Again, you are confusing “patronizing and talking down to” with “insulting.” Both parties insult, probably about equally. The proposition is that the Dems./liberals talk down much more. Saying Massachusetts is full of greedy pols. and special interests who want your money to spend on dubious programs is not saying Massachusetts is some dark, Gothic backwater full of inbreds who routinely drag Negroes to their death (which is seriously the picture of, say, Texas painted by more than one of my insular Northeastern friends in explaining why they “wouldn’t feel safe” going there). Yeah, Sixth Street in Austin can be a brutal, reactionary place.
From a letter to the editor in the 11/12 edition of USA Today:
“…(Your) editorial essentially suggests that Democrats dumb down their message to appeal to dumbed-down voters…I cringe at the thought that some day our party will have to pander to the vote of such targeted people as NASCAR dads to win an election.”
Then there’s the post-election N.Y. Times story in which the reporter interviewed N.Y.C. residents about how they felt, having gone roughly 80-20% for Kerry while most of the rest of the country voted differently - with interviewees patting themselves on the back for being diverse and choosing nuance over stereotype, one proud voter shaking his head over all the “rednecks” out there in the red states who voted for Bush.
Nah, there’s no condescension at all. It’s a media creation. No need for a change of tone.
So, we know for a verified fact that those statements are representative examples of the letters/responses as a whole? Or were they merely the ones selected by the editor/writer for being the most attention-getting (read: outrageous)?
That’s the proposition. Where’s the proof?
Actually, to use your proof-less debate tactic, I’ll assert that Republicans insult much more than Democrats.
And what’s worse, being a condescending jerk or an insulting jerk?
And my point was that there is condescention going the other way too.
For example, you said:
Isn’t calling someone naive the same as insulting their intelligence and condescending?
I guess my question is: why don’t people see that both sides have low opinions of the other side and are often condescending? Why is the meme that only one side is condescending spreading like it is?
Hey. Tom Berenger is on that list. He’s one of my favorites. I’ve admired his historical projects (“Gettysburg,” and “Rough Riders” where he did an awesome job as Teddy Roosevelt) among many others. He seems like a pretty sharp guy—apparently he’s a history buff. But the thing I’ve really admired about him is that he’s never (as far as I know) made a big stink about his politics. I didn’t even know he was Republican until you linked to this cite.
Not much more of a point there, other than to express my admiration of celebrities who don’t make a big issue of their politics. (And to mention that Tom Berenger was a hottie in “Rustler’s Rhapsody.” ;))
As if more proof was needed
or this
or this
Do we need more proof that conservatives have a low opinion of the intelligence of liberals?
You can condescend by calling someone stupid (as both liberals and conservatives do).
You can also condescend by calling someone weak, cowardly, naive or immoral.
Conservatives do this a lot, IMHO, more than liberals.
To complicate things (and to make sure everybody is POed at me), it may be more valid.
msmith: * 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. *
And I think the point of the OP is that this “consensus” may be based less on the volume of condescending things that liberals actually say than on a useful stereotype—the “elitist, condescending liberal”—being exploited by conservatives for all it’s worth.
Wow, this thread is nowhere near what I would have expected. Okay, as I understand it, the debate should be about whether the perception of liberals as condescending is accurate, with the OP suggesting that liberals are no more condescending than your average Republican (and I guess this takes place in binary world where everyone is liberal or conservative). I was surprised to see that what is actually being debated is the rhetorical styles of various liberals and conservatives. Liberals ARE condescending–not because of the way they speak, but because of the things they stand for. The Democratic platform is condescending.
Item: A civilized society should not let its citizens starve, particularly one possessing the wealth that this country possesses. Clearly, the people cannot be trusted to do the right thing and help the less fortunate, so we must forcibly take their money and redistribute as we see fit. In fact, people can’t be trusted to spend their money on the any of the things that society needs. The smart government people must make sure that enough money is spent on research, health care, etc. (And I’m just the smart person for the job; listen to how smart my plan is for spending your money…)
Item: Most people do not have the good judgment to plan for their retirement. Therefore, we must set aside money for them. Letting them have any direct control over these funds would lead to certain disaster.
Item: Dark brown people have been oppressed in the past, so they cannot compete with people of lighter hue. They cannot improve themselves without help. We must set lower standards for them and establish quotas to ensure that they are able to achieve some success. The poor things. They are completely dependent on our largesse.
Item: All minorities are extremely weak and insecure and can have their psyches damaged by hurtful words. We must establish politically correct ways of speaking to protect people from the trauma of having their feelings hurt.
Is there any need to continue with this? The simple fact is you can debate about whether these attitudes about people are appropriate, but I don’t see how you could debate that the message of the platform is condescending. All a Republican has to do is say, “I think you should have more control of the money that you earned” and he has positioned himself as being less condescending than his Democratic opponent. Hell, recent experience shows that he doesn’t even have to be less of a tax-and-spender than the Democrat, and he still wins the perception battle about who is condescending because he didn’t declare that the electorate is generally incompetent.
How various Democrats deliver this condescending message is not all that relevant.
-VM
My God…The Republicans have… Scott Baio…
I am utterly mystified.
A noted and respected Republican, himself. Speaking of Teddy, [url=“http://www.americanheritage.com/xml/2003/5/2003_5_feat_15.xml”]American Heritage had one of my favorite photos as the most underrated photo last October.
Something that amuses me about (aboot?) that list is the presence of known Canadians on it. Some of whom I had no idea had renounced their citizenship because they work as much Up There as Down Here. (Glenn Ford doesn’t count since he was a kid when he emigrated.) If Leslie Nielsen did convert I don’t know how he can face his brother Erik, former Deputy Prime Minister. Talk about a topic of conversation at Christmas dinner!
Then there is Jean Claude Van Damme, neither a good spokesman for the Republican party nor, um, an American citizen. 
Conservatives have a low opinion of everyone. They believe that they can justify a pre-emptive war with Iraq by making wild-ass claims about Super-Secret WMD Stockpiles, that they can change said rationale to any of a dozen other alternatives whenever one fails, and that the public will accept all these reversals and self-contradictions without calling them on it.
And the sad part is, they’re right. 
Er, I gave you three Google cites that seem to indicate a lot more Dems. were calling Republicans stupid idiot morons than vice versa. Your response was that most of those sites were probably actually run by Republicans who were really refuting that fictitious charge and in turn implying that the Dems. were stupid, or something to that effect. I’m not impressed.
One way in which Reps are condescending to the Dems is when they try to paint them as naive communist idealists.
Same thing I’ve been saying all along.
Or cowards, traitors, effete liberal snobs, etc etc etc.
[hit and run]
It’s hard to not sound condescending when you’re explaining basic things to idiots…
[/hit and run]
(only doing this because it is near the bottom of the page
You are misunderstanding. This is not a matter of whether people can be trusted or not. It is a question of the mechanism that We The People use to achieve our ends as a society… Liberals recognize that the Market is not G-d and that some actions are best taken collectively because we have evidence that the market alone does not handle them well.
Again, experience has shown that not everyone saves sufficiently for their retirement. And, people make poor investment choices. Or they make reasonable ones but Shit Happens. In order not to have the sort of elderly poverty rates we had pre-social security, we have set up social security to insure some minimum standard for people. However, this does not mean they cannot also save in 401K plans, IRA’s, etc.
What liberals recognize is that the playing field still is not equal. Racism persists and the disadvantages of previous racism continues to have on-going effects. The fact is that there are a large percentage of Blacks living in poverty, in jail, etc. than is true of Whites. And, in fact, it is some conservatives (e.g., The Bell Curve authors) who have proposed that this is simply evidence that Blacks are intellectually inferior. Liberals, on the other hand, do not believe this. However, they also do not deny the reality of the facts in regard to unequal status in our society.
Actually, it seems to be lots of conservatives who are complaining about having their feelings hurt around here. They say that liberals are being elitist, etc. when we point out the documented misconceptions that people have, e.g., in regards to the Iraq war and world opinion of Bush and Kerry.
And, I will only add the point that I made before…When it comes to making government more accountable and less secretive, liberals have often been out in front and conservatives are often doing just the opposite. In fact, this Administration is a textbook example of making government less accountable, more secretive, and lowering the level of debate by feeding people distortions and half-truths. If that is not condescension then I don’t know what is!
Because to do some of these things is the right thing, no matter what the market does.
It sure does happen. The best laid plans and all that. All it takes is one accident or illness to wipe out a lifetime of savings, or one layoff to destroy a career you planned to retire on.
But it’s OK to holler “love it or leave it you Commie leftist bastard traitor” etc.
Maybe they think the public is too stupid to understand or that they might get in the way? Liberals air too much dirty laundry in public among themselves, but at least it’s out in the daylight. Then too, there is the condescencion implicit in the tactic of continuously changing your core reasons for doing something, and paving it over with sloganeering, as this administration has blatantly done.