Why Are Liberals So Condescending?

I hear John Murtha died?

Let me preface by saying my statement does not apply to all well educated.

People can often study their way out of real context. Very much like too much government, people start believing idyllic versions of the world, and ignore the reality that humans have chaotic foibles. They move to a place where one can think that all problems have solutions if we just study one more variable. Academic studies have an important place in our society, but they are not the "best and the brightest" everytime. Many businesspeople(like bill gates), charitable people (sister theresa) and just everyday people who weren't for one reason or another did not choose college are as good, or better, and as smart or smarter, than the people who have chosen Academia as their life's pursuit and passion.

Respectfully, your very statement, that academics are the best and the brightest of this nation, points to -I believe- the condescending attitude the OP was possibly referring to. The concept that a life long pursuit of academic knowledge is more valuable than other forms of knowledge gained by toil, labor, corporate development, or even charitable acts is a false belief, in my opinion.

Life is fascinating, and each individual is worthy of respect and acknowledgement that they have a point of value to contribute. A man hammering away to earn enough to support 3 children may not know enough to argue Keynesian or Smith, or whether a ABM Radar needs to be stationed in Poland, but to his children he most likely is the best dang hammerer in their lives.

Sorry Lotus, again I respect academics, and think it is an important pursuit of mankind, but I wholeheartedly disagree with your statement that it represents the best and the brightest. Some do, but some are just blowhards, like any other walk of life.

You argued against several things that I did not say.

I in no way intended to imply that other forms of work are not as valuable. I completely agree with your point on that one. I said nothing about the relative value of careers. Every academic needs someone to make their clothes, grow their food, keep their electricity on, and so on. So if any academic tells you that their job is the only worthy one, then that academic is wrong.

Further there certainly are many bright people who are not in academia. Academia does not have a monopoly on smart people.

But to become an academic requires a high level of education. This level of education can only be attained if you have some intelligence. Thus, although there are exceptions, academics tend to be bright and well-educated. That is all that I meant.

In the end, you actually argued my point. When it comes to running our country, don't we want to listen to the people who, as you put it, do know "Keynesian or Smith, or whether a ABM Radar needs to be stationed in Poland"? I'm not arguing that we listen only to them, but their voice needs to be taken into account, doesn't it?

Writing off the insights of people who know such things as "Keynesian or Smith" simply because they might be "liberal" (as the post which I first responded to did) seems like a foolhardy waste.

Has anyone written an article titled "Why Are Conservatives So Stupid?" yet?

Seriously, when you say/write things I consider stupid/nonsensical I'm going to let you know. Now if what I have to say comes off as condescending so be it. I am not obligated to "to put aside [my] dignity or superiority voluntarily and assume equality with one regarded as inferior." As for the author's jab at Krugman, how is what Krugman said condescending?


WSJ:
This is now the second time Republicans have been beaten in this kind of legal street fight. In 2004, Dino Rossi was ahead in the election-night count for Washington Governor against Democrat Christine Gregoire. Ms. Gregoire's team demanded the right to rifle through a list of provisional votes that hadn't been counted, setting off a hunt for "new" Gregoire votes. By the third recount, she'd discovered enough to win. This was the model for the Franken team.

Mr. Franken now goes to the Senate having effectively stolen an election. If the GOP hopes to avoid repeats, it should learn from Minnesota that modern elections don't end when voters cast their ballots. They only end after the lawyers count them.

Krugman:
...[A]ll of this follows on yesterday’s editorial asserting that the Minnesota senatorial election was stolen.

All of this is par for the course; the WSJ editorial page has been like this for 35 years. Nonetheless, it got me wondering: what do these people really believe?

I mean, they’re not stupid — life would be a lot easier if they were. So they know they’re not telling the truth. But they obviously believe that their dishonesty serves a higher truth — one that is, in effect, told only to Inner Party members, while the Outer Party makes do with prolefeed.

The question is, what is that higher truth? What do these people really believe in?I really can't figure out what's wrong with what Krugman said...is the expectation that WSJ's opinions should be treated with respect even when they claim the election was stolen?

You argued against several things that I did not say.

I in no way intended to imply that other forms of work are not as valuable. I completely agree with your point on that one. I said nothing about the relative value of careers. Every academic needs someone to make their clothes, grow their food, keep their electricity on, and so on. So if any academic tells you that their job is the only worthy one, then that academic is wrong.

Further there certainly are many bright people who are not in academia. Academia does not have a monopoly on smart people.

But to become an academic requires a high level of education. This level of education can only be attained if you have some intelligence. Thus, although there are exceptions, academics tend to be bright and well-educated. That is all that I meant.

In the end, you actually argued my point. When it comes to running our country, don't we want to listen to the people who, as you put it, do know "Keynesian or Smith, or whether a ABM Radar needs to be stationed in Poland"? I'm not arguing that we listen only to them, but their voice needs to be taken into account, doesn't it?

Writing off the insights of people who know such things as "Keynesian or Smith" simply because they might be "liberal" (as the post which I first responded to did) seems like a foolhardy waste.

And I was not saying not to listen to academics, but that balance from the esoteric to the "feet on the ground" is needed.

The topic is why are liberals so condescending, I took your answer (paraphrased) as: if the best and the brightest are liberals that should tell you something. My point was that that argument or line of reasoning is an example of the condescension the OP is talking about. Admittedly I took a lot of tangents, but to answer the OP I believe many liberals are condescending because they see themselves as the best and the brightest, in some cases true, in others not so much.

I really can't figure out what's wrong with what Krugman said...is the expectation that WSJ's opinions should be treated with respect even when they claim the election was stolen?Krugman is committing a logical fallacy, but not in a particularly condescending tone. He's basically combining limited intelligence and red-handed lying into a jointly exhaustive explanation for the editorial assertion. This, of course, is discrediting the possibilities that 1) the editorials are right, or (more likely) 2) the editorials are the columnist's attempt at a poorly supported conspiracy theory.

To suggest that 2) can only be caused only by limited intelligence or a flat lie and nothing in between is poor reasoning.

I think the author's point is that Krugman is condescending because he's not giving the necessary evaluation to properly discredit 1) ("this is par for the course for WSJ, so of course it's wrong"), although I believe that's a stretch by the author.

Sorry but I have alot of conservative friends and those are really pretty much non issue for us. What I see is the liberal media and party pushing for everyone to think that they are main issues so they can tie all conservatives to the extream right. Just look at how they have tried to protray the people doing the Tea Party stuff. Yes we have an extream side that those are the main issues but for most its not the main issue. I can't even think of the last time I had a conversation with another conservative on any of those topics. The left also has their extream side.

My apologies first. I somehow forgot to mention guns :silly:.

Seriously though there isn't a lot left for conservatives outside the social issues is there? Spending? Pssshhh. Reagan started the era of huge deficits, Bush senior tried to buck that trend but his own party basically gave him the boot for it in '91. Junior went right back to massive deficits and for 8 long years we didn't hear so much as a hiccup from the leaders of the party about deficit spending, government waste etc. It's like the only time repubs give two shits about overspending is when a dem is doing it lol. Education? Foreign policy? I mean where are the major differences? Health care is an obvious one but IMO it makes no difference...the insurance/hospital/drug lobby will make sure we don't ever see real reform. I guess the one area I see a real difference is immigration policy. Is this a major issue for you?

Anybody who takes the WSJ editorial page seriously shouldn't be taken seriously. Bob Bartley made the editorial page into a joke over 30 (?) yrs ago.

And I was not saying not to listen to academics, but that balance from the esoteric to the "feet on the ground" is needed.

The topic is why are liberals so condescending, I took your answer (paraphrased) as: if the best and the brightest are liberals that should tell you something. My point was that that argument or line of reasoning is an example of the condescension the OP is talking about. Admittedly I took a lot of tangents, but to answer the OP I believe many liberals are condescending because they see themselves as the best and the brightest, in some cases true, in others not so much.

The post to which I originally replied essentially flatly did say, "Don't listen to academics," and to that both you and I disagree. That was the context of my remarks.

I was not arguing that academics are better than others. While academia does attract generally intelligent and well-educated people, so do some other professions. Even more, as Gandhi did, I believe that there is no such thing as a better or worse job. All jobs are valuable. Put more personally, I have professor friends who become frustrated with me because I do not hang out with them enough, because instead I often prefer to hang out with what you called "feet on the ground" people precisely because of their opinions. Maybe growing up on a farm leads me to be this way. An example of my behavior in this regard is the Warpath, where few people are academics. What I said clumsily was not meant to elevate academics or demean non-academics.

So I apologize for how I put things. Let me rephrase:

When I go to see a medical doctor, I listen and follow. When it comes to medicine, his perspective is more educated than mine. He might not always be right but he will always have a more educated perspective than I have. And if the doctor is conservative, then a perspective which is more educated than mine is also a conservative one. In this scenario, I have to give a conservative credit for being on to something.

If I then try to translate this scenario, what I would see is that an academic economist has a more educated perspective than I do. He may not always be correct but he will always be more educated about economic issues than I am. Further, if he fits the stereotype of academics, he will be liberal. Therefore, in this scenario, an economic perspective which is more educated than mine will also be liberal. In this scenario, I have to give a liberal credit for being on to something.

And academia produces more than just economists. There are also political scientists, historians, sociologists, etc., for whom similar argument may be made.

So, if we refuse to listen to academic opinions simply because they are liberal, we are throwing away collective wisdom. Not all of our collective wisdom by far, but wisdom from an important source. Not wisdom which should always be followed, because there are other important voices, but wisdom still.

The poster who provided context for my previous remarks came from a position of refusing to listen at all in this way. The poster's position was that academics are liberals and therefore their perspectives are always invalid. Such a position diminishes our store of collective wisdom. This seems to me like having a diamond and just throwing it away. I don't get it.

Condescending Liberals - The Atlantic Politics Channel (http://politics.theatlantic.com/2010/02/condescending_liberals.php)

My apologies first. I somehow forgot to mention guns :silly:.

Seriously though there isn't a lot left for conservatives outside the social issues is there? Spending? Pssshhh. Reagan started the era of huge deficits, Bush senior tried to buck that trend but his own party basically gave him the boot for it in '91. Junior went right back to massive deficits and for 8 long years we didn't hear so much as a hiccup from the leaders of the party about deficit spending, government waste etc. It's like the only time repubs give two shits about overspending is when a dem is doing it lol. Education? Foreign policy? I mean where are the major differences? Health care is an obvious one but IMO it makes no difference...the insurance/hospital/drug lobby will make sure we don't ever see real reform. I guess the one area I see a real difference is immigration policy. Is this a major issue for you?
The only people I know that call Bush Jr. a conservative is the left and he was far from a conservative.