In my latest for the Guardian, I find myself agreeing with Gerard Alexander’s essay in the Washington Post that liberals are condescending. But it’s hard not to be when many on the other side reject evolution, think global warming is a hoax and believe President Obama was not born in the United States.
79 thoughts on “Why liberals are condescending”
Comments are closed.
Media Nation 
Finally Mr. Thomas has found a suitable debating partner – the voices in his head. As my father used to say, “Sometimes I just talk to myself – I meet a better class of people that way!”
@Stephen Thomas: Mind numbing, isn’t it?
Yes, you are mind-numbing. Fortunately, the rest of us have reality to revive us.
Good column Dan. What is it about the Alaska Independence Party that makes it a “hate group”? Your link only mentions its advocacy for voting on Alaska independence. Crazy as that is, I don’t think it qualifies them as a hate group.
@Ben: Here you go. Note that Tapper had to retract his claim that Sarah Palin had been a member. But Todd Palin was, and Sarah was closely associated with the group for a long time.
Thanks, I thought you were talking about racism when you said “hate group”. I notice that you equate the hateful comments made by an Alaska Independence Party leader with those made by Reverend Wright. Do you consider Wright’s congregation to be a “hate group”?
@Ben: I consider what Wright said that day to be hateful. I also can’t imagine that was the only time he indulged that rhetoric. And I think President Obama was disingenuous when he claimed he didn’t know anything about it. But I have never read or heard anything to suggest that Wright’s was anything other than a mainstream Congregational church devoted to religion, good works and (yes) occasional forays into Afrocentric anger.
The Alaska Independence Party, by contrast, was founded on the principles of anti-Americanism. Its founder and leader, Joe Vogler, hated America. It looks like its Web site has been cleaned up a bit. But these words from Vogler were emblazoned on it right through the 2008 election: “I’m an Alaskan, not an American. I’ve got no use for America or her damned institutions.”
“I consider what Wright said that day to be hateful.”
Sometimes folks take liberty with rhetorical flourishes to make their point. And sometimes the truth itself “sounds” hateful.
I listened to the “worst” of Wright’s sermons in their entirety (those most sound-bited) and found myself nodding my head in agreement.
That being said, Obama needed to jettison Wright when he just couldn’t take himself off the stage. But I admired his attempt to stick with him for as long as he did.
And wish he showed the same courage and backbone now.
The greatest eco-hysteria of my life was, of course, the publication of Paul Ehrlich’s “Population Bomb,” which promised that basic commodities would become so scarce that we would see food riots.
I know I’m oversimplifying, perhaps drastically, but I wouldn’t dismiss Ehrlich so cavalierly.
In terms of commodities being so scarce that there’s food riots, I think if you crunched the numbers, you will indeed find conditions not dissimilar to what Ehrlich described exist for the majority of human beings on this planet…probably by a wide margin.
And also, don’t give up so easily? The Great Depression Two-Point-Oh has barely gotten started!
“I think if you crunched the numbers, you will indeed find conditions not dissimilar to what Ehrlich described exist for the majority of human beings on this planet…probably by a wide margin.”
You forget, Aaron, that if it hasn’t happened in Woodstock, NY, then it hasn’t really happened. So your point is moot.
(But I was thinking the exact same thing and wish Dan hadn’t granted the point so easily.)
You forget, Aaron, that if it hasn’t happened in Woodstock, NY, then it hasn’t really happened. So your point is moot.
The catastrophic stupidity of this site is an embarrassment.
BP, I’d try to explain to you again what I said, but apparently reading comprehension is not one of your strong points.
What’s the average IQ on this sight… above 50?
How many of you guys are on SSI?
“BP, I’d try to explain to you again what I said, but apparently reading comprehension is not one of your strong points.”
But I’m an excellent driver.
Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html
Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon.
So, boys, I know that you are geniuses, but…
I can’t help but rub it in.
Sarah Palin is stupid, and Dan is a theoretical genius capable of reordering the global economy.
And yet, Palin is right. The Great Global Warming hysteria is a fraud. Phil Jones, the “scientist” at the center of the fraud, has caved in and admitted that the dog ate his homework. Jones admits that global warming might not be attributable to human activity. Jones admits the the Medieval Warming Period is a fact. Jones concedes that there has been no global warming for the past 15 years. In short, Jones admits that he’s a fraud.
For the great geniuses of the world like Dan, this is unlikely to produce a change of heart or a change in behavior.
Here’s my prediction. Now that the Great Global Warming hysteria has collapsed and stands exposed as a fraud, Dan will discover another End of the World threat to human existence that will require global taxation and regulation.
Stay tuned as Dan adjusts his piercing intellect. I can barely wait, Dan, to discover the next End of the World crisis that you will be saving us from.
And, I’ll bet that Dan’s next End of the World crisis is so overwhelming that he simply can’t stop to consider the consequences should he turn out to be wrong. After all, he will only propose taxing every individual and regulating every business on earth.
What could possibly go wrong?
Dan, I’m glad you spare Reverend Wright’s congregation the designation of “hate group” – you’re previous post suggested a moral equivalency, so I had to ask. But I still think you’re using the term too broadly here. You make a valid distinction, but that doesn’t explain why each side is only offended by their opponent’s associations.
The Daily Mail is caught in another lie about ClimateGate. But the rubes like Reynolds and Malkin (plus some local rubes) still fall for it.
It’s official – Stephen declares discussion of global warming over.
And in a related story Dan changes title of post to “Why conservatives are condescending.”
And in a related story Dan changes title of post to “Why conservatives are condescending.”
Well, after all, Dan’s answer to why liberals are so condescending is: Conservatives are so stupid they deserve it.
Tit for tat, eh?
Did the SSI checks come in today, boys?
And, Dan, have you come up with your new End of the World scenario yet?
Here is another excellent article about the MSM’s treatment of ClimateGate. (Blake Hounshell criticizes Walter Russell Mead’s critique of the NYT’s lack of coverage.)
Also, since there seems to be a lack of primary sources in this discussion here is the transcript of the BBC’s interview with Phil Jones that has been horribly distorted by the Daily Mail.
This just in… Here is a thread on BlueMassGroup (a certified liberal Democratic website, not completely populated by certified liberals) about climate change.
As far as I’m concerned, I’m trained as an aeronautical engineer not a climate scientist, but as such I’ve had some peripheral training in atmospheric dynamics. I pretty much buy the consensus in favor of AGW, but I’d love to be wrong. (I bought into the Meadows’s “Limits To Growth” and I’m a sucker for simulation and modeling, so I’m prepared to be wrong.)