Jump to content

The smug style in American liberalism


Pong Messiah
 Share

Recommended Posts

I think really, if you're looking for a negative behavioral trait that's found in the right- Kurgan nailed it. Paranoia. (excellent work in this thread so far, by the way, Kurgan). I think that while the Left has that unique bullying, witch hunt style with a holier-than-thou smugness; the Right tends to have a peculiar type of paranoia that isn't as common on the Left. That's not to say you don't see some of it on the Left as well (it got especially bad during the beginning of the Iraq War), but the Right tends to have a more Chicken Little type attitude with almost every political issue. The Right also seems to be much more susceptible to conspiracy theories. Again- sometimes you see a brush of it in the Left, and again, it was probably at its peak when Iraq started. But it's heavily outweighed by the conspiratorial thinking on the Right. And it's pervasive- you see it in how the GOP discusses almost any policy proposal of the Left. Sometimes there's a kernel of truth to it- for example, I have no doubt that a significant number of liberals would outright ban guns tomorrow if they could get away with it. But more often than not, it goes off in the deep end into pure crazy person land.

The other thing I'll point out is that things are much more personal to the right wingers. Sure, the left hated Bush, but the hatred was more derived from what Bush represented to them culturally. He was a white, southern, Christian neo-con who explicitly and deliberately cultivated a folksy, anti-intellectual style (despite being both Yale and Harvard educated - Bush's alleged stupidity was a very deliberate and calculated projection. The man was brilliant in many ways, if ultimately short sighted) in order to appeal to racist rubes. While they might regard him as criminal, stupid, a puppet of financial backers and so on, he was part and parcel of a broader culture that was the real target of the progressives. All of this is likewise true of their views of Trump. Conservative politicians are not fundamentally evil as far as the progressives are concerned, but they are nevertheless guilty of the unforgivable mortal sin of selling their souls to what they regard as the singular source of ultimate and unmitigated evil in exchange for worldly power.

 

Contrast this with the right's hatred of Obama. They don't hate the man's politics. They don't hate the man's faith. They don't hate the man's racial or class background. They hate the man's very existence. They hate the very essence of his soul. His mere existence is a direct, personal affront to them. The difference is that progressives tend to see politicians that they don't like as the end result of a single cultural and social idea that they regard as the singular source of all evil, while conservatives reverse this. Simply put, the progressives blame racism for all the nation's social problems, while the conservatives blame racism on persons past and present in the democratic party. They see the origin of all evil as being in the person of Barack Obama, and all bad policy, degenerate culture and poor social outcomes have their origins in him. Not in his personality, his ideology, the color of his skin or his religion. But in his person. When Obama is no longer the premier democratic party politician, whoever is will have that same role. They felt that way about Nancy Pelosi during the Bush years, and about Bill Clinton during his presidency, and doubtlessly they'll feel the same way about Hillary once she takes over the oval office.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dunno. I mean, I see where you're going with that. But I think most of what you wrote in the second paragraph could be used to describe an anti-Bush liberal circa 2004.

 

Do you remember how bad liberals got around that election? I knew some who, upon just seeing Bush's face, would go into near convulsions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But I think most of what you wrote in the second paragraph could be used to describe an anti-Bush liberal circa 2004.

Or Donald Trump today. I know what you're saying. I do remember it. I remember feeling that way myself about George H.W Bush and Newt Gingrich back when I subscribed to The Daily Worker and Z magazine, and I even remember from my childhood how much my mother and (to a much greater extent) my Marxist-Leninist brother despised Ronald Reagan. Not old enough to remember Nixon, though. Sorry. Closer to home, I have friends who I'm sure would have killed former Canadian Conservative prime minister Stephen Harper if they absolutely knew they could get away with it.

 

Never the less, I think the hatred that the right has for the high level politicians in the democratic party is personal and fundamental in a way that isn't the case on the left. Leftists display perpetual shock and outrage that men who hold high office, no matter the party, would willingly collude with the forces of evil, and feel about those men the way anyone would about a traitor or a collaborationist. Which is light years away from charity, empathy or brotherly love. Not even the benefit of the doubt one might extend a misguided extremist or a once good man who succumbed to the temptations of power and skimmed off the top, so to speak. People who should know better willingly collude with the forces of evil, and judgement and condemnation is the only righteous response to this.

 

Rightists, however, do not believe that the politicians on the other side knowingly collude with the forces of evil. Rightists believe that the politicians of the other side ARE the forces of evil. That, I think, based on the tone of hundreds of right vs. left blogs and commentators I've read over the years, is the difference between the two. Leftists loathed Bush and they loathe Trump, but I've never seen it suggested that either are the actual Antichrist. That's the difference, IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest El Chalupacabra

 

 

And Chalup, I think that's really the big point here that I was trying to make. The issues you have with the Right seem to be more rooted in a substance you find culturally unappealing; but the style just isn't the same in my opinion. What's lacking is that witch hunt mob justice style that is very unique to the left. The particular brand of conservatism that exists where you happen to be living might annoy the ever-loving sh-t out of you, but even those people don't tend to try and root out people with the "incorrect views," to have them publicly humiliated and burned at the stake for their transgressions. Like I said, stuff like the removal of the Mozilla CEO, the whole incident with Kim Davis, the gamergate fiasco, and so on- these types of bullying tactics and need to publicly degrade are not typically used by the Right. The worst you ever see from the Right are half-hearted attempts at boycotts that last about 2 days. Limbaugh might drive you nuts but he's not out there trying to get liberal CEOs fired.
I think really, if you're looking for a negative behavioral trait that's found in the right- Kurgan nailed it. Paranoia. (excellent work in this thread so far, by the way, Kurgan). I think that while the Left has that unique bullying, witch hunt style with a holier-than-thou smugness; the Right tends to have a peculiar type of paranoia that isn't as common on the Left. That's not to say you don't see some of it on the Left as well (it got especially bad during the beginning of the Iraq War), but the Right tends to have a more Chicken Little type attitude with almost every political issue. The Right also seems to be much more susceptible to conspiracy theories. Again- sometimes you see a brush of it in the Left, and again, it was probably at its peak when Iraq started. But it's heavily outweighed by the conspiratorial thinking on the Right. And it's pervasive- you see it in how the GOP discusses almost any policy proposal of the Left. Sometimes there's a kernel of truth to it- for example, I have no doubt that a significant number of liberals would outright ban guns tomorrow if they could get away with it. But more often than not, it goes off in the deep end into pure crazy person land.

OK, point taken as far as how the left and right manifests itself. Maybe it is a fair statement to say that the smugness of the left is more prominent, and they do tend to bully, whereas the right does tend to be more paranoid. But let's take Limbaugh as an example. The guy politicizes everything. Nothing doesn't fall in a category of either liberal or conservative, and anything liberal is bad. Anything or anyone that doesn't meet his personal definition of conservative, get his criticism and he whips his audience up against them, so I don't know that I agree that Limbaugh doesn't target people specifically. Hell, he wouldn't have had the career he's had without the Clintons, and anyone connected to them or supports them in any way to criticize for two decades. That, too, is a form of bully tactics.

 

But I agree, the fact that liberals mostly find themselves with the ability to effect change, or attack conservatives in academia, is unique to the left.

 

 

 

I suspect that maybe your perspective is a little skewed because you appear to be bombarded daily with a culture that you don't identify with. Serious Q (not trying to be cheeky with this), have you ever thought about moving?

It's easier now than it's ever been in the past. I can tell you that in my own life, cultural compatibility certainly weighs in on where I choose to live. For example, I would never live in Portland. Never. My blood pressure starts going up just by reading the occasional SJW post on my FB wall. Having to actually live and interact with those people? Daily? I couldn't do it. I just couldn't. I would go insane. I'd rather live in the freaking Bible Belt, and I'm an atheist. Of course, that doesn't mean I couldn't find places on the West Coast to live. I think, for example, Newport Beach would be a pretty good fit for me.

I don't doubt that I am skewed to a point. But I would argue people living in cities like Portland or SFO as 2 examples, who are not liberal, would similarly be skewed. However, I don't think the things I described are unique to Phoenix, or AZ in general. I think that pretty much any red state fits what I described.

 

But to answer your question, yes, I have considered moving. But the thing is, I don't consider that an option right now. For one thing, I've worked at my job too long to just walk away from my pension, at this point. I have 8 years to go, so a little late to flush that down the toilet. And second, family members. One day, perhaps I will move, or just get a job that requires business travel. I'll deal with that when I get there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is Phoenix really that bad?

 

Granted, Romney won Maricopa County 54 to 44, but if you start digging into the precinct results, Obama fared quite well in many areas. He won lots of western districts (Glendale, Avondale, Estrella), he won all the area around central Phoenix/downtown, he won South Mountain, he won Tempe and Mesa. Sure, he got killed in Scottsdale, Peoria, and Sun City, but on the whole, Obama actually did quite a bit more respectable than I would've guessed.

 

I've only been to Phoenix a couple of times so obviously I'm not gonna pretend I know more about it than you, but the impression I got, was that it wasn't too different than your typical mid-major American metro area. Just way f-cking hotter.

 

Was I missing something?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, again, I'm not going to act like I'm an expert on it. But it just didn't seem like the place where you see dudes driving around with confederate flags flying from their truck all the time. Every now and then you're gonna run into that one as-hole, but you can find that as-hole pretty much anywhere in the country. Sure, I don't doubt you got your Rush listeners there, but shoot- I knew plenty of people in Manhattan that listened to Rush. Probably at least 1 out of 5 cabs I'd take during the day, the cabbie would have Rush on. Not necessarily because they agreed with him on everything, but just because they found him funny and/or wanted some variety from top 40 and sports radio.

 

To be honest, if it wasn't for the heat and the landscape, Phoenix would be interchangeable with like a dozen other US metros. At least that was my impression.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.