FT.com | Clive Crook’s blog | Column: Democrats must learn some respect

Column: Democrats must learn some respect

September 8, 2008

Bromley illustration

This article is not the first to note the cultural contradiction in American liberalism, but just now the point bears restating. The election may turn on it.

Democrats speak up for the less prosperous; they have well-intentioned policies to help them; they are disturbed by inequality, and want to do something about it. Their concern is real and admirable. The trouble is, they lack respect for the objects of their solicitude. Their sympathy comes mixed with disdain, and even contempt.

Democrats regard their policies as self-evidently in the interests of the US working and middle classes. Yet those wide segments of US society keep helping to elect Republican presidents. How is one to account for this? Are those people idiots? Frankly, yes – or so many liberals are driven to conclude. Either that or bigots, clinging to guns, God and white supremacy; or else pathetic dupes, ever at the disposal of Republican strategists. If they only had the brains to vote in their interests, Democrats think, the party would never be out of power. But again and again, the Republicans tell their lies, and those stupid damned voters buy it.

The remainder of this column can be read here. Please post comments below.

September 8th, 2008 in Current Affairs, US politics | Permalink

139 Responses to “Column: Democrats must learn some respect”

Comments

I may be naive, but I am having a hard time understanding how the Democrats are failing to show respect for middle or working class voters by focusing on the economic issues that concern them the most, or how the Republicans are showing any respect at all for these same voters when they try to distract them with flag-waving, guns and prejudice against immigrants, gays and atheists thinly disguised as “culture wars”.

The only time I have heard the media contemptuously refer to “downscale voters” is on the Republican mouthpiece, Fox News.
Posted by: algasema | September 8th, 2008 at 3:15 am | Report this comment
I find your essay balanced Clive. The response so far reflects your points. If only the Dems could tap into that Reps rallying role. But it is a hard bullet to bite. Perhaps bullet is the wrong motif here. The polls show that the McPalin method is working. The Dems loathe it. They should use it in their own way. The DEMS think it will all come right; people will see sense. Well no one lost money underestimating the nature of people.
Blair saw that. Brown and Balls cannot. Come on Bar/Joe - it is a contest. Use all the weapons.
Posted by: tim | September 8th, 2008 at 4:43 am | Report this comment
J. Bull. Don’t mistake the froth of the liberal blogosphere — you can find anything you want in blog world, and god knows who wrote it — or the japes of the comics for the essential criticism of Mrs. Palin by most of us who would love her to pieces if she would start making sense. Her positions — most of which don’t reflect the middle America I know — are clear as well as are her contradictions. They are what unsettle us and make us wonder what McCain has in mind if he gets the chance to govern. And as for the mainstream media being liberal…. Those tame rabbits! So many were *ravished* by her able speech reading. And why was it emphasized that she was reading someone else’s speech? Because it wasn’t written by *her* speech writers. I’ll bet you a guinea to a guilder that her advisors were pushed out of the room when that text was produced.Over a period of time, a politician develops a team to express her/his positions. I doubt Team Palin had a role in her remarks.
Posted by: jwockyrobertson | September 8th, 2008 at 5:53 am | Report this comment
As a lifelong Democrat I find your insights into the party’s perennial dysfunction incisive. This was certainly a year when those problems surfaced in conspicuously ugly ways with the ultimately self-destructive denigration of Hillary Clinton’s supporters as a bunch of uneducated, racist hicks—a contemptuous, though evidently convenient, stereotype now being foisted on those who support or identify with Sarah Palin.

If the Dems didn’t manage to lose much of that working-class, swing-vote constituency that they so happily mocked during the primaries, they certainly will if they continue to attack Palin in that same smug, condescending way, actively abetted by the “neutral” media.
Posted by: Marty A | September 8th, 2008 at 5:56 am | Report this comment
Let’s not dismiss voting machine fraud as a possible explanation for perplexing Republican victories.
Posted by: mikeFL | September 8th, 2008 at 6:00 am | Report this comment
What an utterly spot on analysis of the current state of the Democratic Party.
This year’s Primary Election was essentially split down the middle between Clinton and Obama, and no matter that Obama was selected by the Mystery of The Super Delegate and Caucus Vote, no real effort has been put forward to address the real or imagined grievances of the defeated Clinton clan. So the liberal Dems have their candidate, and seem, today, confounded how to move forward.
It looks from here like Election 2000 and 2004 redux.
Posted by: Kevin Fitz | September 8th, 2008 at 6:11 am | Report this comment
I couldn’t have said it any better.You nailed it.
Posted by: william D | September 8th, 2008 at 6:17 am | Report this comment
The only flaw I see in this excellent account is the assumption that the Democrats can or are likely to change in this respect. In many cases, contempt for ordinary citizens is the primary support for their self-respect and the social status accorded them by their friends. It is their identity, in a personal even more than a political sense. The truth is that, even if were they able to perceive the problem, many Democrats would rather lose another election and whinge about it for four more years than give those things up.
Posted by: Nomenklatura | September 8th, 2008 at 6:57 am | Report this comment
I truly believe that Democrats think that they can use the government to help make the country better, and to help people. For some Democrats, there may be an almost altruistic motivation. Some may really not be in it as a power-grab.

The problem is that REAL people have learned the hard way, over time, that virtually everything the government gets involved in, gets messed up. Democrats keep saying, “Oh, but this time it will work.” and it never does. It is the definition of insanity to keep trusting these people.

If you are in a business, or are a professional or a farmer/rancher, it doesn’t take long to figure out that the government CAUSES most of your problems; it doesn’t solve them.
Posted by: jack carlson | September 8th, 2008 at 6:58 am | Report this comment
Mr. Cook you are speaking to me. I am pro choice, anti-Bush, anti-war, support Tom Friedman’s “ET” and support an end to the “Bush Tax Cuts”. I am very excited by Palin and finnally have someone to vote FOR–I will never vote for a Democrat because of dems disgust for those they claim they are serving. “Drill Baby Drill” means “Make Sure Democrats Lose Again”-Thank God!
Posted by: stuart willson | September 8th, 2008 at 7:10 am | Report this comment
The essence of the issue lies here and there’s nothing ‘curious’ about it: “the conservative media know they are conservative, much of the liberal media believe themselves to be neutral. Their constant support for Democratic views has nothing to do with bias, in their minds, but reflects the fact that Democrats just happen to be right about everything.”

This is at the heart of the liberal media’s total inability to understand the claims of bias, no matter how often it’s pointed out to them. They believe that the Democrats are right in the same way, to the same degree, that 2 plus 2 equals 4 and the Earth revolves around the sun. They take the ‘rightness’ of liberal and Democratic views as such a given, that they are not even able to think within any other framework.

Conservatives, and I am one, understand that some people disagree with us and it’s up to us to sell our ideas and get their vote. Liberals think that their correctness is self-evident and that those who don’t agree are uninformed, stupid or evil. They should be lectured and if that doesn’t work, mocked or ignored. They’re the bullies in the schoolyard, only now they get a salary for it.

Those seem to be the only weapons in the liberal armory. If a liberal female columnist is snarky, that shows she’s clever and merits a Pulitzer. If a female Republican conservative is sarcastic, that’s being mean spirited. And so forth.

If a liberal believes in something no human has yet been able to prove or disprove definitively (man-made global warming) he’s a hero. But if a conservative believes in something that no one’s yet been able to prove or disprove definitively (the ultimate origins of life on Earth), they’re slobbering morons who’d cast us back into the Dark Ages. And so forth.

If a liberal black man running for president is mocked in an ad for his celebrity status, it’s all phallic columns, the fear of the ‘other’ and coded racism. If a conservative black woman in a position of more power and responsibility than the black male candidate has ever had, is portrayed by a white male liberal editorial cartoonist, it’s likely to be overtly as a slave. And so forth.

And even more interesting, this is the same crowd that on the one hand believes George Bush is a virtual moron while on the other asserting that he’s managed to manipulate everything from the collapse of the WTC to the voting machines in Ohio without so much as leaving a trace. Can you say ‘cognitive dissonance’?

But what I find the most astonishing is how so many people in the Democratic Party who are of such supposedly superior intelligence, with their fancy degrees, can’t learn from experience. Isn’t that the most basic part of learning?

As a conservative, I hope they continue to fail to learn and fail to win. And as a voter, I’m not buying what they’re trying to sell this time around.

I’m being presented with a guy who’s nearly 50, engaging enough, but with no record of any accomplishment anywhere and positions (such that I can identify them on any given day before he rethinks things) that I find unacceptable. He’s been able to spend his life talking his way up. That’s just the blunt truth of who and what Barack Obama is: a guy who’s written two memoirs before doing anything worth writing about. If he has any other record to stand on, it’s long past the time to show it.

And to add insult to injury, I am repeatedly told that if I don’t buy into this near-deification of a middle-aged underachiever, I am a racist.

Like they say, that dog won’t hunt.
Posted by: Cynical Observer | September 8th, 2008 at 7:12 am | Report this comment
With all due respect to Clive Crook, I am afraid that he is uncritically buying into the Republican line that since the Denocrats are all elitists to begin with, ergo, they can’t have any respect for the people whose interests they claim to be defending.

The problem with this line of reasoning ,if it can be indeed called reasoning, is that the idea that Democrats are elitist is merely just one more piece of Republican propaganda. The word “elitist” itself could just as easily be replaced by some other Orwellian epithet - “unpatriotic”, “out of touch”, “doesn’t share American values”, “big government”, “soft on terror”, none of which have any relation to reality or even thought.

The truth is that the American public is easily brainwashed by slick marketing campaigns used to sell candidates and political parties, along with cokes and french fries - excuse me, I meant freedom fries. Even the “newscasts” that are supposed to be keeping on top of the latest campaign developments spend a great deal of their time rehashing the latest campaign ads, as if that added anything at all to the political debate.

The success of this brainwashing, in which the only one of the two major parties that really represents the interests of working class and middle class people, as well as the poor and minorities, is identified in the public mind with elitism, is illustrated better than anything else by the mindless comments from most of my above fellow posters. The public may be easily brainwashed by this sort of propaganda, but one would expect better of Clive Crook.

I do not believe for a second that Barack Obama, a community organizer from Chicago’s South Side, or Jose Biden, from the working class town of Scranton PA, look down on average Americans. Nor do I believe that working one’s way up from humble beginnings to graduate from Harvard (as did Barack Obama) is any worse than doing the same in order to graduate from the University of Idaho, as did Sarah Palin.

However, where the Obama campaign may have made a fatal mistake is in underestimating, almost to the point of ignoring, the power and importance of women in today’s America. It is not as if this was not staring him in the face, given the intensity of the Hillary campaign. Of course, Joe Biden is a good man, far more qualified to take over the presidency, if need be, than fifty Sarah Palins. But, after what happened with Hillary, failing to put either her or some other qualified woman on the ticket, was an act of blindness that may cost Barack Obama the election.

Obama has been very badly served by his campaign advisors. They are busy fighting the last election, like generals trying to win the last war.
Posted by: algasema | September 8th, 2008 at 7:39 am | Report this comment
Congratulations Mr. Crook. That is the single most perceptive comment on the US election yet. And it is extremely well-written. It would take a Brit, someone outside the US media bubble, to see it that clearly.

The Democrats have once again snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.

Nomenklatura and Jack Carlson, I agree with your comments completely.

But the Republicans will never be bold or clever enough to actually reduce the size of government. They are as easily seduced by the dizzying power of DC as the Democrats. Majority rule democracy is a terminal condition. And the terminus is not too far ahead.
Posted by: shenandoah in San Francisco | September 8th, 2008 at 7:46 am | Report this comment
I did not intentionally mean to misspell Joe Biden as “Jose” Biden. However, the fact that I did also brings to mind the fact that both sides seem to be utterly ignoring the Latino vote. If the Democrats, especially, fail to capitalize on McCain’s flip-flop on immigration, and Palin’s support for Buchanan, who wanted to cut off all legal immigration, not only illegal, when he ran for president in 2000, Obama and Biden may wind up regretting that Biden’s name was not Jose.
Posted by: algasema | September 8th, 2008 at 7:49 am | Report this comment
Well, it is interesting to read this strong reaction against the Dems for their criticism of a GOP candidate - after the endless smear campaigns aimed at Barack Obama. The dirt thrown in the McCain ads against Obama shows no respect for his person whatsoever. But it is not Barack Obama who has gone after Palin as a person, it is the grassroot Dems who think the GOP is trying to use her story to blur the real issues. Ordinary people who see how the state of the nation is. The Obama campaign has a grassroot support McCain only can dream of - but still conservatives try to paint him as “elitist”. It is really laughable
Posted by: Erik | September 8th, 2008 at 8:01 am | Report this comment
mikeFL, the effects of voting machine fraud are vastly overplayed in the media. I am an Officer of Election in Virginia, and I can assure you we run a scrupulously clean and fair election. Our auditing, chain-of-custody, and access procedures are very tight, and it would be quite difficult to circumvent them. No system is 100% secure, of course, but the protections we’ve built into the election process go well beyond the voting machine itself.
Posted by: Dave M | September 8th, 2008 at 8:08 am | Report this comment
“With all due respect to algasema, I am afraid that he is uncritically buying into the Democratic line that since the Republicans are all elitists to begin with, ergo, they can’t have any respect for the people whose interests they claim to be defending.”

No offense algasema but I couldn’t resist using your own words. They are so apt.
Posted by: shenandoah in San Francisco | September 8th, 2008 at 8:09 am | Report this comment
Kevin Fitz wrote:
“It looks from here like Election 2000 and 2004 redux.”

More like 1972 redux. The Democrats have pulled another McGovern. With Palin now on the GOP ticket, the election will be a blowout… unless she elopes with Hugo Chavez next week.

I say that not as a McCain supporter. I would never vote for him. Just like to see reality as it is.
Posted by: shenandoah in San Francisco | September 8th, 2008 at 8:38 am | Report this comment
Erik wrote:
“The Obama campaign has a grassroot support McCain only can dream of - but still conservatives try to paint him as “elitist”. It is really laughable”

That’s exactly the sort of complacent self-delusion Clive Crook is talking about. It’s what loses the Democrats elections every time.

BTW, lots of “grassroot support” is precisely what you DON’T want… if you want to win. Grassroots types are the fundamentalist kool-aid drinkers (whether right or left) who turn off everybody else, particularly the broad pragmatic middle.

The Clintons saw it. Slick was one of the few Democrats of recent vintage who knew how to win elections. He warned them. Told them flat out more than a few times that BO couldn’t win. They should’ve listened.

Clive Crook explains precisely why didn’t. They knew they were “right.” They listened to their all-knowing gurus from the media bubble instead. Believing your own BS is fatal… 100% of the time. It breeds complacency. And complacency breeds defeat.
Posted by: shenandoah in San Francisco | September 8th, 2008 at 8:59 am | Report this comment
Really wonderful article!!! I really enjoyed it. Looking at this presidencial race from Europe I am speechless while looking at an still-undecided race. And the only 2 reasons for this tight race are: 1) The lame personal atttacks from conservatives without any substance and 2) The stupid people who buy them.

I mean, how much brains do you need to have in order to buy the statement that Obama is an elitist and that he does not share small-towns values. Do these people do not see how rich mcCain is? Do these people do not see that Palin is a creationist? Or that she and her husband have been fighting for the independence of Alaska? Or that she cannot convince her own child to preserve religious values and stay virgin until marriage?

What is wrong with these people? How can they buy the statement that conservatives are the agents of change? Cannot they at least look at their pockets and see how flat it is due to the policies supported by McCain? Can’t they see that the irak War has cost a monstruos amount of money? and that this money come direct out of their own pockets?

Although these 2 issues that make this race undecided, I really predict an Obama-Biden victory. But if the stupid weak-minded small-town american make McCain-Palin win, then I only have to leave you with the followin quote: “Every Country has the Government that it deserves”. And Good luck with it!

Cheers
Posted by: Alejandro | September 8th, 2008 at 9:03 am | Report this comment
You are quite right -
and as a “liberal” 3rd generation american republican I am urging all my friends to vote Obama -
the USA needs deperately profound changes - this country cannot afford to governed for 4 more years by simplistic, shallow, “good guy” - and with a caricatural “redneck” only a heartbeat way from the white house -
America has experienced an historical decline over the last eight years under a ventriliquist dummy for the most corrupt and and demogogic right wing minority -
in todays world, another 4 years would consolidate definitively the end of the american “empire” and transform the country into a loose canon
Posted by: pelikan | September 8th, 2008 at 9:12 am | Report this comment
Answer me this - why is it the Democrats “need to learn some respect” when it was the Republicans, notably Giuliani and Palin, who sneeringly and utterly condescendingly mentioned “community organizing”?

Are volunteers and not-for-profit organizations in American cities not, you know, authentic enough to deserve any respect?

Also, what is it with you lot who pick up the liberal media meme? Would a liberal media cheerlead this country into an illegal war? Would a liberal media allow a plurality of the country to believe, 2 years after Iraq was invaded, that Iraq had WMD, Saddam was responsible for 9/11, and most of the world supported the invasion?

And I am particularly amused to see you write about Republican pride in “Freedom to succeed or fail through one’s own efforts” - the day after the Fannie and Freddie bail-outs are announced. By a Republican government, of course.

Further, if this - “Refusal to be pitied, bossed around or talked down to” - is admirable trait, I expect you are ready to lionize Putin. Or even Ahmedinejad. Or perhaps the hundreds of protestors arrested in Minneapolis-St Paul to keep the riff-raff away from the real people swooning over Sarah Palin.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/09/01/protests/index.html

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/08/30/police_raids/index.html

These seem to be people unwilling to be bossed around, yet unfortunately they don’t fit the Crooks cultural stereotype for the real American; so they too, aren’t worthy of any respect.

This is not to say the column is unfair in describing the narrative at work in American political scene. It does however illustrate how screwed up either your thinking or the supposed narrative is.

The Democrats have their own issues to figure out, but the Republicans aren’t immune to “cultural contradictions” either. Sarah Palin - advocate of abstinence-only sex education - has a family situation that is the very embodiment of such a contradiction. And whilst it is seemingly okay for Palin’s teenage daughter to make her choice regarding her pregnancy, the Republicans want to legislate choice out for other Americans.

So whilst the Democratic contradictions speak to a lack of respect, the Republican contradictions speak to glaring double-standards. And that is your stereotypical Republican these days, someone prepared to vote R in the confidence that the double-standards at work won’t be applied unfairly to them.
Posted by: Ed | September 8th, 2008 at 10:06 am | Report this comment
Seems “the fathomless cultural complacency of the metropolitan liberals” is so firmly anchored they fail to recognize their image when a mirror is held up, as you have so perceptively done here, Mr. Crook. Bravo.
Posted by: elizabeth schumann | September 8th, 2008 at 10:39 am | Report this comment
When the hurricane struck (Sarah not Gustav) and, as one orchestra, the liberal media struck up some of the nastiest notes ever aimed at a candidate’s family, I was reminded of Oxford’s astonishing display of academic pettiness in 1985, when it denied the sitting PM, Margaret Thatcher, what should have been a perfunctory honourary degree. Oh! Well done, Oxford! Arguably the greatest of the postwar PM’s, certainly the most influential, but the dons were unable to restrain their natural spite towards a lower middle class prole.

And now we have the Dems personally delivering the GOP at least a few percentage points in sympathy, reinvigorating the GOP base, and reigniting the culturewars. Oh! Well done, Dems.
Same spite, different woman.

What is it about both elites that causes them to so dislike/disrespect their countrymen (and women)?
Posted by: Mary Cunningham | September 8th, 2008 at 11:02 am | Report this comment
Good article, amazing coming from a European or half-European. I only take exception with this:

“Democrats speak up for the less prosperous; they have well-intentioned policies to help them…”

Their policies are not always well-intentioned. Some of the policies have no other function than to create dependent clients whose vote can be controlled.
Posted by: redmanrt | September 8th, 2008 at 11:11 am | Report this comment
Speaking of voter machine fraud, the worst voting fraud takes place in the big cities, all of them controlled by democrats. In national elections it amounts to around 2% of the vote. So much for Al Gore’s popular vote advantage in 2000.
Posted by: redmanrt | September 8th, 2008 at 11:23 am | Report this comment
A final remark about good intentions. The actual effect of the democrats’ policy of unlimited access to abortion is slow black genocide. If you want to speculate on intentions, first read up on Margaret Sanger.
Posted by: redmanrt | September 8th, 2008 at 11:31 am | Report this comment
Dead on, well put. I think Democrat Rahm Emanuel understood essentially what you are driving at when he successfully engineered his party’s retake of the house. He did so by putting conservative Democrats on the ballot in Republican held districts where disdain was running high for party corruption and overspending.

I just can’t understand why then, in light of this, that the Democrats again run the most liberal, urban Democrats that they can find for the Presidency. It’s the same losing formula, election in and election out, and it’s a wonder more Democrats aren’t outraged by their party’s tendency to shoot itself in the foot.

Another thing that I have noticed about the Democrats that is a fatal flaw: they have a disdain for leadership. Their poor leadership is evident on every level; cities with generations of liberal mayors like Detroit and New Orleans that have failed their citizenry on every level. They seem to allow leadership at the congressional and national level to be on an ascension basis; ie. Nancy Pelosi as House Speaker, Joe Biden as VP, and each successive Democrat nominee usually in order of ascension to the position. When they broke from this formula recently and chose Clinton, they did get a good leader, but one with whom they refused to work on a congressional level, hence the 1994 takeover of congress. I think they thought Barack Obama was the real deal, he sure looked like it at the last convention, but it turns out he hasn’t displayed much in terms of actual leadership, just a lot of talk.
Posted by: kate | September 8th, 2008 at 1:32 pm | Report this comment
The posts reflect a the bias that Cook discusses. The long response from the conservative is thoughtlful, and I would like to engage, as I disagree with many of his assumptions and framing of the issues. However, his points are more than worth considering. What we Democrats have to learn is to suspend judgment and listen and then create a narrative for our positions that are meaningful to small town and working people.

An example, all of us know many people with experience but lack judgment to use that experience in ways that are beneficial. I think that Senator McCain’s POW experience of forced loss of honor and pride frame much of his judgment that leads to belligerence toward all who might be considered not to provide him the honor and pride we wants. That leads to poisitions that I believe are not what the US needs in a leader.

So our narrative should revolve around judgment that supports the needs, desires, and believes of working Americans whereever they are.
Posted by: Richard Reeves-Ellington | September 8th, 2008 at 2:00 pm | Report this comment
The principle feature of American liberalism is sanctimoniousness. By loudly denouncing all bad things—war and hunger and date rape—liberals testify to their own terrific goodness. More important, they promote themselves to membership in a self-selecting elite of those who care deeply about such things. . . . It’s a kind of natural aristocracy, and the wonderful thing about this aristocracy is that you don’t have to be brave, smart, strong or even lucky to join it, you just have to be liberal. - P. J. O’Rourke (b. 1947), U.S. journalist. Give War a Chance, Introduction (1992).
Posted by: Edward Holman | September 8th, 2008 at 2:22 pm | Report this comment
I am not in the least offended by your comment, Shenandoah, because the Republicans ARE (the elitists, that is) and they DON’T (respect the working people of America).
Posted by: algasema | September 8th, 2008 at 2:34 pm | Report this comment
Hi Kate,

First of all, I wonder why you speak with so high air of certainty as if the republicans had already won the elections. If your views are based on the current election polls; then allow me to enlight you because these election polls are really bad predictors for campaigning success. One of the reason is that Popular vote is not the deciding factor for the elction but the electoral vote and in this scenario Obama has a big lead.

Another reason is that people don’t see far into the future while asking the critical question of “which candidate would you choose?” because they are in a “stand-by” modus and understimate the real importance of the question due to the fact that the elction is still far away into the future.

Then you go on and critize the lack of leadership of the democrats??? Can’t you look at a mirror??? Just answer yourself these questions: Who is the president of the US? What party does he represent? I imagine that if you critize the democrats it is because you have a good example at the side of the republicans; but all we see at the conservative side is hypocresy, corruption, lies and lack of leadership.

The democrats don’t choose the right leaders? Did you know that one of them has won a noble peace prize. Yes, the one that lost in a corrupted election. And the person you chose as a leader is now the most unpopular president in history (in US and abroad).
Posted by: Alejandro | September 8th, 2008 at 2:51 pm | Report this comment
Ed asks…Answer me this - why is it the Democrats “need to learn some respect” when it was the Republicans, notably Giuliani and Palin, who sneeringly and utterly condescendingly mentioned “community organizing”?

Precisely. Giuliani (and Palin to an extent) are sneering at the victim generating industry. The “community organizers” are sneering at everyday working people.

Take a look at the properties developed by Obama and Rezko over the years, and their current conditions, and tell me who is doing the sneering.

http://www.suntimes.com/images/cds/gmapsobama/

JBP
Posted by: John Powers | September 8th, 2008 at 2:57 pm | Report this comment
Clive Crook, you are quite wide of the mark here.

First, if it’s respect for the views of others that needs correcting, no clear-thinking observer can honestly say it is not Republicans who stand most in need.

For decades, Republicans - Delay, Gramm, Gingrich, Cheney, Thurmond, Robertson, Nixon, Agnew, and so many others - have specialized in quite vicious attacks on their opponents.

And was it Democrats or liberals who used to stalk the homes and offices of doctors who performed legal abortions? Or liberals who worked viciously to keep the poor boy, Elian, from being reunited with his loving father in his home were he had friends and relatives, indeed who vilified the father in front of the boy? What about the eight years of nastiness handed out to the Clintons when in the White House, a great deal of it highly personal? Was it liberals who hatefully blamed homosexuals for killer storms that were supposedly the wrath of God? Was it liberals who built entire careers calling people soft on communism?

Indeed, the basic tenet of Christian Fundamentalism that it has the only truth and if that you don’t embrace it, you are damned to hell forever, I think may fairly be characterized as a trifle vicious in nature. It is hard not to conclude only vicious people can embrace it.

I do not know the entire explanation for this phenomenon of the Right Wing. It could be that people on the Right are simply genetically mean-spirited. I do think a lot of politics is the result of basic temperament. It could be, at least in some cases, that negatives are used to overcome the inherently less popular tenets of Republicanism. Negative campaigning works, at least within limits. It’s all McCain has done so far, and it’s all Palin’s speech was. And it could be in part the need to build a coalition large enough for power requiring accommodating the most hateful and mean-spirited.

Surely, you do recognize that there are personal views or behaviors that genuinely deserve criticism?

Just one example in Sarah Palin’s case is her Creationism.

Now, the genuine stupidity of Creationism is calling it a viable theory. What possible tests or data collection could hope to disprove Creationism or even lead to serious adjustments in its statements? None, ever.

Creationism is not a theory, it is a belief, based on superstition and ancient traditions, and nothing more. You are certainly free, in a free society, to embrace it, but people like me are also free to make judgments about your attitudes and abilities if you do.

With a dozen nuclear carrier taskforces on the seas, I think it is mighty dangerous to have people with close-to delusional beliefs in positions of power. Moreover, embrace of this belief says something about flexible thinking and ability to adjust to new realities.

Creationism is a belief that goes back several thousand years, at least, and it has suffered no contradictions from testing because it cannot be tested.

Imagine going to a doctor whose knowledge reflected only and exactly what was contained in superstitious writings from 2,500 to 3,500 years ago. I believe it fair to say, if you saw a certificate framed on his office wall indicating just that qualification, you would run screaming from the office.

And just so, Creationism.
Posted by: JOHN CHUCKMAN, TORONTO | September 8th, 2008 at 3:10 pm | Report this comment
Part of the problem is that people (ordinary people) see hyprocrisy in both parties. It boils down to which one is more believable to the masses. McCain, until recently, has had an uninspiring campaign. Obama, while inspiring, has been short on specifics and comes across as arrogant at times.

In the end, when people remind themselves that Government has never actually solved any of the “problems” that both candidates speak of.

So, it boils down to a popularity contest. People then vote with the candidate they most identify with.
Posted by: robert | September 8th, 2008 at 3:23 pm | Report this comment
Men look at Palin and see their mothers. It is visceral. Momma is tough. Momma enforces the budget. Momma has my best interests at heart – always. She will always love and be faithful to me. To redact a phrase by McCain – we are ALL momma’s boys at heart.
Posted by: Edward Holman | September 8th, 2008 at 3:23 pm | Report this comment
“Religion. Unembarrassed flag-waving patriotism. Freedom to succeed or fail through one’s own efforts. Refusal to be pitied, bossed around or talked down to. And all those other laughable redneck notions that made the United States what it is.”

Obama stands for all of the above, the last time I ckecked. Probably you should think about rephrasing your argument.
Posted by: Berliner2 | September 8th, 2008 at 3:25 pm | Report this comment
mikeFL said “Let’s not dismiss voting machine fraud as a possible explanation for perplexing Republican victories.”

Because the Dems lost—of course it must be fraud?
Give me a break.
Tyipical liberal argument. If someone doesn’t agree with the liberal view, then it’s either fraud, racism, or war mongering.

STOOPID
Posted by: stoopid | September 8th, 2008 at 3:28 pm | Report this comment
Hi John,

I totally agree with you. The belief of Palin in creationism is a very good indicator of her ignorance on science and of her radical right views of the world.

Of course, one should be free to believe what better is suitable but the last thing the US needs is an ignorant VP with radical views of the world.
Posted by: Alejandro | September 8th, 2008 at 3:31 pm | Report this comment
“Because the Dems lost—of course it must be fraud?
Give me a break.
Tyipical liberal argument. If someone doesn’t agree with the liberal view, then it’s either fraud, racism, or war mongering.”

True.. If Gore had won his HOME state of Tennessee, he would have won.
If you run for President, and you can’t win your own home state, it’s a pretty sad affair.
Posted by: robert | September 8th, 2008 at 3:33 pm | Report this comment
Congratulations on an excellent and perceptive article on the intelligentsia as I prefer to call them (a term which originated appropriately enough in the old Soviet Union). They exist here in the UK and with, perhaps, the introduction of the BBC, the broad framework of your article could be adapted to a discussion of almost any of the major social problems we face.

The great difference between ‘ordinary people’ in the UK and USA (this is the term our intelligentsia use) is that in the USA they appear both much less deferential and more self-confident. This is as it should be.

Here, the intelligentsia have a large fraction of the population in what can only be described as a state of submission. They control school governing bodies, health service boards etc and, of course, the three major political parties. They know what is best for us!

But there is an opposition. I have just attended the UK Independence Party annual conference. Much more time was devoted to discussion of the attitudes you have described so well than to the immediate problem of EU membership. But, of course, these two matters are not unrelated!
Posted by: P B Jones | September 8th, 2008 at 3:33 pm | Report this comment
I really wish you had waited until after the election to write this article, maybe as an analysis piece on how the Democrats managed to lose another election. I am afraid you have let the cat out of the bag. What you said is absolutely on point. I can only hope that the leftists, in their immeasurably self absorbed minds, will think that you could not possibly be right about this. I am amused every time I hear some Democrat strategist talk about people who do not vote in their own self interest. The concept, that used to be the norm in this country and what distinguished it from every other on earth, was voting in the country’s best interest, even if it did not necessarily agree with your own. After all, wasn’t it JFK who said, “ask not what your country can do for you”? I find it interesting that whenever JFK is quoted at a Democrat gathering, that quote is never mentioned. I grew up on that quote. It was one of the few political ideas that actually stayed with me from my childhood. Well, lets hope that the Democrat’s arrogance will not let them heed your advice. We really can’t take four years from a President with the most liberal voting record in congress.
Posted by: VastRightWingConspirator | September 8th, 2008 at 3:39 pm | Report this comment
If in this article there were a message to the Democrats it can be best paraphrased as this: “Dumb it down.” I believe it is this message that many Dems have a problem “respecting”. This article elucidates a palpable point but I believe the object of the respect the Democrats supposedly lack is actually the notion that American voters are, if not denotatively certainly connotatively, inescapably stupid. Many voters (on both sides of the issues, to be fair) frequently supplant reason with visceral reactions, often fettered with jingoist provocations, and this is the cause of much consternation for many Democrats. It is for this reason that Republicans have turned expressions like “high-minded” or “cerebral” into insults! As if intelligence or rational deliberation of issues belies disgust for the average American voter.

My question is should the Dems “dumb it down”? I see that there is a lack of respect for some people’s lack of rationality, but is this not justifiably so? The disgust derived from this fact, for many Dems, is only exacerbated by the Republican acknowledgment and subsequent manipulation of it. This being the case, would the Dems not denigrate their “high-minded” ideals if they were to attain the same “respect” the Republicans have?

And more to the core of the issue, why is it that so many voters are of the visceral-over-rational mindsest? In almost every other facet of life, from healthcare to automotive work, it is commonly accepted that one should seek and attain the opinion and services of those more intelligent or at least more well-informed than themselves. Why is it a different story in the case of politics? Why is the politician who is rational, deliberative, and “cerebral” looked upon as anathema, but the plain, mediocre, shoot-from-the-hip politician is championed as a hero despite his or her holding of views and positions diatomically opposed to those of the average voter?

If someone can answer that question for me, perhaps my faith in democracy and the American people can be restored.
Posted by: t.e.f., Chicago | September 8th, 2008 at 3:48 pm | Report this comment
Both right and left wingers have contempt for the working class in the US; the Democrats are just more hypocritical in that regard. Interestingly, the left wing has come up with the perfect decoy, a biracial man, to market its version of superior ‘blue-eyed aryanism’, replete with brainwashing of youth at Camp Obama.

The Republicans look less noxious by comparison; that’s why they will win by a landslide.
Posted by: Portia | September 8th, 2008 at 3:52 pm | Report this comment
I find it interesting that Ms. Palin is not experienced enough to be VP, when the Democratic chioce of Geraldine had less with one term as a senator. The Democrats were willing to place a one term senator, who’s experience is her husband was govenor then president. My husband is an electrician, let me wire your house!
Posted by: Nuzicanuz | September 8th, 2008 at 3:53 pm | Report this comment
For many years now, the Democratic Party has claimed to protect the down-trodden masses, but its leadership no longer reflects the base of the party. Harry Truman was probably the last Democrat who exemplified the ideals of the party and who remained true to its founding principles.

Many, like John Kennedy, Hubert Humprey and Lyndon Johnson, tried their best to continue the traditions of the party, but were unable to connect consistently with the masses, as they were not perceived as springing directly from its roots.

The Democratic Party’s current leaders, like Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer and Pat Leahy (to name but a few) are execrable examples of the worst type of extreme partisan politics as exercised in Washington today. Largely lawyers by trade, they heap contempt upon the average American and focus entirely upon legislation that enslaves the masses to dependence upon the federal government for its largesse in social programs.

I am glad to see the Republican Party offer itself as a reasonable alternative that offers Americans the type of self-determination that made the country great.

As a former Democrat, who left the party after the debacle of Jimmy Carter, I am hopeful that many Americans will wake up to reality and reject the Democrats, until they relearn what once made them a great party and offer candidates that reflect that message.
Posted by: Claude | September 8th, 2008 at 3:53 pm | Report this comment
I was an independent but am supporting Obama in this election. I do think you have most of the narratives correct but I do not necessarily see the Republicans as having the best interests of the “poor, working class” in mind either.

Many conservatives speak of supporting the republicans in order to reduce government. Unfortunately, neither party has proven to really reduce government. They may just amend and grow different parts of the government. We can certainly see a lot of government expansion in this Republican administration (esp. today after Fannie and Freddie). So I guess realizing that government will spend money somehow - you choose based on where you want those dollars (social services vs. war etc.).

I think it is disingenuous to think that Republican governments have really reduced the size of government. It just depends on which funding you want to support.

I also think its pretty ridiculous to call Obama an underachiever given the fate of many others on a demographic basis who were born in his circumstances - you must be kidding! The statistics would not favor him.

I understand the appeal of Palin to the working class - just like one of us. Unfortunately, I think she is very mediocre as far as intellectual curiosity (evidence her hands-off governor style which was not involved in actually creating legislature (perhaps she didn’t care for the details), her anti-science views on creationism and the environment (ok it could be b/c there is no proof but i’m more likely to believe it is more in-line with her lack of interest in research/details). So I think it is great she was mayor of Wasilla (with the 600+ votes which she needed to be elected in the first term) but my understanding is she is popular b/c that is her aim. Unfortunately, I think popularity is the name of the game too often with elections and without lifting the cover - many use that.

A friend put it best - Mediocre people need to represented too, but not by mediocre leaders. In the same way, I wish for our supreme court judges to be intellectually above-average - I hope that our presidents can also be such.

I do believe people work with images and ideas, as well as emotions. That is what the Republicans are playing on (no surprise) with Palin. I was speaking to a friend who works in advertising about this whole campaign and it is like one of the perfect pitches they use. He uses this every day.

At the end of the day, this race still isn’t over and things change on a daily basis. Let’s watch how this goes - a lot of unexpecteds have occurred this year. It’s not over till the fat lady sings.
Posted by: Nathalie | September 8th, 2008 at 3:53 pm | Report this comment
I found your article on liberals learning respect very interesting. As a 63 year old woman who grew up on a farm and was the first in her family to go to college, I have been a self-proclaimed liberal since 1959! I find your analysis simplistic and shallow. But then maybe I’m just being elitist. The fact is that many of the people you lump together simply believe what they are told and don’t bother to dig for the truth.
Posted by: lionlady | September 8th, 2008 at 3:54 pm | Report this comment
Very good article. I suspect the same about the media.

I also worry that the media’s embrace of Obama is preventing enough scrutiny of him and this is actually doing Obama a disservice. He undoubtedly is more than what is being reported but he appears as a “empty suit”. They say how great he is but generally can’t offer other than he is better than McCain who is a W clone.

If they dig deeper, they might find some warts but, they will also find good things and be able to accurately portray Obama.

Another thing I am sure about is that Obama and some of his staff must cringe at the behavior of the media. They know that Obama is a worthy candidate and to see his opponents being martyred for no reason or bad reasons must be frustrating.
Posted by: PDW, New Jersey | September 8th, 2008 at 4:06 pm | Report this comment
By jove, I think he’s got it!

Clive, thanks for your revealing analysis. I’ve voted for more Democrats over the years than Republicans, even voting for the incredibly inept Jimmy Carter. Those castigating GWB as the worst President in history never lived through the silliness of Carter’s four years and its terrible consequences in the middle east, especially Iran. And do you recall his energy policy? A sweater in the oval office…

But here is the Democrat’s dilemma at a national level. Their base is a coalition, often with widely disparate values and ideals that they must continually pander too. The base consists of gays, blacks, Hispanics, Catholics, union workers and unmarried women. The black Obama vs. the white Hillary is a perfect example of the complexity of appealing to this base. These groups are often at odds with each others values so Democrat’s come off as elusive, evasive or nuanced. Thus, claims on moral supremacy quickly fade when they are caught pandering first to one side, then the other. Another quick example, in the Kerry-Bush final debate, Kerry was asked a question on abortion by a twenty something female and he literally babbled trying to come up with some sort of coherent answer. And if not after two years campaigning, when?

Ironically, there are some fine Democrats in my home state of Illinois. Lisa Madigan, our Attorney General is tops in my book. However, Obama isn’t one of them. I’m voting McCain because he has been consistently independent and Palin has that streak as well.

Anyway, Hillary was right, it is time for a woman in America.
Posted by: IndependentGuy | September 8th, 2008 at 4:12 pm | Report this comment
Isn’t “respect,” a two way street? Did Mr.Crook miss the part of the Republican convention that showed a derisive Rudi Giuliani leading the equally derisive Republican delegates in laughter over the words, “community organizer”? Later in her “amazing,” acceptance speech Governor Palin continued the attack on community workers with demeaning comments for anyone that would lower themselves to such demeaning work. Of course to confuse everyone John McCain steps up to the plate and encourages everyone to take part in helping wherever they can in their communities. I agree that respect is too often missing in political campaigns and every day life. But disrespect is a problem for both political parties not just the Democrats.
Posted by: Will P | September 8th, 2008 at 4:19 pm | Report this comment
Thank you for the best analysis I’ve read since Gov. Palin was picked. Refreshing that there is logical analysis available without the emotional, hyperactive outbursts in so many other articles.
Posted by: Robert | September 8th, 2008 at 4:19 pm | Report this comment
Since I agree with it, this is a fair minded argument. However, you understate the ramifications of this liberal democrat mind-set. It not only damaged the party’s credibility, it diminishes its ability to even make its case. It has also caused a number of the party’s one-time supporters, including myself, to question its positions. After working on the McGovern campaign and a number of liberal senatorial campaings, I began to notice that “my side” was no longer making rational arguments for its positions. Instead, my friends and collegues were relying on condescension and bullying. That lead me to look more closely at the argument coming from the other side and I don’t think that I’m alone in this. I’m now an independant, but lean toward the conservative side. This isn’t to say that conservatives are universally admirable, just that there are many more conservatives making rational cases for their positions than liberals. What I find amazing is that I can still make stronger arguments for liberal policies than most liberals I see, read or meet.
Posted by: SeekingRationalThought | September 8th, 2008 at 4:20 pm | Report this comment
There are two kinds of liberalism. A liberalism which is always, subterraneously authoritative and paternalistic, on the side of one’s good conscience. And then there is a liberalism which is more ethical than political; one would have to find another name for this. Something like a profound suspension of judgment. - Roland Barthes (1915–80), French semiologist. Interview with Bernard-Henri Lévy, in Art and Text, no. 8 (1977; repr. in Discourses: Conversations in Postmodern Art and Culture, ed. by Russell Ferguson, et al., 1990).
Posted by: Edward Holman | September 8th, 2008 at 4:21 pm | Report this comment
Excellent Analysis. Not because you are beating up on Democrats, but that you have taken this moment in political time and completely disected for what it is.

The fact is both parties are corrupted. Both parties feel alienated when they are not presented the way the feel is fair. And the media plays sides mostly not by desire, but due to the journalists general political viewpoint. And most journalists have democratics positions.

The difference is the Republicans understand this and the Democrats won’t accept this. Therefore the democrats will continue to flounder an election handed to them on a silver platter.

Maybe it is time to create a true thrid party that will replace the democrats so that we have proper representation
Posted by: John M | September 8th, 2008 at 4:23 pm | Report this comment
As a pro-choice atheist female lawyer, I ought to be in the bag for Obama. But the contempt that Democrats have for my neighbors and clients is not limited to how they talk. It is best demonstrated by how they govern.

Look to the strongholds of Democratic governance, Washington DC, Chicago, New Orleans, Detroit, San Francisco, and you see a cesspool of corruption, incompetence, high taxes, low services, and outright lunacy. Even Democrats occasionally get so fed up with it they’ll elect a Romney or a Guliani to try to clean it up. Not that they’ll shake loose of their statist ideals or self-righteous superiority for a minute, of course.

I’ll take my chances on Roe v. Wade someday being overturned. It ought to be. It’s lousy legal reasoning. Somewhere between 48 and 50 states would legalize abortion anyway.

I won’t be swayed by the fear-mongering against Christian fundamentalists. I’ve found nothing but tolerance and willingness to engage in polite discussion at Republican precinct caucuses for my pro-choice views and atheism, compared to nothing but vitriol and glib, empty talking points in liberal circles for my Republicanism.

The fact is, back in my youth when I was a Democrat of the Obama stripe, I DID have contempt for ordinary people. It was getting out in the real world and questioning that judgment that turned me away from big government solutions and toward the Republican Party, for all its own failings in that area.
Posted by: AnnJo | September 8th, 2008 at 4:30 pm | Report this comment
Hmm. Very perceptive. I see many of your commenters are unable to accept the point, but it’s true. The Democrats’ Groupthink has had them supporting mythical “everymen”, while the people who really toil in the middle have different ideas.

I don’t think it will change anytime soon. And thanks for recognizing a couple of the things that make America tick.
Posted by: Sam_S | September 8th, 2008 at 4:34 pm | Report this comment
Another nasty personal behavior of Palin’s was dragging the boy - the one who fathered her daughter’s coming baby - to the convention.

I don’t care in the least about her daughter’s pregnancy. It’s certainly not an a campaign issue, although it nicely and humorously shows up the hypocrisy of Palin’s beliefs.

But dragging the boy - cleaned up and dumped in a new suit and introduced to everyone as her daughter’s “fiance” clearly displays a highly controlling and manipulative temperament.

The boy’s Internet site - now taken down - clearly showed what his own views were. No babies, pride in being a redneck, and packed with obscene and threatening language.

Truly nasty stuff.

But there he was, all polished up as though he were Jimmy Stewart dating Donna Reed.

Can you imagine the pressure brought to bear here? By the governor of his state? And he was even introduced to McCain.

That’s not my idea of acceptable behavior by a politician.
Posted by: JOHN CHUCKMAN, TORONTO | September 8th, 2008 at 4:36 pm | Report this comment
Dear Clive,

Please read John Chuckman’s post. Perhaps you could write your next article on the Canadian’s elitist view of America and why most American’s could care less what a Canadian thinks about our country or election.

Same song, different verse…
Posted by: IndependentGuy | September 8th, 2008 at 4:49 pm | Report this comment
In order to gain power, and feign concern, liberals offer the “downtrodden and oppressed” the fruits of other peoples labors. This contempt for property rights will prove to be much more oppressive than conservatives’ passion for the constitution as written. Liberals’ willingness to reduce the constitution to just a litany of pretty good ideas, coupled with the influx of third world culture, and mixed with an eclectorate educated by the liberal school system wiil inexorably move our country “left.” Sooner or later the cynical “leaders” will buy their way to power, and the gullible, well intended, followers will see that liberalism isn’t so liberating at all.
Posted by: John Reagan | September 8th, 2008 at 4:56 pm | Report this comment
As McCain closes the gap in the polls and Obama falls 10 points this week on Intrade prediction markets thanks to the Dems going beserk and slandering Sarah Palin, the party boasts a new slogan:

We have met the enemy and they are us.
Posted by: Mary Cunningham | September 8th, 2008 at 5:05 pm | Report this comment
Reading most of the above comments, I feel as if I were in Alice in Wonderland. The Republicans are the party of big oil, of the investment banks and hedge funds that have almost destroyed our financial system, of Halliburton and Blackwater and other war profiteers that have made a killing on the Iraq war, of Countrywide and the other predatory lenders that are mainly responsible for more than a million subprime foreclosures (and counting), and of the K street lobbyists (when Tom Delay was Speaker of the House before his criminal indictment, his motto was that no Democrats need apply for jobs on K Street).

The Republicans are the party of Jack Abramoff, of Sarah Palin’s friend Ted Stevens and his Bridge to Nowhere (which she was for before she was against it), of an Iraq war based on cynical lies, of Guantanamo and of Abu Ghraib. They are the party of huge tax cuts for the wealthy and no tax relief at all for the middle class, the party of no health insurance for 47 million people, and the party in favor of abolishing the estate tax for the wealthiest while neglecting the Katrina victims (though they did at least prepare for Gustav).

Sure, the Democrats are far from perfect. But elitist? The party of the privileged? The Republicans on the side of ordinary people? What kind of absurd, delusional fantasies are we seeing on this blog?
Posted by: algasema | September 8th, 2008 at 5:12 pm | Report this comment
Good article. But it is difficult to understand for people like Sarah Palin’s who are so anti-science. She seemed like an intelligent person until it was revealed that she is a religous extremist. She is against embryonic stem cell research, believes creationism should be taught is public schools as science, takes the Bible literally ( which means that she also believes the earth is only 6000 years old, in talking snakes, that women came from men’s ribs, demons, anti-christ, etc )!!! Are you suggesting that Democrats encourage and pander to superstition and ignorance to get votes like the Republicans do?
Posted by: ScienceMan | September 8th, 2008 at 5:13 pm | Report this comment
Dear Mr Crook:

There two primary (and many secondary) reasons why I take issue with your accusation that Democrats are condescending of the Republican party and in particular the two candidates for president and vice-president respectively.

1. If John McCain had picked any one of the other Republican presidential nominees, or any other qualified Republican woman (and there are many) as his VP running mate, you would not have written the column. His deliberate choice of a VP for the sole purpose of winning his candidacy is insulting to many Americans.

2. You accuse Democrats of looking down on a party that is blatantly lying to this nation about their own policies and records, as well as those of the Democrat candidates, debasing their characters and constantly flooding the media with inflammatory and rabble-rousing talk, frequently overtly racist. Possibly the Democrats, especially those you have not quoted in your article, are outraged and insulted rather than condescending of a party that has had Bush and Cheney at the helm for eight years and foresee more of the same, or worse, for next four to sixteen years.

If the rest of the world has so little respect for President Bush and his party, is there not a bit of irony and condescension in the last line of your column (”And all those other laughable redneck notions that made the United States what it is.” ) that you suggest at least half the people of this country learn some respect.

Barbara
Atlanta, Georgia
Posted by: Barbara Cohen | September 8th, 2008 at 5:19 pm | Report this comment
Scienceman - Obama says he is a Christian. By any traditional definition of that term, this means he believes that Jesus was the son of God, born of a virgin, with the power to walk on water, convert water to wine, raise the dead and multiply the loaves and fishes, and that he was himself resurrected after death. Is Obama “pandering to superstition and ignorance” when he constantly asserts his Christian faith?

No religious beliefs are scientific. That’s pretty much the definition of a religious belief - that it is sustained by faith in the absence of proof and even in contradiction to science. Science explains nature; religion is the province of the supernatural. To a non-believer like me, religious beliefs are all pretty bizarre, but I apparently give the word “tolerance” a more expansive meaning than you would.

Our Constitution wisely says there is to be no religious test for public office. Ms. Palin may be in favor of the teaching of creationism along with evolution, but she’s also on the ticket of a man who believes in school choice, a more than ample protection against the hijacking of a student’s education.

The constant attacks by Obama supporters on Republicans as religious nuts are as bigoted and irrational as those Obama opponents who persist in referring to him by his middle name. I wish you would all just knock it off.
Posted by: AnnJo | September 8th, 2008 at 5:33 pm | Report this comment
One of the very best analysis of the reaction to Mrs. Palin’s nomination especially from the TV and newspaper media. I have been reading more and more UK news sources (because I am beginning to believe that “the journalism is dead in America”) and keep coming across intelligent articles like this one. Thanks for a great work.
Posted by: Vinay Agarwal | September 8th, 2008 at 5:36 pm | Report this comment
Does anyone really think that the millionaire President’s son who ran for office as a good ole Texan boy, but who governed single-mindedly in the interests of the fellow multi-millionaires he called “my base” was showing more respect to the working class?

The Obama campaign has shown respect so far; Unfortunately, Palin chose to respond with withering sarcasm about “community organisers” that showed a total lack of respect for working communities that have been struck by job losses.

Conservatives have held the White House for 28 out of the last 40 years, while Clinton was a centrist who cut social programmes and replaced so-called “largesse” with welfare to work.

Conservatives even held congress for a decade and a half until a couple of years ago.

And yet they would have people believe that the US’s problems stem from the “liberal elite”. How much respect is that really showing anyone?

Conservative rhetoric shows no respect to women who wish to control their own bodies, to people who want to be free to express their sexuality, to people from minorities who still struggle to exercise their right to vote, let alone rise out of poverty.

Obama’s policies and messages are moderate, centrist and unifying, and if he can inspire some people to vote who normally do not, maybe we’ll see some positive change.
Posted by: David | September 8th, 2008 at 5:37 pm | Report this comment
Can’t improve on the comment by “Cynical Observer” above.

I will point out this… If you read many (most?) of the comments that have been posted here by Democrat partisans, they only serve to validate the points that were made in Clive Crook’s column! Amazing.
Posted by: Bruno | September 8th, 2008 at 5:43 pm | Report this comment
An excellent article. Despite being of a Republican persuasion, and therefore in the short term happy to see Democrats shoot themselves in the foot, I recognize that in the end this delusional Democrat approach is bad for democracy. Their veneer of elitism and “I know best and look down on your point of view” does diminish the level of debate and it enables Republicans to hide behind Democrat failings.

Far better in the longer run would be to have two parties dealing in realism and focusing on real problem solving. Will we ever get there?
Posted by: Colin | September 8th, 2008 at 5:45 pm | Report this comment
Spot on.

I say it as an original “European Liberal” who’d learned English—or what I think is English—in part by reading the New York Times. The first few years after coming to the US it was my morning ritual: walk to my favorite Boulder cafe, get the paper and coffee, read as much as I could and sometimes try to converse with other readers before it was time to go to work.

21 years later and a proud American citizen I no longer read the Times and other “liberal” publications as I once did. I just check them out from time to time to make sure they are still what I ultimately found them to be. I could not describe better than Clive Crook—and I mean it literally—what I came to think of the American liberal establishment and its political party but I will try to highlight the personal angle because the success of political movements is not decided by some anonymous voter blocks but by individual decisions.

I must not be very bright because it took me quite a few years to figure out what brought me to America—-the incredible pull that I started feeling when I came here for the first time in 1987. It did not make any sense and I had no reason to uproot myself again after fleeing Communism for western Germany five years earlier. Life had been good to me there and I did not really want to start again but I did. Today I know exactly why I am here. I am at home among the free, God-worshipping, gun-owning, pathetic small-town rubes that Mr. Crook describes and I feel strangely alienated from my own cosmopolitan past.

In my early Times-reading years I kept trying to explain to my liberal American friends and acquaintances what I admire about America and its people despite the contradictions, idiosyncrasies and outright idiocy that are always part of it. I was trying hard and I wish I could report that I succeeded but it was not so. Their contempt for America as I understood it was palpable. Every now and then I connected with a stranger who had similar reservations and I sometimes wonder what happened to the few on their own political journeys. From the rest of the liberals I’ve experienced arrogance, condescension and sometimes hatred so many times that it became a reflex for me to expect it. It was as if I was a traitor to their cause because as a European I was supposed to think like them and reject America as it is. These days I try to avoid political discussions with liberals unless I get provoked which happens enough times because of my reckless temperament and where I live.

The arguments are rarely of any use. Mr. Crook is spot on but I don’t believe that the liberal establishment can easily change—it hasn’t in 20 years. I happen to reject most of their policy prescriptions but I don’t think that their fundamental flaw is political because there is nothing political about pride, hubris and arrogance. Those are personal traits and probably the hardest for every human being to deal with. One only needs to read some of the comments below this column to see how hard it is. It is an American tragedy, too. The country needs a functioning, pro-American Democratic Party but I don’t believe it can get it any time soon. How could it if so many of its supporters believe that everyone who is not like them is an idiot?
Posted by: boulderfield | September 8th, 2008 at 6:01 pm | Report this comment
“Dear Clive, Please read John Chuckman’s post. Perhaps you could write your next article on the Canadian’s elitist view of America and why most American’s could care less what a Canadian thinks about our country or election.”

Well, even on its own terms, it doesn’t get more confused and muddled than that.

A column should be written, but on a subject Americans do not care about? Very sensible suggestion indeed.

And this confused writer appeals to a Brit to tell readers about Americans not caring about the views of Canadians?

And why should it matter from what country views come from? The views either have validity or not.

Putting it into that prejudiced, nationalistic context is revealing and one of the qualities which unavoidably make many Americans look so parochial and unpleasant abroad.

And indeed makes them so unfit to be leaders in world affairs.

I would be glad never to say another word about American politics were it the case that they did not so influence, and often hurt, the rest of the planet.

America is running a de facto aristocracy in which something like one or two percent of the planet’s population - the rough percent to world population of Americans who vote - sets the rules and policies for everyone else.

So your government matters to others because its blundering and viciousness affect so many others, of course never raising so much as a fleeting thought from Americans of this writer’s capacities.

Elitist view of America? Seems to me the only elitist views around are those who defend America’s de facto aristocracy and right to do as it damn well pleases.
Posted by: JOHN CHUCKMAN, TORONTO | September 8th, 2008 at 6:02 pm | Report this comment
I for one do not like the idea that I must be taken care of, which is the message Obama keeps saying over and over again. Why do people need affirmative action and programs like that to succeed in life. That’s like telling your children, I know you want a new Xbox or whatever and you don’t have time to work for it because it’s to hard, but don’t worry about it son I’ll give you the money you just go ahead and keep on playing. Most equal opportunity and affirmative action programs seem to tell the poeple you’re just to dumb to do it on your own so we’re going to make it so you don’t even have to try. Vote for us and we will take all hardship off of you. What a message. Some of the wealthiest people in the world start out with nothing a lot of them don’t even finish school. Aliens come to this country and can’t even read, write or speak the language and make a good life for themselves. I grant you that some people need help, but don’t treat them like they need the help becassue they are so dumb they just can’t make it on thier own.
Posted by: Frank | September 8th, 2008 at 6:05 pm | Report this comment
David, Conservatives have actually held the White House for ONLY 8 of the last 40 years, and not since 1988.

Barbara, of course he chose Palin in order to win the election. Duh!

Algasema, I see that you are off your medication again.
Posted by: jack carlson | September 8th, 2008 at 6:28 pm | Report this comment
“Democrats speak up for the less prosperous;”

Not completely true. They speak for the less prosperous who want someone else to make them more prosperous. The Republicans speak for anyone (including the less prosperous) who want to be able improve their own lot.

“they have well-intentioned policies to help them;”

Well intentioned, but proven time and again to actually hurt those it’s meant to help.

“they are disturbed by inequality, and want to do something about it.”

Inequality of circumstance, not opportunity. This means wealth redistribution to those who haven’t earned it from those that have earned it. From those who manage risk well to those who do not. The Republicans historically are very concerned with with creating an environment where even the poor can improve their own lot in life by their own efforts. The policies of Democrats tend to strangle the efforts of poor people wanting to be entreprenurial.

“Their concern is real and admirable.”

This is true. But the solutions they propose won’t work, and will just make things worse.

“The trouble is, they lack respect for the objects of their solicitude. Their sympathy comes mixed with disdain, and even contempt.”

Bingo. They are paternal in the worst possible way. This is what’s meant by “elitism”. They look down at the populace as someone they need to take care of, who can’t make their own decisions or improve their own lot in life. And there are a lot of “bleating sheep” in their core constituency telling them they are right. This election isn’t even close to being over with yet, and the Republicans have a huge problem to overcome in a very unpopular sitting president. Yet we are now seeing polls that McCain/Palin has pulled into a slight lead. Even if Obama wins (and there would be *some* good in that), there is no “mandate” here, other than “don’t be like George W. Bush”.

It’s time for the Democrats (including their base) to realize that America doesn’t want what they are selling. They need to refocus all their well intentioned good will and resources into actually *helping* those people through community and non-profit organizations. Take the money they are willing to pay in increased taxes and give it to charities (like the Republicans do) instead of hoping that the federal government will relieve them of the civic duty to help their neighbor. They’ll see things actually *work*, and it will be better for everyone.

Regarding the media’s bias…. Have you noticed that they are starting to refer to McCain as “the incumbent”? Case closed.
Posted by: Rob (California) | September 8th, 2008 at 6:32 pm | Report this comment
Republican or Democrat; come November; all this whole madness will be subdued, done with; whatever you can call it.

America as a country in much more than just four years, who is in office?

After everyone has voted. Reality will set in forth. And that is when deep down all this nonsense written above will either be justified or validated.

BEWARE WHAT YOU WISH FOR? this world has completely changed and its demands are way much sophiscated;
Posted by: Steven | September 8th, 2008 at 6:34 pm | Report this comment
Frank,

Social mobility has been going down. Fewer people make it out of poverty than used to. And this has been happening while conservatives were in charge, not liberals.

What’s wrong with spending money on education to allow people to make the best of themselves and keep America successful?

But I am not sure which democrats Mr Crook is talking about here - he only quotes Bill Maher, a commedian, not a politician.

That the media is arrogant will come as no surprise to anyone - I think their viciousness was less to do with liberal bias, but because they had been wrong footed, they had no real information on Mrs Palin that they could then share with their viewers, and because they have grown to assume that it is they, and not voters who decide elections.

In contrast, as Mr Crook points out, Mr Obama has been more respectful than his opponents. It is he who is reaching out with a unifying message. He has worked his way up from modest beginnings, seen hardship at first hand and wants to do something about it.

I hope people will judge him on his own terms, not those of his supporters, and give him the chance to do so.
Posted by: Dave | September 8th, 2008 at 6:37 pm | Report this comment
America is a highly urbanized country, and the world Clive Crook describes is a Norman Rockwell picture of small-town America that does not really exist anymore. Moreover, what Clive Crook fails to mention is that the reverse of the coin of these allegedly God-fearing, patriotic and self-reliant common folks is the underlying racism, which is what ultimately the Republicans aim at exploiting. Sarah Palin–a white pit-bull hockey Mom from a lily-white suburb– is the ultimate expression of this latent racism and Barack Obam is its ultimate target.

It is the Republicans which should learn some respect for the poor, for working women and for the people in the inner cities and the rust-belt. They have nothing but contempt for the majority of the American people. The Republicans are on the wrong side of history and demography, and they are condemned to be the party of the past–just look at the sea of white, self-satisfied middle aged men at their convention. That is why they chosen a close-minded septuagenerian and a untested, underqualified, very white and extremist woman to represent them.
Posted by: Karim Pakravan | September 8th, 2008 at 6:39 pm | Report this comment
Jack Carlson,

In your view, Nixon and the Bushes weren’t conservatives?

Care to elaborate?
Posted by: David | September 8th, 2008 at 6:42 pm | Report this comment
Excellent column. I always find it interesting that people like Bill Maher will say that poor people are stupid if they vote for a Republican, since Democrats are going to help them more financially — and then rich Hollywood people vote Democrat, even though it’s in their financial interest to vote Republican. I never hear Bill Maher say that those rich people like himself are stupid. Nope, they get it.

Democrats need to understand that a few hundred dollars is not everything. This country was founded on certain principles (hard work, entreprenurial spirit, dedication, liberty, freedom, etc.) and even if a Democrat is going to give me a few hundred more dollars, it’s not worth giving up my ability to fend more myself. Thanks but no thanks — I don’t want the handout.

Clive, you did a great job illustrating this whole mindset in this piece. Many of the comments on here illustrate your point for you. Message to Democrats: show respect for my opinions and points of view (even if you disagree with them) and maybe you can win me over; treat me like I’m an idiot for not believing everything you say, and rest assured there’s no way I’ll vote for you.
Posted by: David | September 8th, 2008 at 6:47 pm | Report this comment
Andrea Mitchell saying that only uneducated female voters would vote for Palin is yet another example of this mindset. Nice job, Andrea!
Posted by: David | September 8th, 2008 at 6:50 pm | Report this comment
This is ideology, stupid. The neo-Marxist ideology elaborated by Antonio Gramshi. It’s basic tenet is that unwashed masses lack “true” class consciousness, and this is the task of progressive intelligentia to instill it to them instead of their “false” class consciousness. For the masses themselves, such attitude is insulting condescension, of course, but progressives can not change their attitude anymore than a leopard can change its spots.
Posted by: Sergey | September 8th, 2008 at 6:50 pm | Report this comment
David, I apologize. Yes, Nixon was a conservative, so add 6 years to that. Conservatives have held the WH for 14 of the last 40 years. Ford was really not conservative, the Bushes were and are most certainly NOT conservative!
Posted by: jack carlson | September 8th, 2008 at 6:58 pm | Report this comment
Neither party is right or wrong in their thinking. Both want to be in power and both have many faults.

The problem with Dems is they play nice (classy) elections, while the Repubs (led by Rove etc.) play dirty. Just like a clean athlete who runs against a competitor using enhancements, the clean athelet has an uphill battle. The Roves of the world have decided to pull on the emotions and the Dems are trying to speak adult to adult (contrary to looking down) this election period.

Ultimately, I believe both sides have crooked people and “anything to win” is what would work (aka Rove-style). Again, as an independent - I think this article is letting the Republicans off the hook a bit easy.
Posted by: Nathalie | September 8th, 2008 at 7:01 pm | Report this comment
“The problem with Dems is they play nice (classy) elections” such as Barack Obama and David Axelrod unsealing the divorce records of Obama’s senatorial election rivals Blair Hull and Jack Ryan, I suppose.

Obama would still be a community organizer if he practiced clean politics.

JBP
Posted by: John Powers | September 8th, 2008 at 7:12 pm |

ft.com/crookblog

Column: Democrats must learn some respect

September 8, 2008

139 Responses to “Column: Democrats must learn some respect”

Comments