The Problem with American Liberals

[August1991]

Two good columns this weekend about the American Left.

Krauthammer points out first that American liberals (including Obama) believe that the American people are stupid or gullible and need to be directed:

Obama joined the parade in the State of the Union address when, with supercilious modesty, he chided himself "for not explaining it [health care] more clearly to the American people." The subject, he noted, was "complex." The subject, it might also be noted, was one to which the master of complexity had devoted 29 speeches. Perhaps he did not speak slowly enough.

Then Krauthammer went on to explain the other problem with American liberals: they believe that only they have the well-being of America at heart:

That brings us to Part 2 of the liberal conceit: Liberals act in the public interest, while conservatives think only of power, elections, self-aggrandizement and self-interest.

A university professor makes similar points:

Every political community includes some members who insist that their side has all the answers and that their adversaries are idiots. But American liberals, to a degree far surpassing conservatives, appear committed to the proposition that their views are correct, self-evident, and based on fact and reason, while conservative positions are not just wrong but illegitimate, ideological and unworthy of serious consideration. Indeed, all the appeals to bipartisanship notwithstanding, President Obama and other leading liberal voices have joined in a chorus of intellectual condescension.

Gerard Alexander

[incidentally, I don't Canada's Left suffers from the same foibles and I suspect that regionalism keeps them more pragmatic.]

Edited February 7, 2010 by August1991

[eyeball]

[incidentally, I don't Canada's Left suffers from the same foibles and I suspect that regionalism keeps them more pragmatic.]

Look at how many posters in this forum who have said that most Canadian voters are basically to stupid to be trusted to vote intelligently on most issues.

I sense that more or less equal number of liberal and conservative voters feel this way but I also think most voters on the Canadian left have more faith in voter's intelligence and democracy than the right.

[Pliny]

[incidentally, I don't Canada's Left suffers from the same foibles and I suspect that regionalism keeps them more pragmatic.]

There is no right wing in Canada, at least no one with substance givesa nything but a spotty portrayal of the right wing point of view. Stupidity and ignorance are gone for the most part.

[punked]

There is no right wing in Canada, at least no one with substance givesa nything but a spotty portrayal of the right wing point of view. Stupidity and ignorance are gone for the most part.

Same in he US both the right and left just play say what their base wants to hear and govern from the middle.

[eyeball]

Same in he US both the right and left just play say what their base wants to hear and govern from the middle.

And the middle is all over the freakin' road.

[bloodyminded]

Two good columns this weekend about the American Left.

Krauthammer points out first that American liberals (including Obama) believe that the American people are stupid or gullible and need to be directed:Obama joined the parade in the State of the Union address when, with supercilious modesty, he chided himself "for not explaining it [health care] more clearly to the American people." The subject, he noted, was "complex." The subject, it might also be noted, was one to which the master of complexity had devoted 29 speeches. Perhaps he did not speak slowly enough.

Then Krauthammer went on to explain the other problem with American liberals: they believe that only they have the well-being of America at heart:

A university professor makes similar points:Gerard Alexander

[incidentally, I don't Canada's Left suffers from the same foibles and I suspect that regionalism keeps them more pragmatic.]

So...a hardcore, librul-hatin' pundit makes an observation...as if this man hasn't supported and defended lies-to-the-public for many a long year.

And also..."a university professor makes similar points."

Ah, but "university professors," we are informed, are ivory-tower eggheads who hold elitist views and indoctrinate our young and so on....

Oh. Except those who criticize liberals. Then they're just issuing bland, non-partisan reportage.

Edited February 7, 2010 by bloodyminded

[August1991]

I sense that more or less equal number of liberal and conservative voters feel this way but I also think most voters on the Canadian left have more faith in voter's intelligence and democracy than the right.

If you look at this (unscientific) survey attached to the Washington Post opinion piece, it's apparent that most people find American liberals more condescending.

There is no right wing in Canada, at least no one with substance givesa nything but a spotty portrayal of the right wing point of view. Stupidity and ignorance are gone for the most part.

Regionalism drives Canadian federal politics and so ideology is much less important. That was my point.

Canada's left is increasingly urban though and has started to become like its American counterpart.

Oh. Except those who criticize liberals. Then they're just issuing bland, non-partisan reportage.

Uh, bloodyminded, I think you are entirely missing the point - but then I guess that illustrates the point too. Edited February 7, 2010 by August1991

[bloodyminded]

Uh, bloodyminded, I think you are entirely missing the point - but then I guess that illustrates the point too.

Well, it might be better if you explained why, rather than being so...condescending!

[punked]

Regionalism drives Canadian federal politics and so ideology is much less important. That was my point.

Canada's left is increasingly urban though and has started to become like its American counterpart.

?

You know many of the largest, most rural riddings are won by the NDP right?

[BubberMiley]

The very largest and most rural (Churchill) almost always does.

[Smallc]

The very largest and most rural (Churchill) almost always does.

I think you might be forgetting about some larger ridings just to the north...

[August1991]

?

You know many of the largest, most rural riddings are won by the NDP right?

That was my point. Similarly, the Bloc also has many large rural ridings in Quebec.

In western Canada (and I include northern Ontario in that), the NDP is the de facto opposition to the Conservatives. In the Maritimes however, the NDP has only recently become a federal player.

Regional interests (rather than ideology) are far more important in Canadian federal politics and hence the Canadian "left" (such as it is) cannot be divorced from reality. Another way to state this is to point out that the federal Liberals really don't have any ideology at all except pragmatism.

In the US, the situation is different. And to return to the two opinion pieces in the OP, I tend to agree that American liberals suffer from condescenion and a belief that only they are enlightened, honest brokers.

[August1991]

I found the following comment, posted in response to Jonathan Kay's report of the Nashville tea party convention (at which Sarah Palin spoke), germane to this thread. American liberals (and ideological leftists elsewhere) don't seem to understand how much like Catholic priests they have become. They speak down to their parishioners, and they pretend alone to follow the righteous path - while non-believers are guilty of selfish sin.

EXCUSE ME, but it is NOT the job of ANY citizens to support the governments goals unless they consider those goals acceptable. Obama has to sell his vision to the publicand he hasnt.

We dont work for Obama. As taxpayers, Obama works for us. And he has to reach out to usnot the reverse. Thats how it works in America.

But liberals dont want to reach out to Red State Americabecause liberals hold them in such contempt. Your posts. The posts from chicago_guy. The posts from most of the liberals Ive seen on this blog and elsewhere.

You reek of it. All of you.

Its in your books (Whats the Matter with Kansas?). Its in your opinion columns (The unteachable ignorance of the Red states). Its in Obamas speeches (where he talked about clinging to religion and guns). Its in the latest columns (Blame the Childish, Ignorant American Public). And its in your actions, where you chased after the chimera of a single-payer health care system and worried about global warming, while 10% of your fellow Americans were unemployed for over a year.

Liberals smug (and false) sense of intellectual AND moral superioritywhich underlies all their social engineering schemesis once again being rejected wholesale by Americans, just as it was in the 1970s and the 1990s.

Link Edited February 8, 2010 by August1991

[Pliny]

Regional interests (rather than ideology) are far more important in Canadian federal politics and hence the Canadian "left" (such as it is) cannot be divorced from reality. Another way to state this is to point out that the federal Liberals really don't have any ideology at all except pragmatism.

Why should we be playing against regional political interests from a federal government?

We shouldn't be of course. Why should there be regional political interests within a province? It is simply that a government promises to deliver some privilege and favours out of it's coffers that will be paid mostly out of someone else's pocket.

In the US, the situation is different. And to return to the two opinion pieces in the OP, I tend to agree that American liberals suffer from condescenion and a belief that only they are enlightened, honest brokers.

I agree liberals are generally condescending to anyone who doesn't hold their self-righteous views. There are two sides to Liberalism though. The other side is composed of those who receive benefit from the condescending class. The latter tend to think that the former are lifting them up out of their poverty and the attempt is to make them equal liberals. Of course, nothing could be further from the truth. You have to be a certain class to be equal and the poor and needy are there because they are stupid and never will be equal.

The right don't hold their liberal condescending views, and consider most people as individuals able to contribute to society according to their ability and in that respect are equal already.

The self-righteous attempt by liberal ideologues to make everyone equal is a goal they know will never be achieved because how could people who are stupider than they are ever reach equality. At least they can "try" to make lesser persons equal and feel good about themselves for doing so.

That's why I disagree with affirmative action and other such policies. They are an attempt to make people equal. Why would you do that unless you felt they weren't. All you have to do is say they are equal and leave it at that, under the law and in the eyes of government they should be. Giving them a helping hand so that you can feel good about making them equal all the while thinking you are a better person for doing that is what it is about.

Edited February 8, 2010 by Pliny

[Pliny]

Ah, but "university professors," we are informed, are ivory-tower eggheads who hold elitist views and indoctrinate our young and so on....

Oh. Except those who criticize liberals. Then they're just issuing bland, non-partisan reportage.

If they criticize the liberal ideologues they are not part of the status quo and for now we can say they are independent thinkers with whom you may agree or disagree. Obviously, they are not issuing a bland, non-partisan reportage, that's for science. They are expressing an educated opinion. The left are mouthing platitudes that make themselves look educated, at least more so than the less fortunate masses who deserve their "indoctrinated" opinion. The right obviously missed the indoctrination boat.

[bloodyminded]

If they criticize the liberal ideologues they are not part of the status quo and for now we can say they are independent thinkers with whom you may agree or disagree. Obviously, they are not issuing a bland, non-partisan reportage, that's for science. They are expressing an educated opinion. The left are mouthing platitudes that make themselves look educated, at least more so than the less fortunate masses who deserve their "indoctrinated" opinion. The right obviously missed the indoctrination boat.

All you are saying is that right is correct and the left is incorrect. Of course right-wingers think this way, just as left-wingers tend to believe the opposite.

Good lord...."missed the indoctrination boat"?

Christ. Think of this one: The United states flits about the world with its benevolent military, trying always to do good and bring justice....but it is hampered at every turn by an ungrateful world--an entire world that doesn't understand morality and justice, and one nation alone who does.

And, surprise surprise, the one good and just nation happens to be the Superpower.

Well, where have heard this view before? Why, from every ruling superpower that ever existed, of course.

It is a thoroughly elitist, sanctimonious view. And it is absolutely an indoctrinated worldview.

It's the view of the Commissars, in fact.

So please spare me your elitist nonsense about the enlightened Right wing being smarter than the planet Earth as a whole.

[Pliny]

All you are saying is that right is correct and the left is incorrect. Of course right-wingers think this way, just as left-wingers tend to believe the opposite.

Good lord...."missed the indoctrination boat"?

Christ. Think of this one: The United states flits about the world with its benevolent military, trying always to do good and bring justice....but it is hampered at every turn by an ungrateful world--an entire world that doesn't understand morality and justice, and one nation alone who does.

And, surprise surprise, the one good and just nation happens to be the Superpower.

Well, where have heard this view before? Why, from every ruling superpower that ever existed, of course.

It is a thoroughly elitist, sanctimonious view. And it is absolutely an indoctrinated worldview.

It's the view of the Commissars, in fact.

So please spare me your elitist nonsense about the enlightened Right wing being smarter than the planet Earth as a whole.

So you disagree. Let's just go with the Liberal view then.

Actually, I find myself arguing in defence of the right quite often but I know it has it's failings and they are similar to some of the failings of the left - usually to do with government being infallible or being the great provider. Do you find yourself criticizing liberals sometimes or no?

By your complaints about American "imperialism" it sounds like you are against big government but that wouldn't make you Liberal. Maybe government should be big on the domestic scene only? They should stay out of the affairs of other nations, like say Haiti.

If everyone were ungrateful for American aid I would say you are correct and agree they are sanctimoniuos elitists. While their foibles in interfering in foreign political affairs are well-known I think it is a result of government getting a ltille too big for it's britches and acting clandestinely in what it considers is the best for the common good, which is always a mistake, in my view, but seems to be the calling card of the do-good Liberal.

Is there anything good about Liberalism? Well, most have good intentions. Some are liberals because they view liberalism as the most sympathetic and most likely to provide for them in their cause or whatever situation they find themselves. The hard left are of course a bit over the top with their "elitist, sanctimoniuos" do-gooder point of view. Unlike the hard right, which is a fringe element that barely exists and has no representation in mainstream politics or the media and find themselves condemned by both the right and left, hard-core liberals comprise about 20% of the Left, has quite a bit of representation and support in politicians and the media. I guess they try to appear innocuous and only of the best intent while they legislate their coercive ideological agenda at every opportunity.

In actual fact the hard right and the hard left are both socialistic ideologies that concern themselves with having the power to run the affairs of their citizens and engineer their lives.

Luckily for us, the one good and just nation didn't turn out to be the USSR.

[bloodyminded]

So you disagree. Let's just go with the Liberal view then.

Actually, I find myself arguing in defence of the right quite often but I know it has it's failings and they are similar to some of the failings of the left - usually to do with government being infallible or being the great provider. Do you find yourself criticizing liberals sometimes or no?

All the time.

By your complaints about American "imperialism" it sounds like you are against big government but that wouldn't make you Liberal. Maybe government should be big on the domestic scene only? They should stay out of the affairs of other nations, like say Haiti.

I don't care too much for isolationism; however, it IS a country's right to behave as such, whereas it is no country's right to perform preventive wars (misnamed "pre-emptive.") As for Haiti...I believe in helping them. But not of overthrowing their elected leaders. Mind you, Canada and France share direct responsibility, lest anyone think I'm "bashing America" (the usual response to criticism of the most powerful country on Earth).

If everyone were ungrateful for American aid I would say you are correct and agree they are sanctimoniuos elitists. While their foibles in interfering in foreign political affairs are well-known I think it is a result of government getting a ltille too big for it's britches and acting clandestinely in what it considers is the best for the common good, which is always a mistake, in my view, but seems to be the calling card of the do-good Liberal.

I disagree that the motives are about "best for the common good." No doubt individual members of government believe this, but more crucial by far are institutional factors that drive foreign policies of nations generally.

As for interventions being the calling card of the "do-good liberal"....well, let's say for the sake of argument that this has some truth to it on a philosophical level: the real-world actions make the liberalism of it irrelevant. Conservative governmnents are just as likely to act this way as are liberal governments. So it's a moot point, unless we consider theory to trump reality. Which doesn't seem wise. If the Bush administration initiated the Iraq War, it seems specious to blame this on some entity we call "liberals."

Is there anything good about Liberalism? Well, most have good intentions. Some are liberals because they view liberalism as the most sympathetic and most likely to provide for them in their cause or whatever situation they find themselves. The hard left are of course a bit over the top with their "elitist, sanctimoniuos" do-gooder point of view. Unlike the hard right, which is a fringe element that barely exists and has no representation in mainstream politics or the media and find themselves condemned by both the right and left, hard-core liberals comprise about 20% of the Left, has quite a bit of representation and support in politicians and the media.

If anything, I think the opposite is true. I suspect we might disagree on what constitutes the "hard left" and "hard right," but consider:

Who have we seen more often on television extolling the virtues of their preferred ideology while excoriating their erstwhile opponents?

Ann Coulter, or Noam Chomsky? (No need to answer; there is no debate.) Chomsky is the more respected and intelligent of the two. And Coulter is the more extreme of the two, in fact. Rush Limbaugh is of the hard right as well. The hard right, while definitely symbols of a minority view, are given disproportionate voice in the media. The hard left is far more relegated to the margins. Perhaps on specific domestic issues they are given more leeway (arguably); but on matters of foreign policy? The far right gets way more respect and attention, both from the media and from politicians.

Luckily for us, the one good and just nation didn't turn out to be the USSR.

I agree that a Soviet tyranny as the world's superpower is unpleasant to ponder. But nations are not good and just. That IS an indoctrinated worldview, pushed into our heads from childhood onwards. In fact, we are taught that patriotism is a virtue. But it's not. It's an utterly amoral quality, its justness depending 100% on how it is utilized, not on its existence itself. Hell, the nazi skinheads are extreme patriots, extolling the "virtues" of love of country ad nauseum. Any coward can be a patriot; most cowards probably are.

Edited February 8, 2010 by bloodyminded

[M.Dancer]

?

You know many of the largest, most rural riddings are won by the NDP right?

About 20 of the NDPs 37 seats are definately urban.

Are you saying then there are not many more than 17 rural seats?

Of course not..in fact, the party with the greatest rural representation are the Torys

[Argus]

Look at how many posters in this forum who have said that most Canadian voters are basically to stupid to be trusted to vote intelligently on most issues.

I sense that more or less equal number of liberal and conservative voters feel this way but I also think most voters on the Canadian left have more faith in voter's intelligence and democracy than the right.

Well they certainly have more than me. To me, the average voter resmembles a cow chewing its cud, eyes dull, tail swinging idly, unthinking, uncaring, responding only to the prod.

[Argus]

Canada's left is increasingly urban though and has started to become like its American counterpart.

There was an interesting observation in the Globe last week which piqued my interest. It basically dismissed the chances of any challenge from the Left to the Tory seat once held by Bob Runciman by saying the riding was 98% White.

It's true the Left is largely concentrated in urban areas. As are gays and immigrants. I wonder if anyone has done a study of the percentage breakdown of voter support among ethnic/racial groups in Canada. I don't think we need a scientific poll to determine that the vast majority of Gays and Lesbians are on the Left. and the media often talks about how the Liberals have long-courted and gotten the support of ethnic groups.

More than half the population of Toronto is foreign born, and there are an estimated half million gays in the metro area. The Tories haven't won a single seat there. Coincidence?

[bloodyminded]

There was an interesting observation in the Globe last week which piqued my interest. It basically dismissed the chances of any challenge from the Left to the Tory seat once held by Bob Runciman by saying the riding was 98% White.

It's true the Left is largely concentrated in urban areas. As are gays and immigrants. I wonder if anyone has done a study of the percentage breakdown of voter support among ethnic/racial groups in Canada. I don't think we need a scientific poll to determine that the vast majority of Gays and Lesbians are on the Left. and the media often talks about how the Liberals have long-courted and gotten the support of ethnic groups.

More than half the population of Toronto is foreign born, and there are an estimated half million gays in the metro area. The Tories haven't won a single seat there. Coincidence?

It's an interesting idea. However (and this doesn't make you wrong by any stretch, I understand that), according to a recent MacLean's poll (in which the authors evinced surprise at how liberal a country Canada is), fully 70% of Canadians support same sex marriage.

You'd be hard-pressed to find many other contentious issues with that percentage of support.

If that number is accurate, and if your hypothesis has teeth, we should see more Liberal (or NDP) support elsewhere, besides Toronto.

[punked]

It's an interesting idea. However (and this doesn't make you wrong by any stretch, I understand that), according to a recent MacLean's poll (in which the authors evinced surprise at how liberal a country Canada is), fully 70% of Canadians support same sex marriage.

You'd be hard-pressed to find many other contentious issues with that percentage of support.

If that number is accurate, and if your hypothesis has teeth, we should see more Liberal (or NDP) support elsewhere, besides Toronto.

The NDP has 2 seats in the TO. All their seats are outside of TO.

[Oleg Bach]

When the first lady of America personally records a birthday greeting for a lesbian celeb..then that is the height of liberal cheezyness. It is as if - look how kind Obama is - Don't ask and don't tell and it don't smell - liberals want to destroy what should be conserved - like family - nature - and sex! I like sex just the way it is and I don't need MSSS Obama to re-enforce and support a millionare woman who lives with a hot straight woman who is their for the fame and the big bucks.

[sharkman]

How did this thread turn to gay marriage?

Anyway, back to the topic at hand. Something Obama said illustrates perfectly the mindset of the American Liberal. In an unguarded moment his, "clinging to their guns and religion..." comment told you all you needed to know about his position on 'flyover' country.