- This topic has 6 voices and 38 replies.
-
Posts
-
Why are liberals so condescending? This is an interesting piece by a politics Professor at the University of Virginia. It is though provoking but I think he glosses over how many conservatives can be just as dogmatic, if only in reverse, as liberals. The problem in American politics is that neither side really listens to the other. That is one reason I have consistently said we need a viable third party, even if it means they only provide a target for the Republicans and Democrats. Perhaps then a true national conversation could get started instead of the childish he said-she said that now passes for national debate. I sometimes think Frank J at IMAO has a partail point and politicians are like screeching monkeys flinging poo, I differ because I think it is on both sides of the isle and not just the left.
I just brushed over some of the article, but if I had to find a general reason for liberal condescension, it is because their personal moral code does not prescribe “love of one's enemies”, or common courtesy to opponents. Conservatives are frequently Christian or are influenced in some way by Christian thought or debate style. Christianity obviously places high regard on certain virtues: forgiveness, charity to one's neighbors, and even to one's enemies. I would say there are more a-religious people on the left than on the right who have no overarching moral code (unless they make it up themselves), and so it's easier for the ends to justify the means.So I'm generalizing here, but I do think this is true.
I would say there are more a-religious people on the left than on the right who have no overarching moral code (unless they make it up themselves), and so it's easier for the ends to justify the means.
I would agree with you here. But remember that conservatives were no better at bipartisanship when they controlled Congress than Liberals are being now. It seems American politics has been reduced to a zero-sum game and the Republic and the average citizen are who will suffer for it. The political elites on both sides certainly will not.
I think being condescending and being able to work with the opposing political party are two separate issues. I equate political condescension as being a kind of myopia in which a person or persons think that their ideas are so great that people are crazy to even question them, or to think that people might have opposing points of view. I think that being “bipartisan” is not necessarily a good thing. It all depends on what the bipartisanship is all about.Now that I think of it - aren't you usually harping on politicians who don't stick to their principles (including Republicans)? But now you're criticizing Republicans/conservatives who did not want to go along with bipartisan politics? I guess I do not understand your political philosophy. If a bill came up for vote which would allot funds for repair of highways and bridges (good), but had a minor provision in it which allotted funds for mandatory sensitivity training for all government employees as taught by ACORN personnel (not so good), would it be better to agree to the bill and be considered bipartisan or vote against it and stick to one's principles?
I have not changed my thoughts that politicians should stick to their principles. I do however think it is kind of funny to hear republicans who are not willing to compromise harp about lack of democrat bipartisanship. I am actually beating up members of both parties. I would actually argue that republicans hold to principle more than democrats do and that is a good thing.I am not criticizing republicans for not being bipartisan just pointing out that they are no better at it than democrats. It is kind of a case of glass houses and stones. Both sides think bipartisanship is when you vote for something you don?t like just to get a bill passed. Bipartisanship as I see it is not voting for a bill because it has some good in it and swallowing the little bit that is vile. Bipartisanship is trying to find the middle ground in two different positions and coming together where both sides get something of what they want and none of what they don?t want.
If a bill came up for vote which would allot funds for repair of highways and bridges (good), but had a minor provision in it which allotted funds for mandatory sensitivity training for all government employees as taught by ACORN personnel (not so good), would it be better to agree to the bill and be considered bipartisan or vote against it and stick to one's principles?
My litmus test answer-Vote against it. It is always better to stick to principles as I believe I have consistently argued.All in all, I pretty much despise hypocrisy in politics regardless of which side of the aisle it comes from. Luckily for me conservatives, which largely share my values, are much less often guilty of it than liberals are. I sometimes think the default position for liberals is hypocrite. It is almost a given that a liberal is a hypocrite, conservatives have to work at it because even conservative politicians are more honest than your average liberal.I look at it like this, Liberals are the do as I say, not as I do crowd. Conservatives generally try to both do and say the same thing. It must have something to do with those Christian ethics that liberals despise so much.My single biggest argument with politics today is that there is only an A-B solution set when it comes to voting. I want to see and A or B or C or even D, E, and F solution set available. I pretty disagree with liberals on everything and conservatives on only some things, therefore I generally vote republican. However, if there were more choice in politics I would likely not vote republican. To be honest, I will probably not vote republican ever again anyway unless they put up a strong candidate that I significantly agree with.I agree with the original article in that liberals tend to be condescending while conservatives are not as bad.
I think Rush Limbaugh, Anne Coulter, Glenn Beck, and Sean Hannity can be pretty condescending when they want to be (but usually when facing liberal condescension). When I think of condescending liberals I think of Al Franken, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, John Conyers, Sheila Jackson Lee, John Kerry, Barbara Boxer, and last but definitely not least, Barney Frank.
I think Rush Limbaugh, Anne Coulter, Glenn Beck, and Sean Hannity can be pretty condescending when they want to be (but usually when facing liberal condescension). When I think of condescending liberals I think of Al Franken, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, John Conyers, Sheila Jackson Lee, John Kerry, Barbara Boxer, and last but definitely not least, Barney Frank.
I will agree with you about the condescension of those right-leaning figures. But notice how the ones you listed aren't elected to public office, whereas all the liberal ones you've listed are. I think I can understand the rationale for some condescension when a person wants to attract an audience (ratings aren't made by boring people, after all).
I think Rush Limbaugh, Anne Coulter, Glenn Beck, and Sean Hannity can be pretty condescending when they want to be (but usually when facing liberal condescension). When I think of condescending liberals I think of Al Franken, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, John Conyers, Sheila Jackson Lee, John Kerry, Barbara Boxer, and last but definitely not least, Barney Frank.
Well to be honest, there aren't too many true conservatives in elected office right now. Ron Paul is the only true conservative I can think of that truly votes his ideology, and he's not very condescending, if anything he's a little timid sounding. 🙂I will agree with you about the condescension of those right-leaning figures. But notice how the ones you listed aren't elected to public office, whereas all the liberal ones you've listed are. I think I can understand the rationale for some condescension when a person wants to attract an audience (ratings aren't made by boring people, after all).
I think Rush Limbaugh, Anne Coulter, Glenn Beck, and Sean Hannity can be pretty condescending when they want to be (but usually when facing liberal condescension). When I think of condescending liberals I think of Al Franken, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, John Conyers, Sheila Jackson Lee, John Kerry, Barbara Boxer, and last but definitely not least, Barney Frank.
I will agree with you about the condescension of those right-leaning figures. But notice how the ones you listed aren't elected to public office, whereas all the liberal ones you've listed are. I think I can understand the rationale for some condescension when a person wants to attract an audience (ratings aren't made by boring people, after all).
I had not considered the condescension of conservative commentators, I was only thinking of politicians. It is easy to be condescending when you are catering to a specific audience. Elected officials are supposed to represent every one of their constituents unless my 8th grade Civics class had it wrong.
.... Elected officials are supposed to represent every one of their constituents unless my 8th grade Civics class had it wrong.
Ah yes, the disconnect between theory and practice. The class was right; sadly most of the people that remember this are voting not getting elected to office. (Or getting someone elected that remembers it ::))
.... Elected officials are supposed to represent every one of their constituents unless my 8th grade Civics class had it wrong.
Ah yes, the disconnect between theory and practice. The class was right; sadly most of the people that remember this are voting not getting elected to office. (Or getting someone elected that remembers it ::))
And that is the great tragedy of the modern American political system.
Ron Paul is the only true conservative I can think of that truly votes his ideology, and he's not very condescending, if anything he's a little timid sounding. 🙂
Looks like Ron Paul won the CPAC straw poll:Ron Paul Wins Early Conservative PollI watched some of the CPAC broadcast, the speech given by Tim Pawlenty. It was the best speech I've ever heard him give....maybe the first actual speech, but it was pretty good.
Ron Paul has a significant Libertarian steak to his positions. That is what doomed his run last time. He would have to play that aspect down and talk up his economic position to have a chance to win the presidency. His economic position has pride of place now but most conservatives are not as isolationist as he is anymore.
Ron Paul has a significant Libertarian steak to his positions. That is what doomed his run last time. He would have to play that aspect down and talk up his economic position to have a chance to win the presidency. His economic position has pride of place now but most conservatives are not as isolationist as he is anymore.
No he needs to keep plugging away until the grass roots up swell that is surging carries him into the forefront. If he dilutes his message his core base will abandon him. He has time to sway the GOP platform. He just needs money and a bigger stage.
