The left are condescending

[cally]

Like most of us, I've been trying to understand why we keep losing in the South and much of the midwest. We still win in many urban centers and University towns. For years, I've dismissed the rationale that we don't have small town values or moral values because I knew it was not true. Progressives have strong values and act on them. I think we lose because we are condescending and sure we are right.

Most folks live their lives concerned about only there own immediate needs. They worry about their family, their jobs, and their social lives. Church is a social event and also a way to give meaning to their lives. Most don't read beyond the newspaper or the latest best seller. Reading history or politics is just not something most do. So they choose politicians like them. Those who don't intellectualize and base decision not on reading and information but on core beliefs. George Bush could be their neighbor. He could chat about nothing and never make you feel stupid, uninformed, or question your core values.

Then we bring in the liberal elite. We read, discuss, bring up information that noone has heard about. I LIKE discussing ideas. I LIKE learning new things. I enjoy change and finding new information that changes me.

Most people don't. I remember my first daycare provider telling me that she never read parenting magazines or books. She just did what her Mom did. I asked why she wasn't curious about new information and ideas and she just looked at me as if I was crazy.

Folks like me are astounded that someone does not want to hear the facts or learn new ideas.. I admit, I don't admire anyone who refuses to learn or isn't interested in knowledge. I am condescending.

That's why we are losing. Our next candidate better be a person who can present him or herself differently.

[aquart]

1. We didn't lose. We failed theft prevention.

And I doubt I've ever heard a more condescending expression than "liberal elite." You did know that "elite" is a code word for "Jew"?
I'll bet you did.

[cally]

3. It was close enough to steal

We also lost 3 Senate seats. Maybe we didn't lose, but we didn't win.

[Warpy]

10. And in that, we lost

The DNC/DLC knew of the warnings that were being given about BBV. They knew damned full well that Sproul and his merry pranksters were destroying registration forms for Democrats, and that voters were being illegally purged from rolls nationwide. They did nothing.

They are either useless or in collusion. In either case, those old boys need to GO.

Until they do, forget winning anything.

[satori]

63. That is my thesis as well

That has been my thesis as well about the BBV machines. The DNC and the DLC had to know about the junk machines and the corrupt election worker practices. I am not lawyer but it seems to me that if someone or some institution knew or should of known that they were defrauded or that they could be defrauded such as the DNS and the DLC and they did nothing then the statutes of limitations has long passed for the DNC the DLC, the dems including Conyers to do anything to change it in the courts or the legislature. Again the DNC and the DLC (the Democratic Party) should of known that the BBV machines were junk but they rubber stamped them into existence.

It seems to me now the only ones that can do anything at this point are the actual voters. But my guess is that the Repugs wrote the rules that only politicians can contest elections and not the voters.

So I think that the only way to fix the problem of the BBV machines is to have a politician for example General Wesley Clark that would perhaps run in 2008 to have him go to the courts and then have the BBV machines changed and ASAP because my guess is the courts usually take or could argue that they need at least 4 years to decide complex lawsuits, such as those about BBV issues.

I think Rove is actually using Conyers knowing that Conyers can do nothing to change the BBV machines hoping that the Dems will wait to the last minute around 2008 to complain about the BBV machines and by then it will be to late to complain in the courts.

[forgethell]

25. I didn't know that

and I don't believe it. While I've met many intelligent Jewish people, I met some dumb-ass ones, too. Calling something a 'code-word' is a method of dismissing an argument without ever addressing its ideas. People that can actually defend their ideas don't need to call other people 'racists', unless they actually are.

[wuushew]

2. So who do you want to nominate in 2008?

n/t

[cally]

5. I don't know...Not a Gore or a Kerry

(Note: I like Gore and Kerry!!!)

Maybe Edwards could appeal to enough folks. Maybe Clark could win over enough folks although I think the Iraq war may be going so badly that anyone associated with the military will be frowned upon. I'm hoping a Governor will emerge.

[ret5hd]

4. i nominate gomer pyle...

but i really don;t agree with the premise.

[wuushew]

7. The current President can not serve more than two terms

as per the twenty-second amendment.

[Desert Liberal]

39. So just because the Constitution says it?

Bush & Co. have changed the rules to suit themselves more than just a time or two. I wouldn't count on that amendment meaning much of anything when the GOP gets done with it.
Kinda like free speech, due process and myriad other rights which have been stripped from us by the Chimp and his cronies.

[BlueEyedSon]

6. Maher on Southerners:

New rule: Southerners have to at least consider voting for candidates
from the North.

North Carolina Sen. John Edwards has a powerful argument in his bid to
be the Democratic nominee when he says, "What I give people is a
candidate who can win everywhere in America."


Translation: "We Southerners ain't gonna vote for no Yankee! You suckers
up North will take our Clintons and Carters, but we just ain't buyin'
Kerrys and Deans."

And that's a shame. Not just for Democrats but for democracy itself. And
I feel bad for the millions of intelligent people who live in a region
still dominated by so much prejudice that anyone who wants to be
president better have a twang in his voice and pronounce all four E's in
the word "shit."

Sorry, but responding only to people who look and sound like you is
small-minded, so if Southerners don't want to have an inferiority
complex, I say, "Stop doing things that make reasonable people think
you're inferior!"

Like, getting rid of slavery was a good start. But don't quit there:
Stop being the place that's always challenging the theory of evolution.
What's next, gravity? Is that just a plot by the Jews up North to get
people to drop spare change?

Southerners need to let go of the Civil War, beginning with those
reenactments. First of all, you're reenacting something you lost. It's
one thing to gloat about victory -- when you do it about losing, your
front porch is a few couches short of being decorated.

The time has come to move on. The time has come to consider voting for a
Yankee. Howard Dean's Vermont is no longer where carpetbaggers come
from. Carpet munchers -- yes.

There's no good reason that America, at this late date, still needs to
be a house divided. At bottom, we all want the same things: dignity,
security -- and someone to slap the shit out of Janet Jackson.

[TahitiNut]

11. Amen.

No other region of the country insists on "native sons" to the obscene degree that the South does. Labeling Catholics as "Boston Liberals" and Jews as "New York Liberals" (and the implication that a "San Francisco Liberal" is a fag-lover) is the thinnest of masks to hide an appalling bigotry.

[Mike Niendorff]

75. excellent point

For people who claim to hate "political correctness", they certainly do have quite a way with euphemisms.


MDN

[FizzFuzz]

100. same goes for the Southern attitude to women

When Mr Fuzz and I visit his hometown in Louisianna, I am appalled at the stereotyped behavior that the women buy into. Don't talk about anything but babies an' cookin. Don't contest the issue when the menfolk want to watch their sports or go workin on the tractor. Don't ask for help in the kitchen, unless it's men cooking man stuff (barbecue).

And if any man should make jokes about the size of your boobs, women's asses or other private body parts, or blame Janet Jackson for being a tramp ruining good family values (uh, the lyrics and choreography had Timberlake threatening to strip her and then doing so), just shut up and giggle.

I could go on, but that's enough.

[wildeyed]

19. I agree it is a shame.

It is wrong to eliminate a goodly portion of available candidates, simply because they hail from the wrong part of the country. But what are you going to do? Keep complaining that southerners are wrong-headed, or run a candidate who can win? It is what it is.

[ChairOne]

35. Thank god somebody (Maher) is addressing the actual problem...

The problem is the same as Soylent Green: It's people!!

Could the Democratic party leadership be better? Of course it could. Lots better. But until the Dem party starts advocating bigoted positions, and anti-middle-class positions, or else flat out lies about their current positions, they'll have no chance in the south, the heartland, and the plains states. They - as a group - are so stupid that they support bigoted positions, etc...

Is it condescending to tell someone who is wrong that they are wrong? To tell someone who is a bigot that they are a bigot? Then sign me up. I'll be damned if I'm gonna pander to what I know is idiocy, and no amount of (idiotic) crying "reverse-bigot" is gonna change that.

I'm tellin ya - mandatory college education would solve the problem. I personally believe widespread education is actually the *only* solution in the long-term, but it's enough for this post to acknolwedge its sufficiency...

[Geek_Girl]

55. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink

Mandatory college? Bush as a degree from Yale. It doesn't make him smart.

[ChairOne]

64. My suggestion's utility doesn't require *literally every* horse to drink..

That would, I suppose, be asinine (sorry, couldn't help myself - lol).

[Wisc Badger]

76. You are right about an education

I got mine later in life (late 30's and early 40's) and I was able to shed most of my conservative (learned in the Navy) leanings (save a profound disgust for any and all things Clinton, though he did do economy well).


But I am also born an bread in the heartland (Wisconsin) and am a church goer to boot and the left does tend to think it's self as superior at times. That is why you lose some of the union vote to the GOP in my opinion.

Well Please take no offense to my comments since as I get older I get more liberal. (so much for Churchill's famous quote).
:beer:

[ChairOne]

98. lol - sounds like at least one of Churchill's famous quotes applies...

... to you perfectly well...

And it's not thinking of oneself as "superior" to insist that ID is evil idiocy. Nor to insist that gay-bashing is evil idiocy. Nor to insist that racism and sexism are evil and idiotic. Nor to insist that voting against one's economic interests because of the above is evil idiocy. Nor to insist that theocratic government is evil idiocy. Nor to insist that edcuation is one of the most valuable things an American can possess.

Indeed, insisting on all those things is quite the OPPOSITE of superiority - refusing to let go of such ideals is precisely what constitutues the notion of EQUALITY.

Damn up-is-down-ists....

[Done]

43. Edwards used the argument to get on the ticket.

That doesn’t necessarily make it so. There has been a lot said about the problem the democrats are having in the south, IMHO, I believe the democrats can win in the south, even with a northerner on the ticket. With all this south bashing, keep in mind Kerry never made much of an effort to win the South. Kerry’s message to his supporters in the south was, “Don’t bother voting, I’m not going to win there anyway.” Democrats have tended to write off most or all of the south for the past twenty years.

The civil rights movement caused the dixicrats to start to leave the Democratic Party, but this did the party a favor. The Democratic Party in the south today is more moderate with liberal leanings on many issues. Democrats have continued to do well in state and local elections. Candidates like Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton have won in the south, not to mention all the others who didn’t go on to be president.

The Republicans do have the advantage of a pre-existing grass roots campaign machine called the evangelical churches. But evangelicals are not the majority in the south; they are simply the most vocal and the most organized. The democrats can win, they have to build their own grass roots organization, and they have to get their message out. The democrats have simply not done these things.

Democratic candidates for president have historically been under-funded relative to the Republicans and democratic campaign funds have been focused elsewhere. In the last election anti-bush feelings caused the democrats to have more money than usual, yet they still decided to write off the south.

I’ve got an idea, next time we can write off the Midwest, and then get real mad at the Midwest when we lose there.

[BlueEyedSon]

44. Let's all us Democrats embrace creationism so we can win, ok?

[Done]

47. Democrats need to get their message out.

Separation of Church and State can, and should be defended, even in the south. Like I once told an evangelical, "what if you lived in a muslim community, would you want your child to be taught to pray to Allah?"

[Clark2008]

82. But Southerners didn't like Edwards all that much

He was "a liberal lawyer."

You know what I mean...

[jonnyblitz]

48. wow. that was outstanding!!!

:thumbsup:

[BlueEyedSon]

105. Maher is frequently great (not always though).

[Kathy in Cambridge]

61. Great post!

:toast:

i'm waiting for the apologist flames to begin though.

[TankLV]

110. Amen to that!

I could not add a thing.

[saltpoint]

8. We lose because we traffic in ideas?

We aren't condescending to red state voters for the sport of looking down our noses.

We ARE more engaged in a constitutional republic. We DO seek the wider, more informed range of expression.

A lot of people who voted for Bush have an absolutely infantile relationship with an abstract Jewish prophet and in their free time they listen to Toby Keith.

How would getting along with people like that advance the cause of democracy or citizenship?

Bush can sling the folksy hash and Kerry was "wooden" -- so what? A little critical thinking in the red states would go a long way.

[cally]

9. I agree...but how do we do it?

How do you get voters to listen to ideas instead of voting on personality? I think we can get these voters if we reach out more.

[saltpoint]

16. We could nominate Bill Moyers.

A Texan, a liberal, with significant experience in ideas and how to communicate them, a Baptist minister, and no slouch in the debate department.

Veep choice for this ticket: Sheila Jackson Lee.

[Wisc Badger]

83. Not a chance!!!!

no way I am voting for ticket with Sheila Jackson Lee on it. Way to strident and arrogant, have you ever seen her on television??

[saltpoint]

91. Okey dokey -- you don't care for her.

I like the idea of a black woman serving on a national ticket as part of my party's leadership.

That was what I was gunning for.

[Wisc Badger]

92. In that case I am with you

just NO Lee's or Water's, you will turn my blue Wisconsin to red.

Donna Brazille or something of that sort on the other hand would be outstanding.

[saltpoint]

95. Well, ok with Donna.

But lately she's starting to sound as if she will compromise planks of our platform on abortion. That's not so great, but Donna herself is a true American success story.

It's Condoleeza Rice who grates my nerves. What a wildlly inappropriate appointment for Bush to make. Yuck.

[Career Prole]

27. Perhaps more cartoons. I watched a cartoon on CNN about how

a tsunami forms. I've also seen "How a volcano works" cartoons from the same source.
I can't believe there are so many people who paid so little attention in school that news outlets need to make cartoons to explain the fundamentals.
Maybe a "global warming" cartoon, or a "How elections can be stolen" cartoon, or a "Why all people don't believe in God" cartoon would help.
I'll try to be less condescending, but I don't think people who need a cartoon for a tidal wave will be able to grasp abstracts. I just don't.

[Clark2008]

85. That's not a Southern problem

That's a media problem.

I live down here and I don't need a cartoon.

[forgethell]

33. I live in a fairly liberal

area (university town) of a very conservative state (Alabama), and I get to hear both sides of all political conversations. As long as we make the mistake of thinking that Southerners are voting on the basis of personality rather than ideas, we will continue to get our butts handed to us in elections in this area. We may not agree with these ideas, but they ARE ideas, and should be approached as such.

Southerners are not so dumb that they can be manipulated by the amateurish techniques that we have been trying to use.

[Poppyseedman]

21. Gee,

You're being pretty condescending if you ask me. If you didn't. Oh' well.

As for that "abstract Jewish prophet" you mentioned, that's damn condescending to people who have more than a "infantile relationship" with God. Many intelligent people believe in Jesus, many are far more intelligent then you. (How's that for being condescending?)

You actually think you are superior to a person who has a belief system that is contrary the way you think is the only way to think?

I know a lot of people who you describe as red state voters and for what's it worth, most have got your number and chuckle at your attitude behind your back because they definitely are critical thinking people, not necessarily do I agree with him, but they are not what you think they are. That is why we lost.

Many of them held their noses to vote for Bush because Kerry was a lousy candidate to vast parts of the country.

[saltpoint]

34. Whoops. You made a mistake.

You generalized personal faith and pretended it was public policy.

Bad move. That's red state thinking, alright -- you're on the trail there, but you go awry when you assume I consider myself superior to anyone. I don't.

That's the basis of your post and it wastes an opportunity to express the range of personal faith as manifest in belief systems, including Christianity, and sadly, when it is absent from those systems, including Christianity, as manifest in belief in an abstract prophet -- pick Jesus or Mohammed or anybody you want -- and is traced in the hysterical and infantile over-emotionalism seen in places like the Kansas State Board of Education in its battle with evolution, or the recent nutcase conservative Christians who called the mayor of New York a "Christ-killer" for using the phrase 'holiday tree' instead of 'Christmas tree.'

A lot of people, especially in the red states, believe in hell for anyone they feel is sinful, or anyone they are told is sinful.

Do I reject that? You bet your sweet ass.

[Wisc Badger]

81. You come across as condescending to me

I voted for Kerry and a straight Dem ticket, I like some of Toby's music along with Shania's. (I also like Cedus T. Judds parodys of country songs).

I also hold a BA in history, education has made me a liberal no doubt about it, and I am a contented one.

But there is kernel of truth to the stereotype of an uppity I know better than you liberal.


It does not help.

[saltpoint]

93. Let's say I snapped right back with:

"Oh yeah? Well YOU sound condescending to ME!"

Then you followed up with:

"Uh-unh! YOU're condescending!"

Then I answered, "No, YOU are."

That's all your post covers. You can listen to Toby all night for all I care. But the fact is, he was a huge Bush supporter and an early advocate of "kicking Arab ass" over in Iraq. What kind of goddam citizenship is that? None I want anything to do with.

As it happens, some of us didn't support the war. You pick your music however you please and listen accordingly. Keith gets what he deserves on DU and if you look back in the archives, he's treated much worse than I gave him today.

I love your history degree. My late father taught it and I learned it at an early age and respect anyone who traffics in it.

The original post stepped in its own doo-doo by blaming discerning progressives for being "condescending." A good number of folks disagree with that interpretation of this election and have said so.

I'm among them.

Good wishes.

[pmbryant]

12. I have to respectfully disagree.

The most condescending politican I've ever witnessed is G. W. Bush, with his attitude of 'I'm right and that's just the way it is. Don't dare asking me questions about anything.'

I do think you're right that most people don't have the time or incentive to seek out and learn new facts and ideas. The problem is that then leads these people to be very susceptible to the repetetive propaganda put forth by the GOP and the corporate media. And this is the reason, in my opinion, why Democrats did not do as well as we hoped in the 2002 and 2004 elections.

There is really no such thing as a "liberal elite," because there is an equivalent "conservative elite" that is far more influential. Yet why is that latter phrase so rarely heard? The phrase "liberal elite" is just part of the propaganda that has taken hold due to its endless repetition by the Republican Propaganda Machine.

--Peter


(Hi cally!)

[sui generis]

22. good point

although I don't know why "elite" is a dirty word either. The stigma that people try to pin on it smacks of reverse snobbery - we're not "elite" so we're where it's at!

Yeah right.

[bobbobbins]

13. you're just a flip-flopper

[stopbush]

14. Oscar Wilde said that "the arts should never aspire to become

popular, Rather, the populace should aspire to become artistic," or something to that effect.

I wish the left was more condescending, sort of the way the right has made "liberal" a pejorative, condescendingly uttered term. The left stands for equality, civil rights, human rights, a fair shot, liberalism, etc. If we don't show it to the populace, who will? bushco?

[wildeyed]

15. You have some good insights.

I was raised in the SF Bay Area and DC, but moved to NC as an adult. So coming from the bluest areas of the bluest states, I am struggle to understand southern culture, too.

Many Bush voters I know are not the knuckle dragging, mouth breathing fundies that some people here make them out to be. They are not evil, either. Most of them are just not paying attention. Dems need to think in terms of marketing and branding to get these more moderate Bush voters. The Repubs have branded themselves as the Christian choice by using christian imagery and language in their political speeches. And most people I know don't look beyond that to see if the policies actually reflect a christian attitude.

Democrats who understand the culture and the language should do the talking. I don't think that means sacrificing our values, just talking about them in a different way.

[Maat]

24. I think that you are right, Wildeyed!

You hit the nail on the head. It happens in Southern California too. I live in a red, red pocket in a blue state (Murrieta/Temecula area, just north-inland of San Diego). One particularly astute neighbor of mine stated that she voted for Bush because she just didn't like Kerry. I told that that was a good reason to send the Country straight to Hell. I suspect that she was susceptible to the Christian symbols, and pressure from her in-laws.

I told her that the Fundies, who have a disproportionate amount of influence with the pResident were going to attack birth control, too. She stated that they would never do it. I told that they were. Anyway, you see how the conversation went. This particular acquaintance feels guilty that she works and is away from her children; so, she votes for some Christian ideal life in her head, if that makes sense.

[wildeyed]

42. "she votes for some Christian ideal life in her head,

if that makes sense."

Absolutely. I have a friend like that. She did drugs and had plenty of sex in college. But now she is married and respectable, it is like it never happened. She is voting for some conservative Christian ideal, while taking full advantage of the non-conservative life style when it suits her.

[Poppyseedman]

29. Your are right on.

It bugs me to no end, because I live in Florida, every time I meet someone from the Boston to Washington DC area of the Northeast, they just assume I'm a knuckle dragging, mouth breathing, uneducated, hillbilly who is beyond the capacity to have a cogent thought.

I found most are extremely condescending to the point of being offensive, especially the young women

[lastliberalintexas]

104. Especially the young women?

:eyes:


And since I was born and reared in Texas and have a fairly significant Texas twang mixed with a Louisiana drawl, I find that I am stereotyped by people in ALL parts of the country. Not just that liberal commie Jew housing Northeast of which you speak so disdainfully. Stereotype much? :eyes:

[Clark2008]

89. That would be it!

I really don't know too many knuckle-dragging, mouth-breathing fundies even though I live down here. I don't associate with those people because we have nothing in common.
However, I do associate with a number of red voters who are intelligent, but their "critical thinking" has been skewed by the conservative media and the GOP marketing machine. They simply don't hear the other side of the story without having to take time away from their jobs and family to do it.

[sui generis]

17. It's not condescending

although some of us think that having a rapier wit and tongue is a fine substitute for actually going out and knocking on someone's door and asking them to vote.

Our shortcoming in campaigning is clearly that we elect mush mouth people who can't take a clear moral stand for themselves, and moreover, who are bad fighters.

Kerry had promise but help me he said and did some stupid things that pissed off plenty of his base.

Both Kerry and Edwards failed to lead, and everyone wants a strong leader for president, or at the very least to get excited about. When "moral values" became an issue forced upon us Kerry should have stood up and fired straight into that crowd that their "moral values" involve discriminating against a class of people, and that a mere thirty-five years ago those exact same people were using "moral values" to keep black people from riding in the front of the bus and black children from getting an education and minorities from getting mortgages so they could buy houses instead of living in apartment tenements.

Kerry refused to say the war is wrong, wrong, wrong and stands for everything that America has traditionally decried in our foreign policy, the grand ideas of our forefathers, and just plain human decency.

Kerry refused to convincingly reclaim patriotism as a birthright of every American, and not just neo-conservative bible thumping bigots. He failed to malign neo-conservative bible thumping bigots as dangerous for our democracy, and he failed to preach outside the choir.

Our failure was a failure of leadership, from the top down. Condescension - well we were never going to win anyone's hearts and minds with clear rational arguments. You have to win their hearts with a truth that resonates at a gut level, then you can work on their minds.

[JHB]

18. The people you are describing have no problem being condescending...

...and sure they are right themselves, as long it's done "for Jay-sus".

I think you'll find "holier than thou" is a phrase with a much longer pedigree than "politically correct".

Yes, there are things we can do, but the problem isn't exclusively with us.

[comsymp]

20. I like your premise

and on first reading, don't see anything with which I disagree. In fact, on second read-thru, I like it even better.

Only problem I see is that you left out how much less trouble it is for people (the "most people who don't like learning, etc." - paraphrased) to stick to black/white thinking. Liberalism inherently deals in shades of gray, which doesn't go down nearly as easily as the Right's "fer it or agin' it" message. Nuance is for sissies. THAT is the myth that's gotta be busted before any real progress can be made.

Given time, I'd love to go off on a diatribe about how your thoughts are directly related to the motives behind the Right's assault on public education; how dismantling education initiatives and raising holy Hell about curricula are part of their fight against teaching critical thinking skills. It's no coincidence that the Rabid Religious Right started their political run at the school board level.

[unpossibles]

23. ugh. I hate arguments like these...

1 - we didn't lose (in my opinion)

2 - we should never seek to reduce the country to the lowest common denominator

3 - having grown up in the south, I agree this attitude happens, but not as much as is reported - people move around way too much now for this to be true.

4 - Bush is also a Yankee, although his propaganda machine presents him as otherwise.

5 - The Repugs control what people hear, see and read. We could run Jesus and Beau Duke and lose in the south if we do not fix the media bias and vote counting problems.

[Maat]

30. I agree with you, too, Unpossibles.

I do think that there's a problem progressives have to address, and it has to do with far to many intelligent, but ignorant people voting for Booosh.

And in my red pocket in a blue state, with respect to the pro-Bush voters I speak to, they just have no desire to read up, research, or know what is going on in the World. They actually prefer listening passively to the right-wing propaganda. It's easy, removes the need to think, makes them feel superior, relieves them from having to care about their neighbor's welfare, and justifies their gluttony (buying fancy cars instead of donating to the poor).

[sandnsea]

26. It's the new normal

It didn't used to be that way. We used to want our children to become educated. We used to know the US had to have the edge on education in order to have the edge on new technologies, commerce and defense. This disdain for education is the problem. The Democratic Party can't buy into it. I remember watching John Kerry talk to Iowa farmers about dance and the arts and literature in our education, about dreaming again. They understood. (I can't even imagine having a childcare worker who didn't read about education or development)

I think we didn't make enough use of John's enthusiasm for education and discovery, for the individual as well as for the country. I think Bob Shrum watering him down to appeal to that voter you're talking about made him appear phony and empty. We need to lift people up, not get angry at them because they want to stay stupid (which I am very guilty of because it's so damned annoying). The condescension part is true, but joining them in their ignorance is not the answer.

[MsTryska]

28. I dunno.

i refuse to vote for a perceived dumbass.

[bleedingheart]

31. funny how my illiterate grandparents here in the North didn't mind

voting for people who they knew were smarter than them. My grandmother was a courageous individual who raised six kids and spoke english/croatian but she didn't expect a candidate for president to be "folksy"...she expected him to be intelligent enough to do what was right by all the people.

[gizmo1979]

32. of course we sound

condescending. They're stupid!

[cally]

103. A comment like that is what made me post this

I was talking to some fellow Dems on Christmas Day. We were discussing why Dems lost. I brought up the idea of us being condescending because that's what I heard during the election. I then proceeded to rant about how many Bush voters thought Iraq had something to do with 9/11 and how most thought the US had found WMD's. I don't think they are stupid, just willfully ignorant.

[gizmo1979]

107. What's the difference?

Ignorant is as ignorant does!I mean If the Bushies say we're winning in Iraq even though they see for themselves it's not,and they believe it what does that make them?If they and all their friends are out of a job,but Bush says it's getting better and they believe him What is that?If we need those people to win then it's not worth it!

[MARALE]

36. Accually, the right are condescending

Have you ever listened to Rush, Hannity, etc? They talk as if we are stupid, immoral, anit-religious, out of touch, elitist, etc. We ignored this and still do expecting the people to figure out that they are lying. We don't answer to the lies that are put out and even though many people know that these ideas of the "LIBERALS" are exaggerated, they beleive there is something wrong with us because we don't call foul. At least we are not heard when we do. We need to get tough and start throwing doubt on the righties and stop being so nice and accepting of what they think! We think that they have a right to say what they think and we should let them. They are going to say what they think regardless of what we say or do. I think we need more of the Dean Screams and need to show more emotion, that is what people will relate to.


Mar

[Boosterman]

45. So fight fire with fire ?

We should all act like Rush and Hannity? Is that the premise?

[sonicx]

52. no...but they do win

:shrug:

[Boosterman]

59. I disagree

I dont think they win. I think they shore up their base and occasionaly might convert a moderate. Most moderates I know dismiss them. The problem is when our side starts into the same tactics the moderates no longer have a voice of reason to listen to. So they are left with...

[MARALE]

71. In a way, yes

Most of the people I know do not study the news or really follow what is really going on. They listen to who is the loudest. We don't answer back loudly and now may have lost the chance. The news is right and the radio is really right. We need to be loud, obnoxious, and let the people know what is behind the right agenda, even if we have to exaggerate some of it. That is what they are used to by now and we need to hammer as hard as the right is. If we don't, our agenda will be molded by the right just as it was in this last election.

[Nestor-Machno]

37. no diversity without equality

The fact is that the system doesn't care about the working and lower classes in America and it never will. Democrat, Republican, Department of Justice, Secretary of Defense, these are just words and have little or no connection with reality. The Skull and Bones organization has existed for more than 130 years, and has the sole purpose of keeping political and economic power inside the family. Four of our last five presidents have been members of this subversive, traitorous organization, democrats and republicans alike. If you choose to continue holding blind faith in a corrupt and decaying system like our supposed democratic republic, then you are just as ignorant as Bush or Ashcroft. How can we have a representative government when all of our senators, congressmen, and presidents are members of the upper class elite, a minority which grows smaller in diversity and larger in power every day. So don't be fooled by false prophets, whether they be Democrat or Republican, and always remember that Clinton abused our civil liberties just as much, if not more than, Bush; and that Kerry and Bush are second cousins. We have no choice, we have no freedom, your vote is their tool to legitimize this plutocracy, and someday the oligarchs of this country will have to answer to the will of the oppressed and ignored masses. The system wont change unless we make it, Viva La Revolution.

[BurgherHoldtheLies]

38. I won't apologize for intelligence & I seek intelligence in candidates.

Don't care if it's too cerebral for the fundie masses.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

40. i think the right is condescending

they spread their lies and never expect people to have the intellectual abibility to fact check. i find that condescending.

[Midlodemocrat]

53. Hear, hear.

I have people telling me all kids of RWTP that I can prove are lies, but they wave their hands dismissively and say that they heard it on Fox News. Hard to compete with that level of ignorance.

[Scout]

41. shouldn't that be "the left IS condescending"?

am I being condescending when I correct grammar? :evilgrin:

[saltpoint]

46. No, you ain't.

Jist you go right ahed and krect them mistakes good and proper.

Seriously -- speaking of grammar, did you happen to catch Bush's last press conference? My god -- his sentences are like a Salvador Dali painting.

[Nobody]

49. Condescending is....

...treating people as though they have only half a brain and refusing to listen to other points of view.

I do not consider rational discussion to be condescending. Nor is disagreeing, as long as you are respectful to all. This is essential in any candidate.

During the second debate George Bush showed just how consdescending he was on two occasions. First, when asked what he would say to someone unemployed because their job got shipped off to some third world country, he responded by saying No Child Left Behind and get some education at a community college as if the people losing their jobs were all high school dropouts who deserved to lose their jobs. As one of the people he was addressing (my own job went bye bye a couple years ago), I was insulted.

The second time was when he was asked to name three mistakes and what he did to correct them. He danced around this question and I am convinced that he's the kind of guy that you don't want to carpool with. He'll circumnavigate the globe before he admits he missed his exit.

People who are blatantly disrespectful of opposing ideas, people who refuse to listen to anyone who disagrees, and people who refuse to admit that they can be wrong once in a while are the ones who are truly condescending.

[sonicx]

50. You have things alittle mixed up. First you say, "I think we lose because

we are condescending and sure we are right."

Then you say..."Those who don't intellectualize and base decision not on reading and information but on core beliefs."


It seems to me that if you take the time to read before you form your position, you aren't really sure if you are right or not. You have to seek and discover.

And if you DON'T read or learn about the subject before you form your belief, you are "sure you are right." Like the fundies that KNOW the bible is right and the "right way" and don't question it at all.

Or when Bush says "i don't have to answer to anyone" or other crap that completely disminished opposing positions.

I think you have it backward. change 'left' into 'right.' :)

[msmcghee]

51. What was Lincoln thinkin'?

We should have kicked their asses, freed their slaves and relocated the ex-slaves and any white southerners who wanted to live in and pledge allegiance to a more civilized society - to the free state of their choice.

Then we should have set the south adrift to earn their statehood back into the union if they wanted to - by proving their worth. Like maybe by apologizing for slavery and starting the war - and then forever denouncing racism and bigotry in their state charter and laws.

[rman]

54. If people don't like new ideas

then for instance the poor in the south will probably just keep voting right-wing, against their own interest.

Is that codencending?

I'd say it's fact.
You yourself say most people don't want to learn new things.

I don't think *most* people don't want to learn new things, but those who don't want to probably won't learn new things. If they are decidedly RW then they'll probably just keep on believing that it's good for them to let corporations privitize everything.

That's not due to us being condencending. It has nothing to do with anyone being condencending.

Also i don't think the solution is to take the same stance as repubs on issues, in hopes to get them to vote Dem. After al, there already is a repub party, who do you think repubs would vote for?

[Cronus Protagonist]

56. So when you're done being condescending to us all here at DU

Come back and join the fray. We'll welcome you back with open arms, because we're inclusive and we love people here.




http://brainbuttons.com/home.asp?stashid=13
Buttons for brainy people - educate your local freepers today!

[cally]

60. How was I condescending to DU?

I don't see how I was. :shrug:

I do find that many of my political friends and I are condescending to anti-intellectuals. I know I need to stop it and instead try to understand their beliefs and values.

[Cronus Protagonist]

62. Well, you said it yourself in your post

You said, "I am condescending", and you were, especially in the title of the thread - not all of us are, so your communication might have been improved if you had referenced your own condescentions more and painted the rest of us with a smaller brush.

Just a suggestion. Nonetheless, we all have our personal struggles with our own demons, so I wish you well with yours.

[cally]

69. You read what you want in my post

Folks running campaigns in the South or the midwest cringe when Californians want to help. We experienced it first hand when we had volunteers call swing states. The politicos were scared having Californians call voters in swing states and then learned that it actually worked well. What I heard, over and over, is we were liberal elitists. I could just dismiss them, but instead I'm trying to understand. I know what politically active folks here talk about.

I am not painting all with the same brush however I've seen enough condescending posts on DU to suggest that I'm not the only one. I've heard from enough Southern progressives to learn that it is a problem. I just don't get why you were offended.

[Cronus Protagonist]

73. I was not offended. Not at all.

Here's the title of the thread that you posted:

"The left are condescending"

No qualifiers, just a general claim that is surely judgemental and unsupported. If you had said, "blacks are well endowed", or "Asians have great eyesight" these comments would have been racist, and hence judgemental, overly broad, unsupported and condescending, just like your generalisation was too.

Just because some claim everyone on the coastal areas are "liberal elites" doesn't make any of us so, and it certainly doesn't make all of so, as you claimed in the title of the thread.

In fact, the claims of some people that coastal Americans are "liberal elites" is simply them repeating the propaganda that's fed to them, mostly via talk radio I suppose, and it has no basis in reality.

In reality, one who would sneer at a whole group of people, tar and feather them with nasty propaganda and thereby claim to be better than said "liberal elites", is clearly judgemental and condescending by definition. I was pleased to see that you admitted you were condescending yourself in your original post, which I thought indicated that you had a certain amount of character and honesty.

I certainly wasn't offended. Perhaps I wasn't clear about it and hopefully this communication clarifies my point.

I do wish you well.

[That Name Taken]

57. Soooooo close

No, you aren't condescending because you like learning new things and don't care to associate with people who lack intellectual curiosity.

You are condescending because you assume that people who disagree with you don't read history, don't like learning new things, etc.

What if, just "if", a portion of the people who voted conservatively this last election are al educated and well-informed as you are , *maybe even more so*, and reached different conclusions based on culture, experience, or ideology?

And what if, another if, some of the people who voted as you did are intellectually dead and just voted the way they did "'cuz I like that Kerry fella'"?

[DownNotOut]

58. I understand what you are saying

and applaud you for being able to admit to it yourself. I call it faux elitism. Condescension is a symptom of this.

You see, you are not in fact REQUIRED to know more or be 'better' in any way to the person that you are condescending to administer the weight of your special gift unto him or her....

Though, I don't know that faux elitism has had an effect one way or the other on the election. And do not believe that any one political party has the monopoly on it. I beleive that it is simply a (very) anoying human trait.


DownNotOut

[LittleClarkie]

65. But isn't the right condescending in their own way

I think the extremes on both sides tend to discount the opinions of the people they're talking to.

But, in some ways, I think the whole elitist commentary is buying into a stereotype. It's as if people are expected to dumb down their message and hide their intelligence.

[DownNotOut]

67. Not necessarily directed at you but...

keep in mind that the term 'elitist' does not always refer to someones knowledge or education level. In politics, I mostly infer it to be a reference to wealth.



DownNotOut

[DainBramaged]

66. The RNC is more successful with the sound bite than us.

They distill their message down until it becomes a part of the language, and those who do not live and breathe politics as we do remember those simple lines and make their decisions around them.

It's all in the message, and a few words are easy to imprint on the masses.

[fishingriver]

108. Yes!

You are so right. We need to do this. We needed this in the last election. Most people don't read the news at all. They watch it on TV. While the GOP was spinning their one liners we were still talking in complicated terms that required an intellect to absorb and comprehend.
We need (IMO) to get some news hounds together who are on top of the current events that can pool together to come up with one line bytes that are simple enough to remember. The message at the coffee pot has more impact than the headlines.


Please contact me if you know of anyone who is interested in participating in a project to produce these for our side.

[e-mail]

[Nadienne]

68. That may be the reason why some rwers are rwers.

I don't think it's wise to try to reduce a group of people into one generality. One thing many of them have in common is that they're not all that educated, that they have no ambition to get educated... I agree. But if education isn't their priority, then other things are. For instance, family values. Religious values.

It would be difficult to find one candidate, giving the same one message, that would appeal to them. One candidate, giving messages tailored to the groups they are in (church groups, family groups, hunting groups, etc) by way of word of mouth, letters from friend to friend, door-to-door campaigning, speeches given at church groups, etc.

I would say that the single biggest problem the democratic party has is we lack the person-to-person network that the republican party has. Something like that takes time to build. Compounding the problem is, they're not going to listen to someone like me. But they will listen to their friends, neighbors, fellow church members, family members, hunting friends, coworkers...

Which maybe comes back to the whole "condescending" idea... For us to tell them what they should do, when what we tell them conflicts with their values, is like speaking French to someone who only speaks English.

(Sorry, I know I got kinda rambly... Hope y'all can make sense of it!)

[annabanana]

70. Fascists always demonize the intelligencia...the educated...

They are usually the first to be "on to them" and their plans. If you can get the populace to sneer at educated opinions you can insulate yourself from exposure.

[saltpoint]

80. Bingo, annabanana.

[Nadienne]

I pretty much agree.

RW propaganda tends to appeal to people's emotions, and not their intelligence.

With at least one exception: I know some people who think that if you work hard enough, you'll be wealthy, and so only people who don't want to work hard vote to "penalize" those who "earned" their wealth. They think they're intelligent. They think they're better than others. These kind of people aren't rare. But, they aren't sneering at "educated opinions". They're sneering at inferiors.

[LibertyorDeath]

72. People that refuse to learn or aren't interested in knowledge

are deserving of everyones condescension.

These knuckle dragging cretinist (creationist) believing anti Science fuck wits are dragging down the USA.

[ulysses]

74. we have a cult of willful ignorance in America, and always have.

I understand your point, cally, but much as I'm in favor of a candidate who can relate to everyday folks, I don't think it's at all condescending to be intellectually curious and open and I don't at all favor someone who *isn't* intellectually curious and open as a candidate.

[lakelly]

78. Willful Ignorance

I really like that phrase. Hope you don't mind if I borrow it. You've really hit the nail on the head. I don't understand how people can live with their head in the sand. As a country we're intellectually lazy (and at the risk of starting something) and proud of it. I know this does not apply to all. But it applies to far too many citizens.

[ulysses]

86. borrow away.

It wasn't mine to begin with. :) I forget where I first read that.

I don't know that it's even so much laziness, though. It's a kind of anti-intellectualism that fits in neatly with our frontier mythology.

[lakelly]

94. Anti Intellectual Americans

I see your point. Much of our mythology does indeed center around the notion of hard working pioneers and the wild wild west. I'm from the east coast (shocker, huh) 2 of my grandparents were immigrants (Scotland and Portugal) the other 2 were 1st generation Americans (of Italian decent) Education was important to all of them. Although circumstances didn't allow them to graduate from high school, they were literate and self schooled. They were very much a part of the society that they had worked so hard and sacrificed so much for. They were curious and informed. They believed that it was not only their right but also their responsibility. I guess I came from a different American mythology. Not better, but different. Yet I still struggle to fully understand the Anti-Intellectual American.

[noiretextatique]

88. i mean really

i want the someone smarter than me in white house...the best and the brightest, not someone who i wouldn't feel comfortable playing scrabble with (like my 3 year oid niece) :7 willful ignorance is right...a cancer in american consciousness.
btw, the steak was divine :hi:

[ulysses]

99. LOL - I'll bet it was.

:hi:

[cally]

101. I agree...I want an intellectual and curious candidate

Just not one that appears that way. In many ways, Dean was able to relate to ordinary folks also. I don't think it's just where you are from or a politicians intellect, but how you come across and the language you use. Edwards and Dean are highly intelligent.

[noiretextatique]

77. bush is a graduate of yale and harvard

he is the very epitome of elitism...even his lack of 'intellectual curiosity," is a part of that privilege. if he didn't have those credentials, no matter how he earned them, even joe and anne dumbass wouldn't be interested in having a beer with him.
it's all a part of the BIG LIE: bush's "average guy" routine is no more real than anything else about him. what's more condescending than the privliged, new england born son of a former president parading around like some local yokel? our problem: people don't think beyond what the tv tells them. bush is NOTHING like any of my neighbors, and he woudln't be caught dead in my neighborhood.

[annabanana]

79. and yet...uneducated, and dull..........................n/t

[noiretextatique]

84. yes :), but he has the credentials

and if he didn't have those credentials, we wouldn't be plagued by him now. just pointing out the the "elitism" argument is bunk.

[ulysses]

87. that's why he had to move to Texas.

:)

[noiretextatique]

90. he's still all hat and no cattle

and a member of new england's blue bloods.
no matter how many cowboy outfits he buys or how much he mangles the english language. which begs the question: why is he still so stupid? in a just world, his lacks should work against him, considering he had every advantage in the world. the brainwashing works so well...

[ulysses]

I just had a brain dump on this idea.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1454978

[durutti]

96. The Left barely exists.

This is what people don't seem to understand, and this is really why the South goes to the Republicans.

The Democratic Party does not represent "the Left", never has and probably never will. It represents centrism and liberalism. It doesn't present any new ideas, only tries to assure people that it can do what the Republicans want to do more effectively.

No one is articulating any genuinely Leftist ideas about healthcare, education, etc. -- issues that all Americans care deeply about. Instead, we get a choice between a real Republican and a fake Republican. And of course, people always choose the real one.

[bpilgrim]

97. we won where all the people are

and there aint NO-FUCK'N-BUDY more 'CONDESENDING' than the bush crime family.

shoot, bush got more ELECTRICAL VOTES.

we need to wake tfu and demand our countries LAWS, and CONSTITUTION be abided by or it's all over.

there will always be the ignorant out there but there ain't a majority that damn stupid to falll for * being a COMPETENT anything, let alone prez.

ah, but it's a catch22, right... to call them ignorant, extermist only goes to show how 'condescending' :crazy:

please, xcuse the rant, not directed at you just venting...

peace

[lastliberalintexas]

102. "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers"

There is a reason that the right wing demonizes intelligent people, and it has nothing to do with the left being condescending. It is simply that it is easier to govern an uneducated populace (I think Hitler said that?).

Our society is hooked on the opiate of celebrity, sports, and religion, and most get irritated when they are asked to think of anything beyond that. The right has done a fabulous job of devaluing education in this country, and their efforts are now paying off.


And btw, the Shakespeare quote is from a scene in which a band of thugs is plotting to overthrow the legitimate government. They understand that lawyers would make them abide by the rule of law and defend the government from illegitimate occupations. Simply substitute intelligensia for lawyers, and you have the modern day version.

[lgardengate]

106. Not exactally true....

My friend is a nurse.Studied other religions,and all kinds of things at a (sort of) Liberal Univ.She's a repub,Bush supporter.

My sister loves history and politics and is a conservative christian.Reads all the time but rejects liberal opinions and votes repub ALL the time.

Mom reads alout,Bush supporter.

It all depends on your world view,and what your personal beliefs tell you is true or not.

[cmkramer]

109. Clinton

I've read at least a couple of articles and/or columns where the writer wrote about how Clinton did so much better with culturally conservative -- pro-life, religious, etc. -- voters than either Gore or Kerry did. Not that he got the majority of their votes, but he did much better than his successors. Was it because he was more conservative? No. It's because he was able to put his views across without necessarily making people who might disagree with him feel like worthless idiots.

That's what people are talking about when they say the Democrats need to rethink their positions on various issues.

[Nadienne]

112. I think it was because

issues like abortion and gay marriage are more heated now than they were over four years ago.

When I was in high school (a Catholic high school; I graduated in '97) we learned that abortion is bad, you shouldn't have an abortion. And, sure, there protests outside of Planned Parenthood... These, it's not enough to merely not have an abortion. Now a Good Catholic must make sure others don't have abortions. As if I am morally responsible for someone else's decisions. :shrug:

[JI7]

111. unless you are a minority

imagine a black man running for President or any other office and bragging about how he did horrible in school . or could not speak well. and got through in life mostly because of special connections.

i really don't think most people would see him as a "regular guy" you want to have a beer with. they would see him as a lazy, dumb minority who got where he is because of "special preferences" and in the process took the place of some qualified white person.