On Dave's suggestion, I read my colleague Clive Crook's piece in the Financial Times on the Democratic Party's problems with the working class. I found it interesting, but ultimately wanting for specifics. Clive argues that basically liberals think they have the best interest of the working class at heart, and yet they routinely talk down to said working class, who in turn punish Democratic candidates at the ballot box every four years. This is hard for me to take for a couple reasons. First off, I'm black and grew up in a working class community, and I never heard anyone complain about presidential candidates talking down to them. I'm willing to allow that my experiences are atypical, though.
Still, whenever I hear these charges of liberal condescension they're almost always accompanied by what I would very generously call a sprinkling of examples. Clive only gives us a routine by comedian Bill Maher. For this to stick, I'd need to hear about Walter Mondale's condescension to working class voters, or Jimmy Carter's. It's true I hear a lot of Republicans invoking that charge, but I rarely hear actual examples. Interestingly enough, Clive doesn't believe that Obama fits the bill--and yet that's exactly how Karl Rove chose to paint Obama in his silly "country club" remarks.
I also don't get the idea that anything besides Fox News and talk radio qualifies as liberal media. In my happy home right here at the very prominent Atlantic (if I may say) I believe me and Fallows are the only liberals on the eight man roster. It's true the average big city reporter is unlikely to believe that gay marriage represents a significant threat to marriage itself. But outside of social issues, I'm not sure how liberal your average reporter is. It remains the case that on the essential foreign policy question of this decade, the New York Times (that alleged temple of liberal media bias) basically went along with the Bush program. I'm willing to be convinced on the "liberal media" point and on the "liberal condescension" point, but you'll have to give me some proof to take these ideas out of the "War on Christmas" territory. But just because conservatives say it, doesn't make it true.
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
Copyright © 2010 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
There must be a balance in the force. The truth has an anti-Republican bias and this will not do.
Tell me - which one is the party of identity politics now?
I think you hit the nail on the head. Journalists tend to be urban professionals and hold urban-professional kind of views, which basically amounts to a bunch of social attitudes.
It doesn't say much about economic or foreign policy. But for culture-war type stuff, they tend to sympathize with "liberal" positions.
One of the more disturbing trends I've seen in Republicans is the trend to say one thing, do the other. "Make government smaller," while presiding over out-of-control spending is a classic.
What you've described is another aspect of the same old game. Say the the "elite liberals" talk down to folks with one breath, and telling those same folks their need for a good, effective government is wasteful with the next. Who's really talking down?
i thought clive's piece was awful and, indeed, in his comments, swore off ever reading him again.
there is a complete misunderstanding at play here: i don't honestly care what anyone practices in terms of religion in their own home. i simply don't want any religion unconstitutionally privileged.
inherently, to religious fundamentalists, that is going to suggest that i'm condescending, but i'm not: i'm simply trying to live in a constitutional democracy.
similarly, i express love of country through, you know, love of country: i love the constitution; i love the great diversity of america; i love the multiple traditions that manage to more or less coexist on a daily living plane; i love the preamble to the constitution and the idea that this country was founded in order to bring about a more perfect union.
other people express love of country through wearing flag lapel pins and supporting every action this country undertakes ("my country right or wrong").
i personally wouldn't care if people expressed love of country that way if they, in return, didn't care how i express love of country, but they do care: they tell me that if i don't wear a flag lapel pin, i'm insufficiently patriotic.
again, i can understand that my position might seem "condescending" to some people, but i think their position "condescends" to me.
in short, "elitism," in the strict sense of the term, has nothing to do with this: resentment is much the operative emotion.
now, i'd like to know how to combat resentment better, but not if the price of combatting resentment is wearing flag lapel pins and supporting the fetishization of fundamentalist christian dogma into various laws of this great land.
crook showed no evidence of even being aware of this dilemma: he simply typed out some standard words about democrats and elitism and cultural issues. he didn't advance thd discussion at all.
Typos :)
Title: "...and the people the condescend to" They?
First paragraph: "Frist off," First off
"I believe me and Fallows are the only liberals on the eight man roster."
I know that Andrew would strongly - strongly - disagree, but most of the rest of the country probably wouldn't call him conservative. (Rumor has it that he's written a book on why that might be the case).
I don't think of it as "talking down" -- I think of it as the difference between 1st-person and 3rd-person politics.
GOP populist rhetoric, even with its jingoism and racism and religious fundamentalism and militarism, is a 1st-person rhetoric. Everyone from Bush to Mittens to Giuliani to Palin can say, "We're not going to take it any more from those Liberal Elites!"
Democrats, however, rarely talk this way. Helping workers is usually a 3rd-person goal: "We need to raise the minimum wage to help working families, and help workers organize unions without employers' intereference." That's rhetorically very different from saying, "We need the bosses to give us a raise and butt the hell out of our unions!"
Part of the problem is that Leftist populism inevitably relies on concepts of class privilege and class solidarity, and mentioning either of them will get you an express ticket to Looney Socialist Crazy-land in American politics.
For decades now, Dems have talked about workers and workers' interests in the 3rd person. It's much, much weaker than 1st person politics. Go read or listen to MLK's sermons and speeches during the Poor People's Campaign to hear what a populist, leftist, 1st-person American politics can sound like.
Silly TNC, there *is* no black working class. Have you learned nothing from primary season?
Somewhat more seriously, though, and on a huge generalization tip, I think black America has a healthier respect for rhetorical ability than does its white counterpart. So the perception Crook is describing may in fact be out there while not evident in, say, West Baltimore.
The liberal news media thing is & always has been a canard. I'm not sure, but I think that much of this perception may come from the generally correct perception of the entertainment industry, especially Hollywood, as liberal - and as the line between news and entertainment wears increasingly thinner, what used to seem like two distinct institutions get tarred with the same brush.
It is true, but it is rarely done by the candidates.
However discussion forums and journalism are filled with things that the poor whites among whom I live find and yes, conservative have had much less of a tin ear, and have benefited greatly.
Terms that are widely acceptable and offend as much as the worst racial slurs include redneck, trailer trash, any of "trailer" as an insult (in rural america trailer=the only affordable housing), hick etc.
Mainstream liberal discourse is as filled with such offensive language as was southern mainstream discourse filled with racial insults 80 years ago.
Now as then those using the terms think that they are simply being accurate.
The press is reporting on the establishment, and mostly the faults in it. The establishment has been basically "conservative" republican for the last 8 years. Of course it has a somewhat current left wing bias. The Bush administration also contributed to the "left wingedness" of the press by its deliberative secretness and talking points explanations of most everything under the sun. If the administration was forthright and explained things (or at least had them fact checked thoroughly by the remainder of government and the press in the same way the British systems do), the media's reaction would not seem so liberal biased but more fact gathering.
The "conservative" Republicans have great policy considerations when you consider all but the last 10% of the facts (as a side note - Mr. Sullivan is very good at shining the light on this 10%). They therefore whine when the last 10% is exposed (making examples of certain media persona in the process) and do everything in their power to force the discussion away from these critical awareness exposing facts. This has been successful to an amzing degree as even after the press's soft pandering leading to the war, they refuse to get tough on the various candidates' current peddling of crap. Amazing considering the media's recent massive failures.
If I said something about "clinging to" and then put a handful of nouns after that phrase, would it count as an example or would it inspire a bunch of explanations about how I just don't get it and how I'm taking him out of context?
If Conservatives and Republicans are such tough guys why do they whine like b ches about everything?
It is culture (lower case) that either influences or comes close to determining so much more: economics, politics, diplomacy, etc. Culture is the independent variable far more than it is the dependent variable. Nearly all Americans understand this; many, perhaps most, reporters seem to lack this understanding. Until and unless liberal reporters get this, they will continue to misunderstand the American public.
I think that reporters would be far more in touch with their readers and with reality if they followed the ideas of Chairman Mao and spent a few years now and then working in factories, shops, mines, and in "fly-over" America.
"It remains the case that on the essential foreign policy question of this decade, the New York Times (that alleged temple of liberal media bias) basically went along with the Bush program."
I don't think this is a very strong counterargument, as a good many people in the Democratic establishment went along with the war with Iraq, too. Of the top of my head, I recall the Clintons, the Brookings Institution, and a number of well-respected Democratic Senators initially supporting the war.
Now as then those using the terms think that they are simply being accurate.
---
Agreed completely. On the flipside, there's a lot of unsavory language (think "faggot") lofted in the other direction as well. There will always be a degree of animosity between people divided by class and geography, but those that can control it should.
I agree with Crooks's point that it isn't Obama who condescends, but there are a fair share of liberals who do this. Some examples, RFK Jr's statement about 80% of the country is liberal, they just don't know it. This says to people, you are too dumb to know what is good for you. The barrage by the artistic ( I use that term loosely) community that mocks middle class values and lifestyles. To cite Butthead, alternative music is all about making fun of the suburbs.
Also, a lot of the liberal elite have mocked certain things that the middle class holds dear to them. To the working class, religion is important and shouldn't be deriding as believing in fairy tales or given the Ted Turner treatment of "Jesus Freaks" . A lot of them like to hunt and shoot guns, which a class of liberals think of as barbaric.
I have already descended into stereotypes and cliches, so I might as well go all out and bring up NASCAR. Go through the treads about it at democratic underground and you will see classism on parade. There are a lot of comments about missing teeth, Bush voters, wife beaters, and so on.
Even if the candidates don't say these things, they can get tarnished if someone overhears some loudmouth in the bar talking about how dumb you are if you go to church, how thuggish you are if you hunt.
Don't get me wrong, republicans do it as well, and they do it plenty. Gramm talking about whiners is about as condescending as you can get when an economy has bled jobs for the past 8 months. I think it sticks more to dems because they claim so hard to be for the little person, while many liberals mock that lifestyle.
Liberal Media = Democracy Now. How much of news really looks like Democracy Now? MSM has been, first and foremost, allied to "sensation" and whatever they think is the biggest lead for quite sometime now. This leans, alternately, to both sides with a reasonable amount of parity, airing on the side of avoiding "letter-writing campaign" levels of controversy. Hence, the appearance of "political correctness". These media outlets really don't care about "tolerance". They just don' want to get boycotted/sued.
The idea that there is a "liberal" media is the greatest scam conservatives have ever pulled. Not only have they brainwashed a significant portion of the population into believing that Fox News is true (and also hoodwinked them into believing things like the top 1% paying more in taxes than at any time in history), they have also managed to scare mainstream, moderate publications into bending themselves out of shape in the name of "balance," leading to idiotic moves like giving Republican mouthpiece William Kristol on the editorial page of the Times. Dowd may as well for the Republicans for all the good she does.
Now that the AP is basically another Fox News, the media taken as a whole is squarely in the tank for the Republicans.
Isn't this the standard tactic now? Launch some absurd charge against liberals and watch them spaz out refuting it with "facts" and "reason"? Maybe it's time to start lobbing utter falsehoods and mischaracterizations at the GOP? "They support the use of the same torture methods that were used on their own presidential candidate"...oh wait, that's true, I can't use that one...hmmm
[I'm not sure if something's worth saying, it's worth saying seven times.]
Maher's a libertarian; libertarianism is inherently middle-class and condescending towards the working classes, because the working classes have traditionally sought communitarian means of advancement, from trades unions to lending libraries.
One issue here is that 'working class' is a taboo phrase in American political discourse. In part, because it gets mixed in with race; in part, because there's the pervasive myth that the working-class in America are really lower-middle-class.
Ultimately, I'm not sure what Crook's point is. If it's now verboten to support a degree of meritocracy in leadership -- which I honestly think is a bit of bourgeois projection, amplified in the US by the reverse snobbery of millionaire right-wing pundits -- then the US is screwed no matter what. A genuine politics that speaks to the working class is (ironically) summed up by the Kinnock lines that Biden cribbed:
"Does anybody really think that [my predecessors] didn't get what we have because they didn't have the talent, or the strength, or the endurance, or the commitment? Of course not. It was because there was no platform upon which they could stand."
I know that Crook grew up in the north of England before Oxford; I don't know whether his private school place was one he earned through his talents or came courtesy of his parents. I do know that Magdalen and LSE offer a heck of a platform.
MHD -
You are very right. Books have been written about this, or at least sections of books have been written about this.
A majority of reporters, especially those with big names, are wealthy urbanites. Thus they tend to be more liberal on social issues and conservative on economic ones.
In terms of foreign policy issues, well, do you ever see foreign policy covered in the American news media? Unless they can get some juicy war footage and build some multi-million dollar studio for the occasion, (circa. early 2003), foreign affairs gets little-to-no coverage. Thank God for BBCAmerica.
Can we talk for a minute about how sick I am of the right talking down to the left? At the RNC, we were inundated with speeches that suggested that liberals didn't suffer as much as they did on 9/11, that we don't love our country as much as they do (look at the recent "DNC flag scandal" for more proof), and that community service is something to be laughed at. They lie about us with impunity, and yet we're the ones who look down on them. I for one have had enough of it.
Clive argues that basically liberals think they have the best interest of the working class at heart, and yet they routinely talk down to said working class, who in turn punish Democratic candidates at the ballot box every four years.
This claim is baldly false.
In 2004, voters making under $30,000 voted for Kerry at a rate of 59-40.
In 2000, voters making under $30,000 voted for Gore at a rate of 55-40.
In 1996, voters making under $30,000 voted for Clinton at a rate of 55-33-10.
Class is an exceptionally good predictor of voting preference, in the aggregate, and working class people vote Democratic, while rich people vote Republican.
If Conservatives and Republicans are such tough guys why do they whine like b ches about everything?
Because the squeaky wheel gets the oil, don'tcha know?
Crook is more right than he is wrong. This is an elephant of a topic so here are random thoughts:
There is a great deal of class resentment from working class whites (Sorry Ta-N but that is the subject here. Crook should have made the racial distinction) against what we see as liberal elites in the media and in the Democratic party. As one of the commenters noted however, the source of the resentment is largely cultural and to great degree a reaction to the unfortunately ubiquitous liberal paternalist attitude that "we know what's good for you."
Working class whites spurn what we see as a paternalistic and elitist dreamer's world-view of most liberals. Most of us don't dedicate hours on the internet to reading up on finer policy points either. So we tend to vote for leaders that have realistic (some would say simple) policy goals who promise security and not revolution. We don't need you to help us. Just allow us to help ourselves.
The Republicans certainly understand this, and exploits it. They create narratives that say "Im a tough guy that liberal is a pussy"; and "I'll lower taxes so you can decide how to spend your money"; and "I'll do whatever it takes to keep your family safe while the dem will read the Mohammedan his rights." For the great majority who don't spend inordinate amounts of time like most of us researching policy and to some degree being told what to think by more eloquent writers than those at the NY Post, these narratives are well-received and can decide elections.
Where Crook is wrong is the insinuation that working class people are knowingly revolting against media elites at the ballot-box. I don't think its this sort of strange boxing match where the working class takes 4 years worth of jabs to the face and delivers a haymaker at the end of each cycle to show the elites who really counts.
Heh! If you think liberals talk down to the working classes, consider how fly-over country Republicans talk to (and about) those social liberal "elites" who live in blue states!
I keep having this argument with a Republican colleague of mine. He offers examples of sins committed by commenters, whacked-out bloggers, man-on-the-street types. On the Right, charges are hurled by campaign officials, members of Congress and top conservative pundits. It's not just what one side is saying, but who on that side is saying it.
DougEFresh -
With all due respect, you are over-simplifying all of this to incredible levels. I have no interest in starting a comment war but...
"Some examples, RFK Jr's statement about 80% of the country is liberal, they just don't know it. This says to people, you are too dumb to know what is good for you."
Or it says, right wing conservatives and their media lap-dogs do a great job in misinforming the public on the issues and where each ideological group stand.
Tax policies are one example. I find it impossible to believe that a majority of Americans would favor John McCain's plan over Barack Obama's. But will the media ever report the specifics of each plan? No! Instead the GOP will say Obama's plan will raise people's taxes, (never mind 95% will see a bigger tax cut than under McCain's plan), and no one in the MSM will call them on it.
The issue of so-called "values voters" is another example. Who doesn't want to have values? There are millions of Americans, struggling to makes ends meet and raise a family who never go to church and don't care about the wedge social issues. But the work hard, obey the law and love their country. You want to say that they don't have values? Yet the MSM says "values voters" favor the GOP.
"The barrage by the artistic ( I use that term loosely) community that mocks middle class values and lifestyles. To cite Butthead, alternative music is all about making fun of the suburbs."
What are you talking about?
What is a middle-class value? Seriously.
Who do think watches what Hollywood and the rest of the American artistic community you scorn makes? Hollywood wants to make money. If sex and violence...particular violence...didn't sell tickets, Hollywood wouldn't make films filled with it. Who do you think buys most of the rap music sold in America, middle-class white kids living in the suburbs do. Hell, the porn industry alone makes about $12 billion a year, you want to argue it's only from rich left-wing perverts?
"Also, a lot of the liberal elite have mocked certain things that the middle class holds dear to them."
No less a liberal than Michael Savage dismissed the use of the word elite. He said that it means nothing, that if you can do or posses something most others can not, you are automatically an elite.
"To the working class, religion is important and shouldn't be deriding as believing in fairy tales or given the Ted Turner treatment of "Jesus Freaks".
Well, already we've shifted from middle-class to working-class. Are they the same thing?
So working-class/middle-classes people care about religion but upper classes don't? Is that your point? If so, that is a generality beyond any reasonable measure. It's also incredibly patronizing.
But I'm not sure how this fits in with the liberal v. conservative theme you are working with here. Unless you want to make the argument that all conservatives are working-class/middle-class and all liberals are upper-class.
Let's also keep in mind the notion of hypocrisy. About 83% of Americans profess at least a vague belief in the Christian God, yet less than 50% of American attend weekly church services. I think the number is somewhere around 35% but I'm not sure.
"A lot of them like to hunt and shoot guns, which a class of liberals think of as barbaric."
First of all, I think using the word barbaric is classic hyperbole. Beyond that, this is not a conservative v. liberal issue or a working-class v. upper-class issue. This is a rural v. urban issue. People in the city usually want more gun control, people out in the country usually want less.
"I have already descended into stereotypes and cliches,"
Yes you have. Your post has been an absolute masterpiece of nonsensical and useless stereotypes and clichés. And I say that with all of the loving Christian Charity that I can muster.
"so I might as well go all out and bring up NASCAR."
When did a love of stock car racing becoming the barometer of a profession of middle-class values? I could care fuck-all for NASCAR. I have been and will be lower-middle class my whole life. I like football, love basketball and will watch a good boxing match if it comes on TV. Are those sports for liberal elites?
Doug, your entire posts reads like the talking points for the GOP.
Real Americans are working class people who hunt, own guns, go to church every Sunday, (and it's always a conservative evangelical church), watch NASCAR, don't like America's popular culture and live only in red states. Traitorous Americans are rich, don't own guns and hate hunting, never go to church, don't watch NASCAR, loves every film Hollywood puts out and live in blue states.
And it's a huge pile of bull-shit. You can not conflate liberal political views with wealth. Nor can you conflate conservatism, particularly social conservatism with working-class status. GOP supporters, even in the Deep South, love American popular culture. (Desperate Housewives is particularly big down there.) And while you can track weekly church attendance with a higher likelihood to vote Republican, you can't do the reverse nearly as well, as a majority of Americans don't go to church every week.
Apparently, working-class Americans who don't go to church and don't consider themselves conservative, (or liberal for that matter), don't exist under your set of theories. The fact that most of them likely don't vote is unfortunate. But as far as I can tell, they represent the majority of America.
laborlibert: Obama's message has been 'no dumb wars, support for those who work hard, and a government that will help you in those times when you need a hand'. That presumably fits the bill. McCain's narrative has been 'scary Muslims, scary gays, POWPOWPOW'.
So aren't we really dealing here with a pound of false consciousness garnished with ressentiment? And in doing so, isn't what you're calling the 'white working class' more like what British demographers call C1/C2?
As DivGuy notes, low earners generally vote their economic interests. In that sense, political ressentiment is a luxury item.
Some examples, RFK Jr's statement about 80% of the country is liberal, they just don't know it. This says to people, you are too dumb to know what is good for you.
Well, that's a dumb statement. On the other hand, if we unpick class from wealth from intelligence -- even in a country that, in vaguely Calvinistic ways, still regards material success as an index of supernatural blessings -- it's impolitic to say that there are a lot of dumb voters out there. But that doesn't stop it being true, regardless of how much they earn.
TNC -- Did you watch Hardball tonight??? Chris Mathews nailed it, and the Rs who were on didn't dispute that the discussion has changed from what do you want to who do you want -- which couple do you feel more comfortable with next door -- John & Sarah -- the 6pm anchor team -- or Barack and Michelle -- and then, today the reference that Al Sharpton is a "community organizer".
We cannot let this succeed!
Mike wrote: "Of the top of my head, I recall the Clintons, the Brookings Institution, and a number of well-respected Democratic Senators initially supporting the war."
I'm not sure that many progressives ever really considered the Clintons, Brookings, or some of those Democratic senators to have been true liberals. I mean that without sarcasm - B. Clinton was not a shining paragon of liberalism (see DOMA and welfare reform), and Brookings has always banked to the center-right on foreign policy. They just look lefty when compared to AEI, Cato, and Heritage.
Umm...what about the whole 'bitter people clinging to their guns and religion.' thing? Sounds a little condescending to me.
Re: I know that Andrew would strongly - strongly - disagree, but most of the rest of the country probably wouldn't call him conservative.
Sullivan is a good old fashioned British Tory. Now, Toryism and American conservatism were never identical, but as late as the Reagan-Thatcher partnership they were on the same page. It's a measure of how far off the deep-end the American "conservative" movement has gone that Andrew sullivan now looks like a liberal.
Re: Working class whites spurn what we see as a paternalistic and elitist dreamer's world-view of most liberals.
Bullshit, and I'm surprised no one else has hit the nail on the head. I was talking to some eldelry folks yesterday after church over coffee, a man and his sister. The man was telling me how he was a registered Democrat and I drew him out about his views: hated the Iraq War ("bad for Christians in Iraq!"), thought Bush's tax cuts had gone way overboard, thought working fellows did better when unions were stronger, favored universal healthcare, and while he thought abortion was a terrible sin and gay marriage was ridiculous he didn't see the need to pass laws or get riled up over them. Then his sister, with some exasperation, cut in, "Then why aren't you voting for Obama instead of that lying old fool McCain?" His response (and I apologize if I give offense in quoting) "Cause Obama will raise my taxes and give it all to the Schwartze."
That's it folks: racism, pure and simple. That's why Democrats have trouble with the white working class.
That's why Democrats have trouble with the white working class.
Where is the evidence that they have trouble with the white working class? Someone please point me to data.
As best as I can tell, white voters skew more Republican than the general electorate, but they display the same internal tendencies as the general electorate. That is, rich white people are way more Republican than middle class white people, and middle class white people are way less Democratic than working class white people.
As I showed above, working class Americans are much more liberal than other Americans. This is true of white working class Americans too - they are much more liberal than other white Americans.
One could argue that the significant tendency of whites to vote Republican is a sign of latent racism, but it is not a racism that resides particularly in the working class - every class of whites is on the whole more conservative than the average American of that class.
Red State, Blue State, Rich State, Poor State.
See Larry Bartels' work on the "white working class". Key conclusion:
Has the white working class abandoned the Democratic Party? No. White voters in the bottom third of the income distribution have actually become more reliably Democratic in presidential elections over the past half-century, while middle- and upper-income white voters have trended Republican. Low-income whites have become less Democratic in their partisan identifications, but at a slower rate than more affluent whites – and that trend is entirely confined to the South, where Democratic identification was artificially inflated by the one-party system of the Jim Crow era.
JonF is a pitch perfect example of this condescending attitude. TNC, try to think of it like this. If you're in a relationship with someone and they tell you that you are hurting their feelings, you have two choices. You can change your behavior (regardless of whether or not you understand why your behavior is hurting them.) Or you can insist that there is no good reason your behavior is hurting them, and refuse to change. You may be righteous making the second choice, but by holding your ground, you will lose that relationship. Imagine the white working class as that girlfriend you just can't understand, but you have to decide if you want to be with her or not. Telling her, "I'm not REALLY hurting your feelings" will not stop her from walking out on you. Liberals have two choices, change their attitude or lose the vote. Insisting it's not fair won't get us anywhere.
Sara -
But the white working class are much more reliably Democratic than middle- and upper-class whites! They're not really much of a problem for Democrats.
sara, let's allow the basic proposition of your silly analogy to stand for the moment.
nonetheless, you've phrased it all wrong.
the "girlfriend" isn't telling anyone "you're hurting my feelings."
the "girlfriend" is saying "you basic belief structure is so unpatriotic and anti-religious that i can't see a future with you."
RE: the "bitter" comment. You'll notice that nobody ever quotes what immediately preceded it.
"You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton Administration, and the Bush Administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not."
JonF:
I'd appreciate if you wouldn't call my point "bullshit" and support your characterization with a weak anecdote about a single conversation you had with an elderly Jewish family. Of course I was generalizing and I don't discount that race is and the perception of redistributionism is an issue, but there is certainly more to it than that. And class and culture issues play a large factor as Crook argues.
Since Maher is not a Democrat, it is useless to extrapolate anything about the behavior of Democrats from his example.
I'd write more but it's really exactly that simple. If you're going to whine about the behavior of Democrats, you must cite actual professional (or even just registered) Democrats if you want your case to make any sense.
Would it be condescending for me to point out that this whole business of Palin naming her marketing company "Rouge Cou" ignores the fact that adjectives tend to follow nouns in French? What? Too effete?
"Working class whites spurn what we see as a paternalistic and elitist dreamer's world-view of most liberals."
To characterize progressive ideology in this way is pretty condescending as well. We can all play this game of "who's condescending to whom", but it says little about what we think about the principals of governance and how this relates to party affiliation. If you were to argue, say, that Democrats need to pay more attention to regulatory burdens placed on small business, then I'd say that you were absolutely correct. But I think it's toxic to get into the same "identity politics" with "white working class voters" that the right has correctly lambasted the left for in regards to some of their more overzealous and as you say "paternalistic" members. The original article is trying to paint a strawman argument of a dichotomy which simply does not exist, where a wholly Republican lower class is constantly injured by a snobby, elitist Democratic upper-class. As others have pointed out, electorally speaking, this simply isn't true. But it's a great subject for people to fomate over. And it, very effectively, takes the focus off the issues.
Local color
(hopefully this won't post multiple time)
Just a few minutes ago:
:
Banging on my door.
"Sorry for bothering you we're trying to find the Gowman place"
(40 acres w good timber but not easily accessible)
30 somethings, muscular, maybe loggers or fishermen between seasons.
Me: complicated explanation including "you gotta go through xxx there was a guy there ten years ago growing a lot of dope"
That's all gated up now, trailer is falling apart, too bad, must not have worked out for him"
Other guy, "what has for any of us"
"You got that right"
"Man, you got a lotta books"
other guy "I'm envious"
Come back, you can can borrow"
"Wow, cool, I will, thank you"
Dems don't understand how to talk to these allies.
TNC -
It's nice of you to take the time to respond to Crook's hogwash, but I'm a lot older than you and let me warn you: you'll have to trot out this same post (or something similar) every election year. This is boilerplate RW nonsense, it far predates Rove, Crook, et al, and will still be barfed out by their descendants long after we're all gone.
Umm...what about the whole 'bitter people clinging to their guns and religion.' thing? Sounds a little condescending to me.
Guess what? The liberal condescension meme didn't started on some message board earlier this year following Barack's statement - yet this tired line has been trotted out as the only concrete evidence in this entire thread, multiple times I might add.
The sooner y'all stop pretending there's some substantive backing for this sort of rhetoric, the closer we'll get to reasonable politicking.
Re: JonF is a pitch perfect example of this condescending attitude.
My father was a truck driver. My step-sister is a tool-and-die maker. I think that gives me some working class, non-effete-snob connections. And if you think racism has nothing to do with America's political divisions, I've got some great swampland in Florida you'd love...
Re: I'd appreciate if you wouldn't call my point "bullshit" and support your characterization with a weak anecdote about a single conversation you had with an elderly Jewish family.
Apparently you did not read my comment very well. I said "AFTER CHURCH". where did you get "Jewish" from? These people were Eastern Orthodox Christians of mixed German-Ukrainian descent. I assume the guy used the German word so as not to risk offending with the much harsher American slang term (and he was in the church hall after all.) And sure, not all working class folks are bigots, and more than a few upper income people are (Exhibit A: George Allen!) But again: you cannot understand American politics, even today, without allowing for the reality of racism. IMO, if Obama does not enter the White House this January racism will be the main reason as a white guy espousing his current platform would be running well ahead.
Also, I will repeat another comment from the coffee hour discussion: all my conversation partners were fairly afraid that Obama would be assassinated either before or after the election-- afraid, mind you, not looking happily at that prospect. Apparently they know enough true race haters where that seems like a real possibility to them.
I think the liberal condescension is more out there in society than something that prominent liberals come out and do. For instance, I know lots of people who honestly think that a vote for McCain can't be anything but a vote for racism and intolerance, but nobody associated with Obama is going to come out and say that.
And some, of course, are interpreting this as condescending:
Obama told the crowd that McCain and Palin spent most of the convention talking about their biographies.
Palin's bio is "compelling," Obama said.
The crowd booed. "No, it's an interesting story." More boos. "No, no, it is. I mean that sincerely. Mother, governor, moose shooter."
The crowd broke out in laughter. "That's cool. That's cool. That's cool stuff," Obama said.
Umm...what about the whole 'bitter people clinging to their guns and religion.' thing? Sounds a little condescending to me.
I would concede that statment was condecsending and offensive. It was a major gaffe on Obama's part.
How about this statement from President Bush in the 2004 campaign: "If the Democrats win, the terrorists win".
I would say that goes well beyond condecsending and is digusting. I am sick and tired of Republicans portraying Democrats as being in league with terrorists, hating the troops and all the other despicable things that are said by conservatives every day. They seem to believe that half the people in America are traitors.
Off topic.
Where the heck is Sullivan today?
The only post all day is of some flowers. If it were 40 years ago and he was a bass player from Liverpool I'd take that as a sure sign of his possible demise.
As a member of the media, I think it's true that reporters in the print media are generally, even overwhelmingly, liberal in their cultural views. They're somewhat liberal in their economic views, and are less pro-war and jingoistic than the average American. Television reporters and news producers, however, are mostly conservative.
But the main thing is that the media for the past decade and more have been deeply ashamed of their own liberalism. They are scared of retaliation from both their conservative corporate masters and from an American public they believe is more conservative than they are. And that produces a kind of strangled, self-hating discourse. To use a metaphor from America's racial history, the way people in the media talk and write reminds me very often of the voice of someone who is "passing". It's the voice of the self-hating Jew or of the closeted homosexual. The media's relentless focus on the views of white, exurban voters is a product of a desire to "pass" for regular Americans on the part of people who themselves doubt they are regular Americans.
And what you get is a kind of hypertrophic parody of regular white Americana. In the same way that a gay man like Rock Hudson tried to act straighter than straight, or the singing voices of the Platters sound whiter than white, the urban cosmopolitan media try to speak with a voice that's just an overdone parody of suburban white dads and moms. Check out Brian Williams. Check out Anderson Cooper. You know they're not saying what they really think, but actually you wonder whether after all these years of passing they themselves even know what they really think.
There was a Harvard study done about a year ago that showed that there was indeed a liberal bias in the media. http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=278808786575124
Personally I don't buy the "vast liberal media conspiracy" that some Conservatives try to sell. I'm of the opinion that the personality types attracted to media related jobs tend to lean to the left.
Regardless of the economic class of the McCain voters, it is hard to feel respect for persons who even after eight years of George Bush fail to understand the importance of competence and how intelligence and intellect--as well as a reliably steady temperament--inform competence.
The stakes are so high and the need for competence so profound that to vote for the far less competent McCain over the undeniably competent Obama is a crime against the species.
Respect persons blinded to their own interests by their own ignorance and prejudices, persons sucked in yet again by the same old Republican fear and smear campaign?
I'd like to learn how to be that better person, and a few years on my knees saying St. Francis's prayer might help, but not here and not now. It's not possible.
Until I do learn, I'll try to fake it. Like the Republicans do.
Erm. Speaking of condescending to voters, Jack and Jill links to this story in the Wasilla paper about the new law in Alaska (in 2000 when Palin was mayor) under which Wasilla would no longer be allowed to charge rape victims for their rape kits. The police chief is quoted. If this checks out at all, that's....something they really should have had an answer lined up on. It's even on the googleable portion of the paper.
There was a Harvard study done about a year ago that showed that there was indeed a liberal bias in the media.
Ah, IBD, for people who want more batshit than the WSJ op-ed page provides.
That study's methodology is seriously flawed, because it classes a story presenting negative facts about a candidate as 'negative'. That's to say, a story accurately reporting how McCain's campaign was out of money last year -- generally along the lines of 'Mavericky Maverick John McCain has to carry his own bags' -- would be classed as a 'negative' story.
dyre42, if you look up the real study (which, of course, your link didn't bother to link to), it doesn't show what your "source" claims it does.
imagine that!
but my favorite is asher: he just knows people are thinking things that no one is saying!
meanwhile, of course, some of us regard as lying in your introductory speech to america about opposing something you didn't oppose is condescending, but clive crook (and asher) never think about that....
JonF:
After Church doesn't mean the people attended mass with you necessarily (but it usually does mean that). I thought the "Schwartzes" language indicative of Jewishness. I've never heard anyone else use this term.
Since you seem fixed on race, I think that one thing that gets lost in this whole story about Obama being the first black candidate is that he is, after all, not black. He is of mixed race, half and half. This matters to whites as well as blacks. Obama is half-white, he talks white, dresses white, has a white job (I realize that my characterizing these things as white is unfair and not even accurate, but to the extent that these are the real perceptions of a good portion of the electorate, they are real categories). All of these factors have made Obama "whiter" and more acceptable to many non-black americans. As many have pointed out, this is why the Wright controversy was so dangerous, because it made him blacker.
I think that the race issue is unrelated to the point of this particular thread, except to the extent that Obama's whiteness has made this election as much about culture clash (of the type Crook points out) as it is about race.
Deborah, what do you think about the law?
Should the government be allowed to charge people accused of a crime for the costs of determining whether or not they committed that crime?
I would say no. But either way, for obvious reasons, it's not going to be much of a political issue, as standing up for the rights of accused sexual felons isn't a big political winner, while charging them for the cost of the rape kit is kind of small beans in terms of striking a blow for law and order.
"I'm of the opinion that the personality types attracted to media related jobs tend to lean to the left."
The personality types attracted to the jobs or the personality types hired for the jobs? Perhaps a combination of both. I do wonder how much of the media disconnect goes beyond ideology to insulation from other fields of endeavor, e.g., how many former engineers, scientists, soldiers or businessmen are there in journalism? I'm sure there are a few, but whenever I see someone like Tom Friedman treated as an expert on energy I start to wonder.
Since Maher is not a Democrat, it is useless to extrapolate anything about the behavior of Democrats from his example.
Similarly, I'm annoyed when people complain about Andrew Sullivan as an exemplar of the Left.
Should the government be allowed to charge people accused of a crime for the costs of determining whether or not they committed that crime?
Read it again. The story is that Wasilla billed sexual assault victims for the cost of the rape kit. Very different.
Doubt these things matter much electorally - VPs have barely any effect as it is - but the story is another data point for the claim that Palin is a quite nasty political actor.
Or was that very dark sarcasm? I guess it could be. Apologies in advance if I just missed the joke.
DivGuy writes: "The story is that Wasilla billed sexual assault victims for the cost of the rape kit. "
It's reminiscent of all of the Repiglican morons who wanted to send Amadou Diallo's family a bill for the cost of the 41 bullets that murdered him.
So here's the front page article on Salon, fount of sophisticated liberal commentary:
'The dominatrix.'
Sarah Palin is trying to seduce independent voters. But she comes across like a whip-wielding mistress who wants to discipline a naughty America.'
The author basically argues that people only like Palin because they think she's hot, but even that will fade once people catch onto her whip-wielding persona. Though diehard Republicans like it - 'the more Palin drilled the Democrats, the more hotly the base yearned to drill her' - Kamiya assures that 'the S/M demographic isn't going to put the Republicans over the top in the swing states.' Though Republicans are into that thing because 'authority-worshippers tend to have secret fantasies of being reamed themselves.' Now this isn't some diarist on Dailykos, TNC.
This is the thing that drives me insane about the politics of the far right:
[b]I also don't get the idea that anything besides Fox News and talk radio qualifies as liberal media.[/b]
But it goes deeper than that.
Anyone who even holds any view, even one on a tangential issue, that falls outside the conservative orthodoxy, is a liberal.
asher, if you want to participate in the conversation, at least try and understand the language: the salon article you reference isn't condescending in the slightest. it's political satire.
meanwhile, tell us what thoughts go through your mind when rush limbaugh utters the term "feminazi" and his listeners love it.
Oh, he's satirizing the left! Or our sex-obsessed discourse! No, the guy's just really dumb. Have you ever read anything else he's written? It's all this bad.
asher, when you're ready to demonstrate that you know what condescenscion means, you do let us know, why doncha? even if i agreed that the article was stupid, which i don't, it still wouldn't make it condescending.
words - as someone said recently, can't place who - have meanings. you don't just get to invent them because it's an applause line.
laborlibert -
Obama is a US Senator running for the Presidency of the United States. Exactly what would someone who “acts black” but is in the same posistion, talk like or dress like? If Obama really wanted to “act white”, whatever the hell that means, then marrying a white woman and having children that were 75% white probably would have been a good start.
Non-blacks, namely whites, view him as black. Obama is viewed as black by Americans because he is not 100% white. That’s the way it works in America, it’s the “one drop” rule. Obama, Tiger Woods, Halle Berry, Mariah Carey…they are all black. They may be more acceptable to white America because they are very talented in what they do and are non-threatening. But they are still black.
The Rev. Wright stuff only hurt him with those with racist attitudes. Not the full-blown Klan member types maybe. But the ones with lingering racism; sure they’d vote for a black man for President but only if he was perfect. The Wright controversy pushed them over the edge. Decent people may vote against Obama but no decent person would do it because of that.
Nuada, you have done a wonderful job of misrepresenting my post. Whether you wish to substitute middle or working class, there is still a certain amount of condescension that a certain class of liberals will show towards this audience.
I have never hunted in my life, I don't care if gay people get married, I think NASCAR is boring as shit, but even an idiot like myself, who is so deeply wedded to stereotypes and talking points can see that segments of the left have denigrated those who think other than I do. Read Sen. Jim Webb's(D VA) book about the Scots in America and their relation to liberals and you will see what I am talking about. Webb talks about how liberals wish to marginalize the point of view of the white working class.
If you think that the intellectual class in Hollywood and in the music industry puts forth products that reinforce middle American thought, you are really out of touch. In the 70's, the public put a religious themed song "You light up my life" to the top of the charts and put a bunch of raunchy disco tunes to number one, so what sells to the public doesn't always mean a universal endorsement of a point of view.
Throughout history, the artistic class has always challenged the status qou. Sometimes it is out of an arrogance where they think they are better than the rest of the world and everyone would be better off listening to their superiors. Other times, history has proven that the outside of the box thinking in one era was later accepted as the norm.
My point is that there are a share of liberals who are full of crap when they think that they have a monopoly on what is best for the rest of us.
Ta-Nehisi,
I don't think you (or I) understand who conservatives view as "liberal".
Rod Dreher "Crunchy Cons" posted a similar piece by Nick Cohen, writing in the Observer (UK). I submitted a comment, asking who these "liberal journalists" (writing about Sarah Palin/Trig) were that had everyone up in arms. This is the upbraiding I received (from another commenter, not Rod Dreher), but everyone there seemed to agree with him:
"Ricardo - I assume you're not just feigning ignorance, but that you are actually ignorant of The Atlantic Monthly magazine and its vile repetition of the vile rumors emanating from liberal blogs.
This is a mainstream liberal magazine and it's been a mainstream liberal magazine since 1800-something. This is what American liberalism has become."
So, Doug, what do you think about the share of the Republican base who think they have a monopoly on morals and patriotism? Think there's any condescension there?
And what do you think about the through-the-looking-glass world of the right which intrinsically categorizes academic achievement as a negative, certainly for a political candidate, and cites it as proof of elitism?
And what do you think of the humorous juxtaposition of well-educated liberals being scorned as elitists (but who are, nonetheless, well-educated) and sermonizing moralists being cited as exemplars (but who turn out to be, not infrequently, just as human as you or me, i.e. not so moral after all)?
Face it - your point about condescending liberals may have some slim basis in fact (most generalizations do; otherwise they're known as lies), but the whole condescension thing's real utility is in stirring up the base way out of proportion to any underlying truth.
Cheers,
Re: If you think that the intellectual class in Hollywood and in the music industry puts forth products that reinforce middle American thought, you are really out of touch.
See: the marketplace. If Hollywood's products were not what the public wanted, Hollywood would not be selling them.
@Dyre42: In that study, referring to the talk-radio numbers, only a head-to-head comparison of Guliani and Obama showed a liberal media bias of 2%; however, in an Obama-McCain head to head, there was a conservative bias of 22.5%.
Not saying there's no truth to the study, but such obvious cherry-picking lends one to believe it worked from a conclusion towards facts.
Also, that it said MSNBC was more favorable to conservatives than Fox News leads me to seriously question their metric.
Anyway, this study wasn't some comprehensive tally of the last ten years or so - it ranged over a period of 109 weeknights for cable tv, and gave no numbers for talk radio or newspapers. I question their thoroughness, as well as how a positive or negative 'tone' was qualified.
If the authors of that piece had delved into the particulars of the study, it would invest less skepticism in the reader.
So, Doug, what do you think about the share of the Republican base who think they have a monopoly on morals and patriotism? Think there's any condescension there?
And what do you think about the through-the-looking-glass world of the right which intrinsically categorizes academic achievement as a negative, certainly for a political candidate, and cites it as proof of elitism?
I think there is a bit of condescension there, but with the patroitism, I see it more as obnoxious and with morality, I see it more as hypocracy. But it is along the same lines as liberal elitism. When you had clowns like Jim Bakker and Jimmy Swaggert whoring around, I am pretty sure a lot of independents connected that staggering hypocracy to the right wing. They preached moral purity, but couldn't practice it. So I certainly believe that claiming to be a beacon of morality and love of country turns off people, and rightfully so.
I also think it is stupid to claim that an advanced degree is elitist, though many people who have advanced degrees are elitists (and many are Republicans) Yet I have friends who brag that having an advanced degree is tied to voting for democrats, which usually ends with them saying liberals are smarter than conservatives. To me, that qualifies as condescension.
See: the marketplace. If Hollywood's products were not what the public wanted, Hollywood would not be selling them.
Hollywood has pushed quite a few anti-war movies on the public over the past few years that have not sold very well, yet they still made more. Also, there is an audience for a critical view of the public. A lot of people love guns, yet a lot of a people saw Bowling for Columbine.
The "liberal condescension" is an accurate assessment, but is slightly off the mark, but only slightly.
The occasional candidate might condescend to the middle class, like Obama’s gaffe in San Francisco early this year (it does happen). But the bigger impact comes those that support liberal candidates.
Their righteous indignation has a great impact in the local debates, discussions and editorials. After all, next to the campaign trail, these people are the very face of the liberal movement to the average citizens, weather the candidates like it or not. And more times than not, they are quick to condemn any distention from their point of view and proclaim that they are just, and simply right, because they went to college, or because a scientist say so, without ever truly realizing the impact of their policies might have on the middle class. They often treat the debate as if they have forgotten that it is just that, a debate. They certainly have forgotten that we all have a vote, and if they want to change minds they need to practice what they preach, open mindedness.
Doug,
If I have this straight, you concede that the condescension can swing both ways (though my right-wing condescension is your right-right wing obnoxiousness / hypocricy).
You also note that Republicans can be elitists.
Yet you're willing to extrapolate from your friends and broadly conclude that 'liberals' condescend.
Can we then take my friends with advanced degrees - liberals and conservatives both - few to none of whom are elitists to my knowledge, couple them with your friends and call it a wash, i.e. no shrill victimology of anyone being condescended to?
Or shall we just see your personal take as illustrative of the right in general, i.e. the elitist / condescension thing has traction (if no substantiation) so we'll run with it?
Cheers,
Upon further review, I'd say that the whole condescension / elitist thing is very handy - and for my tastes way too effective - tool in the political toolbox. The accusation can be used to defuse most any argument, regardless of how far from the truth that accusation really is. And of course when we're talking about politics / policy, there are very few hard truths. Which makes the tool even that much more effective.
But here's the result: we have a Republican President who comes from two of America's wealthiest families, who attended a handful of America's most elite schools, whose career is largely based on who-you-know, yet who's essentially seen by his supporters as a roughneck Texan and who's not above burnishing that image with big belt buckles and brush clearing.
Then we have a Democratic Presidential candidate who flew B-24 bombers in WWII but was labeled a squishy-soft peacenik, a candidate who fought in combat in Vietnam but was labeled a coward, and candidates who grew up in difficult home circumstances, overcame the odds to achieve outstanding academic records, but are disdained for their air of superiority.
If that's not looking-glass territory, I don't know what is.
Cheers,
I saw David Sirota link to this Aziz Rana piece in n+1 ( http://www.nplusonemag.com/obama ), and I think it does a better job than Crook did at explaining the problem. It isn't merely that liberals don't like Nascar or creationism or whatever--it's that the our entire political agenda, left and right, seems to have given up on the idea that blue collar work is a viable American dream. There used to be many versions of the American dream--the farmer, the unionized industrial worker, the small business owner--but now there's basically only one American dream: higher education followed by a professional career. And that dream just isn't going to be available--or even desirable--to everyone.
Nuada:
If you read my post again you will see that I don't think that Obama acts white, has a white job or any of that other nonsense. I do believe, in fact I know, that people have these perceptions about him. I also didn't say that Obama "wanted" to act white, so I won't respond to whatever point you were trying to make there.
"Non-blacks, namely whites"? Err, what about all of the other shades and varieties. I hope you are not saying that it is only whites that are racist, because that is absurd. The most racist statements I've ever heard against blacks have actually come from Indians (Guyanese), Chinese and Koreans.
This "one drop rule" is also nonsense. Racism surely comes in many levels and types. You recognize this later in your post. But aside from Himmler types, you would have a hard time finding adherents to this one drop rule. You think white people consider Tiger and Mariah black?
You say that the Reverend Wright stuff only hurt him with those with lingering racism. I don't think we really disagree here, except that I would say that everyone of any race harbors some racist sentiment to the extent that each of us at the very least has some suspicion of "the other." I think this is biology, an evolutionary protective measure of sorts. And yes, even decent people have these feelings. Even me and You.
In closing, and I don't intend any disrespect, I think you don't have a great understanding of the nature of white racism. I don't see this as a fault on your part, since if you are black (and I suspect you are because I have only heard the "one drop rule" from blacks), you don't have access to the honestly expresses opinions about race that a non-black does.
Rofe, of course I concede that conservatives shit does indeed stink, I don't come here to mimic the RNC, Limbaugh and Olbermann do propaganda far better than I can. I don't think you are portraying my point of view accurately, in my first post on this subject, I stated that I don't see much condescension coming out of Obama, but that I see it out of some liberals, not all.
Michael Moore actually does go off to Europe and tells his audiences that Americans are stupid. The Euros get to feel superior, Moore's bank account get stuffed, it is win-win on that side of the Atlantic. Yet the Democratic party has to answer for that bit of liberal narcissism. Just like the republicans have to answer when one of their family values practitioners gets busted for a wide stance in an airport stall.
Okay, one concrete example of a policy that was a favorite for many years of the coastal liberals, but was viewed as condescending by the rest of the country: the 55 mph speed limit. Yes, I know it was originally Nixon's idea, but after that time its primary support was found in the Northeastern and California blocs of liberal Democrats in the House, who didn't allow a vote on it for about 15 years (and then only allowed a partial repeal).
No less a liberal than Barney Frank identified it as one of the "not supposedtas" that were killing Democrats in the middle of the country.
The issue is not that effete liberals are condescending to the middle class or lower middle class. A lot of the most liberal activists (teachers, nurses, civil rights lawyers, civil servants) live a more humble lifestyle than a highly skilled blue collar worker. They (we, really) rather are very condescending to the Republican base. We consider them thick-headed, superstitious, selfish, xenophobic, contemptuous of education and the arts, a blight on society, and a threat to this country's future.
Not really. We know they disagree with us, and we try to reason with them, and when we use high-falutin language to try to explain our point of view they get very testy and resentful. It is the same language we hyper-educated coastal elites use among ourselves, but when we talk to Mr. and Mrs. Heartland they get all pissy because they think we are laughing at them. And after having these people condemn us and insult us at length for 30 years now, we are more than a bit fed up with these bumpkins.
We don't think highly of them, and they hate us. They rather comically think we are all incredibly wealthy and live luxuriously, and entertain ourselves with plots to bring America down so we can giggle and cheer at 'real Americans' suffering. Like we are 100 million Snidely Whiplashes twirling our socialist mustaches with evil glee. This is just further evidence of their foolishness and counter-rationality.
honest to goodness, does nobody understand the word "condescend?"
Don K, explain to us how a 55 mph speed limit is "condescending?" it could be condescending to explain "unlike those of us with superior insight, those of you who want to drive faster than 55 are destroying the planet," but the simple act of supporting a 55-mph speed limit is "condescending?"
what in the world?
Firefox sucks - I refreshed after my post had been accepted and posted, and FF went into the cache and reposted the comment. My apologies for the double post.
Journalist Coates observes that Journalist Clive “argues that basically liberals think they have the best interest of the working class at heart, and yet they routinely talk down to said working class, who in turn punish Democratic candidates at the ballot box every four years. This is hard for me to take for a couple reasons. First off, I'm black and grew up in a working class community, and I never heard anyone complain about presidential candidates talking down to them. I'm willing to allow that my experiences are atypical, though.” People in different circumstances with regard to time, place, and situation have different experiences and perceptions. New technologies and new developments can easily render obsolescent theories based on exploiter class, working class, conservatives, and liberals. Karl Marx developed his theories in the pre-radio era in which the exploiter class governed the working class and the feudalistic serfdom class. Under the tsar, the conservatives tended to be Russian Orthodox Christian traditionalists, who were suspicious of Jews and non-Russians, while the liberals tended to be religiously tolerant and in favor of individual freedoms together with redistribution of wealth and political power. Anything that is actually accomplished must be both politically and economically feasible. Two important books for understanding contemporary political realities are Major General Smedley Butler’s 1935 book “War Is a Racket” and John Perkins’s 2004 book “Confessions of an Economic Hit Man.” According to Theodore Roosevelt, “A man without an education can rob a train, but a man with an education can steal the whole railroad.” According to the environmentalist Aldo Leopold, “Every form of education is also a form of indoctrination.” According to the Roman philosopher Seneca, “Homo hominis lupus.” (Man is a wolf to man.) Before the printing press, rich people controlled poor people by governmental and religious propaganda and also by monopoly of education and writing. Marshall McLuhan observed that communications technology changed cognitive organization. McLuhan popularized the term “global village” and the slogan “The medium is the message.” The corporatocracy uses pop culture to attract toward brand names and to distract from people’s lives. In the corporatocracy, “The medium is the manipulation.” In the latter part of the twentieth century, Ted Turner observed that “Television is more powerful than the government – in fact, television elects the government.” The printing press, radio, television, Internet, and globalization allow the corporatocracy to develop. The logic of the corporatocracy is to create a one-world pseudo-government controlled by superrich people and multinational corporations. The official governments should become false fronts, laundering operations, and racketeering schemes run by tycoons, mob bosses, media manipulators, and legal minds belonging to the corporatocracy. According to Warren Buffett, if you have been in a poker game for half an hour and you don’t know who the pigeon is, then you are the pigeon. Government and business are often games of hawks and pigeons. According to Thucydides, people with money tend to buy political power, while people with political power tend to enrich themselves. The law is like a spider web that catches little flies and allows big flies to escape. International law enforcement of business contracts is actually a combination of legalism, quasi-legalism, criminality, bribery, threats, and deceptions. International commerce sometimes involves governments working with gangsters, economic hit men, and gangsters. The corporatocracy uses global media mavens against global village idiots. Eisenhower introduced the concept of the military-industrial complex (MIC). The corporatocracy increasingly relies on international law for protecting trademarks, copyrights, patents, and other corporate assets. The corporatocracy uses the legal-infotech complex (LIC) for branding, advertising, marketing, and managing corporate assets. The MIC, the LIC, and the mainstream media (MSM) are key components of the corporatocracy. The Republicans now represent the militaristic rightwing of the corporatocracy, which is the MIC. The Democrats now represent the socialistic leftwing of the corporatocracy, which is the LIC. The logic of the corporatocracy is to gradually erase racial, ethnic, religious, and cultural differences to provide uniformity in military and social control. The social hierarchy of the corporatocracy should have a tiny minority of superrich people, a small upper middle class of highly skilled people, and a docile, contented majority satisfied with bread and circuses. Is my analysis correct? Perhaps not. People like Jim Cramer, Bill Gates, and Warren Buffett understand what is really going on.
Dave Brown, thanks for clearing that up.
/condescending
From Time's Micheal Kinsley today;
"Sarah Palin thinks she is a better American than you because she comes from a small town, and a superior human being because she isn't a journalist and has never lived in Washington and likes to watch her kids play hockey."
I think this is an example of the major news outlets being liberal.
Saying you are not a stupid hick if you are from a small town does not mean you think you are better than everyone else. The reason this example is particularly good is that it's from an article on Alaska's state finance's (which as a registered Alaska Democrat, I can tell you contained a fair number of inaccuracies, especially regarding the oil taxes.)
Up thread, two folks have pointed out that Maher isn't a "liberal," if by liberal we mean mainstream US democrats. They're right.
But he does sometimes call himself a liberal, by which he seems to be referring to his beliefs that religion should have no impact on laws or government, that civil liberties should be sacrosanct, and that people should basically be left the hell alone.
Maher is libertarian on lots of issues -- wants drugs, gambling and prostitution legalized; wants social security privatized; wants all subsidies to industry cut.
He does support Obama for president, but this seems to be largely because of his disgust bordering on hatred of what the republican party has become.
Yet even if he was a card carrying member of the democratic party, it would still be extremely weak sauce to hold him (a comedian) up as evidence of anything having to do with the democrats' general attitude towards the working class.
Saying you are not a stupid hick if you are from a small town does not mean you think you are better than everyone else.
Questioning the patriotism, honesty, sincerity, and dignity of everyone who isn't from a small town certainly does, though. That's a key difference in the campaigns--Obama and Biden attack McCain and Palin, McCain and Palin attack everyone who likes Obama and Biden. Obama seeks to unite (awesome God in the blue states, gay friends in the red states), Palin seeks to divide.
Data point:
Every white person I know follows the "one drop" rule and considers Tiger Woods, Mariah Carey, and Obama to be black. Most of the white people I know, when reflecting on it, would say it's kinda weird- but that's the way it is.
I had a friend in college whose mother was norwegian from north dakota and whose father from the congo. I referred to him as "half-black" or "half-white" if the subject came up, and everyone looked at me like "huh?" Like, you can't be half-black, that's like being half-pregnant.
I'm white: I consider that if a person calls themselves black, I'll call them black, and if they want to call themselves white, I'll call them that. Race doesn't have any biological basis in a massively outbreeding society like ours; it's cultural, and I go with the cultural flow. The exception is people who were raised culturally white, by parents who told them they were white, who appear white to everyone else, but they discovered a grandparent who's half Cherokee and now want to be called Native American. Mmm-no. Sorry.
"Nuada, you have done a wonderful job of misrepresenting my post."
Thanks! I’ll take a compliment when I can get one.
“If you think that the intellectual class in Hollywood and in the music industry puts forth products that reinforce middle American thought, you are really out of touch. In the 70's, the public put a religious themed song "You light up my life" to the top of the charts and put a bunch of raunchy disco tunes to number one, so what sells to the public doesn't always mean a universal endorsement of a point of view.”
Maybe I shouldn’t respond here. You do seem to be getting a little upset.
The entire point of my post was to say that your entire post was full of clichés that don’t mean anything. No offense but you even repeated another one here, it’s like you are suffering from some kind of disease, you just can’t stop yourself.
What is Middle American thought? I have lived in Middle America for the past 6 years. But I was born and raised in Kennedy Country, dark blue Massachusetts. The town I grew up in and the town I live in now have roughly the same population level. And do you know what? I haven’t noticed a huge difference in thoughts and values.
Whatever your motivations, you are putting forth the same tired B.S. conservatives have been trotting out for 40 years. Which states have the highest rate of (per captia) divorces and teenage pregnancies? Red states from down south. Which states have the lowest rates of divorce? Blue states up north. In fact, at the time the state of my birth was legalizing gay marriage, it actually had the lowest divorce rate in the country.
Don’t forget the word I mentioned. “Hypocrisy”. Small town and red state voters are not that different in terms of their own personal values. They just hide things and pretend to be something that they are not far better.
Perhaps though, that’s a little harsh. People are complex. Someone can go to church on a Sunday morning and go watch some trashy night-time soap later on the same day. Many people do. I suppose that sort of speaks to that point I think you were trying to make about songs.
“If you read my post again you will see that I don't think that Obama acts white, has a white job or any of that other nonsense. I do believe, in fact I know, that people have these perceptions about him. I also didn't say that Obama "wanted" to act white, so I won't respond to whatever point you were trying to make there.”
Respond to whatever you want.
But you should know that I realized that you weren’t expressing those nonsensical and racist things as your own personal opinion. I was just trying to point out the silliness of the statements in and of themselves.
"Non-blacks, namely whites"? Err, what about all of the other shades and varieties. I hope you are not saying that it is only whites that are racist, because that is absurd.”
No, I am not saying that. I am saying that non-blacks, (in particular, whites), view those who are half-black as 100% black. The only exception here would be a very light-skinned bi-racial person who purposefully tried to hide their Afro-American heritage. I have no idea who is the most racist ethnic subgroup in America.
“This "one drop rule" is also nonsense.”
No, it is a fact of American history, from all the way back when the term “mulatto” first began to be bandied about until now. Mixed raced people, except those who tried to pass as 100% white, have always been regarded as black. (In America of course, in a country like Brazil, things are reversed 180.) I would venture a guess that the rigidity of attitudes might have softened up in recent years but most bi-racial people still seem to identify themselves as black, at least the ones that achieve any level of notability.
I mean look at Obama! He was raised by his white mother and his white grandparents. He never lived in a community with a significant black population until he moved to Chicago’s South Side as an adult. Yet he married a black woman, moved to a black neighborhood and went to an Afro-centric church.
“Racism surely comes in many levels and types. You recognize this later in your post.”
Yes but that point is largely irrelevant in our modern context, as I’m sure the “one drop rule” found it’s origins in racism but I’m not sure that’s what keeping it alive.
“But aside from Himmler types, you would have a hard time finding adherents to this one drop rule.”
Actually the Nazis weren’t that harsh in terms of blood purity. If I remember my “Nuremberg Laws” correctly, if you were no more than 25% Jewish and didn’t self-identify as Jewish, you were most likely ok. Then again, of course if you didn't make the grade, you were headed for the camps.
“You think white people consider Tiger and Mariah black?”
No offense but…..you do live in this country, right? The Unites States I mean. So if Tiger isn’t black, what was the controversy with Fuzzy Zoller’s “fried chicken” comment years ago? Or how about the far more recent brouhaha over a golf commentator using the term “lynch” in a discussion over Tiger Woods?
“You say that the Reverend Wright stuff only hurt him with those with lingering racism. I don't think we really disagree here, except that I would say that everyone of any race harbors some racist sentiment to the extent that each of us at the very least has some suspicion of "the other." I think this is biology, an evolutionary protective measure of sorts. And yes, even decent people have these feelings. Even me and You.”
Possibly. But that’s off the topic to a certain degree. “Lingering racism” is far more racism than I’ve ever felt. The Rev. Wright stuff meant nothing to me. Actually, as someone who’s church has no small amount of controversy concerning it, (I am Roman Catholic), the Wright stuff made me even more sympathetic towards him.
"In closing, and I don't intend any disrespect, I think you don't have a great understanding of the nature of white racism. I don't see this as a fault on your part, since if you are black (and I suspect you are because I have only heard the "one drop rule" from blacks), you don't have access to the honestly expresses opinions about race that a non-black does."
I’m sorry if this throws your world into chaos but I am white as white gets. I’m the grandson of immigrants, my father’s family was Irish, my mother’s was Portuguese.
I was raised to be racially sensitive though. Most white have never heard of the “one drop rule” because most whites don’t give a damn about race relations. Not that I’m God’s great white gift to the black community. But I do know that I try harder to see the perspective of…..”the other”…..as you called it, I try harder than the average white person.