Sometimes it just doesnt pay to be nice.
But actually it does, because you get to sleep at night in the warm comfort of a good conscience. And even better, sometimes people go out of their way to make a point for you.
Ive talked in the past about the liberalista (Im looking for a word for the high-profile liberals who I believe have hijacked the leadership of the liberal movement and the Democratic Party
that will do until I come up with something better) attitudes, and the underlying position of obnoxious superiority.
Avedon Carol posted a couple of times a response to my MESS OF CRACKPOTTAGE post below; I noticed that there were multiples, and that she had clarified her point and wasnt trying to link me to Ann Coulter (ick), and thanked her.
I was too quick on the send, because this is the email that crossed mine:
I tried to post a response in your comments (twice) but they don’t appear to have gone through. I said something like this:
———-
My post wasn’t about yours – everything I had to say about that I said in my original comments to you. MY post was about Tom Scott appearing to believe that if Alec Baldwin says something stupid, it means Ann Coulter is not a crackpot. I posted the full exchange because I wanted to make it obvious what a non-sequitur his response was to mine.
Oh, yeah, and while “our” crackpots are a few scattered individuals in the entertainment industry, the Republicans elect theirs – not just to Congress, but even to Senate Minority/Majority Leader status.
———-
BTW, if the kind of support I was getting for my writing was of the caliber of the comments you got to this post, I’d definitely ask myself what I was doing wrong.
Avedon
(emphasis added)
Gosh, there are so many things to talk about here
the first is that my team, the Democrats does in fact elect fools as well.
Cynthia McKinney, anyone?
the second is that marvelously perfect tone of self-righteousness in the last paragraph.
See, heres the deal. Im a liberal because I respect pretty much everyone. I was taught this by my father, who was always as polite and respectful to the poor and low as he was to the rich and powerful (in fact, maybe a bit more so). I think that the poor and powerless are typically pretty good human beings who are on the wrong side of circumstance, and that part of the job of government is to make that condition bearable, and to make sure that it isnt structural
that youre not on the wrong side of circumstance because your parents were, or because of your color or sex. That way their kids will have a chance at living in big houses and spoiling their children into insensibility like I do.
But at root, it comes from a feeling that the least of us are as human and worthy of dignity as the best.
But somehow, we have managed to raise an intellectual class who believe in liberalism in no small part because it allows them to feel superior to others.
I think Avedon has pretty much declared on which side of that divide she stands.
(Embarrassingly forgot basic blog etiquette and link to the blog discussed. Corrected.)
Like the site – discovered it through InstaPundit. Very honest. As someone that leans conservative I will add a bit of henesty. I do not agree at all times with my preferrrd leaders. However, that is life. Nobody will agree 100% of the time. I only hope our leaders make good decisions most of the time, and only time will tell if they are right.
Cynthia McKinney is a good example. An even better one is James “Beam me up, Scotty” Traficant. Or Nancy Pelosi. Or Maxine Waters. Or . . .
Funny, the reasons you are liberal are the exact same reasons I am conservative. We agree on the same goals. We just disagree on the best policies to achieve those goals.
A ‘crackpot’ case in point: was it not Dick Gephardt who took to microphones on the campaign trail and bemoaned the cost of prescription drugs for his poor mother? Who told stories of (seemingly imaginary) wealthy friends who supposedly confided in him, that they didn’t need/want a tax cut?
The desire to feel superior is almost universal in humans.
Some resist it.
Others are drawn magnetically to a group that defines large portions of humanity as ‘victims,’ who need to be ‘helped’… the helpers being assumed to be superior of course, not only to all the victims, but also to the ‘heartless’ who suggest that the victims might be better off without the help.
You are joined with the crowd that loves the poor so much they want to keep them that way forever.
I think you’re mostly right. In the end, the modern Republican philosophy is half Social Darwinism (people who are poor in this land of opportunity deserve it), and states’ rights (Trent Lott has nailed this one for another generation). The balance between ’em is preserved by the best politics money can buy — for both parties, of course. “Rob from the rich to give to the poor/then rob from the poor/when the rich want more.” Which they always do, of course.
One of the better wicked ironies recently is the WSJ editorial that in the name of justice (sic) urged that poor people pay more income tax, so they will hate the government just like rich folks (excepting for the many subsidies for rich folks, which of course aren’t really gummint). The fact is, poor folks loathe the government precisely because of the government programs that define it for ’em.
Preserving those programs are what modern liberalism is all about — not whether they work, not if there would be a better way to do it.
I think both parties should ask themselves the Hyde question: What’s the issue on which they are willing to lose?
I think you’re mostly right. In the end, the modern Republican philosophy is half Social Darwinism (people who are poor in this land of opportunity deserve it), and states’ rights (Trent Lott has nailed this one for another generation). The balance between ’em is preserved by the best politics money can buy — for both parties, of course. “Rob from the rich to give to the poor/then rob from the poor/when the rich want more.” Which they always do, of course.
One of the better wicked ironies recently is the WSJ editorial that in the name of justice (sic) urged that poor people pay more income tax, so they will hate the government just like rich folks (excepting for the many subsidies for rich folks, which of course aren’t really gummint). The fact is, poor folks loathe the government precisely because of the government programs that define it for ’em.
Preserving those programs are what modern liberalism is all about — not whether they work, not if there would be a better way to do it.
I think both parties should ask themselves the Hyde question: What’s the issue on which they are willing to lose?
David, IMHO one of the biggest (and quietest) political stories of post-WTC has been that we have seen a massive alignment between pro-freedom elements in the Democratic and Republican parties, at least in the blogosphere and among the politically interested. We might well disagree about social issues, and some economic ones, but we definitely need a new bit of vocabulary to describe it. As you note, we want basically the same things, and I think that “classical liberal” is probably as close as we can get in modern parlance.
You know, if the Democrats would adhere to a sane economic policy, ditch the unions, and abandon the Old Left’s socialism, I’d probably be one. They probably won’t, until they’ve lost a few more elections, and it looks like Trent Lott has just handed the Republicans a massive defeat in 2004. I can’t believe he hasn’t been thrown out a window yet by Bush; it lowers my opinion of both men.
AL – Thanks for bringing up Cynthia McKinney each party has its extremists. All conservatives dont agree with Lott, and all liberals dont agree with McKinney. Moderate conservatives and moderate democrats have so much in common, it seems like the old definitions of right and left are outdated.
A post on Chris Seamans site that suggested redefining the boundaries getting rid of the old right/left spectrum and replacing it with an individualist-collectivist spectrum. Collectivists are against modernization and are for bloc solidarity (group-determination).
Lott, with his longing for the good old days when discrimination was the norm, would be leaning towards collectivism. The more extreme types, like the White Supremacists, would probably fit the definition. So would the Greens, the transnational progressives and Cynthia McKinney.
It would explain why Ralph Nader and Pat Buchanan agree on some things (immigration, defense) and why white power groups like the National Alliance agree with Indymedia leftists on so many issues. But the best part of redefining boundaries is that it would help reasonable people (as an individualist, I think thats the more reasonable group) to avoid being grouped together with the extremists.
http://unilateral.blogspot.com/2002_05_19_unilateral_archive.html
Frank Schaeffer just delivered an essay on the Newshour that reinforces your point about an emerging elite out of touch with public/military service. His son joined the Marines and Frank’s peers and fellow parents couldn’t understand why he would “waste” his time. It’s worth reading, and there’s also a book that he wrote with his son that should be getting more attention from reviewers.
You’re not a liberal for those reasons, you’re a decent human for those reasons. There is no conservative belief that “poor people suck” or anything.
About six years ago I attended a party where the guest of honor was Steve Grossman – former head of the DNC and recent Massachusetts gubernatorial aspirant. He gave a “Why I’m A Democrat” speech, and he said whenever he is asked that question, he always comes back to this Biblical quote, which he said had inspired his life in public service from the beginning:
“If you remove the yoke from among you, the pointing of the finger, the speaking of evil, if you offer your food to the hungry and satisfy the needs of the afflicted, then your light shall rise in the darkness and your gloom be like the noonday. The Lord will guide you continually, and satisfy your needs in parched places, and make your bones strong; and you shall be like a watered garden, like a spring of water, whose waters never fail. Your ancient ruins shall be rebuilt; you shall raise up the foundations of many generations; you shall be called the repairer of the breach, the restorer of streets to live in.” (Isaiah 58:9-12)
Personally, I think this is a pretty darn good quote to live by.
I don’t think this quote necessarily reflects either a Democratic or Republican belief system, although I think it does offer more of the “collective” than the “individualist.” But it also has the aspects of self-satisfaction, and potential for self-aggrandizement (dare I say, “elitism”) that many accuse the more extreme liberal/collectivists/whomever of possessing.
I think where things become problematic comes down to whether you’re looking to have “issues” to sustain, or you seek to solve problems. I’d like to think I’m in the latter: ultimately, the goal should be to bring solutions to problems so that you’re not needed anymore.
As for what the post-9/11 world has wrought: while we’re all seeing a rise in “pro-freedom” feelings, the renewed interest in public health (like smallpox vaccination) and Homeland Security and National Defense is nothing if not putting community protection over belief in the individual.
Anyhow, as always, great, thought-provoking post, AL.
Hmm. I just wish I knew who some of these “liberal elite” were. There’s a whole generation of them, according to you and myriad commentators to your right. So how ’bout some names? I was also raised by old-school liberals, am a liberal myself, and know lots and lots of liberals (though I married a Republican from a fiercely conservative family, so I have plenty of exposure to other views too). And nowhere among those liberals I know — who cross gender, age, and racial lines — is there any great tendency toward “moral superiority,” at least no moreso than I think you tend to find in the human animal in general. Most people have some tendency to believe that the way they see the world is a little more correct than most other people’s. Conservatives, in fact, seem much more comfortable with this kind of moral judgment than liberals — aren’t liberals the ones who are also always getting accused of “moral relativism,” of thinking that no moral system is better than any other? (I think that complaint is as specious as yours about moral superiority, but in any case they are kind of contradictory claims.) I can understand the widespread cultural confusion about what liberalism is and means — there haven’t been many high-profile people, especially in politics, willing to speak on behalf of liberalism per se since at least Walter Mondale’s disastrous campaign and maybe since McGovern’s. As opposed to “conservatism,” which all sorts of people are eager to explicitly align themselves with, whether or not they’re actually conservative in the traditional Buckley/Goldwater sense. Still, when I listen to talk radio or read blogs, I hear a lot of characterizations of “liberals” and “liberalism” that don’t describe anyone I know or have ever met.
*Sigh* I’m not fighting with you. I’m not even disagreeing with you. (And I’d hoped the little lines of hypens made clear that that was the only part meant for publication.)
However, I really must point out that Cynthia McKinney was not elected by her peers in Congress to the leadership position, and in fact was pretty much repudiated by them.
(Nancy Pelosi isn’t a crackpot, she’s just brave enough to admit what anyone familiar with the subject already knows: that refusing to allow needle-exchange programs only accomplishes killing more people.)
–and that part of the job of government is to make that condition bearable, and to make sure that it isnt structural–
I agree w/David and you.
We are willing to make the condition bearable, but for a healthy human being to be on the dole for his/her entire life does neither the person nor the country any good.
A lot of this is structural. We are trying to change the structure. But the entrenched of both sides do not want us to. The more the power flows to the people, the less the currently powerful can stay in office.
Dave Roberts wrote: “Frank Schaeffer just delivered an essay on the Newshour that reinforces your point about an emerging elite out of touch with public/military service.”
That was an abbreviation of an peice he wrote that was carried by papers across the country. It’s available here in its entirety:
http://www.accessatlanta.com/ajc/opinion/1102/28special_marine.html
Read the whole thing. It’s much better than the PBS version.
Excellent post as usual, AL.
Nicholas Laughlin has pointed out that the smug, easy use of labels like “idiotarian” by commentaters both right and left to belittle their ideological opponents suggests that liberals aren’t the only ones who like to put on airs of superiority.
So, is the problem that A.C. feels superior to some group of people, or that she feels superior to the wrong group of people? Which of the following groups is it acceptable to feel superior to?
a) rapists
b) suicide bombers
c) racists
d) postmodernists
e) Cynthia McKinney (and her ilk)
f) Trent Lott (and his ilk)
g) Gray Davis (and his ilk)
h) people who claim to be better than you.
i) people who say things you think are stupid.
j) people who say things you know are stupid.
Actually, the division seems to be between those who want to think and discuss and those who want to repeat the current rant–from either corner. Or to play “gotcha”. Anything but sit down and compromise. You know that word that makes democracy go?
I think Mary and DevilBunny are right. There’s a new consensus building, and it just does not fit either party. It’s going to be a fun time in politics for the next eight or so years.
And, DevilBunny, if Republicans ever ditched their fundamentalist-Christian desire to dictate social relations and corporatist welfare policies I’d join you.
Zarquon: a-g: definitely. (Unless you have crooked, insane, or incredibly stupid traits of your own.) j: Not until they demonstrate a gross unwillingness to learn or even to consider the counter-arguments. h & i: they just might be right.
Zarquon:
It’s a subtle concept…so let me see if I can get it out clearly.
My moral status as an ‘actor’ is pretty much the the equivalent of any other functioning adult. What I (and they) do with that is another matter; some people use it well, some badly, and yes, I feel like I’ve done a better job with it than some, and not as good as others.
It’s what we do, not who we are that ought to get judged.
In the world of ideas and argument, I try and extend pretty much everyone (extreme outliers excepted) the courtesy of assuming that they say what they tell me they say, and that the rightness or wrongness of their ideas and words is different than their standing, or their value as a person.
Avedon, in her comment, didn’t extend me the same courtesy, hence my reaction.
How’s that??
A.L.
That might be why I’m confused, since I saw that comment as being directed towards the commenters rather than you. I’ll confess that if I had been described as a hate-driven egotist to whom facts are irrelevant, I wouldn’t be feeling particularly charitable myself. What confused me even more was that your original post seemed to be saying “Liberalism has problems if people who say things like this are sticking up for it.” ,which was followed by you admonishing A.C. for saying “Armed Liberalism[sic] has problems if people who say things like that are sticking up for it.”
Zarquon:
ACtually, what I was careful to say wasn’t that “liberalism has problems if people like this are sticking up for it” but specifically that “liberalism has problems because the only voices people see sticking up for it are people like this”. It’s a big tent, as it should be.
But if we want to make it inviting for people who aren’t in it already, we need to be damn attentive as to how they see us and our tent.
Carol’s and my lack of ability to communicate clearly (and I fully believe it’s on both sides) is a problem, because I think there are more people like me than like her, and if we want to get more votes, we have to appeal to people like me. Which we won’t do if the core liberal values are muddies, can’t be communicated, or are let to drift too far from core American values (which in my mind they are).
My annoyance at Carol had to do with the fact that I’m typically pretty careful not to attack people – even those who I disagree with – as opposed to their ideas or utterances. I didn’t feel she extended me the same courtesy.
How’s that??
A.L.
Sounds reasonable to me. Thanks for taking the time to explain.
On High Horses
Trent and Joe have pulled up the story of teachers abusing the children of military families by accusing their serving parents of being war criminals. Abuse is abuse, and I’ll let others talk about specifics
I find that statists, whether they have stripes on the left or stripes on the right, communicate their position very clearly: they want to rule us, whether the individual consents or not.
As long as that is the message, communication style is irrelevant. Those Americans who value freedom will reject it.