
The smug style of American liberalism - pjlegato
http://www.vox.com/2016/4/21/11451378/smug-american-liberalism
======
deciplex
I'm not sure who is more smug: Sean Hannity or Rachel Maddow. But, I know
which of them consistently punches up, and which one punches down, and that is
far more important to me. As for the current state of political discourse I
think you can draw a pretty convincing line from the dawn of right-wing talk
radio, though Fox News et al, all the way to pretty much what we have now. But
that doesn't matter too much anymore and what's done is done. The political
climate is polarized and that is the arena in which liberals have to compete
to have their voices heard and their ideas implemented.

So, that said, liberal Democrats probably should not worry too much about
hurting the feelings of white racist reactionaries as they go about building a
coalition that can win more national elections. In fact, I'm not sure any wing
of the Democratic party should do that. White nationalists already have a
party that is happy to accommodate them, and trying to beat that is probably
just going to alienate everyone else.

------
cmarschner
I would recommend watching episode 1 of Louis CKs new show, Horace and Pete,
for a discussion about how parties talk about each other, and how they should.

~~~
cmarschner
Found it: "How would you define a liberal? Like, to you, what is a liberal? -
Just P.C., f..cking fake, animal rights, and gay agenda, always pushing the
liberal agenda. They hate Christians and they hate white men. You know why?
'Cause they don't think it through. And they think they're better than
everyone else and that they should tell everyone else how to think. They're
just f..cking assholes.

Okay. How would you define a conservative?

Uh, just Jesus everything and they hate gay people and racist but pretending
they're not, and they're selfish and they only care about money and they think
everyone has to do their conservative Christian sh1t.

See, the fact that you start out by seeing each other like that, I mean, how
could you possibly ever respect each other or agree on anything?

Yeah, well, they do that, I don't. (scoffs)

You just said you do. You just described us with a string of insults.

Just like you did.

Yeah--

Okay, okay, okay. This is getting interesting. Now, you, define conservative.

Conservative means values. Having values and sticking to 'em and defending
what's right and not just saying what somebody said is right that year, you
know what I mean? There's-- there's things in this world that are right and
wrong and always have been. And you have to respect where this country came
from, and you have to hold on to that. And the fact that country and God and
life, those are all sacred things. And people should respect each other, and
government is there to facilitate, all right? It's not there to control
people. And the way you get the best out of people is to make room for their
strengths, not by overcompensating for their weaknesses.

Well, that sounds reasonable. That sounds like something most people can
respect, right?

Yeah.

Now, define liberal.

Just being open to things outside yourself, having your eyes open and thinking
about others, and being aware that our planet is precious and we're
responsible for that. And people need to listen to each other. And be decent
and tolerant and that a diverse community is a strong community. And sometimes
the little guy needs a hand. And we're a strong enough country to do that, and
so we should.

Okay, how's that sound?

Sometimes, yeah. Yeah, okay.

Yeah? So, if you start by taking his definition of himself and he starts with
your definition of you, don't you stand a better chance, have a better shot at
getting to some sort of consensus?"

Read more at:
[http://transcripts.foreverdreaming.org/viewtopic.php?f=568&t...](http://transcripts.foreverdreaming.org/viewtopic.php?f=568&t=25123&sid=9c3216fbdbd2c5f4d3dd587734a1a2e7)

~~~
deciplex
Okay so we had eight years of a conservative President who pretty much ran on
the charitable self-definition of conservative you have there, i.e. so-called
"compassionate conservative". Especially in the 2000 election that was the
message and it was largely successful and that was how he was able to present
himself nationally.

And that President was a disaster.

On the other hand for the past eight years we've had a President who has,
more-or-less, defined _himself_ as a centrist, but who has been successfully
painted as the less-charitable definition of liberal from your post, in
national media and especially in social media

For all his faults, he has not been a disaster on anywhere near that scale.

Now it might be that you're right and that everyone should take a deep breath
and a step back and tone down the rhetoric. But when this article brings up
the Daily Show and Rachel Maddow and John Oliver and so on, it forgets what
all that stuff is _in response to_ , which is a largely conservative national
media and a successful framing of pretty much every single national issue of
import, by the right from 1990 or so right up to the present day.

And, furthermore, if I look at my Facebook feed, or on Reddit, and try to
figure out where the most obnoxious posts are coming from, e.g. pictures of
Obama being flushed down a toilet, or "proof" in the form of gruesome pictures
that Hillary Clinton and Obama just lounged around and laughed their asses off
while folks who worked _for them_ died in Benghazi, for literally no other
conceivable logical reason than _they are just evil, evil shits_ , etc etc...

...I mean, maybe some of the stuff you hear about the Koch brothers or
whatever, or the Kansas state government, isn't fair either, but it doesn't
seem to be anything like on that level.

So on balance, an article that specifically calls out _liberals_ , for
poisoning the well and arguing in bad faith, being condescending, etc. - while
maybe not technically _wrong_ in each and every aspect, seems misplaced, you
know? Like, seems like the concern for it is a little off-balance compared to
what it should be if you _really_ wanted to address the broader issue.

And so, this article is trash.

e: I guess TL;DR what I'm saying is: where is the article suggesting that
conservatives maybe should stop accusing liberals and the people they vote
into office of literally wanting to destroy America because they just hate it
so much? Where is this article, and are any conservatives reading it?

~~~
AnimalMuppet
I think you kind of missed the point of the article. The point is not that
liberals look at conservatives that way. The point is that liberals look at
the lower class that way.

Liberals have become more of an "in crowd" that _thinks the right things_ and
feels better than others because they think the right things. But the people
that they claim to be trying to help don't think those things, so the liberals
look down on them - look at _the people they claim to be trying to help_ in a
very condescending way. That makes it hard to really help them, because
there's no genuine empathy.

Conservatives, on the other hand, claim that those people are big enough to
help themselves if the system would just get out of their way. That may not be
empathy, and it may not work in the real world, but it's looking at people as
competent grown-ups rather than ignorant or stupid people who need "the
knowing ones" to tell them what to think and do.

------
jjgreen
TL;DNR smug liberal smug smug smug smug liberal smug smug smug.

~~~
pjlegato
This comment is a demonstration of precisely the attitude criticized by the
article.

