The Smug Style in American Liberalism: how liberals came to look down on the people they are trying to help

[Rippounet]

3 hours ago, Jo498 said:

"liberal" in the US context usually seems to mean: "leftist" in cultural issues (minorities etc.), moderate social democratic in economic issues (higher taxes for the rich, welfare, universal healthcare), but usually disregarding "class warfare" in favor of "identity politics", and the smaller and more flamboyant the minority is, the more important.

Yeah, I know what it means in the USA, but the fun fact is that (for example), today in France, these policies are those of the Socialist Party... Which until very recently was -at least theoretically- opposed to "liberalism" because here "liberalism" is a term that describes right-wing economic policies (and thus the end of the welfare state). Times are changing though, with a finance minister that is openly "liberal" (thus puzzling much of the population) so we're moving closer to the American political paradigms.

[OldGimletEye]

2 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

Yeah, I know what it means in the USA, but the fun fact is that (for example), today in France, these policies are those of the Socialist Party... Which until very recently was -at least theoretically- opposed to "liberalism" because here "liberalism" is a term that describes right-wing economic policies (and thus the end of the welfare state). Times are changing though, with a finance minister that is openly "liberal" (thus puzzling much of the population) so we're moving closer to the American political paradigms.

The term "liberalism" can get awful confusing, having a different meaning depending on location and time. Whenever, I try to explain what liberalism means in it's post 1930s context, I use the term social liberalism. It may not be a perfect term, but I think it describes what is meant by the term "liberalism" in its post 1930s American context.

[DanteGabriel]

40 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

To be fair, I've read a significant number of American history books and many do a poor job of putting American ideology and policies in perspective. Many American historians subscribe to the myth of the benevolent superpower and to American exceptionalism, and this shows in the books they write.
Fun fact: in the 80s (88 I believe), Brzezinski (of all people) caught a bit of flak for talking about an American empire in one of his books... The dominant narrative of the Cold War was still that the USSR alone was responsible for it, and that the USA was only reacting to Soviet expansionism.

I'm afraid the unquestioning belief in America's benevolence and exceptionalism, and a view of the nation as an uncomplicated Good Guy, is pretty much the standard view for most Americans, except the smug liberals that Scot thinks this article is so keenly skewering.

[Altherion]

1 hour ago, Rippounet said:

To be fair, I've read a significant number of American history books and many do a poor job of putting American ideology and policies in perspective. Many American historians subscribe to the myth of the benevolent superpower and to American exceptionalism, and this shows in the books they write.
Fun fact: in the 80s (88 I believe), Brzezinski (of all people) caught a bit of flak for talking about an American empire in one of his books... The dominant narrative of the Cold War was still that the USSR alone was responsible for it, and that the USA was only reacting to Soviet expansionism.

Yes and no. American liberals actually place a significant emphasis on how the American government has been abusive and exploitative in the past and how this is still making life bad for certain groups. However, they are extremely selective about which groups are deemed worthy of their support. This leads to splits along the usual lines of religious identity, urban vs. rural, college educated vs. those with a high school degree or less, etc.

That said, there is definitely a streak of exceptionalism even among liberals -- the only caveat is that the "intervention" (as we Americans like to call it) must be initiated by a leader liberals like. There are some liberals who object to the very principle of supporting a side in a country halfway across the world that is having unrest or civil war, but there aren't that many of them.

[Shryke]

44 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said:

I'm afraid the unquestioning belief in America's benevolence and exceptionalism, and a view of the nation as an uncomplicated Good Guy, is pretty much the standard view for most Americans, except the smug liberals that Scot thinks this article is so keenly skewering.

Yup. And this is a more or less deliberate policy in reaction to the Cold War. It's called "consensus history" as far as I remember.

[Shryke]

5 hours ago, Gasp of Many Reeds said:

The piece makes some fair points about upper-middle class, and upper class liberal American snobbishness and arrogance, though I'd say these are more values attached to class than their political inclination (there are still plenty of snobbish, arrogant upper-middle class and upper class Republicans). I think it fails quite seriously in a couple of areas in particular: (a) "The smug style, at bottom, is a failure of empathy" - maybe in some cases, but I'd say the main issue is one of selective empathy, e.g. for minority and traditionally oppressed social groups, and the feeling of many working class white Americans that their needs are being ignored (many of these needs are very much real, but it is my impression that there is also an ugly element underlying some grievances that the problem is one of white Christian America no longer being openly favoured at the expense of other interests, a sentiment further fanned by the awareness that 'traditional' white Christian America is now a shrinking part of wider society); (b) "It was not the GOP that decided the coastally based, culturally liberal industries of technology, Hollywood, and high finance were the future of the American economy" - the GOP has held the Presidency from 1980-1992 and 2000-2008 and has controlled the House for many of the intervening years of Democratic presidency. Pretending its rule hasn't had anything to do with the decline of the Rustbelt and the centralisation of the American economy in Silicon Valley and on Wall Street is farcical. Furthermore, a large wing of the Republicans have been heavily in favour of the free trade agreements and lowering of tariffs post-Cold War which have contributed most heavily to the offshoring of American jobs and industry. Democratic elites certainly share their portion of the blame, but only in the sense that they have been part of the cross-political class of free-market elites that have profited from these neo-liberal policies.

 

1 hour ago, OldGimletEye said:

I think the article simplifies the issues.

When the FDR New Deal coalition started to fall apart in the 1960s, I think a lot of it had to do with race and Vietnam. The fact of the matter, in my view, is there was a lot of support for FDR's New Deal, so long as it was for white people (and mainly white men). When liberals tried to bring others into the fold, there unfortunately a lot of push back.

Vietnam also proved a divisive issue. We all know now that Vietnam was a disaster, but you had a lot of blue collar guys, many who had been WW2 Vets, who often supported New Deal type policies but were uncomfortable with the criticisms aimed at the Vietnam War. Lot's of these guys became known as Nixon "hard hats".

I grew up in a southern white working class family, the type that often votes Republican, and yeah sometimes I feel my fellow liberal brethren might not always "get" white working class types, but I think charges of liberal smugness are overblown.

Also, if I recall correctly, their were a couple of conservatives, recently, that went on some rants about white working class people that were hardly kind. A lot of the elites in the conservative movement simply don't give a fuck about white working class types, and their problems, but just want their votes so they can get a tax cut, so they play on their fears and anxieties.

Yeah, both of these posts hit on one of the main issues with the article, which is an attempt to link "smugness" back to realignments of the american political culture during the 20th century as a way to blame smug liberals for losses by the Democratic party. Because obviously those damn smug lefties drove the hard-working white people out of the party and blamed everything on them! It's all their fault!

The reality is not so simple or so, frankly, smug. Working-class whites have left the democratic party for alot of reasons, none of which are smugness and most of which are related to racial issues, social issues and a perceived softness on communism. And, of course, the Democratic party is still pretty heavily involved in promoting union activity and workers rights and the GOP is actively against both so his whole thesis on that point is rather suspect anyway.

He's trying to craft a narrative about smugness and what it has cost liberals and ignoring like actual history to try and do so.

[Shryke]

2 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

The article links to a panoply of other articles that illustrate the style the author decries in the op-ep.  Perhaps the smugness in the article is deliberate an attempt to illustrate the very phenomenon the author is complaining about?

The article links to alot of things but the problem is it can't support most of it's central thesis on smugness with that or anything it rambles about. At best it establishes that sometimes people are smug assholes when they write stuff about politics.

[Fisch]

The article is a little smug and broad, and I don't think it paid enough attention during Jon Stewart's tenure at The Daily Show to understand where Stewart's barbed were aimed, but as a leftie both politically and dexterously, I thought this was a fair rebuke of everything I don't like about a certain attitude you see in a lot of liberal/progressive circles.

If nothing else, people should take away from it this line:

Quote

It is impossible, in the long run, to cleave the desire to help people from the duty to respect them.

 

[S John]

2 hours ago, Rippounet said:

To be fair, I've read a significant number of American history books and many do a poor job of putting American ideology and policies in perspective. Many American historians subscribe to the myth of the benevolent superpower and to American exceptionalism, and this shows in the books they write.
Fun fact: in the 80s (88 I believe), Brzezinski (of all people) caught a bit of flak for talking about an American empire in one of his books... The dominant narrative of the Cold War was still that the USSR alone was responsible for it, and that the USA was only reacting to Soviet expansionism.

I encounter a lot of conservative Americans who think that our schools are indoctrinating kids to be liberals. In my personal experience that could not be farther from the truth.  I went to a public High School in a region that is bible-thumper central.  Daily morning prayers around the flag pole, Christian social clubs during free periods, pledge of allegiance every morning, etc.  I never participated in any of the religious groups because, even though I was raised in a Catholic home, I had always disliked going to church every Sunday and the last thing I needed was more of that shit at school (and an absolutely insufferable Southern Baptist driven version to boot ).  A lot of my teachers were openly and vocal Republicans, including my Government teacher who derided liberals at every opportunity.

It was not until 11th grade that I heard anything at all contradictory of the 'good guys' view of American history in school and it was only because I took AP US History instead of regular US History.  My teacher made all of us read A People's History of the United States by Howard Zinn.  Definitely revisionist, and I'm sure worthy of some criticism itself, but it was a really important turning point in the way I assessed the world.  It was the very first time that I had even an inkling of an idea that the US might not be sitting on a lofty perch as permanent global good guy, defender of freedom and all that is right and good.  The book and my teacher challenged that in a public setting for the first time and I was like 17 years old at this point.

Now, conservatives may have a point that universities are centers of liberal thought, including public ones (which their tax dollars partially support), but I think if you make it to that level of education you deserve to be challenged.  If I had not encountered the one teacher I had in my AP History course, and say I had graduated High School and went into a trade or something, I would never have been presented with anything other that a white-washed version in an academic setting.  This may not be the case across the board at public schools in the US,  but I'd be willing to wager that it IS the case in may of the counties you see in Red on the electoral map.  

[Kalbear]

One of the things I appreciated about this article was the practice I see all the fucking time about random atheists calling out Christians for not supposedly practicing their religion according to what their book says. Leviticus is often cited here, but it's quite a few different things. It's about the least classy thing ever. I get calling out people for hypocritical views is awesome and apparently the de rigeur in debating these days, but chances are that you understand almost nothing of that person's actual religious beliefs and you are simply mocking a person for having religious views at all. 

[OldGimletEye]

There might be in fact some liberal smugness. And it's, generally, a good idea to check yourself.

But, how about conservative smugness? I mean one of the common themes out of conservatism is that liberals are just nothing but a meddlesome bunch of do-gooders who are clueless about how the "real world" works and who end up doing more harm than good, since liberals are out of touch with reality.

That's what I think a lot of conservatives think. I'd argue though that often conservatives make assumptions on some very bad models.

Anyone remember conservatives gloating about the so called "Bush Boom"?

ETA:

Now it wouldn't be smug to go down to some impoverished part of Appalachia and then start reading Ayn Rand to the inhabitants there, now would it?

 

[Ormond]

7 hours ago, Gasp of Many Reeds said:

The piece makes some fair points about upper-middle class, and upper class liberal American snobbishness and arrogance, though I'd say these are more values attached to class than their political inclination (there are still plenty of snobbish, arrogant upper-middle class and upper class Republicans). I think it fails quite seriously in a couple of areas in particular: (a) "The smug style, at bottom, is a failure of empathy" - maybe in some cases, but I'd say the main issue is one of selective empathy, e.g. for minority and traditionally oppressed social groups, and the feeling of many working class white Americans that their needs are being ignored (many of these needs are very much real, but it is my impression that there is also an ugly element underlying some grievances that the problem is one of white Christian America no longer being openly favoured at the expense of other interests, a sentiment further fanned by the awareness that 'traditional' white Christian America is now a shrinking part of wider society); (b) "It was not the GOP that decided the coastally based, culturally liberal industries of technology, Hollywood, and high finance were the future of the American economy" - the GOP has held the Presidency from 1980-1992 and 2000-2008 and has controlled the House for many of the intervening years of Democratic presidency. Pretending its rule hasn't had anything to do with the decline of the Rustbelt and the centralisation of the American economy in Silicon Valley and on Wall Street is farcical. Furthermore, a large wing of the Republicans have been heavily in favour of the free trade agreements and lowering of tariffs post-Cold War which have contributed most heavily to the offshoring of American jobs and industry. Democratic elites certainly share their portion of the blame, but only in the sense that they have been part of the cross-political class of free-market elites that have profited from these neo-liberal policies.

After reading through the thread I think this is the post I agree with most. I think the bad attitudes criticized in the article have more to do with classism than liberalism, and that many college educated conservatives are just as dismissive of blue collar people as stereotypical New York or Hollywood "liberals" are.

As someone who is both politically liberal and an active churchgoing Christian, though, I certainly have on occasion been miffed at non-religious people on the left making comments about whether the "Christian right" is truly Christian or not while their tone shows that they really think all religious belief is related to a lack of intelligence.

It is also particularly frustrating when people on the left who claim to be sympathetic to the problems of working class people dismiss and sneer at parts of the culture which are more attractive to blue collar persons, especially rural Whites. Liking NASCAR or country music doesn't mean one is intellectually or morally inferior to those who like tennis or the symphony, but I've known people who thoughtlessly make those judgments.

[Kalbear]

To be fair NASCAR is complete shit. 

[James Arryn]

7 hours ago, Jo498 said:

"liberal" in the US context usually seems to mean: "leftist" in cultural issues (minorities etc.), moderate social democratic in economic issues (higher taxes for the rich, welfare, universal healthcare), but usually disregarding "class warfare" in favor of "identity politics", and the smaller and more flamboyant the minority is, the more important. (Not sure about foreign policy, some established "liberal" seem hawks (like the Clintons), others disagree) They are also inconsistent because they share both the naive narrative of progress with most other Americans (except for a few conservatives) as well as postmodern "anything goes" and respect for indigenous cultural practices etc. But of course all those clash with each other. One cannot consistently act on the belief that in dubio cultural practices should be left alone and (rightly) abhor genital mutilations founded in such traditions. Even a little bit of skepticism from knowledge  of history (or post-modernism) should also cast doubt on our contemporary values being generally superior to anything else etc.

(If "being gay" did not even exist as a concept until the mid-19th century and such behavior was considered a sin/vice (but only sometimes a crime) until about that time, some kind of (mental) disease until about 40 years ago, a personal choice until 30 years ago, an innate condition now... how can anybody be dead certain that what we consider true now is so certain that any mild divergence from such truth is deemed as abhorrent as racism (and of course a similar story could be told about racist attitudes))

(The conservatives are usually similarly inconsistent, but as they are traditionally not so much interested in consistency and often happy to respect tradition for its own sake, regardless of inconsistencies, they might not care. Still, the clash between "family values" and money/free trade/capitalism über alles is even more blatant than those on the "left".)

Well, being 'gay' wasn't a thing pre-judeo Christian norms becoming dominant, but not in the way you seem to think. Sexual tastes were varied, and all the lines were blurred, and the concept of being either-or were unknown...as was the concept of being defined by your tastes any more than people would now be classified by their favourite flavour of ice cream or w/e. So, like the article, there in unintentional irony in your pointing out the failings of historical understanding. (it should be noted that women often operated under a different standard, but still not one defined by sexual gender preference...merely that they often were restricted to procreative sex with their husband...though not everywhere. For example a Spartan woman could not only openly have sex with a man other her husband, but could do so with the intention of having children. As female/female sexuality didn't reproduce/affect inheritance, there was generally no real restrictions there.)

The only morality that was read into male sexuality in the classical world was whether you were the dominant or submissive (if you were either as the norm) as it was seen as more 'proper' for the older/adult male to be dominant and the younger submissive. An adult male who regularly preferred submission would, in some regions, be seen as potentially weak and/or immature.

[TrackerNeil]

16 hours ago, James Arryn said:

I think it seriously overstrained a decent premise

I tend to agree. Sure, liberals can be supremely snotty and self-righteous, but come on.

Also, I feel as though the read on liberal views on GWB is a bit off. Yes, lots of liberals thought he was stupid, but plenty (like me) thought he was sufficiently intelligent but completely uninterested in policy, willfully ignorant and in way over his head. Those are often conflated with stupidity but they're very different.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

On April 22, 2016 at 9:28 AM, DanteGabriel said:

I'm afraid the unquestioning belief in America's benevolence and exceptionalism, and a view of the nation as an uncomplicated Good Guy, is pretty much the standard view for most Americans, except the smug liberals that Scot thinks this article is so keenly skewering.

DG,

Did you miss me including myself within the skewered in the OP?  I agree there is a problem with smugness across the board in American politics.  It, in my opinion, pushes people into corners instead of encouraging dialogue and meaningful thought about the positions discussed.  

At the end of the day do we want to convince people to think about and potentially change their positions or not?

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

2 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

At the end of the day do we want to convince people to think about and potentially change their positions or not?

I think most folks just want to be seen as being right. Winning the debate is often seen as being more important than changing someones mind.

 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

10 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

I think most folks just want to be seen as being right. Winning the debate is often seen as being more important than changing someones mind.

 

ME,

Interesting.  If that's the case people seem to fundamentally not understand how a representative democracy works.  If you have enough people who believe the "wrong" thing does it matter that you are "right"?

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

27 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

ME,

Interesting.  If that's the case people seem to fundamentally not understand how a representative democracy works.  If you have enough people who believe the "wrong" thing does it matter that you are "right"?

I guess that's where the smugness comes in. I'm not sure it's even a political thing, really. I guess at its' root, I'd say it's more personal. It's enough that I feel that I'm right, and that I have the opportunity or ability to express why I think I'm right. I don't have much of an expectation of convincing someone else that they are wrong if they hold the opposite viewpoint. 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

ME,

And my views have changed over time.  I know my views can be changed via rational dialogue.  As such I value it.  I have a hard time with people who discount it.