Why are liberals so condescending?

Washington Post ^ | February 7, 2010 | Gerard Alexander

[Second Amendment First]

Every political community includes some members who insist that their side has all the answers and that their adversaries are idiots. But American liberals, to a degree far surpassing conservatives, appear committed to the proposition that their views are correct, self-evident, and based on fact and reason, while conservative positions are not just wrong but illegitimate, ideological and unworthy of serious consideration. Indeed, all the appeals to bipartisanship notwithstanding, President Obama and other leading liberal voices have joined in a chorus of intellectual condescension.

[End Times Sentinel]

Gerard Alexander is an associate professor of politics at the University of Virginia.

And now will NEVER become a full professor.

[NCLaw441]

According to liberals, conservatives are also worthy of hatred. I think it stems from the fact that, for liberals, politics is their religion.

[Jodi]

Every one of my ultra-liberal friends have made a career out of perpetually going to school. They are so over-educated, of course they think they are always right. And not a single one of them has a clue about starting a business or hiring people or filling out government regulated forms. It’s embarrassing, really.

[pallis]

Liberals are condescending to the rest of us uninitiated because they have stumbled onto the answer to all of man’s problems, ...government, big government, lots and lots of government. Is there a social/cultural problem, race, class, poverty, obesity? Government is the solution. Is there a problem with healthcare, education, energy production? Government is the solution. You name it, government can make it better. It’s the single repository of solutions and enlightenment.

[Tzimisce]

Why are liberals stuck on themselves?

Well firstly consider that people like Nancy Pelosi and Barney Frank are crooks and we can demonstrate it. Are these people being arrested and charged with crimes? No. Are these people being voted out of office by their angry electorate? No. Are these people even being forced to answer questions before our press? No.

Consider the Global Warming scam. We have evidence that climate “scientists” lied to us and covered up their lies. Are any of them going to face charges? No. Have any of them lost their jobs? No. Have any of them been forced to take unpaid leave of absenses? No. Have any of these people even been forced to answer tough questions by our press? No.

So what do expect when you have a class of people so insulated and protected? People are stupid: leftists are getting away with it right in front of them. People are stupid: they still vote Pelosi and Boxer even with all corruption stories leaking out.

[rickomatic]

Classic case of what I call covering ignorance with arrogance

Translation: Cognitive Dissonance

[GeorgeTex]

Goldwater’s VP choice was George Miller. (don’t ask me his qualifications, I only remember this because of those old “do you know me” American Express commercials.) What a much better country we would have today if AuH20 had won.

[Pontiac]

Liberals apparently don’t know anything at all.

Oh, on the contrary Liberals know a lot.

It is such a pity that so much of what they know isn’t true.

[Reeses]

Most of the "condescending" and "arrogant" people I have met in my 64 years have been those who really harbor deep-seated inferiorities.

Most of the exceptionally accomplished people are amazingly humble and nonjudgmental. Being condescending is a protective mechanism developed by people damaged in childhood. The leftist snowball gets rolling by something as simple as not being invited to a birthday party or allowed to play with someone else's toy. Once started it's hard to stop the snowball from growing.

[Pontiac]

Perhaps the most important conservative insight being depreciated is the durable warning from free-marketeers that Perhaps the most important conservative insight being depreciated is the durable warning from free-marketeers that government programs often fail to yield what their architects intend. Democrats have been busy expanding, enacting or proposing major state interventions in financial markets, energy and health care. Supporters of such efforts want to ensure that key decisions will be made in the public interest and be informed, for example, by sound science, the best new medical research or prudent standards of private-sector competition. But public-choice economists have long warned that when decisions are made in large, centralized government programs, political priorities almost always trump other goals.

This is a profoundly accurate and pointed criticism of Liberal policy making.

I would add only a little amplification to what he says.

First; to say that “government programs often fail to yield what their architects intend” is being understated and too kind. Government social programs rarely come in at less than 5 times their estimated cost and the unintended consequences of these programs unfailingly cause social problems that can only be called unending disasters.

Second When he says that “Supporters of such efforts want to ensure that key decisions will be made in the public interest and be informed, for example, by sound science…” but that “But public-choice economists have long warned that when decisions are made in large, centralized government programs, political priorities almost always trump other goals” he might have mentioned that once government money starts pouring in to scientific studies to justify government funded programs or public policy the scientific conclusions invariably is going to be slanted towards the ends desired by the politicians behind the funding of the study.

[Doomonyou]

"We were so busy just getting stuff done . . . that I think we lost some of that sense of speaking directly to the American people about what their core values are," the president told ABC's George Stephanopoulos in a recent interview.

That's the problem, these idiots think they know and have to tell US what our core values are.

[neverdem]

Did you catch the poll near the start of this OpEd? Who’s more condescending? libs got 70%

[Cacique]

btt

[RJS1950]

Why? Because conservatives have rolled over, turned the other cheek, taken the high ground, not stooped to their level for way too many years. If you do not hit back their lies become the truth to the ill-informed and lazy public.

The nazi socialist democrats now believe that they can say and do anything and never be challenged. It is why they become defensive when someone shoves their crap back up their arses.

[listenhillary]

I keep waiting for the leftist intellectual writers to make billions when their brilliant writings rocket to the top of the NYT best seller list.

Waiting and waiting and waiting.

[ripley]

Liberals are brilliant, Conservatives are stupid.....Libarels are brilliant, Conservatives are stupid...Liberals are brilliant, Conservatives are stupid..........repeat as necessary.

IMHO

[ripley]

Liberals are condescending because they’re psychotic, adolescent punks.

Hopefully, comeuppance will come in November, 2010.

IMHO

[GOP_Raider]

“Conservatives believe in God. Liberals think they are God.”

-Ann Coulter

[CyberAnt]

Here’s Why:

In Rich Lowry’s book, “Legacy: Paying the price for the Clinton years”, on page 11, Rich was describing the group of people the Clintons brought to the WH with their election in 1992:

“... ‘It was a really beautiful moment’, commented George Stepanopoulos (Rhodes scholar, ‘82, Balliol College). This was an administration that looked like America - the portion of it that had happened to win Rhodes scholarships, go to Yale Law School, or be invited to Renaissance weekends.

This elite didn’t just feel a call to run the country, it felt it deserved to run the country. “They think of themselves as entitled to power in a way their antecedents never did”, Weisberg writes. “The Clinton circle has a pronounced class consciousness that tells them they’re not just lucky to be here. They’re running things because they’re the best”. How could anyone reject the leadership of a group of people so intelligent and famously ‘conscience stricken’? In the Clintons, this sense of entitlement produced a deep anger at the fact that their ambitions encountered resistance.
_____________________________

That last sentence should explain Bush Derangement. Like I have said all along .. how dare Bush think he can win an election.

And .. it also should explain why Obama gets so angry when his ideas are not lauded and applauded.

[Rockitz]

Nice concise summary.