the face of the "feminazi" crowd on the right who seem to believe liberal is a dirty word. To me, it seems conservatives mock anything and everything liberal instead of engaging in dialogue.
So who's really talking down?
Which party talks about fiscal responsibility while running up the national debt?
Which party talks about security while making our nation a recruiting poster for terrorist groups around the world?
Which party talks about energy independence while promoting policies that maintain our reliance on fossil fuels?
Which party talks about responsibility while refusing to hold our president and vice president accountable for lying us into war?
Tell me again, who talks down to people as if they're too stupid to understand real issues or weigh solutions except cutting taxes? Which part prefers to lie to people instead of telling them the truth? Which party would prefer to insult half the American people as liberals instead of governing from the middle?
Which party talks down to folks?
I know one thing I've learned from the last eight years: whenever the right screeches liberals doing this or liberals doing that, they're really talking about themselves. If you don't believe me, go listen to Mitt Romney's convention speech again.
Hey,
We liberal elites are proud people and we want to be respected too, not bashed constantly for not "loving our country enough" or being "godless" or being "baby-killers".
The very term "liberal elite" carries with a negative connotation, a stain that implies dislike, if not outright hatred. We're elite because we have more extensive formal educations (is that it?). That doesn't make us better people, but it doesn't make us any worse either. Some of us may be agnostic or atheist or non-Christians, even. Doesn't make us any better, but doesn't make us worse either.
Yes, there are some who look down upon "Bible-thumping evangelicals", but there are many who use "liberal elites" as whipping boys for everything that is wrong with America.
I'm happy to respect "ordinary Republican-leaning Americans", but I'd like them to reciprocate.
Maybe I'll write an article about how "Republicans must learn some respect" :)
I have a suggestion....
Maybe it's the general social demographic that most journalists tend to come from (Ivy league, metropolitan, high income) that tends to be insufferable, and that has nothing to do with politics.
To start, as a liberal I am well aware of the less then exemplary attitude we sometimes show towards people living in the midwest and South. I regret to say that I have been guilty of this viewpoint myself. In addition, I consider myself someone who will read and listen to well argrued conservative arguements in public policy (a consequence of which is my increasing support of free trade and tax simplification).
With that said, I have become increasingly annoyed and dismayed by the Republican party's exploitation and exagerration of liberal condescension. I missed the part of civics class where one learned that small town Americans are "more American" then those from the coasts. I refuse to let someone insinuate that I am less of an American because I like soccer, eat Thai food and watch foreign films (for the record, I am also a fan of baseball, football and barbecue).
I do not consider it condescension to become increasingly alarmed by the Republican party's embrace of cultural parochialism and religious narrowmindedness. Indeed, I say this as someone who grew up a practicing Baha'i. Far from someone who is hostile to religion, I am someone who has seen the power of religion in a person's life. Which is in part what makes me worried about the encroachment of increasingly reactionary religious practice in public discourse and public life. Furthermore, I do not think it is incorrect to say that a certain degree of anti-intellectualism has creeped into the Republican party. Indeed, David Brooks, hardly a bastion of left wing elitism, has commented on this phenomenon in his columns (one specifically during the primaries stood out for me). Not only do I think its right to be alarmed by this anti-intellectualism, I think it should be alarming to more intellectual Republicans.
Call it condescension if you wish, but I am not going to let the Republican party push a narrow version of what American policy is and what it is to be an American, simply by bashing those of use who live on the coasts.
In 2008, part of the Democratic 'brand' seems to be an emphasis on policies that are intellectually rigorous. Big pieces of the current Republican brand appear to put an emphasis on patriotism, character, and family values. So, yes, it makes sense that Democratic partisans reject policies and politicians they don't like on the grounds they are dim-witted. The unkind among them sneer at those flannel-shirt-wearing rednecks. Likewise, it's not surprising that Republicans resonate with their home crowd when they impugn the character of adversarial policies and politicians as treasonous and effete. The unkind among them sneer at those silk-shirt-wearing metrosexuals.
Your point seems to be that Democrats lose big national referendums to Republicans because working class moderates are, on balance, repelled by the apparatchiks of the Left who come off as snobbish and disrespectful. If the implied psychology is that these independents and undecideds are drawn instead by the substance and style of the Right whose partisans (Coulter, Limbaugh, Hannity, Robertson, etc.) seem, in contrast, like stewards of inclusion and graciousness -- I don't see it.
Also, I don't see how the mix of reporting and blogging on Governor Palin last week (favorable, unfavorable, fringe, mainstream) was fundamentally different than the mix of reporting and blogging on Senator Obama this past year. The biggest difference, in my opinion, was the severe compression of time and intensity due to her late and startling materialization near the end of a long campaign.
Clive, you need to get out of Manhattan. You're surrounded by livid liberals and have to watch Fox News to see conservatives, apparently. Having grown up in a small town out west, I can tell you, conservative, hyper-religious politicians are a pain in the ass. They don't fix the pot-holes, they spend the people's money like drunken sailors and they get elected by blaming all the world's ills on "elite liberals"; You're advertising the same fantasy world they want their constituency to live in. Bush, in essence, represents the incompetent good old boy, western politician. The cronyism, corruption and excuse making are good old boy traits thru and thru. OF COURSE their biggest selling point is to blame the world's ills on over-educated elitist snobs; never mind most of these good old boys went to the same private schools and colleges as the elites. As for liberal condescention, check out Tucker Carlson describing your point in reverse.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=bnXImj4_OJ0
What really sucks is that true Republicans (minus the flaming right wingers) and true Democrats (minus the dim-witted liberals) could agree on a lot if this "cultural" garbage was off the table.
"the metropolitan liberal, in my experience, regards overt religious identity as vulgar..."
Only if the religion in question is one of the more whitebread Christian denominations, or Orthodox Judaism. Catholicism is tolerated, as long as it isn't too doctrinaire, and the black churches are also considered "OK" as long as their adherents vote Democratic. Of course, overt expression of most non-Christian religious faiths is actively encouraged by the Left, because, well, the history of oppression and all that, and multiculturalism is wonderful, etc.
I am amazed that Obama supporters can keep referring to the "hicks in the sticks" as parochial in one breath and suggest that they will build the "bridge to tomorrow" where unity and respect will return to our country.
Sure, it is easy to see the contempt that Republicans sometimes express for "liberal values". And it is easy to see how this can be used as an excuse to be disrespectful and condescending in return. But Obama, and presumably his followers, are running on "change" and, at least with regard to the continuing war of disrespect, are offering nothing better than the same old tit-for-tat which is spiralling out of control in this country.
It is the liberals who beat the drum for the virtues of diversity in this country. And it is liberals who seem to be anxious to embrace nearly every kind of idea and lifestyle except those that they identify with conservatives and conservatism. Whether they like it or not, the "cultural war" is not a symmetrical battle. Liberalism, by its very nature, presents itself as open minded and willing to embrace diversity. It loses that war by default when it presents itself as small, narrow minded and intolerant. Becoming the intolerant obverse of a coin with an intolerant conservative on the other side pretty well destroys the distinction that liberals claim for themselves.
If Obama loses this election it will be, more than any other thing, a reflection of the sense by the rubes who live in "red" counties that the "change" that is being touted is simply a change in who gets to take their turn on top. Surely, there is nothing in the rhetoric which paints those of us who live in flyover country as parochial idiots who "cling to God and guns" to suggest that the people who espouse such ideas even remotely know us -- or could possibly represent us.
Clive, would you mind commenting on how the GOP and its commentators have spent a long time accusing those who disagree with them of lack of patriotism? Yes, you may find some lack of sympathy for red-neck conservatives among liberals of a Harvard persuasion - but do you consider the GOP's racism, smear-mongering and abuse of patriotism to be acceptable? How do you feel about the Republican dismissal of expertise and competence? Don't you see them as rather more problematic?
THE 60's ARE OVER.
My generation (born in the late 70's) really wants to move on from this partisan bullshit. We deal with class, race, and cultural differences much differently. We want to debate what technologies are best to reduce our energy consumption and pollutants instead of debating whether climate change is man made or not. We want to talk about how to get people health insurance without breaking the bank.
Do we get to talk about these things? No. Because older generations are so busy bickering about bullshit that divides us, we never get a chance to debate solutions.
Ugh. Ugh. Ugh. Stop the madness!
i don't have much to say that hasn't already been said here, but I'd like to mention that I appreciate your (Crook's) focus on respectful discussion of the actual issues. I identify most with libertarians and have tended to vote Dem over the past 8 years (since I was able to).
Maybe this is only because I am not a red-stater, stereotypical or otherwise - immigrant middle class NY/NJ public school product here - but I've always felt more talked-down-to by Republicans than Democrats. The lies about very serious things have piled up higher and higher and higher. The irony is that without certain class-based and sometimes race-based undercurrents, and without the hypocrisy with regard to limited government, fiscal responsibility, national defense as opposed to foreign aggression and chronic interventionism, and individual liberty and responsibility - that is, if they believed their (pre-2008, without the overt religiousity) platforms - I would happily be a Republican.
Yes, the bi-coastal liberal establishment tends to view the rest of the country somewhat condescendingly and wonders why those people choose to vote against their own interests.
While the GOP respects those patriotic Americans enough not to bother them with boring facts, endless policy details, or even the truth about why they do what they do.
Surely the one is worst than the other, right? But which?
Basically your column seems to argue that it doesn't matter what the Dems say or advocate; it is their smug attitude is that turns people off. One could read that as an acknowledgment that the GOP's strategy of pandering to emotional issues that aren't really solvable in a legislative framework is a successful approach.
In other words, be nice and tell the people you agree with them, and then do whatever you want when they aren't looking.
If that's the case and the voters of this country value rhetoric and flag-waving over sound policy and actual compassion, then perhaps the mocking of the elite is justified.
or, in less words: Nathan's pretty much right. I want to grab all these politicians and say, "you're spending our money to insult our intelligence! get to the real point, gentlemen. (or ladies.)" the only time these people whom Crook is criticizing are representative of everyone else in NYC, for example, is when they succeed Coulter-style in whipping us up into an indignant, thought-free frenzy. I guess it would be funny if people didn't sometimes go into the voting booths with this attitude; nevertheless, i maintain that the boors on both sides are not representative, and hopefully, we'll drown them out.
by the way: how many of us were initially energized about this election season because of anticipation that, in Obama and McCain, we had two honorable, intelligent, respectful men who have divergent views about how this country's government should be led, and that the campaigns and debates would reflect that? I'm tired of the nonsense; we need to have these genuine conversations, put everything on the table, hash it out, decide what the heck to do now. I still hold out some hope that we'll have some of this between now and November. There are good ideas in both major parties and some of the major ones, too.
Part of the problem is that the Democrats haven't rethought their approach much. Sure, the Obama team is trying to expand the map and modulate the usual Dem pitch.
But all I hear about from Dems is how much $$$ was raised, what do the polls show. Not much about which policies are working, which need to be changed. This is why Republicans keep getting mileage out of taxes, abortion, gay marriage, affirmative action, etc. They're hitting a still target.
The Republicans are now ossifying like the Democrats, offering up nothing but golden oldies. But at least they try to shapeshift, if only for show (how else can you understand McCain/Palin?).
Speaking as a registered Dem: the Dems need to realize that cash and anti-Bush sentiment are not the keys to a realignment. They're only stepping stones. If they really want to be the "party of change and hope," they need to actually CHANGE aspects of themselves.
They could swallow their pride, open up and ask evangelicals to help fight poverty, global warming, corporate/cultural libertarianism run amuck, prison rape, etc. Or ask libertarians/fiscal conservatives to push against the drug war, nanny state social conservatism, anti-gay measures, etc.
But they won't. Even if they weren't nuzzling up to Wall Street and tech investors, they would dismiss "the rubes" as gun-fondlers and Jesus-heads in thrall to Republicans forever.
Their loss...
I grew up in rural NH in a town of 600 people, in retrospect, I would guess 90% Republican. The town was so small three grades shared a one room school house. Hunting season was known by the array of deer gutted in every front yard, and the mud season was heralded by enlarged truck clearances. My mom ran the local food pantry and had graduated from Keene State College (not Harvard or Yale) and my stepfather was a stone mason who graduated from Boston University (not Harvard or Yale). While she was pregnant with me (at age 19) she worked at the local Dunkin Donuts. In the election of 1984-5, I was 7. We had a mock election in the classroom, and I was the only one who didn't "vote for Reagan" by the time I got off the school bus at the end of the day, I had endured so much harassment and mocking from the other students on the bus, I was crying so hard I couldn't speak. In 1989, my parents voted for Jesse Jackson in the primary, and when I talked about that in class, the teacher mocked me and said my parents were crazy. And in between each election, I marched in the band on Memorial Day, waved flags at the 4th of July picnic, and did the bus trips to Concord and Lexington to learn about the Founding Fathers.
All this talk of "liberal condescension" is a blanket statement that is, in my view, total BS. So here's my gross generalization: Republicans always think they're opinions are fact and use that that puffed up self-confidence to insult liberals willy-nilly to the point of forgetting that we live in communities together.
I am a mixed bag in all of this - professional post-graduate degree, but all of it at state schools; midwestern, but very liberal.
Certainly, I understand and appreciate the concern that some liberals speak in harshly condescending terms of Republicans, conservatives, southerners, etc. But this phenomenon has certainly been put through a megaphone by Republican political operatives for exaggerated effect. Similarly, when Ralph Reed and Jerry Falwell organized the fundamentalist right, it was in their interest to exaggerate ("War on Christmas!") because instilling in followers a victim complex is a great fundraising device.
Along those lines, however, I heartily agree with those above who note that the mirror image of this alleged liberal fault is the right accusing us of not having "family values," not "loving our country," being "soft" and "weak" and "coddling terrorists" -- just this past weak Sarah Palin took a seriously stretched shot at Obama claiming his only concern about terrorists was whether they would be read their rights.
Which brings me to the one point I haven't seen made that I think is a big part of this issue. It is true that liberals should be big enough and smart enough to not take the bait, but much of the condescending is a direct response to what is seen as a rabid anti-intellectualism (explained well in "Nixonland.") When GW Bush brags about being a C-student, that may relate well to the masses, but some of us who sit with our kids at night encouraging them to work hard on their homework and get good grades don't see that as an ideal example. When he repeatedly has political operatives override panels of scientists on technical issues, we see that as fundamentally wrong. And we decry the notion that facts are malleable (didn't it used to be conservatives who railed against relativism?) When the right insists on brochures at the Grand Canyon suggesting the Earth is only 6000 years old, or the right supports teaching creationism in science we cringe: having top notch learning in the fundamental building blocks of biology and geology and understanding - not deriding - hard sciences are the key to global competitiveness for generations to come. Since when is intellectualism a bad thing? And for that matter, is there really something so bad about a little elitism? I love my friends and family, but there are very, very few I think are ready to handle the enormous complexity of running the largest economy and most powerful military in the world.
When faced with such anti-intellectualism, I think one (unfortunate) response is to self-segregate with a certain intellectual snobbery. But in fairness, I don't think any response would really matter: the Nixon/Atwater/Rove progeny would continue to insist that intellectual elites are bad, leading the public to vote for anti-elites who are easily led in governance by less public elites like Wolfowitz, etc. who do their thing behind the scenes.
The bottom line for me, however, is this: Surely it is not considered insufferably elite to simply expect that fellow voters accept that 2+2=4 or that the sun rises in the East? Yet much of the Bush/Rove style has been to say the opposite, dare the left to call them on it, and then run against them as whining elites who correct you while looking down their noses. What is the solution the non-liberals would propose?
I think Mr. Crook has stated the problem pretty well. But I don't think he has stated the solution. And I'm not sure there is a solution.
Here's why. The people who are sneered at don't deserve that, but the rest of the country doesn't deserve policies based on gut reaction and unexamined, uncritical faith, when more considered alternatives are available. As Daniel Moynihan (speaking of your elites..) said, "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." Yet when confronted with facts, the low-information voters, the faith-based community, yes, the red-state masses, tend to put their fingers in their ears and shout "nyah nyah, can't hear you!" It's a human reaction, but not an adult one. It's also a terrible corruption of faith - adherence to a position in defiance of observable reality isn't faith, it's idiocy. And refusal to learn the facts, a stubborn reliance on instinct, an unconquerable incuriousity, is stupidity.
To encapsulate the argument by example of one red-hot current topic: What is one to do with a parent (or a bloviating preacher) who insists that "Intelligent Design" should be taught as a valid alternative to scientific evolution? Ignoring them is disrespectful. Attempting to show them what's wrong with their argument is taken as an attack on their faith. But acceding to them does a disservice to their kids and the entire society. What fourth way is possible?
Granted that not every issue lends itself to such a neat dichotomy. (Abortion rights vs. fetal life is one where the facts are not so clear.) But I think there are more examples than not where the "elites" have study, evaluation, judgment and fact on their side, and the opposition has emotions and faith. If we can't have a fact-based discussion about teaching evolution, or about tax policy, or Saddam's WMDs, or global warming, or the presumption of innocence... If the act of studying an issue turns one into an elitist egghead, and we don't listen to elitist eggheads, how is a society supposed to solve problems?
Arrogance is an occupational hazard for intellectuals, no dispute. But where is the opprobrium for closed-minded, arrogantly defiant ignorance?
I'm sorry, but anyone who voted to reelect Bush in 2004 just to spite the highly-educated liberal coast-dwellers looking down on him IS an idiot, and deserves my condescension. Maybe it was different fifteen or twenty years ago, but anyone who votes for the modern GOP in all its wasteful, incompetent, torture-loving, gay-hating form is either stupid or evil... and I prefer to think that this country is 50% dumb, rather than 50% evil.
Yep. I believe you. And that Sarah Palin opposed the Bridge to Nowhere All Along. And that McCain is a man of Honor.
I am a certifiable imbecile. Why else would I read you?
I am a doctoral candidate in the humanities at Yale. I grew up outside Boston. I went to prep school. So I'm definitively (Eastern) Liberal Elite. I ought to be well placed to hear the condescension that Crook talks about here. Honestly, I don't hear it.
I wish Crook had offered more specific examples of liberal condescension, more quotations, because I'm left wondering exactly whom he's talking about (besides Bill Maher, who's hardly a mainstream voice). Ted Kennedy? John Kerry? Hillary or Bill? Crook's own liberal friends? Is anecdotal evidence sufficient grounding for the broad claims he's making?
Allow me to offer my own anecdotal evidence. My young academic liberal-elite Democrat peers are mostly just sad about the virulence and shallowness of political discourse, and very worried about the future of the country. They recognize that many people in the "flyover states" have beliefs that differ considerably from their own, and they disagree with those people; but disagreement is not the same thing as disdain. I'd add that some of these liberal peers are devout Christians, and some of them have family in "red" America: the boundaries are not as clear-cut as the inflated partisan rhetoric implies.
Certainly there are obnoxious, self-righteous zealots on both sides of the political spectrum; but it seems to me that the image of the disdainful elitist liberal is so prominent these days largely because it features centrally in Republican talking points. The violent hatred expressed in Republican anti-intellectual/anti-elitism speeches shocks me anew every time I hear it. If there is antagonism between so-called liberal intellectual elites and "red" or "small-town" America, isn't it possible that those liberals are simply responding to constant and explicit insults from Republican politicians and talking heads?
I recognize that all this is open to dispute, but I feel strongly that it's worth putting in my two cents against what I believe to be in large part a pernicious myth. I agree with Crook that there needs to be more understanding between currently opposed factions, but I don’t think we can achieve such understanding simply by echoing Republican allegations of disdainful elitism amongst Democrats.
Some good comments and analysis here. Yet the reaction that Republicans are just as bad as the Democrats is I think off subject, even if fair.
I BELIEVE CCs MAIN POINT IS THAT DEMS ARE LOSING ELECTIONS DUE TO THEIR CONDESCENDING ATTITUDES.
If Obama cant change this in a hurry and win Ohio and Michigan in a few weeks, I'll be thinking he really blew the election.
Palin is challenging Obama's chances in those and other states because she's equally as charasmatic.
Obama can win on substance; which is to actually explain why his policies will be better for middle America. Hmmmm, are they?
Mr. Crook, I have to take issue with your failure to bring up the hateful, belittling, mean-spirited and ignorant speeches at the RNC.
They all professed to deplore educated, cosmopolitan people (that's you, sir! not just others! you yourself are educated and cosmopolitan!), mocked community organizers (Why? just because they wanted to be bullies?), and beat the drum of fear and hate. They glorified killing and attack.
Do they really believe all of their own tripe?
probably not.
They're just laughing in their sleeves at the gullibility of some in the electorate.
Are you too?
Or do you really believe it?
Mr. Crook for a very smart fella I am surprised you don't see what has happened here.
Rovarian style politics has very successfully revived a down and dirty culture war.
Tessa said above that her generation is tired of these old fights, that they think differently and want to find solutions to the real problems facing this nation.
I belong to the boomer generation and can only pray that there are more of Tessa's generation than there are of mine with our feet stuck in the old fights of the '60s.
This country is 300million strong. This country is made up of all strains, stripes and models in between the hard label *red neck hick* and *liberal elite*. This country is facing serious problems in need of serious leadership that ALL of her citizens deserve their voice.
Engaging in the culture wars simply plays to the two hard extremes and once again leaves all the rest of us out of the discussion.
I beg you Mr. Clive listen to those of us in the middle. It doesn't matter where we live in this country or what our beliefs are, it's our needs as a nation, all 300million of us, that need to be addressed.
Use your pulpit to convey the urgency of not engaging in this sort of culture war. Please.
The problem is that the electoral college gives an enormous advantage to people living in low-population, mostly rural states, allowing Republicans, who have had a natural advantage in those states since the 1920s (and in the South since the 1960s), to run elections without appealing to the roughly 225 million Americans that live in metropolitan areas.
If we got rid of the electoral college, and had a true national election, all the articles would be about why Republicans have such trouble connecting with urban residents, instead of focusing our attention on the 9 million or so who live in the 10 least populated states.
As a lifelong Democrat who was reared in an Evangelical denomination, and who lives in one of the smallest, reddest states, I appreciate Mr. Crook's comments. While watching Olbermann on Monday evening, I was struck by the tone of the reporting of Ms. Palin's denomination and church, i.e. "speaking in tongues, laying on of hands, praying for God's will and direction", and less as to how this would impact her public decisions. Whether you want to admit it or not, most Americans do believe in a Supreme Being, and most Americans believe that this deity does interact with their lives. Because of this, attacking how these people choose to worship their God is very counterproductive. It would be much better if everyone would focus on how their religious beliefs, or lack thereof, would effect their public policy rather than how their belief's are "weird" or out of the main stream of thinking. I don't know how to say this, but to just say it, there are millions of believers out there who just don't believe that people who live on the coastal areas "get it." I'm not defending it, that's just the way it is, but as long as the political rhetoric makes people believe they have to defend their individual religious beliefs, this is going to continue.
You say that the liberal "regards overt religious identity as vulgar, and evangelical Christianity as an infallible marker of mental retardation."
Speaking as a liberal, my religious identity *is* overt: it's Catholic. My friends are just as open about their Presbyterian, Unitarian, and Congregationalist affiliations, among others. My Jewish friends celebrate their religion openly as well.
Unfortunately, none of these religious denominations are valid according to evangelical Christianity. If they were, John McCain would be running for president as a pro-life Episcopalian (see: John Danforth). Why isn't he? Why does he have to schlep to a Baptist church a couple of times a year to prove his religious bona fides?
Evangelicals harass Jewish cadets at the Air Force Academy who are overt about their faith.
Evangelical universities overtly call Catholicism a cult. Evangelicals overtly made it clear to the GOP that Mitt Romney's Mormonism wasn't going to fly. Evangelicals send missionaries to countries like Croatia to overtly bring people to Christ who were *already* brought to Christ centuries ago.
And they think we insult THEIR faith?
/agree Tessa
Thank god we have someone to address important issues like "Dems are so SNOBBY", instead of, the economy, healthcare, foreign affairs, and constitutional law.
I am a liberal. I'm middle class and live in Baltimore in a run down struggling neighborhood. I went to a third tier mediocre school (the only one in my family ever to go to college) out west before coming back home. I say this because I understand the smugness you're talking about. And it ain't only in the Dem party. I mean, Donald Rumsfeld for chrissakes! Cheney and his smirk. Bush and company have looked and talked down to us for 8 long years.
And evangelicals? They've been telling us who's going to hell and who's not. You can get more self righteous than that man. So what if some snooty ass Waldorf Moms, or snobby jack-ass lawyers judge you? Grow some and brush it off. I have.
I don't have to personally identify with my politicians because- newsflash!- I'm not qualified to run this country. Let them be snobby so long as I can breath clean air and get a decent wage. Get your priorities straight dude. This ain't the playground.
One of the exciting aspects of Obama's victory over Clinton is Obama's grass-roots candidacy. Many of Obama's early supporters were 2004 "Deaniacs" who have spent the past four years trying to wrest control of the Democratic Party away from the very out-of-touch people that Clive describes in his article. There is still a long way to go (control is never given up easily), but Obama is definitely the candidate and party spokesman that can help get the Democrats back to what made them strong in the past and can spread their appeal beyond the coasts.
We former Deaniacs have been just as frustrated with the Democratic Party's concentration on the coast, and the acceptance by its leadership for such limited appeal. The primary campaign between Obama and Clinton was not just a battle for the nomination, but a referendum of sorts on Howard Dean's 50-state strategy, which, contrary to McAuliffe, Carville, et al, is working.
Obama needs to continue his main message that the campaign is "all about you." That message is what attracted so many supporters from the beginning, and will carry him to victory in November.
I have to disagree, Obama and Clinton represent all the worst tendencies of the Democratic Party, its penchant for identity politics and its ongoing inability to tell the difference between a liberal and a centrist. Anyone who thinks that Obama is anything but the most liberal presidential candidate since George McGovern hasn't looked at his record.
Why did Clinton get elected? Because he ran a centrist campaign that did not pander to the left.
Having lived in DC I absolutely understand that the 'inside the beltway' mentality does exist, it is divorced from reality, things that are huge among DC insiders barely cause a ripple in the rest of the country, it is why so often long time politicians misjudge the mood of the country, and it is made worse when their consultants all also live in DC.
Look at the past several elections. Jimmy Carter, governor, outsider. Ronald Reagan, governor, outsider. George HW Bush, vp. Bill Clnton, governor, outsider. George W. Bush, governor, outsider. See the trend?
That is part of Palin's appeal.
You've got to love the guy who was driven out of the Democratic Party by an elitist who grew up as the son of a Midwestern Methodist minister, flew 35 bomber missions in WWII, won the Distinguished Flying Cross, got a degree in history, raised a family, promoted government programs that bought American crops to send to starving people in the rest of the world, and came from that hotbed of liberalism: South Dakota; preferring instead a Republican who'd turned his wartime poker winnings into a Congressional campaign then Red-baited his way onto the VP ticket at the age of 39, and got elected president on a "secret plan" to win the Vietnam war in '68 (and didn't do it).
Sounds logical to me.
I am an atheist, and a libertarian democrat. But, I find it next to impossible to get along with most liberal democrats because of their absolutely condescending attitudes.
On the other hand, and ironically enough, I get along famously with religious fundamentalists and Republicans. Last night I had dinner with my ultra-conservative, Republican voting, friends--I joke with them that the husband is Archie Bunker through and through. He, in turn, jokes that I am "meathead". We joke around, but absolutely no looking down on the other.
I suppose that with country-club conservatives and social conservatives, there is no pretense. We have a fairly accurate idea of what the country-club folks think about themselves and others. But, with liberal democrats, it is more often than not the case that it is one thing in San Francisco, and another in Scranton.
On many different occasions I have heard liberal democrats in the same room comment, "if they are so smart, how come they are Republicans?". They really believe that only idiots belong to the Republican Party. Coming from that perspective, of course they are going to be condescending, eh!
For what it's worth, I have never met anyone who thinks "Flag-waving patriotism is a joke and an embarrassment."
Ever.
Re: my previous post, this seems like a leftover sentiment from the flag-burning days of The Sixties.
My generation is looking forward to a time when political power has completed shifted away from the bitter baby boomers.
We've HAD IT. I'm serious. If you guys can't find common ground soon, be prepared for mobocracy. Kiss your precious parties goodbye, and with them the tired, meaningless, petty, get-nowhere rhetoric of days gone by.
How much more do you expect us to take?
I hope you don't collapse under the sheer irony of posting this after McCain has essentially painted Obama as a pervert who wants children to be sexualized. In the parlance of the medium: EPIC FAIL.
I'm from a small, southern, conservative town. If you think that "liberals" have a monopoly on disrespect and looking down their noses at their counterparts, I'd venture to say you don't spend a lot of time with the sort of red staters on whose behalf you seem to be taking offense.
I eagerly await your follow up post talking about how McCain and conservatives need a few lessons in respect after the race-baiting, disgrace of a campaign they have run, so disgusting that it has managed to convince your colleague Andrew Sullivan that McCain himself isn't even an honorable man.
Add me to your count of non-Democrats supporting Obama who are very aware of the arrogance on the left. After reading your article I posted a piece about it on Daily Kos which promptly got dumped in a pile of manure. (There were a few nice commenters; but I ended up deleting it because enough of it was too unpleasant to want to keep it around).
That has led me to a new insight. It's not just that the left oozes an attitude towards religious, small town types; it's also that the left is insanely angry about Bush's win -- and they HATE the people who voted for him. Among the rank and file, that's morphed the usual arrogance into outright hatred. The people at Daily Kos were more interested in reviling me for having voted for Bush, than in accepting me because I've gotten so fed up with the Republicans that I'm voting for Obama this year. That's not exactly a good attitude to have if your aim is to persuade the middle to come over to your side.
I also appreciated your discernment that Obama is not at all a part of this. Indeed, that's very much what made it possible for me to cross the big cultural divide and vote blue this year. And I'm glad that you share my reaction to Obama's 'bitter' remarks. That was such an unpleasant episode cause he was being tagged with a label that was the exact opposite of what he's about.
The conservative cult of victimology is totally shameless. The modern GOP stands for nothing except regional bigotry and cultural resentment against "eastern elites," hating the same people Al-Qaeda hates and for largely the same reasons.
I am sick and tired of being told I'm destroying the moral fiber of this country because I don't pray enough and don't watch enough Nascar. And I'm sick and tired of those arguments being used to elect right-wing anti-science extremists who run on a platform of church-and-bedroom socialism and redistribution of wealth towards well-connected CEOs.
Conservative "culture warriors" hate America--or at least, half the people who live there. Don't talk to me about "condescension" until you've lost friends on 9/11 and then get told by your (alleged) fellow countrymen that it was actually your own fault because you didn't pray enough. That's what conservatism means to me and, probably, to a great deal of the post-Boomer generation. Over half of Americans live in large cities. The crowd at the RNC could not possibly have been older and whiter if it were an Al Jolson fan club meeting. So enjoy the regional bigotry and the reheated Vietnam-era culture war rhetoric while it lasts. It will die with the Baby Boomer generation, and neither will be much missed.
The sad thing is that a lot of the posts on this topic are basically liberal elites defending their right to be condescending to conservatives for any number of reasons....they did it first, they really are anti intellectual fools, but the Republicans are liars. Very few have acknowledged that the mindset on the coasts is different from that of the rest of the country. It is what it is.
I've also been taken aback by the vehemence of Obama's supporters who do seem to "hate" all Republicans and take any deviation from the party line as treasonous. It took me a long time to understand why conservatives consider liberals to be the real fascists, but I finally came around to seeing their point. Liberals are tolerant of other viewpoints only if those views involve multiculturalism or minority groups of one sort or another, it does not extend to 'traditional' American values or typical Red State Americans. You are going to find more understanding and tolerance for Islamic radicalism than for evangelical Christianity.
I think your idea is false and is dangerous. False in that the kind of true condencension you are talking about is rare and confined to the fringes of radical academia.
Dangerous in that the republicans are more than happy to take your idea and use it as an excuse to tell smears and outright lies regarding liberals and the leaders of the Democratic Party, as John McCain is doing right now.
May I suggest to you that you have consfused genuine honest anger and frustration with condecension. There is a lot for ordinary rank and file Democrats to be angry about right now. Don't confuse that for something else.
My generation is looking forward to a time when political power has completed shifted away from the bitter baby boomers. We've HAD IT. I'm serious.
Yes. And they know it. Why do think that voter registration "hijinks" and intimidation has done a switcheroo from racial minorities to college students?
The economy is an ELECTION ISSUE.
Health care is an ELECTION ISSUE.
National security is an ELECTION ISSUE.
Vietnam and Woodstock are HISTORICAL EVENTS OF THE INCREASINGLY DISTANT PAST.
I don't care if Boomers want to fight ad infinitum over who went to Nam and who protested it , but we cannot let them run the U.S. into the ground while they do it. We've got problems to solve, guys. Take it someplace else.
Clive,
Read Thomas Frank's op-ed in today's WSJ (of all places) and get a grip about how your party really views "small-town America." Republicans' arrogant confidence that small-town people will fall for shoutouts to them and their "values" while their platform continues to undermine their interests is despicable.
Also your discussion of Democrats supposed disdain for flag-waving and religion is stereotypical in most deluded right-wing talk radio sort of way and the presence of this sort of "insight" here at the Atlantic greatly discourages me.
I believe the 'elitism' and 'lack of respect' you write about regarding Sarah Palin is NOT directed at her or people from small towns at all. Rather the horror and disbelief your're hearing are aimed squarely at John McCain for behaving so recklessly in selecting ANY PERSON with such thin credentials and minimal federal experience. The righteous indignation comes NOT from Sarah Palin being a hockey mom, but DIRECTLY from John McCain's pure disregard for our nation's security. Palin is a pawn in this big political game - although she sure seems to be enjoying herself. Your respect argument is misplaced - this uproar isn't about Palin. Everything is about McCain.
I don't see how Sarah Palin can be unqualified to be VP when she has more direct executive experience than Obama does. This is nothing more than one in a long line of rationalizations coming from Democrats on why they are "justified" in attacking her.
Let's rewind history for a moment. What exactly did Bill Clinton have as far as "foreign policy and "national security" credentials or "federal experience" as governor of the backwater state of Arkansas? That's right. He didn't have any. Neither did Jimmy Carter.
Let's look at Sarah Palin. She was elected governor of the largest state in the country and has an 80% approval rating, Alaska has a huge surplus, she gave oil money back to the taxpayers [just like Obama wants to], her personal expenses are 20% of what the previous governor's expenses were. She put the Alaska budget on line. Call me crazy, but this looks pretty good.
The uproar is absolutely 100% about Palin because the Democrats didn't expect it, and they didn't expect the overwhelmingly positive response that she has generated. So, they're trying to destroy her in the best tradition of Karl Rove, by false, scurrilous, misleading and personal attacks.
Why did Clinton get elected? Because he ran a centrist campaign that did not pander to the left.
...and McCain's pick of Palin wasn't a huge pander to the right??
Sure McCain's pick of Palin was a pander to the right, he needs the right to get elected and some of the center.
The Democrats need more of the center to get elected than the Republicans do, which is why Democratic candidates that are too liberal, too esoteric always lose.
I have said for the last two years if the Democrats nominated a conservative/centrist they would have walked away with a landslide, John McCain as war hero or not.
But, instead, the campaign came down to three super liberals, and ultimately showed the party's identity politics for the divisive sham that they are. Today, the Republican Party that has run this country into the ground for 8 years is dead even with the Democrats.
So, they're trying to destroy her in the best tradition of Karl Rove, by false, scurrilous, misleading and personal attacks.
No, they are just laying out her record as governor and mayor. If the "attacks" are false and misleading then she should be aching to get up in front of the press and defend herself. Let's hear what she has to say about foreign policy. Why won't her campaign allow her to speak for herself?
By the "direct executive" experience argument, that means that she was qualified to be VP on her second day as Governor of Alaska. After all, that gave her 2 days more of "direct executive" experience than Obama, Biden, and McCain put together!
Regarding foreign policy: Obama sits on the Foreign Relations committee, and Biden is the chair. The foreign policy chops of the Democratic ticket is head and shoulders above the Republican ticket - McCain's experience notwithstanding.
Pray tell, what scrutiny of her record is considered a "false, scurrilous, misleading and personal attack?"
You asked for a list:
1) Personal Attack: Rumors, that have been widely reported, though wholly unsubstantiated that her youngest son was her daughter Bristol's and she faked her pregnancy to hide the, I can only assume, shame of a 17 year old being pregnant. This rumor, though soundly debunked is still circulating.
2) Personal Attack: Media frenzy over her minor daughter's pregnancy including 3 New York Times stories, the sex life of a minor eclisping all other campaign issues reported under the guise that it was 'relevant' because of her stance on sex education and as a 'family values' candidate.
3) Misleading: It appears that she did kill the bridge to nowhere [see Marc Ambinder's posting of McCain's memo], and more ironically that Obama voted for it, while McCain voted against it. The long list of details including media stories and Democrats saying she killed the bridge is hilarious.
4) Misleading: She did and is on record as reducing earmarks for Alaska, so whether or not Alaska gets earmarks or not, she has reduced them as she said she would.
5) False: She supported Pat Buchanan, she was a member of the Alaska secessionist party, she banned any books.
6) Misleading: The troopergate coverage almost always fails to mention that the trooper in question tasered a 10 year old and that the official in question has no evidence other than his belief that he was fired because of the trooper.
7) Misleadindg: Her alleged inappropriate per diem expenses....her expenses are 80% less than the previous governor's so forgive me if I don't see a scandal there.
It appears that she is exactly what John McCain says she is, a fiscal conservative who took on entrenched Alaska powers and won and who has cut expenses and earmarks.
There is plenty for a moderate to dislike about Palin's policies, but creating false scandals by faling to report the context of anything in the end will only hurt the Democrats.
Libertarian, I'm afraid you are drifting into talking points just to make your case. Palin did not kill the bridge to nowhere. Not even close. She didn't kill it, she didn't reduce the amount, she in no way did anything that an avid supporter of the project wouldn't do. And now she is lying about it. Repeatedly. She didn't say "thanks but no thanks", she didn't say "we'll bridge ourselves if we want one." It's a good old fashioned lie. You discredit some of your other good analysis by repeating it.
On other issues,
-- Pat Buchanan himself says she did support him, that she was a footsoldier. Certainly her social politics (insofar as we are allowed to know about them since she can't do interviews,) would suggest affinity.
--She didn't ban books because she can't. She did ask the librarian if she would remove books if she asked her to, the librarian said no, and she fired her. Draw your own conclusion, but a simple "false" to this one seems disingenuous.
--She wasn't a member of the Alaska secessionist party, but she did attend and address conventions, and her husband did belong. Not a big deal to me, but again, it's not like there's nothing there.
--personal "attacks" regarding hidden pregnancy. Come on. Do you really think there is any way secret 17 year old pregnancies (and Palin's own pregnancy which she hid for 7 months) are not going to get a ton of play in today's media? That isn't any kind of liberal or conservative thing, that's a purient society thing.
--troopergate: First, the son asked the father to taser him as a stunt. Shouldn't have done it, but the way it's been played by the Palin's is at best extremely misleading and has caused a judge in the case to issue cease and desist on the Palins. And she did pretty clearly abuse her power, even if you want to argue that the guy was a dirtbag and deserved it. A libertarian should be particularly sensitive to that.
So I'll give you at best #4 and #7. On the rest I'd say you are pretty far afield.
"There is plenty for a moderate to dislike about Palin's policies"
Not really. There is simply very little policy there at all. She has no stated positions on any foreign policy issues. I agree that what there is, isn't moderate, and should be simply anathema to a libertarian.
What you CAN say is that in both her positions she raised taxes, and in one she left a hefty municipal debt. You can say that she thinks women who are raped should be forced to carry the rapist's child to term. And I'd think you'd be a little shocked by that. And I'm sorry, but you can say that she is either simply lying or parsing in some very odd way when she says "I told congress thanks, but no thanks on that bridge to nowhere." Why is she simply allowed to lie? Maybe she means she said "thanks" when they offered it, then "no thanks" when they took it away, then "we'll build the bridge ourselves if we want it" when she took the money for other projects?? I dunno. Looks like a lie to me.
1) READ the McCain memo Marc Ambinder posted on this web site and then come back and tell me who is lying about her record on the bridge to nowhere. It lists the history of what she did and her statements about the bridge from 2006 to 2007.
Are you seriously saying that you think any governor in his or her right mind would send back money to the federal government that they could use for their own state? She took the money like the 49 other governor's would have done, but no bridge was built.
Do most governors have positions on foreign policy? It would seem a little above their pay grade, wouldn't it? Being that they are state level officials. This is what I'm talking about, its silly, especially coming from Democrats. What foreign policy positions did Bill Clinton have as governor of Arkansas?
2) She chaired Steve Forbe's Alaska committee so I can't see how she could have been Pat Buchanan's footsoldier at the same time.
3) There has NEVER been this kind of coverage of anything a teenage child of an elected official did that didn't involve something criminal. The lead story? Page one? Give me a break.
4) I do argue that the guy was a dirtbag and deserved it and I don't want anyone who thinks its okay to taser a ten year old because he 'asked for it' having the power of a police officer.
5) From what I can gather she asked for the resignation of almost everyone when she was mayor and then rehired them all the next day, including the librarian who worked there for two more years.
Isn't it disingenious for Obama to criticize her on the bridge to nowhere when he voted for it himself?
I think Palen is a female version of Dick Cheney, but that doesn't mean I agree with her being attacked based on her family or on out of context falsehoods.
If you want to wear the white hat you have to walk the walk. If you want to critize Rovian politics then you can't engage in them yourselves.
I wish I lived in MV's sheltered Sunday School world, but as a graduate of both Harvard and Yale and a Massachusetts resident since then, I've observed a superabundance of jokes, slights and slurs about our culturally disadvantaged fellow citizens in the hinterlands since age 16. Don't tell me it's not real, I live it every day. Heck, I've contributed my fair share of snobbery.
Strip away geography, religion and politics (none of which correlate 100% with this disdain) and you reach the core of a purely cultural hegemony which naturally looks down on the boobeouisie (was that Mencken's term? -- William Jennings Bryan may have been an irreproachable progressive politically but gosh it all, he was a total rube culturally and he could never be one of us, the Smart Set.)
When I feel ashamed of my bullying our less sophisticated brethren, I try to put the blame on the relentless pressure that a 17 year old feels when tossed into a Nietzschean environment in which incredibly talented people are flexing their cultural muscles and the 17 year old looks round for somebody else to feel superior to -- like as not some rube in Kansas. In a godless universe, Nietzsche thought, we may as well make ourselves into works of art. Hence the Harvard narcissism that Ross Douthat describes in his book Privilege.
So far, I've identified a purely cultural snobbery. If that snobbery gets applied in the workaday political arena, it usually is applied by workaday liberals to workaday conservatives because that simply reflects the demographics of those two political persuasions in our country today. (But of course that was not always so. Alexander Hamilton expected that the cultural elite would always gravitate to conservative politics. But that was in the days before the New Class became ascendant.)
Where knee-jerk cultural snobbery fails to convince, however, is in the arena of political ideas. If George Will or the Wall Street Journal edit board advance an idea, it's a pretty pitiful attempt at a refutation to say "well, many of the people who agree with Will or the WSJ on that issue are also creationists, so the WSJ edit board must be idiots." In fact, as a sort of WSJ center-conservative, I'd like to inform you of the three things that make me most disdain a distressing number of the left-liberal posts on blogs like these:
1. The assertion that I must be racist, sexist, homophobic, creationist, etc. -- sorry, not true.
2. The implication that I'm not intellectually on a par with you -- again, sorry, I paid attention to political theory, history and law courses at H/Y, and BTW how many of the posters on this thread even know what Gouldner's New Class theory is, much less are capable of posting a halfway cogent attempt to refute my assertion that the Democratic Party's platform largely panders to the economic interests and will to power of the New Class.
3. The belief that you're holier than other people because you -- let's see -- want to cut your own taxes; want to be decent to minorities, gays, et al. which doesn't cost you anything (and which I practice myself as much as you do); and don't think that a brown skinned person in India should be able to compete for a job against an American, regardless of who is better qualified. Money in your own pocket, cheap grace and xenophobia, it seems to me.
Any takers, other than "I can't refute what you just said, but you must support waterboarding if you think that?" (bzzzz -- wrong again)
Ah, such fun. From the endlessly verbose posts of Libertarian, and the intellectual "name dropper" posts of Ned (PS, Ned, references to odd theories and esoteric acronyms are quite common among the technical classes. After many years working among such people at places like Bell Laboratories, I can ASSURE you that they do NOT constitute thinking).
Anyway, the reason it is such fun, is that they appear to be defending the position that the only people worthy of disdain are liberals, and that it is OK for a conservative "values" kind of person to tell lies as long as someone, SOMEWHERE can be shown to have told lies about THEM.
Of course, "liberals" are defined as anyone appalled by McCain's and the GOP's behavior, no matter what values they live by.
Two points. I am a Christian, and I fully expect to be held accountable for my behavior. Many of the people calling me names --simply because I am tired of being lied to, and of having my increased productivity siphoned to the 1/10 of 1% --appear to believe that they are going to be living for a VERY long time.
I hope they are right. They are going to need it to repent.
Excellent! I wish I understood partisanism as well as some of these writers. I'd be independent except for the outright bullheaded destructiveness of the right. After eight years of "end of the world" leadership I can't believe how lucky we are to have a Barack Obama running for president. What if we had two numbskulls running, the lesser evil choice? If dems seem condescending how could they not with the silly nonsense coming out of Mccain's camp. For the repubs to get any backing at all amazes me.
With the scientists and Mother Nature giving us dire warnings of little time left to correct our mistakes we had better quit being naive and get to work. I would think all americans are sophisticated enough to see through the hype. The rest of the world is.
Oops! My bad.
In 2004 I heard George W. Bush, who claimed to be the President “for everyone” call John Kerry a “Massachusetts Liberal” like it was the dirtiest epithet he could summon. As a Democrat who has spent much of my life in Massachusetts, I did not exactly take this as a signal of “respect.” Mr. Bush more recently called us “angry liberals” at the RNC convention, dripping scorn on the legitimate grievances of yes, liberals, along with about 80% of the American population who doesn’t love where he’s brought us. We are called “elitists” and “latte sipping liberals” if we dare to live in a city or believe in gun control, we’re called unpatriotic if we dare to suggest things could be done better, and we’re called godless degenerates if we don’t believe in merging church and state. Think of the humiliation heaped on John Kerry when he went hunting and apparently didn’t look manly enough, the jokes about his alleged Botoxing (have you seen Giuliani or Schwarzenegger lately?) or, god forbid, the fact that he spoke French. The gall of the man!!!!!! So please don’t talk to me about scorn. The Right (and, of course, as there are for Democrats, there are surely exceptions for Republicans) have spewed contempt at us for years.
I guess I don't really get the point of your article. In my view, the outrage surrounding the choice of Governor Palin had nothing to do with disdain of the middle or working class but with the fact that she is being put in the position of possibly becoming POTUS with zero national security or foreign policy experience. This despite the fact that we are fighting two wars and our standing with the rest of the world is at an all time low. Furthermore, as exhibited by her Fannie/Freddie comments, she also is unaware of the seeds of one of the biggest financial crisises in decades and, despite Republican propaganda that she is a fiscal conservative, has been proven to be a free spender both as Governor (redistributing oil company taxes to people in a populist move) and as mayor of Wasilla (going from no debt to $18 mill in a city of 9k people). The choice by McCain was a cynical and desperate move and any outrage gets marked down as righteous indignation in my book.
Your charges against liberals, especially many in the more liberal MSM, are not without merit, but illustrating your point with the outrage about the Palin pick does not prove it.
The Democrats have really lost their minds.
What foreign policy experience did Jimmy Carter have? Zero.
What foreign policy experience did Bill Clinton have? Zero.
What foreign policy experience did Ronald Reagan have? Zero.
What foreign policy experience did George W. Bush have? Zero.
All of these guys ran and won. They're all governors with executive experience.
When the core of your objections to a candidate run counter to the last two candidates your party has gotten elected, it REALLY smacks of either desperation or of being fully unhinged from reality.
Shorter Clive Crook:
Democrats think that education is a good thing. That is why they fail.
All of these guys ran and won. They're all governors with executive experience.
When the core of your objections to a candidate run counter to the last two candidates your party has gotten elected, it REALLY smacks of either desperation or of being fully unhinged from reality.
Posted by Libertarian | September 11, 2008 9:51 AM
Yes, but Sarah Palin doesn't have any executive experience, either. Remember the 2006 election? That's when she became governor. Before that, she was nobody. And you want to elect her Pesident-in-waiting.
Who's unhinged and desperate?
It is Obama who has NO executive experience. Sarah Palin has been governor of Alaska for 2 years and has an 80% favorability rating and has reduced earmarks between 25-40%, while Obama has requested almost a billion dollars in earmarks.
Sarah Palin is not running for president, if Obama wants to run against her instead of John McCain, that is his choice. So far, it hasn't worked out too well for him. If the media thinks they can destroy her by distorting her record, that is their choice too. So far it hasn't worked out too well, but they did a fine job in destroying Al Gore and John Kerry based on false information, so maybe they can.
I don't care one way or the other, I'm voting for Bob Barr.
What's missing here?
One of the right's complaints about mainstream religious organizations apart from the Southern Baptist Convention and including the Catholic Church apart from abortion, is that they are unabashedly liberal. That tends to be true.
I grew up in the United Methodist Church. The first place I lived when I moved out of my parents house during college was to the Wesley Foundation, a Methodist organization that represents the church on college campuses all over the country. I was introduced to the anti-war movement through Wesley and its affiliations with anti-war Catholics.
When I moved to New York some years later I joined a racially integrated church (not an easy thing to find anywhere) whose history was deeply rooted in the movement for civil rights and in opposition to Vietnam.
My point? There is a long tradition going back at the very least to the abolitionist movement that can be best described as politically liberal that has always found a place in religion and been driven by adherents of many faiths in the largest metropoltan areas of the country on both coasts as well as in the center. Many of the friends I met in college who remain friends to this day, are folks I met in church, most of whom remain active church goers. We do not tend to be evangelicals, and no one I know claims to be born again, but most of us remain in the denominations we grew up in and in many cases still attend the same churches.
It is simply not the case that being a liberal means not being religious any more than being politically conservative means the opposite.
When the core of your objections to a candidate run counter to the last two candidates your party has gotten elected, it REALLY smacks of either desperation or of being fully unhinged from reality.
Well it's true that Carter and Clinton were both governors, just like Palin. However, Palin has not yet completed a full term yet, whereas Carter did; and Clinton served five terms as governor.
It's also untrue that Clinton and Carter had zero foriegn relations knowledge. Carter graduated from the US Naval Academy, and served on ships in the Atlantic and Pacific fleets. Clinton received a BS in Foreign Service at Georgetown, a degree (as a Rhodes Scholar) in Government from Oxford, and a law degree from Yale Law School.
Palin's resume is impressive, but it is a thin resume in comparison. This doesn't mean that she's not capable or prepared. Her experience simply raises questions (and that's okay too).
agree with AKBY
"The Democrats have really lost their minds.
What foreign policy experience did Jimmy Carter have? Zero. What foreign policy experience did Bill Clinton have? Zero. What foreign policy experience did Ronald Reagan have? Zero. What foreign policy experience did George W. Bush have? Zero."
And what did we get from all of these men? We got disastrous foreign policy mistakes and in some cases utterly irresponsible energy and fiscal policies.
The point shouldn't be that they all got elected, the point should involve pointing out what their collective lack of experience did to the country.
Bush has for the first time in our history divorced fiscal policy (taxing and spending) from foreign and defense policy. We've never gone to war before and cut taxes (much less several times) for what I think should be obvious reasons. We've also never engaged in a long war before without increasing the size of our military. As a result we entered into two wars while government income was decreasing. We are on the glide path to national insolvency and our military has too many missions and too few troops.
Clinton did nothing to help stabilize Afghanistan after the fall of the Communist government in 1993 and we got the Taliban. And of course there was Somalia, Rwanda and chaos in the Balkans before he finally intervened.
From Reagan we got a sensible policy towards the Soviet Union but at the same time brutal and pointless policies towards Central America.
And just what was it the Marines were doing in Lebanon in 1983 when so may died, prepping to invade Grenada? We sold weapons to Iran of course, and under Reagan we experienced an explosion in the quantity of oil we import.
From Carter; the destruction of our relationship with Iran as a result of his personal friendship with the deposed Shah; the debacle of the rescue mission, and the arming of religious extremists in Afghanistan.
So tell us why governors with little national level and no foreign policy experience are so good for us.
It is Obama who has NO executive experience. Sarah Palin has been governor of Alaska for 2 years and has an 80% favorability rating and has reduced earmarks between 25-40%, while Obama has requested almost a billion dollars in earmarks.
I'm sorry I took you seriously at first. My mistake.
As one of those Midwestern liberals who's always voted Democratic because there hasn't been any liberal Republican for me to vote for since I started voting in 1990, I find this idea of Liberal condescension to be very odd. Numerous Midwestern states--say like Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Illionois, and Michigan have voted Democratic more often than not in the past 30 years--and apparently there were enough working class liberals who don't feel condescended to living in these states to help them go democratic for all these years..
What made it impossible for me, however, to vote Republican in almost all of these years, was not because the Republican Party often contained deeply religious conservatives.. that's all well and good.. but that the Republican Party never spoke out and even emphasized the language used by religious extremists that declared that I was immoral, unpatriotic, and downright evil because I didn't believe what they did..
I agree that some "coastal" Democrats have been intellectually condescending when they diss the inhabitants of the south and midwest for not thinking like they do.. but the Republicans who align themselves with the most extreme and morally condescending fundamentalists are no better.
Overall--what's worse--to be thought stupid or to be thought evil?
Anyway.. I have to say that I think this is a problem made up in the minds of coastal politicians... I tend to get along better with Midwestern Republicans--even many religious ones--than I do with many Coastal Democrats. I think the "values" amongst midwesterners are shared more ubiquitously amongst all inhabitants here--the same being true for each region of the country--than they are between regions.
Goethean,
Nothing in my post is incorrect.
If you want to be a stickler Palin has been governor for about 18 months and Obama did run the Annenberg educational initiative with no positive results. His earmark requests are on the record, in black and white, as are his votes on the 'bridge to nowhere.' Palin's statements about Alaska reducing earmarks well before this year are on the record as are the reductions in Alaskan earmarks since she became governor. Her approval rating is on the record.
Libertarian, at the risk of sounding like one of those allegedly condescending intellectuals, you are engaging in gross oversimplification and I'll give you credit by saying I suspect you know it. One of the things that frustrates educated progressives are when people like Dubya describe the world in false dichotomies, when all subtlety is dumbed out of discussions. I don't consider that frustration condescending; I consider that frustration an effort to set a reasonable bar for rational discourse.
So lets look at little deeper at the issue, rather than being so superficial about the comparisons. It doesn't take much to see why Palin is much more of a concern than the others you cite.
Palin has never shown any interest, nor had any real need to learn, national - much less international - issues. Where Alaska is both small (in population) and virtually sui generis as a state, Reagan, for example, led a very diverse population and economy whose economic activity is larger than many entire nations.
Clinton (and I would add Dukakis, who has not gotten much mention in this thread) were both governors, but both also chaired the National Governors Association, giving them both exposure to and showing an interest in issues across the nation and which were national in scope.
Carter, of course, was in the Nuclear Navy and travelled the globe in uniform; Palin has barely even experienced other cultures. Not to mention that most people consider Carter and Dubya among the less successful Presidents.
And you note that Obama also has relatively few years of experience; again, a faulty comparison. Obama has been in the US Senate slightly longer than Palin has been governor. But in the US Senate, Obama deals daily with the same portfolio of issues that are before the President - national and international issues that Palin has no exposure to.
But perhaps most important, and totally unique to Palin, is that one can never really know about the adequacy of someone's experience without an opportunity to test it. Perhaps when the campaign started, concerns about Obama's experience were reasonable. During the primaries, he engaged in over 20 debates with not only Clinton but foreign policy experts like Biden, experienced ambassadors like Richardson, domestic policy experts like Dodd, skilled debaters like Edwards, etc. all under our watchful eyes. Had Obama failed on that stage, we would have known. Instead he rose above and beat all challengers. The press has tested him, Americans have seen him up close and asked questions in a nearly 50-state primary campaign. Of everyone you've mentioned, Palin is the only person whose alleged expertise is not only unproven in terms of her resume of education and experience but also is under scrutiny for only 50-some days (and shrinking as they keep her off limits for non-scripted events).
"Trust us" is not compelling from the Rove-led campaign, and is hardly a substantively satisfactory match when comparing Palin to other Presidential candidates or Presidents.
"What I was trying to say is that the liberal elite seems to forget that ordinary Republican-leaning Americans are proud people who want to be treated with some respect, that they are in fact entitled to it, and that their insistence on it is a quintessentially American idea."
When I hear a Democratic candidate speak on national television with the same contempt that I heard Giuliani and Palin speak about Obama - and community organizers, and the left, and even the whole notion of experience and knowlege - then I will give this line of thought some credence.
It's curious that Crook claims that most of the "hundreds of messages" he's received about his FT column support his argument, yet if you read the comments on this post and his previous post, nearly all of them disagree, some from working class Midwesterners and other "non-elitists" who don't feel condescended to, or who feel Republicans are even worse; and others pointing out that respect is a two-way street, and that liberals don't exactly have a monopoly on demonizing people. Maybe it's some kind of elitist guilt thing, where if you're an educated, self-important intellectual idea man like Crook, you can pretend to care about the regular guy so you can deny the embarrassment about who you actually are.
When my doorman in NY told me in Sept 2004 why God had sent us GWB to save us from terrorism, I could only reply, "thank you for the tax cut." The Republican party is a con game in which those who go to church on Sunday, vote to cut the taxes of those who play golf on Wednesday and/or Saturday. Should I applaud the religion-induced self-destructive idiocy of those who prefer the resentful satisfaction of slapping at urban gays they don't know to having decent health care and financial aid to go to send their kids to college? My city was bombed by religious fanatics I think it reasonable to say openly that I don't want to be governed by intolerant provincial theocrats until recently without a passport who say the earth is 5000 years old and that the Iraq war was task given to us by God. It is as impolitic as it is true to say that secular voters are emotionally and intellectually freer to vote their own interests.
This regime has done well by me, but it's reached the point of "apres moi le deluge". Hold your yen, oil and gold; fear is still underpriced.
Mr Crook
This is a caricature of a serious column. The alleged Democrat views you present are about as accurate and a srepresentative as if you were to posit the disdain for the masses of yuppie investment banker master of the universe types as representative of the Republican Party (or, for that matter, of investment bankers).
I've been a professor for 20 years, before that I was in government and jurnalism. Have I ever met a person with opinions like the ones you've described? Certainly, but not often. Indeed no more often than the master of the universe types I reference above.
I repeat sir, your column is a bad caricature. Caricature is the staple of 2nd rate political cartoonists, I guess we can file your column(s) in that category.
I agree wholeheartedly with the thrust of the column. I live in Washington (indeed, I work out at the same club as Mr. Crook). I am a conservative in an environment where those who are not actually known to work for Republican politicians are presumed to be fellow "metropolitan liberals." Accordingly, I often overhear the unguarded opinions of the liberal mainstream here in Washington. Bill Maher's expressed views are pretty typical -- read any random comment posted on Wonkette if you want to see how the self-regarding liberal talks when he thinks he is talking to his own tribe. The casually blasphemous contempt for religion is pervasive, along with overt hostility for people who live anywhere other than large cities (or maybe Mendocino County or Vermont). If McCain wins, it will, of course, merely confirm their view that most Americans are stupid and racist. I, for one, hope to enjoy the post-election hyperventilating.