I believe the article is actually from a British publication, so it and/or the author may be subject to a different perspective and a different set of biases than what you would expect from American writers and publications. I looked at Clive Crook's archives and found plenty of columns critical of both sides.
It dismisses all of the liberals who've been homeless, poor, working, or middle class and have pulled themselves up by their bootstraps.
I can see what you are saying, but that's not how I took it. I perceived it as addressing a particular class of liberals, which happens to currently be the most vocal--or at least, they are the ones who more often get to hold the microphone, both in the MSM and in the blogosphere.
As for conservative media realizing that it's conservative, I don't think that's quite accurate either. I don't believe the media is addressing its biases adequately on either side.
Yes, I agree. FoxNews's claim to be "fair and balanced" is beyond laughable. But I think conservative talk radio is quite straightforward about its biases. That's probably why Crook gives the conservative side a pass on this.
I like my news to be critical of its own party as well as the opposing side. I think that's the real tell of unbiased reporting.
Yes, ITA. I may have cut the original article badly if you're getting the impression Crook is clearly aligned with conservatives--I felt there were lines in it that suggested he wasn't fully sympathetic to them. As I said, his archives do show criticism of both sides.
I tried to take that quiz, but it's so cut and dry that I kept going, "I DON'T THINK EITHER IS A GOOD IDEA XD."
True! I know it's not perfectly fair, but thanks for posting your results anyway.
I believe the article is actually from a British publication
Ah, I see! That would make more sense. Thanks!
I perceived it as addressing a particular class of liberals, which happens to currently be the most vocal-
That may have been the intent, but for me it came across as playing into the stereotype that most liberal supporters are elitist sophisticates out of touch with reality. I don't often get that impression when I stumble through the blogosphere, but considering how LARGE the blogosphere is, it may just be where I wander!
That's probably why Crook gives the conservative side a pass on this.
Possibly!
-I felt there were lines in it that suggested he wasn't fully sympathetic to them.
The only thing I noted was his line that Obama himself is not elitist, which doesn't particularly widen the lens on which this article focuses. It's not so much that I feel he's clearly aligned with conservatives as I feel the article's point is lacking. That he focused on liberals to the exclusion of conservatives on behavior both parties share... it weakens the article. His article informed me of something that seemed obvious: Democrats don't always respect Republican views and that can make them look bad to non-Democrats. If the article examined this phenomenon in regards to both parties and suggested a cause and solution, that would've been something to ponder.
You're welcome! Let me know how your experiment turns out! X3
His article informed me of something that seemed obvious: Democrats don't always respect Republican views and that can make them look bad to non-Democrats.
I think there's more to it than that, but I'm having a hard time articulating it. The main reason I linked the article is because I thought he did a good job of explaining something that has often nagged at the back of my mind, and lately has been on my mind even more since the fall-out of McCain's nomination of Palin as his running mate. It's not just about being disrespectful; it's about being intellectually condescending. I really think what he's talking about is something more characteristic of liberal commentary than of conservative commentary. (Conservatives are far more likely to disrespect liberals over morals than over intellect. Which I don't like either, but I don't think it's as damaging to the conservative movement as the liberals' intellectual condescension is to liberalism.)
I've been scrolling through Crook's blog posts of the past few days, and find reports on the RNC that are about equal parts praise and criticism. He also had this in a more recent update:
I certainly intended no disrespect to grass-roots Democrats: my complaint is chiefly addressed to the party’s spokesmen-Obama is the exception-and advocates in the media. I believe they are letting the wider liberal movement down...
As for the idea that those values or cultural affinities are widely shared or even universal, this has not been my experience. Obviously I am moving in the wrong circles, but the metropolitan liberal, in my experience, regards overt religious identity as vulgar, and evangelical Christianity as an infallible marker of mental retardation. Flag-waving patriotism is seen as a joke and an embarrassment. My point about refusal to be talked down to, and so on, was not intended to imply that only Republican voters think that way. What I was trying to say is that the liberal elite seems to forget that ordinary Republican-leaning Americans are proud people who want to be treated with some respect, that they are in fact entitled to it, and that their insistence on it is a quintessentially American idea.
Conservatives are far more likely to disrespect liberals over morals than over intellect. Which I don't like either, but I don't think it's as damaging to the conservative movement as the liberals' intellectual condescension is to liberalism
Shouldn't it be, though?
Maybe not, I guess, since your point is about what helps or hurts liberalism to advance its cause.
But it's just not that simple. And, I have to say that it bugs me that liberals are supposed to be more *careful* and conscientious about what they say about the other "side" and how they say it. Partly because I think that accusation -- the politics of "SEE HOW THEY HURT YOUR FEELINGS! AND HOW DARE THEY INSULT THE MORE MORAL OF US" -- is something that I think is actively played by some conservatives and that can feed into the kind of thing your lamenting as much as anything some liberals say, or how they say it, IMO.
I really think what he's talking about is something more characteristic of liberal commentary than of conservative commentary.
If you're referring strictly to liberal media (news, journals, blogs) I can understand that. I agree there are people in the liberal movement that act that way and it does reflect poorly on the party. But again, that's more of a class issue, not exclusive to liberals. However, I would agree that it's probably more damaging to liberals than conservatives.
Conservatives are far more likely to disrespect liberals over morals than over intellect. Which I don't like either, but I don't think it's as damaging to the conservative movement as the liberals' intellectual condescension is to liberalism.
TBH, I wonder if that would be the case if U.S. politics were more secular. Conservatives can be condescending toward liberals' moral fortitude, which is just as degrading. Claiming moral superiority is somehow seen as more acceptable than intellectual condescension. I find that unfortunate.
When it comes down to it, each party has members who do silly things that make their party look bad. Each party has conflicting ideas which need to exist to create a balance. Both parties contribute to something horrible and something great about this country.
(Conservatives are far more likely to disrespect liberals over morals than over intellect. Which I don't like either, but I don't think it's as damaging to the conservative movement as the liberals' intellectual condescension is to liberalism.)
I thought this was a really good point -- would you mind if I posted something in response in my LJ? My comment got kind of long and abstract. I think I might have done this to you before, so let me know if it's really obnoxious!
It dismisses all of the liberals who've been homeless, poor, working, or middle class and have pulled themselves up by their bootstraps.
I can see what you are saying, but that's not how I took it. I perceived it as addressing a particular class of liberals, which happens to currently be the most vocal--or at least, they are the ones who more often get to hold the microphone, both in the MSM and in the blogosphere.
As for conservative media realizing that it's conservative, I don't think that's quite accurate either. I don't believe the media is addressing its biases adequately on either side.
Yes, I agree. FoxNews's claim to be "fair and balanced" is beyond laughable. But I think conservative talk radio is quite straightforward about its biases. That's probably why Crook gives the conservative side a pass on this.
I like my news to be critical of its own party as well as the opposing side. I think that's the real tell of unbiased reporting.
Yes, ITA. I may have cut the original article badly if you're getting the impression Crook is clearly aligned with conservatives--I felt there were lines in it that suggested he wasn't fully sympathetic to them. As I said, his archives do show criticism of both sides.
I tried to take that quiz, but it's so cut and dry that I kept going, "I DON'T THINK EITHER IS A GOOD IDEA XD."
True! I know it's not perfectly fair, but thanks for posting your results anyway.
Reply
Ah, I see! That would make more sense. Thanks!
I perceived it as addressing a particular class of liberals, which happens to currently be the most vocal-
That may have been the intent, but for me it came across as playing into the stereotype that most liberal supporters are elitist sophisticates out of touch with reality. I don't often get that impression when I stumble through the blogosphere, but considering how LARGE the blogosphere is, it may just be where I wander!
That's probably why Crook gives the conservative side a pass on this.
Possibly!
-I felt there were lines in it that suggested he wasn't fully sympathetic to them.
The only thing I noted was his line that Obama himself is not elitist, which doesn't particularly widen the lens on which this article focuses. It's not so much that I feel he's clearly aligned with conservatives as I feel the article's point is lacking. That he focused on liberals to the exclusion of conservatives on behavior both parties share... it weakens the article. His article informed me of something that seemed obvious: Democrats don't always respect Republican views and that can make them look bad to non-Democrats. If the article examined this phenomenon in regards to both parties and suggested a cause and solution, that would've been something to ponder.
You're welcome! Let me know how your experiment turns out! X3
Reply
Reply
Reply
I think there's more to it than that, but I'm having a hard time articulating it. The main reason I linked the article is because I thought he did a good job of explaining something that has often nagged at the back of my mind, and lately has been on my mind even more since the fall-out of McCain's nomination of Palin as his running mate. It's not just about being disrespectful; it's about being intellectually condescending. I really think what he's talking about is something more characteristic of liberal commentary than of conservative commentary. (Conservatives are far more likely to disrespect liberals over morals than over intellect. Which I don't like either, but I don't think it's as damaging to the conservative movement as the liberals' intellectual condescension is to liberalism.)
I've been scrolling through Crook's blog posts of the past few days, and find reports on the RNC that are about equal parts praise and criticism. He also had this in a more recent update:
I certainly intended no disrespect to grass-roots Democrats: my complaint is chiefly addressed to the party’s spokesmen-Obama is the exception-and advocates in the media. I believe they are letting the wider liberal movement down...
As for the idea that those values or cultural affinities are widely shared or even universal, this has not been my experience. Obviously I am moving in the wrong circles, but the metropolitan liberal, in my experience, regards overt religious identity as vulgar, and evangelical Christianity as an infallible marker of mental retardation. Flag-waving patriotism is seen as a joke and an embarrassment. My point about refusal to be talked down to, and so on, was not intended to imply that only Republican voters think that way. What I was trying to say is that the liberal elite seems to forget that ordinary Republican-leaning Americans are proud people who want to be treated with some respect, that they are in fact entitled to it, and that their insistence on it is a quintessentially American idea.
Reply
Shouldn't it be, though?
Maybe not, I guess, since your point is about what helps or hurts liberalism to advance its cause.
But it's just not that simple. And, I have to say that it bugs me that liberals are supposed to be more *careful* and conscientious about what they say about the other "side" and how they say it. Partly because I think that accusation -- the politics of "SEE HOW THEY HURT YOUR FEELINGS! AND HOW DARE THEY INSULT THE MORE MORAL OF US" -- is something that I think is actively played by some conservatives and that can feed into the kind of thing your lamenting as much as anything some liberals say, or how they say it, IMO.
Reply
Reply
If you're referring strictly to liberal media (news, journals, blogs) I can understand that. I agree there are people in the liberal movement that act that way and it does reflect poorly on the party. But again, that's more of a class issue, not exclusive to liberals. However, I would agree that it's probably more damaging to liberals than conservatives.
Conservatives are far more likely to disrespect liberals over morals than over intellect. Which I don't like either, but I don't think it's as damaging to the conservative movement as the liberals' intellectual condescension is to liberalism.
TBH, I wonder if that would be the case if U.S. politics were more secular. Conservatives can be condescending toward liberals' moral fortitude, which is just as degrading. Claiming moral superiority is somehow seen as more acceptable than intellectual condescension. I find that unfortunate.
When it comes down to it, each party has members who do silly things that make their party look bad. Each party has conflicting ideas which need to exist to create a balance. Both parties contribute to something horrible and something great about this country.
Reply
I thought this was a really good point -- would you mind if I posted something in response in my LJ? My comment got kind of long and abstract. I think I might have done this to you before, so let me know if it's really obnoxious!
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment