I’m just curious how conservatives are going to boycott California. Is Hobby Lobby gonna shutdown it’s locations? If you do start your payback boycott, adahar, I suggest you start with much more lightweight State.
You post as those are two different situations. Why? Appealing to the basest instincts and fears of one group of people without holding a consistent platform, (and changing one’s declarations every time there is blowback from that group instead of trying to get them to accept one’s differing views), is no different than simply saying anything to get elected.
The reaction to Trump on this board, AND among Democrats, in general, AND among nearly two thirds of Republicans is based on his lack of a consistent platform and his tendency to say anything to get the vote of a particular population.
Blaming negative views of an unprincipled demagogue on “liberal smugness” is just silly.
Now, have a number of liberals demonstrated a certain smugness in their rhetoric? Absolutely. They have learned that trait well from Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, Coulter, Malkin, and company, to say nothing of Gingrich, Cruz, Franklin Graham, and others, including people who should know better such as Romney.
I thought the article was overly long and muddled. I ended up skimming it. Luckily Kevin Drum provided a precis: Are Liberals Too Smug? Nah, We’re Too Condescending. While I’ve seen some smugness on the left, it’s generally been of the collegiate variety.
Substantively, I see the main challenge of the Republican Party to persuade a big chunk of the US to vote against its economic interests. I think they’ve done a pretty good job. I suppose that is somewhat condescending. Except that I don’t think it’s reasonable to expect everyone to have mastered intermediate macroeconomics, to take an example. Frankly, I think my real condescension is aimed at the donor class, whom I feel has let us down. Couldn’t they have vetted someone better than GWBush? Why are the Koch brothers surprised that the US hasn’t turned to Fabian socialism? Are they that out of touch? Why hasn’t the donor class knocked heads and taken on the Republican congress for threatening the nation’s formerly near-pristine credit rating? In the back of my mind are the elites of South Korea and Taiwan: faced with existential threats they have both done very well for themselves and have showed discipline with regards to national policy. And remember these are folks that embraced dictatorship in the recent past: I don’t exactly have a close affinity for them.
Was the article superb? No. Worth a thread here? Absolutely.
Anyway, head on over to Kevin Drum’s post. He makes a few points: here is one: [INDENT][INDENT]So liberals and conservatives have different styles. No surprise there. The question is, do these styles work? Here, I think the answer is the same on both sides: they work on their own side, but not on the other. Outrage doesn’t persuade liberals and mockery doesn’t persuade conservatives. http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/04/liberals-smug-condescending[/INDENT][/INDENT]
I haven’t read the entire article, I will read it in full later.
Christians do not understand their own religion. Why is that contentious? The bible has 31k verses in it, a handful apply to being gay. The fact that christians cherry pick the ones that let them do what they want (be bigoted against outgroups like gay people) and ignore the ones they do not want (kill your kids for talking back, beat your slaves, don’t eat shellfish, etc) is a sign they do not understand their own beliefs.
This is like people who try to be ‘fair and balanced’ by having climate change skeptics to debate people who want policy changes.
Right wing authoritarian personality types are more dogmatic, their views are more compartmentalized (leading to hypocrisy and double standards), unable to tolerate gray areas (demanding black and white thinking), hostile to outgroups and threats to the social order. These are facts, why do we have to pretend liberals are just being mean? The study of right wing authoritarianism is a valid study, and RWAs tend to engage in a lot of behavior that liberals find hypocritical, confusing, absurd or unfair.
At the risk of screwing up the ‘debate’, the fact remains that liberals have pressed many of the reforms that have improved the US and authoritarian conservatives opposed them. Abolishing child labor, civil rights, women’s suffrage, gay rights, the minimum wage, environmental laws, social security, medicare, the 8 hour workday, making human rights a part of foreign policy, opposing torture, etc. Sure they have caused some problems with some of these but they were on the whole worth it.
I’ll read the rest of it later, I have some other stuff I have to do today though.
Medicaid doesn’t cover the most expensive drugs. Combine that with the government crackdown on painkillers which makes access much more difficult, and it’s easy to see what choice sick people are being herded towards.
I don’t like Trump, but that’s not why.
This is certainly not the first time I’ve read the Republicans-get-people-to-vote-against-their-self-interest bit, and I’ve always thought it rather missed the point. They make the claim (and may even believe it) that lowering taxes (for everyone, but mostly the noble job creators) will lead to greater prosperity for everyone. And you can do it without feeling greedy because it will bring in more money to fund the government, too. They’re not telling people to vote against their self interest, they’re telling them that this will be in their self interest. It’s just a political lie[sup]*[/sup], but I’m not sure why people focus on that one so much more than others.
- I suppose a traditional political lie is when a politician says he will vote for something and then doesn’t. This differs in that the politician do follow through with their votes, but then the consequences are not as promised. I think that makes the lie easier to get away with. It’s still not some unique linchpin of Republican strategy.
Of course they aren’t.
Of course they are.
They are salesman hawking a product that is faulty from the perspective of the middle class and terrific from the pecuniary perspective of the donor class. Don’t get me wrong. It’s not as cut and dry as I’m making it out to be. But I think it delineates the central challenge of the GOP sales force. Add salt though, as this is big picture stuff, which is difficult to assess.
Yes, but it’s not unique. Abstinence-only sex ed will lead to fewer pregnancies. Cutting red tape will let corporations clean up the air and water without having to jump through government hoops. And yet people cite the economic self-interest case as if it’s the Machiavellian secret sauce that keeps Republicans in power.
Medicaid is Federal, not State.
And, of course, we’re all fortunate in that private insurance programs always cover every necessary medication, with no caps and limits. So you’re always guaranteed to have full access to medical treatment. Who needs Medicaid?
Not to mention that people don’t just vote for their self-interest. Some people have higher aspirations. If it was only about self-interest, I don’t think Democrats would win very often. It’s the financial support and voting by upper middle class professionals that keeps the Democratic party going. The poor are just too unreliable a voting base(and a non-existent funding base) to rely on. Which is why Democrats really, really, shouldn’t encourage people to vote for their economic interests.
I cannot tell if you are ironically quoting that political contingent or whether you are actually making the failed claims that abstinence only sex ed actually works, (it does not: abstinence works, but proposing abstinence-only to hormone laden teens fails), or that left, to their own devices, without supervision corporations will actually spend money to clean up the environment (the actual history indicates that, barring extremely rare exceptions, corporations will do no such thing).
Unclear irony, outsider presentation of views, or utter naiveté?
I’m reminded of a South Park episode (just a clip, not the entire episode). 
Outsider presentation of views: he’s giving what he claims is the Republican shtick.
No it’s not unique. But it’s the central challenge of the GOP. Paul Krugman: “After all, what is the modern GOP? A simple model that accounts for just about everything you see is that it’s an engine designed to harness white resentment on behalf of higher incomes for the donor class.”
Furthermore, one vote never matters so there’s never any sure and certain penalty for voting against your economic interests. Unlike in, say, the market where feedback is somewhat faster. Also there’s nothing wrong with voting against your economic interest: I’m just saying that’s the challenge that the GOP faces.
Dammit adaher, stop making me agree with you!
Outsider presentation of views. It seems to me that there are lots of Republican policies that don’t deliver the results that are promised for them; “invading Iraq will bring peace and stability to the region”, that sort of thing. However, I often see the economic self-interest cited as the sole reason for Republican survival, as in MfM’s post I cited earlier.
It depends on how you define self-interest. Someone may well support paying higher taxes if they think that money will go toward defense spending, for example, and that such spending will increase national security and their own safety. Is that self-interest?
The genius thing about the Republican policy for endless tax cuts is that they don’t portray it as self-interest. “Cutting rates will increase tax revenue and help balance the budget. Don’t you love your country, and won’t you dig deep into your pocket and keep more of your money?” It’s politically brilliant.
However, at the same time they bang the drum for patriotism and responsibility from some, they exempt others from it. How many times have we heard that raising taxes on the wealthy will just cause them to move somewhere else? They’re the ones who are assumed to act out of self-interest, and also the ones that Republican policy helps the most.
Good point about Republicans touting supply side economics, but I really don’t think anyone believes it anymore but them. It was proven wrong right from the start and is still wrong. People would have to really be into rationalizing to justify a vote based on that theory.
Yeah, if THIS is being “smug” then buy me the t-shirt, baby. (2XL, please. The XL’s are a little tight around the shoulder.)
This is more due to extreme gerrymandering beyond any hope of equity. When more Democrates vote in House elections and Republican candidates STILL win, you have to admit the situation is not normal.
I I think this election season demonstrates that hypocrisy, double standards, black and white thinking, hostility to outgroups, etc. fit perfectly well in the Democratic party right now. And I’ve seen plenty of people on the left speaking admiringly of the Tea Party’s intransigence.
Just because Democrats aren’t as well organized doesn’t mean Democrats are immune from this sort of idiocy. (And I’m honestly coming to believe that for some issues it’s just a matter of luck as to where a party will fall re: issues requiring actual intellectual rigor.)
What American liberalism needs is less of a smug style and more of an angry style. Liberals, you are quite literally confronting the Forces of Evil – not just the Forces of Stupid, but the Forces of Evil – and you have been at least since 1980; act like you know it.
Is it really smug if what they say is real?
Before any conservatives or their apologists object, consider the question. What if everything liberals say is basically true and these people just don’t like being talked down to? What can liberals say better than “this is actually reality” to people who have purposefully turned a blind eye to it? Are we supposed to coddle them, tell them their viewpoints matter even if its completely illogical and doesn’t make sense? Or do liberals try to explain reality to them in an obvious way. Will they listen?
Tell me, conservatives, if you were wrong, how would you best want liberals to explain to you why you are wrong?
Believe it or not, you can be correct and act smug. Also, it’s possible to correct someone without being smug.
-not a conservative apologist