Every political community includes some members who insist that their side has all the answers and that their adversaries are idiots. But American liberals, to a degree far surpassing conservatives, appear committed to the proposition that their views are correct, self-evident, and based on fact and reason, while conservative positions are not just wrong but illegitimate, ideological and unworthy of serious consideration. Indeed, all the appeals to bipartisanship notwithstanding, President Obama and other leading liberal voices have joined in a chorus of intellectual condescension.(snip)This condescension is part of a liberal tradition that for generations has impoverished American debates over the economy, society and the functions of government -- and threatens to do so again today, when dialogue would be more valuable than ever.
Alexander notes 4 narratives that liberals rely on in assessing the policy ideas of conservatives:
1. that there is a vast right wing conspiracy
2. that conservatives have mastered the dark art of manipulating the public to vote against its interests.
3. that conservatives whip up ethnic and racial resentments
4. that conservatives are motivated by emotion and fear, while liberals are driven purely by the purity of
reason.
There is a fifth reason implied in all of the above, but left unstated; liberals like to condescend, especially to the middle class whose concerns they repeatedly profess to champion. Look at someone like Paul Krugman or Paul Begala in full condescension mode. Their eyes absolutely light up! Or, consider Al Gore in full lecture mode - speaking verrrrry sllllllowly and dis*tinct*ly, trying his best to sound like a slightly exasperated professorial father. He loves it, especially when he's warning us about our impending doom! (about which we are sadly, childishly ignorant. Sigh).
Liberals are a self-selecting elite, self-annointed enlightened ones who believe that literally every aspect of American society is hopelessly flawed, and who have endless ranks of "solutions" to the many "crises" that forever confront us, but which never quite seem to wash us away in a Biblical flood of failed tax cuts and "deregulation". If you go to enough meetings, attend enough marches, wear enough pins, put enough bumperstickers on your car, and read the NY Times; you are part of this elect, and qualified to spout off on any subject that crosses your mind. It's the temptation to feel superior without actually doing anything.
Just today, I found two prime examples of liberal condescension without much effort. First, Jacob Weisberg analyzes why our politics is "paralyzed" and concludes it's because Americans are "childish:" Blame the Childish, Ignorant American Public - Not Politicians - For Our Political and Economic Crisis
In trying to explain why our political paralysis seems to have gotten so much worse over the past year, analysts have rounded up a plausible collection of reasons including: President Obama's tactical missteps, the obstinacy of congressional Republicans, rising partisanship in Washington, the blustering idiocracy of the cable-news stations, and the Senate filibuster, which has devolved into a super-majority threshold for any important legislation. These are all large factors, to be sure, but that list neglects what may be the biggest culprit in our current predicament: the childishness, ignorance, and growing incoherence of the public at large.
If you are a liberal politician, there's always someone like Weisberg who will say, "It's not you; it's those stupid voters." As if Americans are sitting around waiting for Mitch McConnell or Scott Brown to "manipulate" them.
Then there's Robert Reich, who wants us to keep our eyes on "big things." I've got a big thing, but would prefer that Reich not look at it: The Necessity of Obamanomics
Alright class, here's your assignment: Look at President Obama's budget proposal, spending freeze, jobs bill, stimulus, tax hikes on upper-income individuals, and proposed deficit commission. Also take a look at the fees he wants to impose on the biggest banks, and his proposed regulations of Wall Street. Look at his stalled trade agenda. Now, explain the big picture.
If you're about to write "more taxes and more spending," you're either not thinking hard enough or you're a Republican running for office this November. (Haw! - ed.)
To see the big picture you need to keep your eye on three big things.
Reich is a good guy, but those are some of the most condescending sentences I've ever read. Even his punctuation has a hectoring tone.
Liberals can count on the die-hard support from one-third of the population, and the die-hard opposition of another third. It's that middle third to which they need to appeal. Call them "independents," "the mushy middle," or "childish." Wonder "what's the matter with Kansas?" It doesn't matter. Their vote is just as good as mine, yours, or Maureen Dowd's. Calling them "ignorant" does no good because we are all ignorant in one way or another. No one can master every scrap of knowledge on which modern American society rests, although liberals have mastered the sort of facile glibness that makes them feel comfortable discussing, say, the propriety of various surgical procedures despite their lacking any sort of medical background.
Anyway, most Americans are more practical than ideological. If an idea doesn't pass a preliminary level of scrutiny, it won't fly. A thousand liberal pundits waving a thousand white papers in the air won't change that. A Senate super-majority won't pass health care reform if the voters - operating against the full weight of the media, political, and intellectual classes - don't believe the government can reduce health care costs while extending health care to all Americans. In the end condescension is all that liberals have left. It is their only consolation when their ideas finally wither in the light.
No comments:
Post a Comment