s skippy the bush kangaroo: do you even know what 'condescending' means?

skippy the bush kangaroo



Tuesday, February 09, 2010

do you even know what 'condescending' means?

gerard alexander asks why are liberals so condescending in the washpost a couple days ago.

interestingly enough, the first concrete example he starts out w/is from lionel trilling in 1950 (paging mr. alexander, mr. gerard alexander...this millennium is calling!), and then, skipping 4 decades where liberals apparently were really, really nice, jumps to a vague dismissal of hillary's assertion of the "vast right wing conspiracy" (w/o actually dealing w/her premise).

he then tries to get specific w/chris mooney's book "the republican war on science," tho he himself is condescending and vague about the supposed problems w/mooney's thesis; that is to say, alexander does not try to refute mooney's points w/specifics, he only provides generalities, a debate tactic which itself is condescending.

for his next example of liberal condescension, he presents some non-specific accusations about recent reaction to the scotus citizens united ruling ("popular liberal reaction;" "rather than engage...liberals have largely argued").

he actually gets specific w/complaints about paul krugman, tho he manages to miss krugman's point by taking the nytimes columnist out of context (krugman complains about 3 specific wsj editorials; alexander accuses krugman of smearing the entire wsj editorial page).

alexander moves on to obama's "guns or religion" moment, which could be labeled condescending by some, tho we thought it was pure perplexity on obama's part, wondering why folks willfully ignore facts in favor of, well, guns and religion.

he then again gets specific w/his complaints, calling out various authors of liberal tomes (rick perlstein, al gore) for their premises as being condescending. alexander then takes a crack @ markos moulitsas for a remark that kos made after commissioning the poll that found a large percentage of self-identified republicans believe things that are patently untrue.

we will concede alexander's point here: kos, like any blogger worth his/her salt, is condescending, altho in blogtopia (and yes, we coined that phrase) the proper term is snark; but bookmark this paragraph, we will get back to kos in a bit.

after a foray into the liberal stronghold of academia, he wraps up his column w/the assertion that liberals dismiss conservative thinkers @ their peril. on the face of it, that exhortation makes sense.

but then, the next day, alexander hosts a q&a online w/washpost readers about what he wrote. it is here that we take exception.

invariably, when a liberal reader pointed out examples of conservative condescension, alexander would diffuse the point w/a general blanket accusation of bad faith all around (when presented w/the fact that more conservatives than liberals tend to believe obama's not a citizen, alexander counteres w/the idea that more liberals believe aids was invented in a military lab...something we've never heard, ourselves).

worse, alexander becomes condescending when he counters the argument that conservatives advocate waiting periods for abortions w/a similar waiting period in labor negotiations, as if a woman's drastic and life-changing choice about her body and fetus is comparable to collective bargaining for a paycheck.

but now we come to the money quote, the very reason we wrote this piece to begin with. in answering a question about semantics (which basically posited that every political view argues that it itself is right, and condescension is inherently involved therein), alexander comes up with this gem:

i'm unaware of conservatism's top leaders and main establishment voices arguing that modern liberalism is structurally and systematically distorted and invalid.
now, bear in mind that alexander dismisses glenn beck as a "gadfly," so we assume he'd do the same to the example of rush limbaugh or ann coulter or michelle malkin.

however, we find it disingenuous of alexander to use markos moulitsas as an example in his original column, and then establish the parameter of "conservatism's top leaders and main establishment voices" as the only valid examples to be able to use in the debate.

what, a liberal blogger embodies the very premise of liberal condescension, but the top-rated conservative cable talk show host doesn't count, because he's "a gadfly"?

double standards much, mr. alexander?

so, here's our challenge to our readers: find some examples of "conservatism's top leaders and main establishment voices" who are condescending to liberals and the progressive platform. then email those examples (be polite!) to mr. alexader @ http://mailto:galexander16@gmail.com.

(we'll give you a headstart: jeb bush making fun of two gay women who were arrested in florida for welfare fraud in a missing child case.)

be sure to cc us (skippybkroo@aol.com).

be polite, non-snarky, and above all, don't be condescending.
posted by skippy at 9:07 AM |

14 Comments:

i'm mostly all out of polite. i manage when it comes to a few of the conservatives in my family, 'cause fuck ya know, they're family.

i haven't been writing and posting much for a while now, it's mainly because i can't write about mitch mcConnell without pointing out that he's a chinless fuckwad who will be the only person in the room that's surprised when it's shown that he's a depraved perv.

i can't write about john boehner without pointing out that he's a tan-in-a-can blowdried son of a bitch...

you see my problem?

it's the hypocrisy more than anything that gets me. they rail about the budget deficit, when, by starting two overseas wars (which might by now be considered on wide war) without bothering to pay for them, they helped to drive our deficit and the national and world economies into a ditch. they rail on and on about cutting spending and shelby holds every single nomination before the senate hostage until his earmarks are covered.

nope. all the fuck out.
commented by Blogger The Minstrel Boy, 10:24 AM PST  
It was pretty obvious he hadn't read beyond the dust-cover of War on Science, so, naturally, I voted the asinine futility of it all.
commented by Anonymous Ten Bears, 3:46 PM PST  
I have a hard time not sounding 'condescending' to Republicans, as the Republicans call it. I have dealt with them using fact based arguments, that I then challenge them to look up, when they have looked them up, they get quiet, then they go away sneering and muttering about 'book learnin' ".
commented by Anonymous Anonymous, 5:19 AM PST  
Someone PLEASE tell me how you correct stupidity WITHOUT sounding "condescending"?

(Did that question come off as condescending?)
commented by Anonymous MugsysRapSheet, 5:53 AM PST  
Couldnt it merely be that some GOPers, such as G. Alexander (I'm assuming he is although I don't know), are just skittish and overly sensitive when having truths pointed out to them? Sometimes a tactic used by someone who's just been corrected and shown they're wrong is to lash out and personally attack the bearer of informed tidings. This in some way helps diminish the embarrassment of their comeuppance. By verbally assualting the 'other' with childish emotions and petty accusations, they hope to deflect the truth of what just happened. But, alas, the truth remains afterward. So perhaps they should attempt to get the facts right to begin with and then these moments of factual correction wouldn't have to occur. And if you think I've come across as condescending, then that's the way you see it. Your choice to react that way. I'm merely explaining a point and in no way attempted to be condescending. If you perceived that I did, again your reaction is entirely on you, and I can't be held accountable for emotional read of my words. Sorry, won't work. And projection doesn't either. Thanks for reading.
commented by Anonymous Anonymous, 7:23 AM PST  
wow, someone else who went to the e.e. cummings school of punctuation and grammar

but to not be snarky ?? can't do
commented by Blogger tofubo, 10:47 AM PST  
Yes, I think it is some kind of social or mental illness that when "conservative truths" are found out to be without fact and outright lies, that whoever outed their "truth" to be a lie is "condenscending." It is a quick way to dismiss the reality of the situation for their lies.
commented by Blogger GDunn, 11:05 AM PST  
I'm not sure Mr. Alexander's inbox is sufficiently large to contain all the examples he is sure to receive. Perhaps we should limit it to a million or so. That would represent about a year's worth.

It has been my experience that in most cases, Vocal Conservative = Hypocrite

I've seen very few instances which don't adhere to the formula. In those cases, they might have been recovering from surgery and still feeling the effects of the anesthesia. That would account for the uncharacteristic truthfulness.
commented by Anonymous JayDee, 11:41 AM PST  
"alexander accuses krugman of smearing the entire wsj editorial page"

It's not possible to smear the WSJ editorial page; no matter how stupid I think it is, it goes further. (See today's Gingrich/John Goodman editorial on "Republican ideas" for Health Care Reform and compare them to what is in the bill.
commented by Blogger Ken Houghton, 12:06 PM PST  
Purple heart bandaids at the 2004 Republican National Convention?
commented by Blogger El Cid, 12:41 PM PST  
Is insulting their own constituents intelligence, condescending?

If I had more time I’d circulate quotes from GOP who are quoted and voted against the stimulus, but then got quoted as being thankful, even responsible, for the stimulus cash entering their districts. ThinkProgress and Rachel Maddow have some good stuff.
commented by Anonymous freD, 2:50 PM PST  
"exhortation", not "exaltation"...
commented by Blogger Cheyenne, 3:10 PM PST  
thx, cheyenne, corrected!
commented by Blogger skippy, 4:27 PM PST  
In what respect, Skippy?
commented by Anonymous Anonymous, 10:52 AM PST  

Add a comment