The whole issue with the "welfare queen" was that the rest of us were paying for her lifestyle, such as it was. The other issue, of course, is crime and quality of life. Bristol Palin's kid could grow up to be an ax murderer, for all I know. I'm not going to spend much time in backwoods Alaska, so it's not an issue to me. I very likely will be spending time in Chicago, D.C., or New York, so kids whose upbringing I subsidized could very well come back to mug me or worse.

You're changing the subject. The discussion isn't whether welfare/food stamps etc. is right or wrong--indeed I raised no such point. It's are the numerous examples listed above condescending or not. Don't duck the essential argument by trying to derail. Be honest enough to discuss the actual argument presented--not the argument you wish I had made

Robert,

Yes. My bad. Fixing now.

I'm not sure. I think condescension is an extension of judgment - it is the (expressed) surety that your judgment is better than someone else's. In some cases, this can be rooted in more information.

If I become gravely ill, and my doctor informs me that I need surgery, imagine tell him that I would rather try snake oil. The next thing he says is probably going to have an air of "Look, I practice medicine, and I know better than you do" condescension. But, the thing is, he'd be right. He does have better information and knowledge than I do.

If he's good at what he does, perhaps he can sound more empathetic, or he can take the time to explain numbers and be more convincing on merits. But somewhere, his inner voice is probably saying "Oh, FFS!" And to the extent that this emotion comes out, he'll probably seem condescending.

Why does this dicing of words even matter?

Because, there is this disturbing tendency to fight "condescension" by pretending that all judgments do, in fact, have equal value -- that having a judgment is in and of itself is somehow wrong, or that all judgments are equally valid.

This is a pernicious idea that allows people to clothe ignorance or intolerance in a vail of victimhood; claiming intolerance on the other side is a distraction from any discussion about how or why we make our judgments. (This is particularly difficult because condescension is often in the eye of the beholder.)

We shouldn't be afraid to say what things we think are right or wrong, and why. Nobody should have to apologize for having values, nor should they be free from having them challenged. The opposite of condescension isn't knowledge (as it would be if condescension were ignorance). Rather, it is civility and, and with it, humility, an awareness both of one's fallibility and that being right, by itself, is not enough.

One of my favorite examples of class-based condescension comes from a National Review article (from some years back) about domestic violence. The writer's take on it was basically that the whole fuss over it was silly; that stories about spousal abuse in "professional" and middle-class families was just media hype. The vast majority of violence, she asserted, occurred in lower-income families, so naturally there was nothing that could be done, or should be done, about that. "Those people" are just inclined to violence; what can you do?

Compare that to Sen. Obama saying "cling", if you will...

I didn't raise that point either. I didn't say whether welfare was good or bad. I just tried to explain to you that the existence of it affects the attitudes people have to different types of poor people.

I would argue that his condescension would be a product of his ignorance, or indifference, of the patient's culture, beliefs, religion, or a host of other variables that lead him or her to believe an alternative approach is best for his problem. As Ta-Nehisi said in the comment above, this is not about the rightness or wrongness of either position, but giving each participant credit for their full humanity.

In the example you give, maybe a little condescension might be called for to bring about the proper outcome, but then again maybe not.

But it is still condescending.

So there is greater value to pushing this theme on the white working class. If a voter is completely undecided, any one thing can sway him or her. A guy may walk into a booth thinking that he likes Obama and McCain equally, but if there is a reminder that it is more likely to be a liberal who might mock his faith in God or guns, it might be enough to tip the scale.

I think Obama is more immune to this because he brings up his faith a hell of a lot more than Kerry did. In fact, I hear from some on the left that they don't like how often he does.

Ize aims to please and Ize pleazed to aims!

Just joking, seriously thanks for the props

Remarks by voters in Lebanon OH seemed instructive. The famous "stupid voters" can attach themselves to SP's image-on-TV easily.

Admittedly it's just a random diary, but still ... is this the kind of condescension people are talking about?

jon

PS: a better way to phrase my previous comment: a lot of time "low-information voters" comes across as a euphemism for "stupid voters."

You also said people in Alaska aren't taking our money, but more federal money goes to Alaska per person than any other state. Here in Massachusetts the federal money is a net negative on our resources.

You should hear what conservatives say about us.

Since you've opened the door to grievance-mongering, I don't like being condescended to by folks like you who call a war that Congress voted to authorize, by wide margins, "Bush's War". Like it or not, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are America's wars. You're free to have your own opinion about them, but the way history judges the wars will color how it judges the opponents of the wars. Those who opposed the Civil War and WWII at the time felt a lot of righteous indignation about "Lincoln's War" and "Roosevelt's War" respectively, but history doesn't remember them kindly. Time will tell.

There are a plethora of places on the web to debate the merits of the War. Please take the discussion there. It's a tired, tired argument. Please don't derail this thread rehashing it again.

Zak,

Certainly that's a type of condescension--but it isn't condescension itself. Literally the dictionary definition is "displaying a patronizingly superior attitude." I'm not sure how that is the opposite of demagoguery. Certainly a persistent feature of of white racism in this country has been condescension--talking down to black people. But so has demagoguery. One can, at once, say that "community organizers" are not part of America, and still at the same "display a patronizingly superior attitude" to them.

The "patronizing superiority" is in the idea that small-town America is the font of common-sense and everyday wisdom, and that that knowledge is the true knowledge that makes America great--not the thoughts of bookish urbanites. There is almost no difference between that attitude, and said bookish urbanites dismissing small-town America as a haven of ignorance. It's the same thing.

Juan, Alaska does not get pork "like every other..." The whole state is a welfare queen. They lead the entire nation in per capita federal spending. Ted Stevens brags about it. They pay no state taxes and ask for federal money to build their infrastructure, then they pose as self-sufficient rugged individualists. They're laughable, and they deserve to be ridiculed.

"Secondly, it reduces people to their lack of access to information,......."

Or it may be describing them in terms of their imperviousness to information. True believers don't let facts unsettle their opinions. Go check out a woman's space type blog to see what I mean.

I fully expect to hear stories of people in the South boycotting "The Legend of Bagger Vance" now.

Juan completely missed the point and I'm not interested in a flame war. And TNC I know you have to be worried about trolls, they're tendency to drown out the conversation is why I was so glad that someone I like to read at the Atlantic is allowing comments. But read my posts, one sentence belonged to the Iraq war.

Thomas,

Posted the Matt Damon vid.

That may be the most condescending thing any American has ever said. Nonetheless, Gould seems to have been right.

I would argue that demagoguery is the worst kind of condenscension. Demagoguery actively exploits other people's prejudices, whereas condescension exploits one's own prejudices.

Condescension (absent demogoguery) is pretty easy to spot for those on the receiving end. Demagoguery not so much. But if you can spot demogoguery, instead of falling victim to it, then you see its inherent condescension.

Some of these Texans may have been dixiecrats who were to the right of those they hated, but it is hard to make that arguement against LBJ, who headed one of the most liberal eras in US history.

I also remember seeing a similar dynamic on the Republican side when Pat Robertson ran against GHW Bush in the 88 primary. 41 and some of his people certainly had a different view of the religious right than his son has.

In fact, a family like Sarah Palin's (you know, just as many kids, and kids-with-kids, but no Governor in the house) almost certainly gets more from the Earned Income Tax Credit per child than your welfare "queen" gets for hers.

So, in fact, you are subsidizing Sarah Palin's bush country moose hunting.

The whole elitism/condescention (spelling?) issue really crystallized for me during Ted Kennedy's video at the DNC. Just look at him enjoying his schooner, which in turn reminded me of Kerry's windsurfing. Oh, you east coast liberals and your ocean, u think you're so special.

I am sure Palin's husband makes enough to phase out any EITC. Also, there is no additional EITC for having a third, fourth or fifth child.

Are you trying to say that everyone else's circumstances means they're a victim? That telling your story, the mere fact you are alive, that makes you an author of victimology?

If so that is worse than being lazy, weak and dishonest. This is a form of hatred/fear based on the belief that if not for you there go I and you might recognize it. That is despising people for being alive.

---

What if you're not a Christian? Are the predominantly secular nations of Europe places of moral anarchy? Are non-Christians, by definition, nihilists?

But it’s not really even “small-town America” that’s more moral and wise. It’s small-town America in the Midwest, Boarder South and Upper Plains. Back when I lived in Massachusetts, I had close relatives who lived in a town…..more like a village actually…..of about 4,000 people. I don’t know the political make-up of the town in question. But my point here can be illustrated thusly. John Kerry only got about 60% of the MA vote against Bush in 2004. Yes, that sounds like a pretty good margin. But it still means about 40% voted for Bush; this is after taking into consideration that John Kerry has represented MA for about 20 years and Bush had gone around the country for months using the word “Massachusetts” as an ugly pejorative.

I agree, the whole line of reasoning that people in small town are automatically more upstanding than people who live in cities is ugly and stupid. But residents of small towns in blue states don’t even get that. It’s all about “heartland” voters!

Yes, I can agree that conservatives go to church more often than liberals. But two codicils would be that; (1) most Americans don’t go to church on a weekly basis and (2) attendance at weekly church services is not always the most accurate measurement of one’s inner religiosity.

I can also agree that so called “white working-class / middle classes” voters are more conservative when compared to Afro-Americans and Latinos who earn similar wages. The only explanation that jumps out here is race relations; either the racist sentiments of whites or the perceptions of whites have racist sentiments by Afro-Americans.

But I don’t understand how someone can honestly make the arguments that they do. Why can’t working-class / middle class whites be liberal? Because liberals condescend to working-class / middle class whites. Why would they do that? How does that benefit their goals?

And how do they do that? Liberals mock the values of working-class / middle class whites. What is a working-class / middle class white value? They must be different than the values of working-class / middle class Afro-Americans and Latinos; the electoral evidence bears that out.
Now I’ve been a working-class / middle class white my entire life, I’m not aware of any values that are exclusive to my ethnic-economic social group. People in my neighborhood, hell, even people in my own family sometimes disagreed over things that could be considered values.

Are working-class / middle class white voters any more religious than rich white voters…..is there any evidence to bear that out? And how do you truly determine religiosity, as the saying goes, “going to a church doesn’t make you a Christian anymore than going to a garage makes you a car.”
Are working-class / middle-class whites more like to hunt or own guns…..would that hold true everywhere from Missouri to Massachusetts? Remember now, firearms are rather expensive, (the cheapest shotguns are pump action and a good one would cost you several hundred dollars.), not to mention all of the assorted hunting accessories many buy. And impressions can be deceiving here as well, as illustrated by Kerry being an elite for wind-surfing, (not a very expensive hobby at all), and Bush being a regular Joe with his cigarette boat, (which can cost several hundreds of thousand of dollars.)
Is there any factual evidence that the average conservative, (aside from those who are strictly social conservatives), consumes Hollywood’s culture with any less frequency than liberals? Is there any factual evidence that the average white working-class / middle class voter consumes Hollywood’s culture with any less frequency than someone wealthier? I still don’t see how things like Hollywood culture condescend or puts-down white working-class / middle class values. Even if you want to argue that Hollywood puts down things like God and guns, you need to prove that, once again, white working-class / middle-class voters not only consider such things as core values but actually demonstrate them as core values as well.

The image of effete rich liberals who hate Jesus and love French stuff vs. the hard-working frugal conservatives who live in church and think anything un-American is crap…..it just doesn’t have any basis in reality.

It’s not difficult to pick apart the whole argument. Arugula is not actually any more expensive than any other green leafy vegetable, except for maybe iceberg lettuce. Lots of beers are more expensive than lots of wines. You can even get fancy lattes in gas stations in the region where I live; the latte machines are right next to the milkshake machines.

That's one thing that needs to be brought up more often. A lot of middle America is full of people who make perfectly good money. Many have degrees, and some have graduate degrees. They work in different industries than people on the coasts, but there is a lot of work out there. A lot of it requires specialized knowledge in engineering or geology or something, subjects that many lawyers and journalists never touch.

When people on the coasts talk about the ignorant people in flyover country, they forget about this demographic. I don't think these people are looking for government handouts, and I'm sure they vote Republican for the low taxes as much as for any false consciousness about their interests. Liberals forget at their peril that most of the country is middle class, even in middle America.

When do people on the coasts talk about people in the middle of America in a negative way? I’m from a town that literally touches the Atlantic Ocean; we loved to talk shit about NYC because we all identified with Boston. But I never recall us east-coasters going, just out of the blue, “you know those people living in the middle of the country…..fuck them”!

And when do liberals talk shit about people in the middle of the country, SOLELY because they live in the middle of America? Liberals might talk shit about conservatives who live in the middle of the country. But Minnesota is in the middle of America and Minnesota has matched Massachusetts as the birthplace of many a progressive leader. Wisconsin is also in the middle of America and Wisconsin Senator Russ Finegold is every liberal’s hero. Liberals talk shit about conservatives, period, just like conservatives do to liberals.

And for that matter, don’t you think liberals in the middle of America talk shit about their conservative neighbors? (I don’t consider myself all that liberal but I’m definitely more left than right.) Well, I can assure you, they do.

No one is paying for my lifestyle either-- I earn a good salary, But that does not stop the Religious Right from bashing me and mine with their assumptions of being God's Own while gays like me are hellspawn.

Compare Rev. Wright casting blame and Rev. Falwell. Falwell blames the gays, Wright blames those that control the government. Falwell blames those out of power, Wright blames those in power. That's the difference right there.

You can't be condescending to a mainstream white person who is governor of a state unless you are coming from a position higher than that - which almost nobody is. You just can't. You can't look down on someone higher than you.

So the problem here is that there is a lack of respect for the relative positions of each player. Those that are in power have no right to complain - because they are in power. They just have to take it. Employees can bitch about the boss till the cows come home, but the boss can't bitch about the employees because the boss always has the right to fire the employees. Ultimately, if something goes wrong, you can only blame those that had the power to get it right.

"When do people on the coasts talk about people in the middle of America in a negative way?"

By and large they never do. The 'flyover' meme came from Rush. Liberals weren't disparaging people in Arkansas, but Rush was telling people in Arkansas they were being disparaged to get them to vote. The only people saying disparaging things about them were the Republican pundits.

I think it is a fairly common rivalry of big city vs rural people throughout the world. People in big cities tend to be earlier adopters of fads, technologies and fashions while it takes longer to get out to the further regions. Cities also tend to be populated by a more liberal group of people. So when conflict between the two is played out, it can be seen in a liberal vs conservative framework.

Hollywood has often portrayed people in the south and bible belt in a manner that often is one of mockery. Even the term "bible belt" is often said with scorn by people outside of it.
The phrase "Will it play in Peoria" is an admission that city people are out of touch with rural folk, often from a point of view that something is too sophisticated for simple midwesterners.

I think the problem gets amplified because the media centers are in the two largest cities, so their voices are heard disproportionately while rural voices are somewhat ignored in the popular culture.

I don’t think anything you’ve said here is too inaccurate. There’s even a book I’ve wanted to read written about this very topic but the name of the title has long since escaped me. The point being; it’s about the conflict between rural and urban, not blue states and red states.

What really pisses me off is how people who live in the Northeast or Northwest and/or with left of center views are thought of as elitists. My home town had about 90,000 people when I lived there and no one who ever spent as much as an hour there would ever call it “upscale”. My mother’s parents settled there were they immigrated; for most of their years my grandfather was a janitor, my grandmother a housewife.

“Hollywood has often portrayed people in the south and bible belt in a manner that often is one of mockery. Even the term "bible belt" is often said with scorn by people outside of it.
The phrase "Will it play in Peoria" is an admission that city people are out of touch with rural folk, often from a point of view that something is too sophisticated for simple midwesterners.”

First of all, we’ve already abandoned the whole “working-class / middle class white” dynamic for sheer geography. That’s a major shift.

Secondly, we must talk about context. Comedies poke fun at people, it’s what they do. I don’t think that anyone in Hollywood actually thinks every last person who speaks with a Southern accent is some inbred idiot. However, when a person from the South acts stupid, (either in a movie or real life), there is a highly accessible and familiar caricature to be used. To the extent that it is better known that the “Boston Kids” skit from Saturday Night Live, that’s just how luck is sometimes. But I don’t think such a caricature should be banned outright. Just because you say these specific Southern people are stupid and use the typical caricature doesn’t mean or shouldn’t mean at least, that you think all Southerners are that way.

Speaking briefly about Midwesterners, ha-ha, here’s a story for you. My mother-in-law is a 60-ish evangelical Pentecostal who grew up on a farm with no running water (yes, they had an outhouse) and barely finished high school. Did I mention that she played the steel guitar in her youth? She has gone down to Alabama with her husband to visit her husband’s grown children several times over the last few years. Every time she comes back she can’t stop complaining about how much she hates it down there; how everything is dirtier, everything looks poor. This woman lives in the Midwest and has never known anything in the same solar system as wealth. Yet the Deep South is crap to her. Me? I’ve never been down South, save the airport in San Antonio, so I wouldn’t know.

There certainly are going to be blue collar liberals in cities who won't trash their peers in the midwest. Just like a black churchgoer in NYC isn't going to make disparaging remarks about people who believe in Christ. But their are people, and trust me, they exist in Detroit, who think that people of faith are idiots, that a southern accent is a sign of stupidity. If someone hears these points out of the mouths of liberals, after awhile, a connection is going to be made.

Unfortunately for liberalism, the megaphone is usually given to the loudmouth actor or producer in LA rather than the union worker in Ohio or dare I say, a community organizer in Chicago. People who are a bit more in touch with the middle class.

It's often said with scorn by the people inside of it, too. And why wouldn't it be?