Paul and Jason are in fine form over at MinnPost Discourse Keeps Sinking Lower. They are saying all kinds of nasty things about the GOP and its supporters. I called them on excessive stereotyping and it is making for an interesting disagreement.
Now I agree that people on both the far Right and far Left seem to live to stereotype the people on the opposite pole. The thing is that I thought the folks on the far Left were supposed to be above discrimination, prejudice, etc. Yet Rush has nothing on these 2 when they get going. Thoughts?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
32 comments:
This seems somewhat related.
MSN Voter Anger Fuels Outside Candidates
The thing is that I thought the folks on the far Left were supposed to be above discrimination, prejudice, etc.
That's sort of saying you are above sin. Just because liberals, and yes, even the rare conservative, say they disapprove of something doesn't mean they don't occasionally do it.
There were two articles that caught my attention recently on the retirement of Jon Stewart, one in the New York Times, one in the Wall Street Journal:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/09/opinion/sunday/jon-stewart-patron-saint-of-liberal-smugness.html
http://www.wsj.com/articles/jon-stewart-avatar-of-progressive-culture-1438903270
They both made the same point about liberal smugness. They both mentioned the John Yoo interview, the one of all the interviews Stewart conducted looms large in the conservative world view. Among my many thoughts about these two pieces was that first they recited the same talking points, and secondly, the problems they described were not so much problems of liberals or conservative as they were activists generally. And by the way, if you look at the Yoo interview, it doesn't have the problems either writer describes. Stewart was respectdul as he just about always was. He was struggling with what Yoo is saying, but that has more to do with how Yoo couched his argument. If anyone was smug in the interview it was Yoo, who had no doubt engaged and won this argument a million times before, but since when did smugness ever mean you were wrong? Or right?
--Hiram
NYT Stewart
WSJ Stewart
"That's sort of saying you are above sin."
I think it has more to do with self deception and rationalization. Meaning I don't think Paul and Jason can even acknowledge that they are doing it so blatantly. Or they have done it so long that GOP supporters are less than human in their mind now, therefore it is okay and "not sinful" to stereotype, pre-judge, villify, attack, etc those evil Conservatives. In fact in their mind they are likely the virtuous heroes in doing so.
The far Right Conservatives likely feel the same way when stereotyping and trying to "help" people on welfare or those trap in poverty.
Everyone engages in stereotyping at some level. We're human. We can sit here all day and list examples of where I've stereotyped, or you've stereotyped, or those other people that we don't like have stereotyped. What's the point of haggling over it? Let's talk about something that has some meat on its bones instead of bickering about if you've been wronged by the non-virtuous liberals of the MinnPost comments.
I think it has more to do with self deception and rationalization.
Oh sure, there is a lot of self deception and rationalization that goes on. I just don't think those are specifically liberal, or for that matter specifically conservative qualities. Often they have to do with the role people are playing. Watch any talking head program on cable tv, and the atmosphere is so think with that stuff, you can cut it with a knife.
I do think we need to get away from this notion that those who disagree with us are less than human or evil. But there are are problems here. If you have a certain opinion, doesn't that imply that you believe your opinion is right? That it is superior to other opinions? Conservatives complain that liberals feel superior to them, but doesn't this have a lot less to do with liberalism as such and a lot more to do with what it means to hold an opinion?
--Hiram
Sean,
I don't feel wronged by Paul, Jason, etc, I just find their comments and perspectives fascinating.
They often say that they and the Democrats are the open party who accepts all comers. However when anyone disagrees with them they fall back on stereotypes, attacks and villification.
"What Trump is showing us is how completely dysfunctional the Republican party has become. The truth is NONE of these candidates makes sense, and the fact that this party can't figure out what to do with Trump is simply the triumph of stupidity. You can't attack evidence, and reason, and intellectuals for decades without devolving into stupid." Paul
"that's an accurate description of what their party has become. Mean spirited, paranoid, insular and completely terrified of cultural change." Jason
I guess I comment that the Democrats rely on buying votes with other people's money, however I don't see the point of attacking their knowledge, intent, morals, etc.
You stereotype all the time -- Democrats, poor people, teachers unions, on and on and on and on. There's nothing fundamentally more stereotypical or mean-spirited about what they say versus what you say.
Hiram,
There are different ways to see people who have different views than yourself. And that lens is chosen by us.
WOBI HAW or HAP
Good Reads AOP Quotes
Voice of Encouragement AOP
AOP Diagram
Sean,
We will need to agree to disagree.
I don't think I have ever called those folks stupid, mean spirited, paranoid, devolving into stupid, etc.
I have often said that Democratic policy is to draw voters through wealth transfer and government control. (ie buy votes)
I say that some percentage of the poor are not making good choices or are fraudulently claiming benefits. And that the current welfare policies encourage the wrong behaviors in many cases.
And I whole heartedly believe that Union policies put the Teacher's wants before the needs of the unlucky children and the tax payers, I don't say that those people are selfish, stupid or evil. They are just seeking security and income in their later years.
Remember my number one rule: Always assume good intent.
Your comments don't frequently come off as if you are assuming "good intent", even in the above post. Accusing parties of "buying votes" is not assuming good intent.
I can understand how you would get that perception.
I don't think "Buying Votes" is necessary good or bad. I mean the GOP does it with Tax Cuts. The question is do I think the DFL or GOP have bad intent while doing these acts.
Are they trying to do it for personal gain or to help the country succeed? Personally I think they both do their thing with the best of intentions.
Unfortunately we know where that sometimes leads.
Lots of people disagree with me. And I try not to come off as superior or smug but those are matters of perception only partly under control.
Speaking for myself, I have been rather routinely called things like stupid, uniformed, information impaired, mentally ill. Just this morning a guy on the TV informed me that people who held my opinions are evil. I usually brush this sort of stuff off. Those are all opinions, after all, and Americans have a right to them.
--Hiram
I guess my point is that most people I know want to have their views and opinions respected and listened to. I am assuming that the "guy on the TV" did not do very well at appealing to the normal rational listener by saying "Hiram and his peer's views are evil"...
And I don't think Jason and Paul do very well at convincing people through their exagerating, villifying, insulting, accusing, etc. At least no better than the foolish person who labelled your ilk evil.
From another topic:
"What do you think the Republicans offer the typical Hispanic?
I understand why the industrious Hispanics who want to work hard and open a business. Like the guy in the link."
John, do you not see how your language is full of attitude about certain 'types' of people?
Joel
I guess my point is that most people I know want to have their views and opinions respected and listened to.
I don't worry that much about the reaction to my views. Certainly people are within their rights not to respect what I say and not to listen to it.
The guy on TV certainly had reasons for his views. They are views I listen to and respect, they just don't happen to be mine. Neither do I think either he or his views are evil. He is in fact quite a nice guy.
--Hiram
Joel,
I am sorry, but the Democrats want to tax successful / wealthy people and businesses at higher rates. They would then use this money to pay for government services, welfare, etc that are aimed to help people who are not successful.
Do you agree with the above summary?
The Republicans on the other hand want to reward people and companies by ensuring that they do not pay higher tax rates just because they made the right decisions, worked hard, saved, invested and were/are successful.
Do you agree with the above summary?
Joel,
Do you think all Hispanics are the same? Or all White people?
Do you believe that everyone makes equally good and responsible decisions? That everyone has the same ambition, self discipline, creativity, willingness to take risk, etc?
Do you think people should pay a higher tax rate because they stayed married, went to school, had 2 kids, worked hard, became professionals, saved, invested, etc?
All so that a couple that seperated, dropped out, spent, etc should pay less in taxes and get more in benefits/credits?
I have no hard feelings towards either of these people, however I am going to point out the differences and the consequences of life choices.
"your language is full of attitude about certain 'types' of people"
One more quick thought. Are these "types" of people or are they behaviors and choices:?
- responsible and self disciplined
- laid back and free flowing
- ambitious and hard working
- indifferent and free loading
- etc
"...just because they made the right decisions, worked hard, saved, invested and were/are successful."
Language that's loaded with judgment about the people who are not as lucky as you...without any regard for the systems that keep poor people down and give more to those who already have more than any human could possibly need.
Joel
And just who will be the arbiter of what a good decision is, what hard work is?
You? You're woefully out of touch with the plight of the less fortunate.
Joel
I just find it funny that your four-post response yesterday afternoon requested that we accept your stereotypes -- that we neatly fold up Democrats into two sentences written to be unflattering, and we neatly fold up Republicans into one sentence written to be flattering. It's the same boxes you try to cram every topic on this blog into. I can only imagine how frustrating it is for you that some of us refuse to do so.
Joel and Sean,
For the sake of this discussion, good choices and legal actions would be limited to those that help an individual to become or stay financially stable or well to do. No one needs to judge them because wealth or lack of wealth is the natural consequence. (ie married, educated, 2 kids, disciplined, save, invest, etc = money.... single/divorced, uneducated, 2 kids, undisciplined, spend, etc = no money) There is no judgement here, just behaviors and consequences.
And yes I understand that some people came from worse/better backgrounds. And I understand that this can make it harder /easier to make the right decisions and take the right actions. Or a family can be hit by an "act of God" that wrecks their finances. In other words, luck and the system can be a factor. But to say that all poor folk deserve the same charity from the successful people in society just because they are poor is also stereotyping.
Now please explain where this very simplistic definition of the 2 platforms go awry.
Democrats want to tax successful / wealthy people and businesses at higher rates. They would then use this money to pay for government services, welfare, etc that are aimed to help people who are not successful. (ie progressive taxes)
Republicans on the other hand want to reward people and companies by ensuring that they do not pay higher tax rates just because they made the right decisions, worked hard, saved, invested and were/are successful. (flat taxes)
Democrats want to tax successful / wealthy people and businesses at higher rates.
Let's bear in mind that we tax wealthy people more because they have the money with which to pay taxes. There is no point in trying to tax poor people a lot because they don't have money.
--Hiram
Let's boil this down even further. The sense is that society should function more-or-less as a meritocracy, right? Smart people who make good decisions should tend to find themselves at the top and less-educated people who make bad decision should tend to find themselves at the bottom.
The question becomes -- which set of policies are more likely to make this actually happen? It's a fact that students in the top 25% of achievement but the lowest 25% of income graduate from college at the same rate as those in the top 25% of income but the lowest 25% of achievement. (Source)
If you want the meritocracy to work, you've got to provide people equal opportunity (to the extent possible) to allow it to happen. We don't have anything remotely close to equal opportunity today, and one party is determined to keep it that way by denying that structural barriers still exist and not taking actions designed to put people on a more equal footing.
Republicans want to gripe about taxes. For over 40 years following the end of WW2, the top marginal tax rate in this country was 50% or higher. Yet, somehow, wealthy people flourished -- and for the most part, so did the rest of society. Since we've slashed taxes on higher earners, we've only had one small period of sustained real wage growth for middle-class taxpayers (during the Clinton Administration). There's a reason that society is becoming more unequal, and it's not about the laziness or entitlement of the masses -- it's about the policy choices we have made as a country.
Hiram,
I don't even mind the idea of taxing them more because they are the ones who have the money. Maybe people would then show them appreciation for how much they really are paying for all of us.
Imagine that one citizen earning a million dollars probably pays ~$300,000 in taxes. It isn't like they are using 100 or a 1,000 times the services of any of the rest of us. They are just paying a much larger portion of the cost and should be appreciated for this.
Instead many on the Left accuse those people of not paying their "fair" share. It is disturbing.
Sean, I am busy now however I will give your comment some more thought.
"Imagine that one citizen earning a million dollars probably pays ~$300,000 in taxes. It isn't like they are using 100 or a 1,000 times the services of any of the rest of us. They are just paying a much larger portion of the cost and should be appreciated for this."
I don't think we should base tax policy on how much or how little rich people feel appreciated.
--Hiram
Does the "they have more money than me, so they should pay more than me" rationale make any more sense? Especially when both people are living in the same country and have access to the same services, roads, laws, etc.
Fair is definitely an elusive concept when discussing this topic.
Does the "they have more money than me, so they should pay more than me" rationale make any more sense? Especially when both people are living in the same country and have access to the same services, roads, laws, etc.
It does if you want all those things, I suppose.
--Hiram
Wow. I leave town for a few days and a major philosophical Donnybrook breaks out. Let me offer up some brief comments, in no particular order.
First, we use stereotypes because it is easier than lengthy rational argument, and generally more successful. If I say something is a "kooky liberal notion" I can discredit it without having to elaborate WHY. I may KNOW my long list of reasons for that statement, but I don't have to type them all if I can get away with the name-calling. Those who agree with me already know what I mean and have THEIR reasons.
Second, I think we forget that "evil is as evil does" and "stupid is as stupid does" are judgment calls, based on what we consider evil or stupid. Therefore, to call the person doing the "evil" or "stupid" thing evil or stupid is an opinion not based in evidence. For example, if I think giving people money to not work (welfare) is stupid, bordering on evil because of its effect on human dignity, that shouldn't mean that the Democrats promoting the program are evil or stupid. They are just WRONG, in my very strong and long-considered opinion.
Third, I think title of this post is the correct "take" on the subject-- that is, that liberals are more likely to stereotype and name-call than conservatives, present company excepted. I fall back on the evidence from the last Iowa US Senate contest. Republican Joni Ernst and her PAC allies spend about $16 million on the race-- $11 million promoting her and her views, and $5 million on negative ads against Bruce Braley, the Democrat. Braley and his allies also spent about $16 million, but only $1 million of that was promoting Braley and the remaining $15 million all went into negative attack ads against Joni Ernst. (Numbers approximate).
And finally, I don't think the argument about raising taxes (and spending more) versus lowering taxes (and spending more or less) is the correct argument or even the correct basis for the argument. The difference between liberals and conservatives is one of control versus individual freedom. Is government able to make better decisions about what individuals do than are the individuals themselves, or not? And even if we believe it is government, which it may be in some cases, does the government solution chosen actually WORK? For example, the "war on poverty" is essentially over, and poverty won; we have the same number in poverty now as when it was begun. WHEN do we admit failure and try something better?
Post a Comment