Originally Posted By Darkbeer <a href="http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/?id=110009078" target="_blank">http://www.opinionjournal.com/ columnists/pnoonan/?id=110009078</a> >>There's a pattern here, isn't there? It is not only about rage and resentment, and how some have come to see them as virtues, as an emblem of rightness. I feel so much, therefore my views are correct and must prevail. It is about something so obvious it is almost embarrassing to state. Free speech means hearing things you like and agree with, and it means allowing others to speak whose views you do not like or agree with. This--listening to the other person with respect and forbearance, and with an acceptance of human diversity--is the price we pay for living in a great democracy. And it is a really low price for such a great thing. We all know this, at least in the abstract. Why are so many forgetting it in the particular? Let us be more pointed. Students, stars, media movers, academics: They are always saying they want debate, but they don't. They want their vision imposed. They want to win. And if the win doesn't come quickly, they'll rush the stage, curse you out, attempt to intimidate. And they don't always recognize themselves to be bullying. So full of their righteousness are they that they have lost the ability to judge themselves and their manner. And all this continues to come more from the left than the right in America. Which is, at least in terms of timing, strange. The left in America--Democrats, liberals, Bush haters, skeptics of many sorts--seems to be poised for a significant electoral victory. Do they understand that if it comes it will be not because of Columbia, Streisand, O'Donnell, et al., but in spite of them? What is most missing from the left in America is an element of grace--of civic grace, democratic grace, the kind that assumes disagreements are part of the fabric, but we can make the fabric hold together. The Democratic Party hasn't had enough of this kind of thing since Bobby Kennedy died. What also seems missing is the courage to ask a question. Conservatives these days are asking themselves very many questions, but I wonder if the left could tolerate asking itself even a few. Such as: Why are we producing so many adherents who defy the old liberal virtues of free and open inquiry, free and open speech? Why are we producing so many bullies? And dim dullard ones, at that.<<
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo It does cut both ways though. When Clinton was in office, I remember a lot of speeches about the loss of ethics and values, the right to bear arms and in some cases book burning. The opposition will always appear bullish and outspoken. Such is life. I will admit, both sides of the coin have different styles. Libs will often be brash Cons - boring and bullish Both sides do not do themselves any favours with the competition.
Originally Posted By DVC_dad I see it yet another way: Libs = The largely uneducated, blue collar, working class voice. The masses. Out to protect the "little man." Cons = The wealthy, educated, white collar, "we are smarter than you, therefore we know best" voice. The affluent. Standing guard for "Big Business." So which is better than the other? Neither but they are certainly different. They each (not always but typically) behave in mass the way they would as individuals. Libs? Cry, pout, point fingers, scream for what they want. Cons? Manipulate, pass the blame, portray a "holier than thou" attitude. There is no simple answer, for you cannot force the elite to understand the middle class. As you cannot civilize the spoiled child and make him understand the "Big Picture."
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo Sad but also perhaps true. Though, am I in the minority? I come from a well educated family of lawyers, accountants, media pundits, musicians and military officers. I hold two degrees and professional qualifications, and am an executive in a 43,000 person, $5 billion per annum company. I also know illiterate manual labourers who fall foul of this.
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo Have you guys ever seen the simpsons where Bart goes to Catholic school and Homer converts. Marge has a vision of 2 heavons - the protestant one full of boring conservative dullard WASPs, and the catholic one full of latin lovers, people having fun and Irish dancing. To me, the stereotypes can also be applied to the partisonship of politics. I know which one I prefer!
Originally Posted By wahooskipper "Cons = The wealthy, educated, white collar, "we are smarter than you, therefore we know best" voice. The affluent. Standing guard for "Big Business." If this is true...why do the Republicans fair well in the "flyover...blue collar states" while the Democrats fair well in in the Northeast and California (white-collar) areas?
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo I always had a theory. The internationally focused areas of the US tend to be a little more altuistic and open to new ideas - California, New York, Chigago, Seattle, and therefore tend to have more liberal leanings (and have more passports too). These are the cities where there are multiple heritages, religions and creeds. The midwest, South and old money areas of New England tend to come from puritan history, very much the WASP profile, insular and community spirited in nature, and are more interested in their personal world than the wider world. These people then tend to be more Conservative in nature.
Originally Posted By DVC_dad <<<Though, am I in the minority?>>> Statistically, compared to people of similar position who are on the other side of the asile, I would say yes, you do. Ofcourse those who would make it all the way to the White House, I dare say didn't just fall off the turnip truck.
Originally Posted By DVC_dad <<<These people then tend to be more Conservative in nature.>>> I don't know about this in terms of GA. It wasn't until recent years that GA became a GOP state. For many long past decades GA was Democratic all the way, even long after Jimmy Carter was in the White House. Good point though, and I think true out side of GA.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper Given the likes of Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, Bush II...and their competitors...it is painfully obvious that our best and brightest are not interested in public office...or just don't want to be torn up by today's lousy media.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <If this is true...why do the Republicans fair well in the "flyover...blue collar states" while the Democrats fair well in in the Northeast and California (white-collar) areas?< one reason is the Dems own the inner city vote also, and you are talking major cities here. but also I would say the stereotypes above do not work across the board - to paint all libs as blue collar would be severly misleading as most ' college towns' like Austin and Madison etc are very liberal and not blue collar by any stretch.
Originally Posted By cmpaley >>I don't know about this in terms of GA. It wasn't until recent years that GA became a GOP state. For many long past decades GA was Democratic all the way, even long after Jimmy Carter was in the White House.<< Definitely NOT the same Democratic party we have today, though. Remember the Dixie-crats? They went to the Republican Party.
Originally Posted By jonvn <<Libs = The largely uneducated, blue collar, working class voice. The masses. Out to protect the "little man." Cons = The wealthy, educated, white collar, "we are smarter than you, therefore we know best" voice. The affluent. Standing guard for "Big Business.">> Uh, no. Liberals tend to be educated and live in large cities. Conservatives tend to live in rural areas, and are not necessarily educated. There are many conservatives who are educated, but are very wealthy. They know what side their bread is buttered on. The poor conservatives are used by them. They give them "values" to hang their hat on, in order to vote through more conservatives which will make the wealthier wealthy. So, it's really a no brainer that such a person as George Will, who is educated, is a conservative. He's wealthy. But a poor conservative? No one is as dumb as these people are. no one.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<And they don't always recognize themselves to be bullying. So full of their righteousness are they that they have lost the ability to judge themselves and their manner.>> That's the way conservatives tend to act when discussing... Gay Marriage Abortion Social Security Welfare Immigration etc... Pot Kettle Black
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>it is painfully obvious that our best and brightest are not interested in public office<< So true. And I think you're right -- it's getting sliced and diced by not just the media, but the general nastiness of politics in general that makes smart people say "Who needs it?" Most people have made mistakes in their lives. Most of us learn from them and move on. But in the world of politics, some youthful indiscretion gets trotted out into the spotlight, and often becomes not just THE campaign issue, but also it is used to judge a 50-something person on the actions they did back in the early 20s. How many of us would like to be judged by that standard? It' no wonder we get stuck with the old 'lesser of two evils' choice at the ballot box each term.
Originally Posted By DlandDug There are many liberals who are educated, but are very wealthy. They know what side their bread is buttered on. The poor liberals are used by them. They give them "ideas" to hang their hat on, in order to vote through more liberals which will make the wealthier wealthy. So, it's really a no brainer that such a person as Al Gore, who is educated, is a liberal. He's wealthy. But a poor liberal? No one is as dumb as these people are. no one. (See how easy it is to fill in the blanks when dealing with sweeping generalizations?) (And this from a conservative who is college educated, grew up in a Pacific Rim blue state, and is decidedly not wealthy!)
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <And all this continues to come more from the left than the right in America. > He almost made some good points about boorish behavior - then spouted this ridiculous statement. Sure there are boorish liberals, convinced of their own rightness and that only they have the truth. But this is also practically a defining characteristic of the religious right, which is nowadays also known as the "Republican base." And of course, exceptions are plentiful in both cases as well. In the end, the piece was just another example of "I'm going to decry the general state of discourse today; and be sure to get in the idea that the other guys are more at fault than our side."
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>In the end, the piece was just another example of "I'm going to decry the general state of discourse today; and be sure to get in the idea that the other guys are more at fault than our side."<< Can't blame the guy for tryin'. Entire talk radio careers have been built on this basic thesis.
