Why Are Liberals So Condescending?

[GMScud]

washingtonpost.com

I thought this was a very good read. It's in today's Washington Post, written by a professor of politics at UVA.

[TheSmurfs22]

Excellent read. Thanks for sharing.

[TheSmurfs22]

A lot of them have been locked away in academia running their very closed off circles so anyone outside of their "norm" is clinging to their guns and is a right wing wacko.

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by TheSmurfs22

A lot of them have been locked away in academia running their very closed off circles so anyone outside of their "norm" is clinging to their guns and is a right wing wacko.

I've never understood comments like this. If academics, the brightest and best educated people in America, are liberals, doesn't that actually say something very positive about liberal politics?

[Trample the Elderly]

Originally Posted by Lotus

I've never understood comments like this. If academics, the brightest and best educated people in America, are liberals, doesn't that actually say something very positive about liberal politics?

"Those who can do. Those who can't teach."

Old Chinese Proverb.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by Lotus

I've never understood comments like this. If academics, the brightest and best educated people in America, are liberals, doesn't that actually say something very positive about liberal politics?

I know some very book smart people but other then that they are pretty dumb. Two doctors I know I would let them both cut me open but I would not let either one of them run my office or work on anything I have.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by Lotus

I've never understood comments like this. If academics, the brightest and best educated people in America, are liberals, doesn't that actually say something very positive about liberal politics?

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.

[Trample the Elderly]

I hear John Murtha died?

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

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.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by Lotus

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.

[The Goat]

We just can't help ourselves LOL.

Seriously I don't know what liberal means anymore. Pat Buchanan, who I agree w/ on a far range of issues, is a liberal by many of today's conservative standards. What does that mean?

I think the only observation I'm confident in is the difference in attitudes between nearly all the conservatives I know (which includes almost my entire family) and the progressives, liberals etc on the other side. Conservatives almost to a person are far more visceral in their political views. I tend to notice how extremely emotional they get over their bread and butter issues like abortion, homosexuality and religion in society. I can also honestly say outside of grad school I've never met a conservative well informed on the innards of public policy. That's not a sleight...it's just a matter of how people look at the world and you find a hell of a lot of people who don't want to bother w/ the details.

Take the fact our health care system is rated way behind all the other modern nations in overall quality (I believe we're 37th overall) and we spend WAY more on health (over 17% of GDP while most modern countries spend around 12%). Btw England and Canada spend less than 10% of GDP on health!!! Well...I only hear conservatives still saying we have the best medical care in the world and get it a lot cheaper than those single-payer socialized systems. There's just not a lot of attention to detail, or what some might call facts.

But generally yeah I'd agree liberals or whatever come off as assholes most of the time. They all seem insanely frustrated we can't do better and because their opponents are almost always telling the American people we have it great.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by The Goat

We just can't help ourselves LOL.

Seriously I don't know what liberal means anymore. Pat Buchanan, who I agree w/ on a far range of issues, is a liberal by many of today's conservative standards. What does that mean?

I think the only observation I'm confident in is the difference in attitudes between nearly all the conservatives I know (which includes almost my entire family) and the progressives, liberals etc on the other side. Conservatives almost to a person are far more visceral in their political views. I tend to notice how extremely emotional they get over their bread and butter issues like abortion, homosexuality and religion in society. I can also honestly say outside of grad school I've never met a conservative well informed on the innards of public policy. That's not a sleight...it's just a matter of how people look at the world and you find a hell of a lot of people who don't want to bother w/ the details.

Take the fact our health care system is rated way behind all the other modern nations in overall quality (I believe we're 37th overall) and we spend WAY more on health (over 17% of GDP while most modern countries spend around 12%). Btw England and Canada spend less than 10% of GDP on health!!! Well...I only hear conservatives still saying we have the best medical care in the world and get it a lot cheaper than those single-payer socialized systems. There's just not a lot of attention to detail, or what some might call facts.

But generally yeah I'd agree liberals or whatever come off as assholes most of the time. They all seem insanely frustrated we can't do better and because their opponents are almost always telling the American people we have it great.

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.

[The Goat]

Originally Posted by firstdown

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 .

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?

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by The Goat

My apologies first. I somehow forgot to mention guns .

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.

[Trample the Elderly]

Originally Posted by firstdown

The only people I know that call Bush Jr. a conservative is the left and he was far from a conservative.

Anyone who thinks GWB was a conservative has no idea what conservatism stands for.