Absolutely pathetic. In a class with a pearl that I heard from a fellow M.A. student in the early 90sin England. “You can’t vote Conservative and be moral.”
There motivations are irrelevant. They have chosen to make a career in politics. It’s not like some actor becoming the self-proclaimed spokesperson for some particular issue like they were hocking beauty products. And just for the record, an actor going into politics professionally also has to overcome that credibility gap and prove that they are just more than a pretty face, IMHO.
Sorry, but I can’t take them seriously. I just can’t believe that the some Hollywood millionare actor can relate to my concerns or issues.
Thanks. That’s what I’m here for.
Polerius - You can continue to prove that conservatives are as big jerks as liberals as long as you like. They two conditions are not mutually exclusive.
Do you comprehend the point of the OP?
I did not say that the two conditions are mutually exclusive. Where did you get the idea that I said that?
I did say that conservatives are as big jerks as liberals, and so this whole stupid meme about that it’s *only * liberals, or *mostly * liberals, that are condescending to the other side, is bullshit.
What you are missing is that, in common usage, condescending has a strong implication of patronizing, which few if any of Gingrich’s code words do.
OED: ‘To depart from the privileges of superiority by a voluntary submission; to sink willingly to equal terms with inferiours’ (J.); to be condescending in one’s relations with others.
dictionary.com: To deal with people in a patronizingly superior manner.
Newt’s words strongly imply that Dems/liberals are Not Good People. Surprise surprise. That would be like the Dems claiming Bush is evil – which could never happen, right? Well, I’ll call it a tie on the allegations-of-evilness score (though you may believe the GOP is slightly ahead on that score given their religiously-based tendency to make moral appeals/judgments; maybe so).
But which of Newt’s words do you think is: patronizing; smug; “sink[ing] willingly to equal terms with inferiours?”
Where I still think the Dems. are way ahead of the GOP is the smugness factor. As I’ve said before, red state voters may not agree with blue state voters, but they do not feign wonderment at their very existence or at how they could possibly believe what they do.
Until someone offers better proof than Newt’s laundry lists of “Dems. are bad people” code words, I will stick with my belief. Both parties call the other evil, the Dems have a markedly-greater tendency to call the other party stupid, inferior, and worthy of derision and patronizing.
I’ll reply to the rest of your post later. For now, I’ll bring your attention to the CNN article I mentioned above, which lists the most commonly-used words of election 2004, and two out of four are derisive (condescending) towards liberals, while there is no word in the top four which is derisive towards conservatives.
What do think of that?
I still think we disagree on what “condescending” means. To me (and I suspect to most of the conservatives who level this charge) it always includes the element of being: patronizing, descending from a position of (usually intellectual) superiority.
“Flip-flopping?” That implies that: Kerry is not trustworthy. That he is a bad guy. That he is insincere. It does not imply that he is clearly stupider than I am.
“Moral values?” Again, Kerry could have horrible moral values but be a conniving master of manipulation. What about the allegation that he’s a Bad Person also implies that he is a stupid or inferior person?
You may not accept my (and the dictionary definitions I’ve cited) understanding of “condescending” as necessarily including an element of patronizing that I think is simply absent from the Republican charges of venality or ill motive. All I can tell you (and of this I am certain) is that when conservatives complain about “condescending,” they do not mean they are tired of being called morally or politically wrong; they are tired of being called, or treated as, ignorant stupid rubes. Given that this is the crux of the complaint, is there any serious debate that Dems. at large are more patronizing of the GOP than vice versa? There really can’t be, IMHO, given that one of the major Republican themes is that the Dems. are elitists. How can you patronize or condescend to an elitist.
A far better example for you to cite, and the closest I can think of the GOP coming to a systemic form of condescension, is their attacks on Kerry and other Dem. liberals, Northeasterners, “intellectuals,” as “out of touch.”
Funny you should say that - both Reagan and Schwartzenegger earned degrees in economics (Arnie’s was a combined business/economics degree).
There’s nothing about being a celebrity that disqualifies them from having an opinion. But there’s nothing that makes their opinion particularly valuable, either. And as a group, actors are less educated and more distanced from reality than the average person. Many of them don’t even have high school diplomas, and if they have degrees they are often degrees in acting or other performing arts that convey no special insights into the world.
But some of them have earned respect. Tim Robbins, who I disagree with on just about everything, has gone to the trouble to actually educate himself. Ditto Paul Newman. Some actors have done well in politics - Arnie, Reagan, Fred Thompson, Fred Grandy, Shirley Temple Black.
However, many of the most strident ones are spectacularly stupid and/or uninformed. Anyone who has watched Politically Incorrect would know how cringe-inducingly stupid many of them are.
Let’s see…
A quick Google search for “how can liberals believe what they do” returns several hits, the **first ** of which says
So, Huerta88 do you still believe that conservatives “do not feign wonderment at the very existence of liberals or at how they could possibly believe what they do.”?
Or do you want me to go down the rest of the 2,180,000 Google hits?
“…merely being dopers doesn’t explain their troubling…”
But at least we have established once and for ever that all dopers are liberal!
Next question…
So Google hits are the currency of the day?
“Stupid Republicans:” 2300+ hits
“Stupid Democrats:” 844 hits
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q="stupid+republicans"
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q="stupid+democrats"
“Republican moron:” 241 hits
“Democratic moron:” 55 hits
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q="republican+moron"
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q="democratic+moron"
“Republicans are idiots:” 1050 hits
“Democrats are idiots:” 585 hits
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q="republicans+are+idiots"
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q="democrats+are+idiots"
And this is on the web, mind you, with little institutionalization and few barriers to entry; a forum where, like AM talk radio, the GOP actually has some clout. Still, the Dem voices accusing Republicans of stupidity and inferiority vastly outnumber the converse.
What do you think is going on in the mainstream media, 89% of whose members admitted to having voted for Clinton, whilst of course claiming utter objectivity?
This doesn’t prove a thing.
The websites containing “Republicans are idiots” maybe written by Republicans who are whining that Democrats claim “Republicans are idiots”
I did not do a comparitive study of Google hits and offer the number of hits as any sort of evidence.
If you notice, I just searched for a relevant term in order to find websites that disproved your claim that conservatives “never feign wonderment at the very existence of liberals or at how they could possibly believe what they do.”
I took the first Google hit, and quoted from it, and then asked if I should go through the rest of the hits. The reason I would have to “go through the rest of the hits” is, obviously, the fact that most of them are not relevant to what I’m looking for, so I wasn’t offering the number of hits as any sort of proof.
Basic point: the first hit of my web search proved that your claim that conservatives “never feign wonderment at the very existence of liberals or at how they could possibly believe what they do” is false.
Look, this is barely a GD. It’s almost a borderline Pit rant or IMHO. The fact of the matter is that there is a general consensus by conservatives and moderates that the Liberals view them as simple, bigoted idiots. They paint anyone with deep religeous beliefs as a moron any anyone with traditional family values as quaint and outdated. If you are a working middle class white American your value to the Democratic party is as a tax base for their social programs and it ends there. After that, you are expected to wallow in guilt for all of the oppression that every minority and fringe group has endured over the years.
That is the perception. Until the Democrats do something to address the concerns of the middle class people will continue to view them as ivory tower elitists and naive do-gooders.
Do you not see the condescension in your question?
That is the bottom line. The perception is there, and you do not make a perception go away by insisting that people are wrong to percieve things the way they do.
YOU cringe when you listen to them? At least you have the comfort that they are on the other side. We liberals have to check who will be on what show each week so we can start planning the damage control. Politically Incorrect is the worst because Maher encourages them. Look, if there were a way to shut up the Alec Baldwins of the world that did not violate state or federal law too egregiously I’m all for it. They do massive damage to the cause of thoughtful and educated (formal and informal both count) liberals but it’s like what Roseanne Barr says about men: You can’t live with them and you can’t kill them.
Hmmmm, looking at a list of Republican celebrities, you guys better keep Bo Derek, Shannen Doherty, and Dennis Hopper on a short leash if you want to maintain the appearance of conservative intellectual superiority. 
(Gopher’s degree is in ENGLISH? From HARVARD? What sort of liberal arts bllsht is THAT?)
Interestingly, Stephen Baldwin is a Republican. I can imagine the intellectual political debates that must take place in the Baldwin household.
I never said “never.” I said “don’t feign wonderment.” If you want to take that as “generally don’t feign wonderment, or don’t do so nearly as much as Dems.,” then that’ll work too.
Neither of us wants to read the thousands of Google cites. I am sure that many “Republicans are stupid” hits are, in fact, by indignant Republicans refuting this charge, but why wouldn’t just as many “Democrats are stupid” hits likewise be by Dem. apologists? Let’s call it a wash. There are still a lot more people out there repeating the “stupid” tag about the GOP than about the Dems. Full stop.
Sure. If liberals stop BEING condescending then I’m sure we can stop saying they are. Well, there will be some inertia mind you…it’s been going on for quite some time now, so its firmly fixed in the American psyche now. However, with sufficient restraint I can see this ‘meme’ ending within a decade or so.
In the mean time you can continue your struggle to also paint the conservatives as condescending. However, I’m unsure how painting them with the same brush lets your side off the hook as far as being condescending goes.
Finally, you might want to clue your side in that it MIGHT be a good idea if they kept their condescending attacks strictly to either the Republican party and its lackeys or to Conservatives…general attacks against the electorate for being stupid, uninformed, priest ridden, etc are probably not going to help you remove this meme from the forefront of most Americans consciousness.
Just my two cents. BTW, this really ISN’T a great debate IMO.
-XT
I doubt if the discussions are very intellectual. SB is wildly religious, and if you saw him interviewed at the RNC, he came off as an absolute kook.
Maybe because very successful people are more likely to benefit from Bush’s economic policies than Kerry’s?
That’s a really strong claim.
Off the top of my head, I often hear conservatives referring to “Taxachusetts” and “The Peoples’ Republic of Massachusetts”. I’m sure I could find lots more (and on preview I see that others have).
(Bolding mine). Well, Tom Selleck’s never run for office. Neither has Ted Nugent. Nor (to go back a few years) did John Wayne. But I don’t recall any conservatives telling them to go back to their day jobs when they voiced their political opinions. (Selleck in fact was frequently lauded in National Review when he began making his politics known). Nor do I remember any conservatives griping about Schwarzenegger’s presence prior to his recent entry into electoral politics.
(And FWIW, I probably don’t respect Diaz and Affleck’s opinions any more than you do).