What conservatives call politeness is really deference to authority.

[phantom power]

From this fascinating short piece about the different ways the conservative and liberal Supreme Court judges view the notion of politeness:

There is an etiquette in political exchanges, which Kagan seems aware of: we make a gesture, we wait expectantly, and demand a certain grace—even when it might be more useful to disrupt it. What that politeness often ignores is need or inequality, which can mark the difference between connoisseurship, condescension, and vulnerability to coercion. As Kagan notes, when describing the pressures on the hypothetical person who comes before the government: “After all, she wants, very badly, what the judge or poll worker or immigration official has to offer.”

This is about the ruling on government prayer from this week. I think this perfectly describes one of the fundamental differences between the two competing ideologies. What conservatives call politeness is really deference to authority. What liberals call politeness is sensitivity to the least powerful among us. I wonder which way Jesus would fall on that question?

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2014/05/qotd-amy-davidson.html

[ck4829]

1. Authority they agree with

Scientists with mountains of research supporting global warming and evolution are just a bunch of paid crazies and Obama is an illegitimately bred and elected pretender President.

This kind of feeds into it, they want to keep deferring to authority, so how do they keep going on? They say the authority they are opposing just isn't a legitimate authority. This way they can insulate themselves from cognitive dissonance.

[phantom power]

2. The kind of authority they recognize is the kind that comes from force projection.

Authority from expertise, or from democracy, mean nothing to them.

It's why the 2nd amendment is the one they care most about. The only kind of politeness they respect is the kind that comes from the fear of the barrel of their guns.