When Smug Liberals Met Conservative Trolls

I hope we can consider this carefully instead of deploring others. 


When Smug Liberals Met Conservative Trolls 

https://nyti.ms/2G8ygnu


ugh - a paean to both-siderism - written by a believer in the least excusable ideology of all, a libertarian.

By focusing on 2004/Stewart, she misses the "start" by a good ten years, (Newt Gingrich's DC ascendance in '94, or maybe it was Limbaugh's ascendance 10 years before that) and completely misreads it anyway.

bleh


I'm a hard-left liberal. I'm not smug about it. I just know I'm right. The onetime, I thought I was wrong, I later found out I was right.


Or, if you have the means, you can remove yourself from the back-and-forth entirely:

The Man Who Knew Too Little (NYT)


Tom-I always appreciate your consensus building efforts. But, I have a very difficult time carefully considering the "both sides are guilty" argument when the author of this piece works for a libertarian magazine and organization that gets a great deal of its funding from organizations started by David Koch, Sarah Scaife, Philip Morris.

I'm also shaking my head that the NYT is publishing this claptrap. But after it's "Neo-nazis are regular people too" article, I shouldn't be surprised. I know I digress or veer away from your point, but it's time to get away from the false equivalency paradigm.

https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Reason_Foundation


I knew it was going to be another false equivalency article as soon as I saw the word "smug" in the title.  While there is indeed an element of smugness in some liberals, there is also a smugness in some conservatives (see Tucker Carlson or Laura Ingraham for instance).  I don't think smugness is a hallmark of liberals any more than it is anyone else.  The author even had to resort to taking things out of context like this as an example of "smugness", even though the full quote is anything but smug.  It was more about telling his audience to try and understand what people they disagree with are really like:

 Barack Obama’s “cling to guns or religion” statement was a perfect distillation of the smug style in liberal politics

here's the full Obama quote:

You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. So it's not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

It was a call for empathy if anything.  Not smugness.



DaveSchmidt said:

Or, if you have the means, you can remove yourself from the back-and-forth entirely:


The Man Who Knew Too Little (NYT)

I guess he takes the idea of "where ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly to be wise" pretty seriously.



Tom_Reingold said:

I hope we can consider this carefully instead of deploring others. 

The elite conservatives--Congressional Republicans, the White House, the NRA, funders like the Kochs--are somehow left out of this supposed problem.


M1, the full quote is far more offensive than the excerpt. You really can't see that? 


What is a "conservative" nowadays? Sen. Jeff Flake, a persistent critic of Trump, wrote a book with, I believe, a borrowed title from Barry Goldwater "Conscience of a Conservative". Again, he is Anti-Trump.

When the National Review said that candidate Trump was not really a conservative, Sarah Palin said "What do those people know about being a conservative?"

There is  a political philosophy called "Conservatism". In America it goes back to Hamilton. But the term has been appropriated by racists and zenophobes. That goes back to when segregationist politicians like George Wallace hid behind the label "Conservative". They were for "State's Rights" and "limited government" when the Federal Government began attacking "Jim Crowe".

Does it make me "smug" that I oppose racism?




brealer said:

M1, the full quote is far more offensive than the excerpt. You really can't see that? 

Are you serious?


Why do you think the Dems lost the rust belt states, M-1? Just curious.


I'm not saying everyone on "our side" is smug. I'm saying some are, and we should guard ourselves from becoming smug.



brealer said:

Why do you think the Dems lost the rust belt states, M-1? Just curious.

Not speaking for ML1- I lived in communities like the ones Obama spoke of. To intimate, with the  reflexive questions you posed, that rust belt voters elected Trump because they were insulted by quotes taken out of context is an insult to their pride and intelligence. 


There are many reasons why voters in these areas voted for Trump. Protest votes; Trump is going to bring our jobs back; the why not, I don’t have anything to lose vote; the professional/insiders in DC don’t listen or care about us vote.


Personally, the clinging to guns and religion meme is more about creating news-worthy controversy that sells advertising. It’s a shame that this is now how elections are shaped and policy is formulated.






brealer said:

Why do you think the Dems lost the rust belt states, M-1? Just curious.

Economic insecurity leading to fear.

“Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.”

Yoda

  George Lucas, The Phantom Menace    



How can a spot-on analysis of something be offensive? Unless you're offended by the truth?

Oh, right.

brealer said:

M1, the full quote is far more offensive than the excerpt. You really can't see that? 

And by the way - people voted for Trump in the rust belt precisely because of what Obama described.


The new op-ed editor, James Bennett, has been lambasted lately for how he's destroying the op-ed page.

Hope he gets fired soon.


https://www.google.com/search?q=bennet+times+op-ed&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b

wharfrat said:

...

I'm also shaking my head that the NYT is publishing this claptrap. But after it's "Neo-nazis are regular people too" article, I shouldn't be surprised. I know I digress or veer away from your point, but it's time to get away from the false equivalency paradigm.

https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Reason_Foundation




brealer said:

Why do you think the Dems lost the rust belt states, M-1? Just curious.

the better question is for you -- what do you think is offensive about that full Obama quote?

The part that was taken out of context sounded bad, but in full context it's someone trying to empathize with people that were being accused of being racists and xenophobes.  It's Obama saying he understands why people who have been getting the short end of the stick for decades might have resentment toward other people. 



drummerboy said:

The new op-ed editor, James Bennett, has been lambasted lately for how he's destroying the op-ed page.

Hope he gets fired soon.




https://www.google.com/search?q=bennet+times+op-ed&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b

wharfrat said:

...

I'm also shaking my head that the NYT is publishing this claptrap. But after it's "Neo-nazis are regular people too" article, I shouldn't be surprised. I know I digress or veer away from your point, but it's time to get away from the false equivalency paradigm.

https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Reason_Foundation

Don't know for sure, my thoughts are the NYT wants an editorial page similar to WaPo. 


Seems like Obama accurately described those places in 2008 but failed to do anything about it while he was president. 



RobB said:

Seems like Obama accurately described those places in 2008 but failed to do anything about it while he was president. 

He tried. For example funding for retraining coal industry workers in WVA that was opposed and blocked by his opposition in both DC and WVA. 


It seems like a lot of "communication" between groups with very different viewpoints occurs by proxy through caricatures of these groups constructed by the news media.  So, of course there is no communication and we just have people hunkering down in their own tribes.  Suppose politicians and the media focused their efforts on how much Americans have in common instead of focusing on fault lines.



wharfrat said:



RobB said:

Seems like Obama accurately described those places in 2008 but failed to do anything about it while he was president. 

He tried. For example funding for retraining coal industry workers in WVA that was opposed and blocked by his opposition in both DC and WVA. 

That and other things like Obamacare and increasing funding of community colleges. Unfortunately, he wasn't as good at touting those things as the Rs were at cynically exploiting class and racial divisions.



tjohn said:

It seems like a lot of "communication" between groups with very different viewpoints occurs by proxy through caricatures of these groups constructed by the news media.  So, of course there is no communication and we just have people hunkering down in their own tribes.  Suppose politicians and the media focused their efforts on how much Americans have in common instead of focusing on fault lines.

You make a great point about having something in common. But as the cultural and financial divide widens there is less chance to do this.


So, what’s available to achieve this? Public service of some after HS? At one time the draft was that. 


ETA-or public service as part of high school?



wharfrat said:
tjohn said:
It seems like a lot of "communication" between groups with very different viewpoints occurs by proxy through caricatures of these groups constructed by the news media.  So, of course there is no communication and we just have people hunkering down in their own tribes.  Suppose politicians and the media focused their efforts on how much Americans have in common instead of focusing on fault lines.
You make a great point about having something in common. But as the cultural and financial divide widens there is less chance to do this.

So, what’s available to achieve this? Public service of some after HS? At one time the draft was that. 
ETA-or public service as part of high school?

I dunno.  Last time this happened was WW II - pretty sure we don't want to do that again.


I agree.  Limbaugh's rise was a harbinger of our political future.

Then George HW Bush lost the election to Clinton in '92, we had the L.A. riots, Gingrich and his contract with America, and then Ailes started Fox News in '96. 

drummerboy said:

ugh - a paean to both-siderism - written by a believer in the least excusable ideology of all, a libertarian.

By focusing on 2004/Stewart, she misses the "start" by a good ten years, (Newt Gingrich's DC ascendance in '94, or maybe it was Limbaugh's ascendance 10 years before that) and completely misreads it anyway.

bleh




In order to add a comment – you must Join this community – Click here to do so.