They have finally convinced me - its not about race.

[grantcart]

Of course race is always an issue but the increasingly bizarre 'off the cliff' antics of the conservative party is a lot less about race than what has become the driving force of the Republicans and their Tea Party cohorts:

Anti-intellectualism, the driving force of the right

They hate people that are well educated.

An African American that confirms their belief system like Steele or the insufferable Ron Christie actually heightens confidence in their belief system by persuading themselves they are not bound by racial intolerance.

What cannot be tolerated is someone that makes their belief system look uneducated or stupid.

Nothing was more painful to them than the contrast of the 2008 election.

The Obama and Biden foursome consists of 4 college and 5 advanced degrees from notable institutions of higher education. Two of the four have taught at college or graduate school level classes for a total of more than 28 years. Three of the four have excelled in their class standings and the fourth, the Vice President overcame stuttering and shyness to finally succeed in his classes.

The McCain and Palin foursome consists of 3 college and 1 advanced degrees. Sarah Palin went to 4 different colleges before finally graduating while Todd Palin is a high school graduate. Senator McCain was in the lowest 1% of his class at the Naval Academy and Mrs. McCain is the only one of the four to have finished a respectable academic career with a bachelor and masters degree from USC.

This juxtaposition of the two sides was frozen in the campaign when viewing the articulate speeches of Senator Obama coming up against Governor Palin's inability to list a few national magazines that she read regularly to keep informed.

To understand how raw an uninformed Palin's answer to that question you have to ponder the fact that
her major was communication with an emphasis in journalism. Think about that wrinkle for a while and you will be compelled to consume an alcoholic beverage.

Can you imagine asking a biology, history or political science major to name their favorite biologist, historical period or President and not be able to come up with anything.



Opposition not to just liberal ideas but to the 'idea' of an idea.

Uncomfortable with ideas in general and not simply liberal ideas in particular the defection of William Buckley's son to support Obama was not met with hand wringing.

Indeed most of these conservatives, relishing in their refusal to read challenging books probably had no idea who William Buckley was.

They are tired of ideas. They feel that ideas have not provided them with additional comfort for a world that is becoming increasingly incomprehensible to them. They want the reassuring, religiously straight forward life, not of their parents but of their grandparents.

Creation: yes. Evolution: no.

Moral adherence: yes. Sex education: no.

Simple beligerent slogans: yes. Complex explanations of problems filled with statistics and analysis: no.

Slaughtered English syntax and 'you betchaisms': yes. Foriegn travel and bilingualism: no.


Political leaders with Reaganesque bumper sticker slogans yes and to all others stomping of feet so we cannot hear your questions.

And so we come to the curious case of David Frum. I hated him like I hated Wolfowitz. A neoconservative intellectual that turned a whole bunch of claptrap into a cover for the rest of the right for a war of aggression.

But unlike Wolfowitz, Frum would not conveniently fail in his post Bush career and even add a little scandal to it, instead he prospered.

I drive a lot and listen to NPR and found myself grinding my jaw while some affable host invariably asked this war criminal (in my mind) underhand lobs. "Why do they keep asking somebody that is wrong about everything anything". But he was clearly well educated, literate and he wasn't in lockstep with the religious drones. He didn't want Harriet Miers put on the Supreme Court.

Frum's firing should not be seen as an isolated act of the far right.

David Frum was the clear inheritor of the mantle of William F Buckley and even more than Chris Buckley's endorsement of Obama be seen as the reactionary right not only cutting off connections with moderate Republicans but intellectual conservatives. Frum was the modern inheritor of the 'Buckley Wing' of the conservative movement, much more than the smarmy Kristol:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Frum

His first book, Dead Right, was released in 1994. Frank Rich of the New York Times described it as "the smartest book written from the inside about the American conservative movement" and William F. Buckley, Jr. found it "the most refreshing ideological experience in a generation."<[br />

The firing of David Frum convinces me that the dynamic that is controlling the reactionary right and the Republican Party controlled and fed by Limbaugh/Hannity/Beck/Palin/Steele is not primarily capitalizing on a political or racist beliefs but by a much more compelling force:

Anti-intellectualism.

They are not simply against liberal or progressive ideas.

They are not even primarily against ideas championed by someone who is African American.

They are against that ideas exist outside of religious revelations.

They are against the concept that ideas even exist.

[kestrel91316]

1. Heck, there are plenty ON DU who hate those of us with a lot of education.

[nadinbrzezinski]

5. Because this is an AMERICAN PROBLEM, not just a Conservative

Problem

And this has a LONG history as well.

[AusDem]

42. yeah, a little

the simpsons had a very good send up of this. where lisa gets an F, and is popular for about 2 minutes, and then is told that she actually got an A+++ and suddenly is a pariah again for being "gifted"

[LynzM]

75. I learned in second grade to lie about or hide my grades.

It *is* an American problem, and it starts REALLY early. :(

[BlancheSplanchnik]

86. that's a little ironic about the Simpsons

at least from my perspective, since the show very noticeably 'prefers' and gives much more episode to dumb ol Homer and clever but low-achieving Bart than to Marge and Lisa.

[paulkienitz]

194. dumb = funny, so of course (nt)

[BlancheSplanchnik]

207. so women can't be funny?

There are no smart, funny trouble makers? It's the trouble they love to cause that makes Bart and Homer funny,not just passive dumbness.

[JonLP24]

212. I think that episode Michelle Obama makes a guest appearence

to give words of encouragement. It was funny when the guy that owns the school said of Principal Skinner, "He's our Biden." :rofl:

[hfojvt]

69. partly because the intellectuals bring it on themselves

with their snobbery. The attitude, spoken or unspoken, of "You don't know what I know so you are an ignorant idiot" does not win a lot of friends or influence people, unless you are trying to influence somebody to poke you in the snoot.

[liberation]

72. LOL. Right....

... your post says more about personal self confidence issues, than the "snobbery" of them intellectuals.

[abelenkpe]

81. indeed. nt

[hfojvt]

104. right, so you prove it by attacking me, insulting me

even though it is quite likely that I am smarter than you and have more education than you.

[liberation]

142. The projection in your posts is glorious...

... thanks for proving my point BTW. These silly sort of rants against them "meanie educated" people tend to be more of a projection exercise by those with self confidence issues regarding their intellectual competence.

[hfojvt]

169. oh, I think it is you who proved my point

Or is it somehow not an insult to call somebody silly, insecure and projecting?

Then again, it's not like you have demonstrated any intellectual capability.

[liberation]

200. LOL Keep digging...

If you are going to accuse others of insulting you, I recommend you take a look at what you wrote. It would do you good to remember all that jazz about people in glass houses and why they should not go around throwing stones.

If you find diverging opinions "insulting" reality must be a very angry place for you, such a pity for such a supposedly "superion" intellect as yours.

[hfojvt]

231. what I wrote did not apply to any specific person

I was not claiming to be talking about you, or anybody else specifically. However, I was talking about some people that I discuss with or read on DU who come forward with the attitude or claim that "America is full of morons" or who cannot seem to discuss an issue without insulting anybody who disagrees with them.

You, on the other hand, did not express a diverging opinion so much except that you started talking about what you thought about me. Not about what I said, but about me. I made a statement that I thought was true, that "some intellectuals are arrogant jerks who insult their supposed intellectual inferiors". You did not provide any evidence, or even state a contrary opinion, like "that is not true in my experience". Instead, your "diverging opinion" was that I, myself, am a) insecure about my intelligence and b) projecting.

Really I prefer to talk about the subject rather than myself, but I think your behaviour provides an example. The example being that many people here seem to have a belief system that is very dogmatic. They don't just believe that "X is true" for a given set of variables, but they believe "X is true, AND people who believe X is false are defective".

Hence, you could not just prove that I was wrong about my assertion, but you had to prove (or assert) that I only believe my assertion because of my own personal defects, either intellectual, psyschological or social. Which seems to make you a person who does not respect the idiots who disagree with you. Then you wonder why these idiots seem to hate intelligent people.

[bigmonkey]

114. Can you explain further how to fix this, or is it just name calling?

If I claim that I'm only reacting to someone else's "unspoken attitude", how is that different from prejudice?

[hfojvt]

124. it's not too far from prejudice

unless it's correct.

We get together here on DU with our homies and constantly berate the general public (especially the part that is not 100% with us) for being stupid and prejudiced and ignorant and mean. Maybe when we talk to one of them we don't directly openly insult them, but you cannot really blame them if they detect an attitude that really is there.

To fix it, we need a genuine humility and also affection for the ordinary working person. I have great respect for a person who works hard, who is honest, and generous, and helpful, and kind, irregardless of his/her intelligence or book-larning. Like in "The Breakfast Club" often the math whiz has to admit he is not very good at making lamps (although maybe some are). Even if a person is only 20% decent, it is still a better thing to appeal to their sense of decency then to find a part of somebody which is indecent and turn that into their defining characteristic.

[bigmonkey]

136. It seems to me you may want to consider the burden you are putting on the intelligent.

They have to be not only intelligent, but also genuinely humble and have affection for the ordinary working person, be honest, generous, helpful, and kind, or they don't get your respect? Intelligent people, like anybody who excels at one aspect of life, may put a lot of energy into that aspect, and less into others. The number of people who have all the qualities you list is pretty small, although all of them are desirable qualities to have.

I agree that everyone deserves respect, and that it's too easy to call someone ignorant, but there's a confusion about ignorance and stupidity. Many people in the U.S. are not stupid but are ignorant, work against their own best interest, and are hard to help, or get to help themselves, specifically because they don't trust education or intelligence. This is, partially at least, the result of propaganda from the right. The situation is fairly desperate, and to restrict those who are qualified to help to the few that have all the desirable qualities you list is to handicap ahead of time the entire project of what was called 30 years ago "consciousness raising".

I'm afraid that I can't agree that this is a helpful point you're making, unless you can equally show how it would be possible to break down distrust of intellect and education from the average joe end, without requiring the educated to reside way out on the edge of the bell curve in a bunch of other areas before they qualify to help. Anti-intellectualism hurts the average person, in how it destroys the possibility of sensible policy, more than it hurts intellectuals. We don't require athletes to have all those qualities to be respected as valuable, why the educated?

[liberation]

144. Furthermore, respect is earned not granted.....

... that seems often lost in those who are hell bent in demanding "respect" without having to earn it. Appeals to victim status tend to be easier than actually having to do the work to earn validation, so I can't say I blame the people who take such approach. Not that I respect them though... :-)

[hfojvt]

170. I think you have that backwards as well

It is disrespect that should be earned, rather than handed out like sheets of toilet paper with "I am superior to you" written on it. Otherwise the automatic disrespect tends to be returned in kind. And then it is the intellectuals who claim victim status. Didn't this subthread start out with a whine 'boo hoo, all these morons don't respect us brilliant intellectuals'.

[liberation]

202. Your logical dissonance is deafening...

... honestly, this is not going to take us anywhere.

There you win, you are much smarterer that I can ever hope to be.

Happy?

[hfojvt]

241. logical dissonance?

I am not trying to turn this into some kind of personal contest. You claimed that I was insecure about my intelligence, and I said, no I am actually pretty smart, and educated. It's not a contest, but I am trying to defend a thesis, my own point of view on these matters.

You think respect should be earned, but I think disrespect is the thing that should be earned while a certain amount of respect is freely given. As the Asimov quote I once used for my sig line said "It is nobody's right to have contempt for another. It is only a hard won privilege earned after long experience." (From the story C-Chute http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C-Chute)

I don't really care who is smarter. Maybe you are. Maybe I am. It's not really germaine to the discussion except that you keep looking for more reasons and ways to put me down.

[annabanana]

151. +1.. well put. . .n/t

[hfojvt]

168. I didn't say I was restricting anything

my point is I am expanding things. What is being argued here is "disrespect for the stupid/ignorant" (and that sometimes gets defined as "anyone who disagrees with me is ignorant or stupid (or has some other mental/moral defect, like they are 'projecting' or something). I think that is nonsense. Look at some combinations and tell me which is better

A - intelligent, cruel, arrogant
B - stupid, kind, honest

Am I supposed to disrespect person B because they are stupid while at the same time I respect Dick Cheney because he is smart?

Secondly, I am saying that if you want to educate someone it does not help if you start by berating them.

[bigmonkey]

173. But you don't delegate policy formation to person B.

That's not an "unjust" decision, it's in everybody's best interest. I think you're really arguing for a middle ground, but you're using a radical confrontation to reach it.

I've met intelligent, cruel, arrogant people. I've also met arrogant, generous, brilliant people. There are lots of combinations of traits.

I would completely agree that the intelligent shouldn't be put up on a pedestal. But they should be recognized as intelligent, and able to be of help the general welfare in that regard, even if they are socially inept, or haughty, or comedians for that matter. Your person A is a stereotype like a "rube farmer". Like I said above, the only reason I can see for you using it is to confront to teach. But the stereotype you're using to do the confronting is the very one that's been promulgated by the right, and so perhaps not a good choice.

[hfojvt]

236. that seems to me to be switching topics

When did we start talking about policy formation?

I thought we were talking about bridging a gap between intellectuals and non-intellectuals. Look, if you have a policy that either angers person B, or, person B gets stirred up by Limbaugh & Co, then it's not as much about changing policy as it is about creating calm - by selling the policy. Rachel Maddow and DU seem to try to sell the policy, not by talking about its virtues or by disproving the myths, but by insulting or impugning the motives of the canaille stirred up against the policy.

What I am arguing against is "wholesale disrespect". That even though there are undoubtably some people on the other side who do not deserve respect that there are also many on the other side who do.

As for the stereotype, it seems to me that I have met many of that type right on this here board. Which is why I use it, because it seems to exist, but my point follows the King quote in my signature. Some people may not be the sharpest tools in the shed, but if they have good hearts, then they should not be looked down upon.

[nadinbrzezinski]

187. Here is the problem... with this logic

Dick is not a smart person... you are confusing being conniving and having quite a bit of guile in manipulating people with smart. Not the same thing, even if being smart might help.

Hell, my plumber is a very smart person... but he is not a son of a bitch bent on world domination,

[ElboRuum]

189. False Choice...

More often than not, one can be intelligent, kind, and honest and still be thought of as a 'snobby intellectual' to those who do not have respect for education and intelligence.

You seem to be saying through all of this that it is the responsibility of the intelligent to placate the irrational hatred some people have toward them, that they must, in some way, go farther to 'earn' the respect of people who make it clear that they revile their very being. Why should anyone tolerate such prejudice, much less dignify it by acquiescing to it and modifying one's own behavior?

[liberation]

203. Hey now... You are using them fancy words

you elitist educated bastard!

[ElboRuum]

206. Yeah, how dare I show off like that!

I should maybe mix in a few "and stuff"s and "like, um, you know"s just to make people more comfortable with all the, like, um, you know, 6th grade vocabulary words I'm using and stuff.

On edit: Correction... those were 3rd grade vocabulary words I was like, um, you know, using and junk.

[liberation]

211. To your credit, you didn't use the word "dichotomy" lord knows that is some devilspeak!

BTW, I agreed with your previous post, in case my sarcasm was off (it is hard sometimes to translate humor to anonymous posting form)

[ElboRuum]

214. No, I got it, just playing along with you.

[nadinbrzezinski]

224. Children....

I mean you are using like good grammar and stuff.

:-)

[hfojvt]

219. actually I was saying that the hatred might be rational

At least in some cases, and even if an intelligent person is kind, they might be thought of as a snobby intellectual because of the last two or three snobby intellectuals a non-intellectual has encountered.

[ElboRuum]

256. Yes, I know that is what you were saying...

...and again I am mired in a distinct confusion.

Let me get this straight...

The hatred is rational, in your example, at least in some cases, if someone harbors prejudice for the "nice intellectual" if the last three intellectuals they met were snobby.

OK. This is what you would claim is a rational possession of hatred?

Yeah, see here is the problem. Hatred is never rational. Hate and love are the direct opposites, and no one would claim love is rational, it is borne out of a desire to be close to someone for reasons which defy logic. Hate is borne out of a fear of the threat that a person represents, and fear isn't particularly rational a concept either. We wouldn't need the suffix "phobia" if it were.

[hfojvt]

266. both hatred and fear can be rational and so can love

Here's a bully who pounds on me every day. Is it irrational for me to hate him?
Here's my mom who bakes cookies and pies for me, and takes care of me when I am sick. Is it irrational for me to love her?
There's a tiger running around in my back yard. Is it irrational for me to be afraid to leave the house?

A phobia, otoh, is an irrational fear. Not a fear of shark infested waters but a fear that seemingly clear waters might suddenly become shark infested. A guy I was working with sorta freaked out because of a tiny little spider on one of the tables we were moving. Spider bites can be dangerous, but it should not have been hard for him to flick the spider off or smash it and continue on.

Just like "we" think we know their "kind" - another "ignorant mouth-breathing intellectual hater" and we think we are right to have contempt for them without taking too much effort to get to know them. In a similar way, they may think they know our kind. If some of our kind, or people who pretend to be our kind, give us a bad name with the masses, that is not the fault of the masses. At least not entirely.

[pundaint]

245. What is your desired outcome? If building a coalition to make progress is your goal, your ends

would be served by overcoming that irrational obstacle. We don't get to pick the obstacles, we just need to overcome them.

People will not hear, until you establish trust. The Republicans understand this. They are consistent, they pose as champions of their constituency, and they are relying on the stupidity of their victim/constituents to not discover their cynical disinformation campaigns.

There are a number of ways the Republicans have abused this trust, some of them illegal. I suggest a few of these be identified, and focus groups be used to see which of the abuses might have the biggest impact on that unwarranted trust, and then Congress should pursue those offenses with the fury only unleashed for a Presidential BJ. We need lengthy public hearings. They were won over by theatrics, they can be reclaimed the same way.

[ElboRuum]

257. I think you meant to reply to someone else.

I don't seem to find the connection between my post and your reply.

[pundaint]

260. I was responding to your 'why tolerate' concept. You can reject the actions of the stupid

and dismiss them, or you can make progress toward a functioning society.

[RetroLounge]

177. Straight from the right-wing talking points...

Amazing.

RL

[hfojvt]

243. unfortunately we often work very hard to prove those talking points

"“Why are Democrats (and liberals) so bad at messaging? So bad at pushing back?” Rick Perlstein’s reader asked the right questions (same link). But before we start to answer those questions, let’s consider the potent messaging which comes from the other side.

It’s simple-minded—but it works. On our side, we stand in line to help. For decades, almost all conservative spin has derived from two simple messages. When you get to work with such clear messaging, being a conservative pundit is the easiest job in the world:

Big government never did anything right.
Liberal elites think they’re better than you are.

Almost all Republican spin derives from those two messages. The conservative movements has been actively pushing those messages at least since the time of Nixon. No matter what happens in the real world, the conservative pundit simply dreams up a response which derives from one of those notions.

It doesn’t matter how dumb the response might be. The response will sound familiar—will seem to make sense—if it conforms to those well-worn frameworks. You can dream up any damn thing. To many people, it will seem to make sense.

For that reason, being a conservative pundit is the easiest job in the world. If you doubt that, just watch Sean Hannity. There’s nothing so dumb that this talker won’t say it. But it almost always derives from those basic messages—from the world view defined by those points. For that reason, it seems to make sense.

What are the liberal world’s basic messages? Tomorrow, we’ll make a valiant attempt to figure that out. For now, let’s return to that conservative messaging.

It’s easy to be a conservative pundit—to keep driving those messages. Indeed, as long as liberals exist in the world, the second message listed above will just keep selling itself. Sadly but reliably, this is one way the world works:

Each morning, we liberals get into line on the sidewalk outside RNC headquarters. We take a number, awaiting our chance to drive that second conservative message. When our number is finally called, we bellow and wail about our own greatness—and about the stupidity, craziness, bigotry and evil of the average (white) tea-bagger. As the tea-baggers watch us act out, they see this message confirmed.

The RNC needn’t lift a finger. In our pseudo-liberal stupidity, we sell this message for them."

http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh090209.html

[RetroLounge]

253. "our pseudo-liberal stupidity"

Nice projection of your own self-hatred

:eyes:

RL

[nadinbrzezinski]

184. Spoken by one of those

who dislike those who have a college degree or two, and actually learned something... having a college degree don't mean they are educated and shit.

By the way thanks for the perfect example of what I speak off.

[hfojvt]

242. I have two college degrees

Did I learn something? Well I think I can still do some sadistics http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt/126

[paulkienitz]

196. every "intellectual" knows what it's like to have people THINK they're being arrogant

...when all they did was talk naturally. When somebody doesn't know a word I used, or doesn't get a bit of wordplay I indulged in, and takes that as AIMED AT THEM to put them down... then their narcissistic disorder is not my fault. That's just how I talk, and for most people I talk to it communicates perfectly well. If it happens to land wrong from time to time, that does not mean you're being intentionally mocked. But a certain class of people will insist on taking it this way, just like Tyra Banks on ANTM cycle 1.

[Raksha]

261. I agree. To blame intellectuals when ignorant people react to them with irrational hostility

is just another variation of blaming the victim. It's like saying, "She asked for it" about a victim of rape or spousal abuse.

I've also had people act like I'm being arrogant when I use "big words" when that's simply the way I talk naturally. I'm always happy to explain the meaning of any word I use, and I'm not embarrassed to ask "what does that mean?" when *I* don't know the meaning of a word. But I'll be damned if I'm going try to hide my intelligence or my vocabulary, and I'll be damned if I'm going to apologize for them either!

[MrMickeysMom]

199. The only thing that stand between intellectuals and anti-intellectuals is-

Preferred ignorance!

You can be curious to know more than you do (and always will) like me, or fee threatened when someone says they know more than you. I'd hate to be an example of that person.

I know people who try to "one up" the next guy, but they are not really intellectuals, they are big fat posers. I am not as fearful of ignorance as I am the "illusion of knowledge", and that's what these fuckers are.

To truly be an intellectual, you should WANT to know more and realize you will never know as much as you'd like to.

[nadinbrzezinski]

226. I have to check for hidden mikes in the car

"you will never know as much as you'd like to."

We were having a conversation this morning, mostly about my niece, who at 22 is a know it all, like well shit I was at 20. I outgrew that by 22 but I guess it happened due to mostly dreadful life experiences.

And how the more I learn, the more I realize I know shit... but want to learn more.

:hi:

[MrMickeysMom]

247. Aint it the truth!

I used to be know more than anyone else, too! Damn! :hi:

[RaleighNCDUer]

201. Uh huh.

And short skirts cause rape.

[whathehell]

94. It seemed a lot LESS of a problem during the Sixties when we had the highest number

of college graduates in the world, along with the largest middle class.

[nadinbrzezinski]

188. It seemed that way

but it was a historic anomaly.

This mistrust goes back to oh colonial times... and the sixties well it was a function of the cold war in many ways.

[whathehell]

262. It Was that way...

and if it was a historic anomaly, so, according to Thom Hartmann, is a viable Middle Class.

He claims there to be two times this occurred in American History -- Shortly after the Revolution and post-WWII due, in large part, to the policies of the New Deal.

As for Europe, they've had a large middle class for only about thirty years or so.

They pride themselves on their thousand plus year history with it's art and culture...But the "intellect" and "culture" were the province of a very few within a class system far more rigid than ours.

[The Wielding Truth]

11. I think we are all sticklers on trying to communicate the best we can.

That should not be construed as, and I have never felt,the penchant here for anti or pro elitism. We also like to have things researched before we weigh in. Saying that, there is a lot of respect @ DU for the different paths we have walked. Love for the trails that have brought us all here.

[kestrel91316]

17. You clearly haven't faced the wrath of the anti-medical professional crowd here, lol.

[The Wielding Truth]

82. This reply doesn't seem to be for my post.

[tavalon]

83. Nor the crowd who freaks whenever someone mentions anything as a possible reason

or contributing factors to autism. Or say anything bad about the health insurance bailout these last few days. This place can and is, crowd driven with a crowd mentality.

[Maraya1969]

100. Wow is this statement true of yours

"We also like to have things researched before we weigh in.", is so true.

I don't get the conservative 3rd grade level emails anymore because I have written back every time I find a hoax or a stupid argument but I'm sure that doesn't mean the emails haven't stopped. They just stopped sending them to me and others who have pointed out the ignorance in them.

[Oregone]

12. Funny....I felt exactly that way, just today.

Hrm...

But I do agree with Nadin. Its an American problem (and the world no less, but not to such an extent), and its silly to cast this as a partisan issue.

[kestrel91316]

18. In your case, it was because you were nasty without cause to someone

who really needs this HCR law.

[Oregone]

25. LOL. There you go again.

:)

I don't think Ive been more civil in some time.

[w4rma]

21. No. Anti-Intellectualism is at the very core of the conservative movement, not the progressive one.

It is *not* "silly" to make this a partisan issue.

When they use the word "elite", they mean smarter than they are. They don't mean wealthy, which is how a progressive uses the term "elite".

[Oregone]

27. Is it safe to assume that you think the "progressive movement" is embodied by the Democratic Party?

Because that is in response to me suggesting its not a partisan issue, so you mentioning those opposing movements would make me assume you are directly associating them with the opposing parties.

While I agree that anti-intellectualism is not part of the progressive movement, I do not agree that the Democratic Party, in whole, represents the progressive movement. Therefore, it leaves plenty of room in both parties for this behavior (but clearly more on the traditionally conservative side).

[ElboRuum]

209. Is it safe?

No. No, I don't think it is.

[FredStembottom]

60. Kestrel, no...... please!

I have never seen anyone called out on their level of education here at DU (excepting all trolls, of course!)

I am currently trying to get more non-college and blue-collar types like myself to be less shy and self-deprecating and stick a toe into political discussions.... in places like DU.

Or at least to begin reading such things.

But no-one is here to throw bricks through your window.

And if I am wrong about this and there is some sort of anti-intellectualism floating around DU.... well, it's wrong but it might also be some inevitable growing-pains as Conservatism becomes just too bat-shit crazy for nearly everyone in America and the Democratic tent begins to swell.

Let's hope that lots of us get misunderstood more often and that we take the time to educate those roaming through DU for the first time.

Trust me, for every tea-bagger on the loading docks of my world there's 2 other guys quietly doubting Conservatism and the looniness it has led to.

Explain stuff to those 2 guys.

All the best! :hi:

[whathehell]

95. I've never seen it on DU either. n/t

[The Green Manalishi]

105. Kicked and recommended because it *ISN'T* about race.

I honestly don't think George W Bush disliked African Americans. I think like a lot of people I know he considers and considered himself 'post racial'; we just don't give a shit as to what color someone is, it doesn't matter, a non issue. (not that there isn't racial injustice and discrimination, but it played little role in the motivations of our recently deposed right wing coup, IMO)
What he did hate, what that whole coterie hated and hates is POOR people, is 'justice' because they confuse it with socialism, is an enlightenment rationality because it conflicts with their theocratic viewpoint. What they hate is that which is not their world view, their 'rapture me home Jesus' paradigm. The early Christian church wasn't racist, there were 'believers' and 'unbelievers'.
So many on DU are so sensitive about race and racialism that this went over their heads and under their radar.
Bush, Cheney, Rice, et al didn't give a shit about the color of the people they had to bribe, blow up or send to die in a war for oil and corporate hegemony. Even Palin and a majority of her minions would have warmer feelings for an Hispanic or African American who shares her views than a 'elitist' white man who see them for what they are.

[valerief]

125. The Repubs can't sell illogical bullshit to an intelligent, rational populace.

They need 'em big and dumb.

[Skittles]

222. that's because education does not equal intelligence

[LWolf]

248. And who is the scapegoat for all of the nation's ills,

even among many at DU?

Teachers.

[ThomThom]

249. thinking is not respected in this country... we have a country full of

non-thinkers... our schools promote it, our TV thrives on it and our people are proud of it.

[NNadir]

2. Although I recognize an element of anti-intellectualism among us, you're spot on.

We may have some, but they are almost wholly anti-intellectual.

It's why when they take governor's offices, the first thing they assault is schools. It's what's happening here in New Jersey. It's tearing me up because our schools are so damned good.

[Oregone]

13. .....is a shit statement

:)


j/k! Maybe you know where Im coming from.

[barbiegeek]

44. if UR not educated & keep sick ur easier to control & manipulate

Repugs doen't want an educated population, because if you keep people down by being uneducated (like slaves & serfs) and keep them sick (don't treat learning disabilities, ADHD, dyslexia---medical conditions) then they are easier to control, scare, and manipulate.

93% of all men in prison have some sort of learning disability--what if they got the medication or therapy they needed as children--would that number go down.

[Tsiyu]

65. yes, that number would go down

if reasonable efforts were made to reach more learning disabled/mentally disabled children.

But some people profit greatly from bloated prisons, not so much from helping kids.

And think about this: if we had a 21st Century-worthy mental health system, a lot of these teabagger rage cases might be getting some treatment instead of being used as Murdoch's latest Dog and Pony Show.

[NoSheep]

62. In Wake County NC it is happening too

[The Magistrate]

3. Well Done, Sir! An Excellent Piece, Most Apt

A pleasure to send it to the Greatest listings.

[grantcart]

33. an honor, Sir.

[goclark]

186. Good food for thought Post grantcart ~ Cindy and USC

I was laughing to myself because I graduated from USC a bit later than Cindy but our friends at UCLA would always tease us and say --- "Pay Your Fee and You Get Your "B" at USC."

So good old Cindy used Daddy's money for that degree. LOL

[nadinbrzezinski]

4. There is more

this is summarized in the statement of a member of the Texas board...

"We don't need experts to tell us what we have to include anymore."

that was his answer as to taking out Jefferson from the curriculum.

Chew on that, and stay away from the bar.

But that guy (a dentist mind you) is the summary of the modern Conservative Movement... we don't need no experts no more.

[MUAD_DIB]

15. There should be several tests employed (IQ, aptitued, etc.) for those

who want to be elected to any board that has to do with education of any kind.

I would suggest that some of the criteria that these individuals would need, to be able to do this job properly, would be some kind of educational background with years of proven experience.

[Jackpine Radical]

23. I can will imagine how that would work in Texas.

Nobody with an IQ above 80 would be allowed to run.

And no, this isn't an anti-Texan slam. I know there are plenty of bright, humane and decent people in the state.

[MUAD_DIB]

24. I'm sure there has to be, but I am also speaking for the rest of the states.

I know that part of the backbone of local/state government is the ability and promise of anybody being able to contribute to the common wealth. Unfortunately, anything that has a shadow of power or control gets corrupted by those who wish to use it for their own craven designs.

If the job of dog catcher had lure of as much power as board of education then every dime-store crazy would be promising anything or just catering to the basest votes in order to be lord of the kennel.


So it goes...

[villager]

6. Opposition to the idea of an idea...

Well said, Grantcart!

[TTUBatfan2008]

7. I think you've hit the nail on the head...

In addition to the Frum incident, they are running a primary challenge against Ron Paul. Why? Because he doesn't fall lock-step with the neocon foreign policy agenda. Not only this, but Paul believes in civil discourse instead of vitriolic rhetoric. It's ironic that he started the Tea Party movement and it was quickly hijacked by the anti-intellectual crowd (aka the Republican Party). The general feeling I get from them at this point is that now, more than ever, "You're either with them, or you're against them." There are no in-between situations as far as they are concerned.

[grantcart]

10. Excellent point - they are running a primary opponent to McCain that is even more AI than he is!!!!

[rhett o rick]

8. Pol Pot knew how to deal with intellectuals. He had his "killing fields". nm

[TomCADem]

9. Nice Essay! Agree...The Right Wing Seems To Be Anti-Science and Anti-Thought

If you can't write down a policy on the back of a napkin, it is considered suspect. Heck, look at the Republicans bragging about how their proposals were thin enough to be used as a bookmark. Is that a good thing? Sadly, we have Fox News that celebrates such ignorance.

[HughMoran]

14. Funny, I was just mentioning this on the phone to someone less than an hour ago

Back in the day the right had an intellectual backbone to support it. The intellectual right are either dead, shunned or Democrats now. I never agreed with William F. Buckley, but I always respected him - other than the occasional Brooks or Frum article, I rarely see the intellectual side of the Republican party any more. Speaking of Brooks - check out the following article from Oct, 2008:

Anti-intellectual populism killed the Republican party

Conservative columnist David Brooks for the NYTimes:

"Modern conservatism began as a movement of dissident intellectuals. Richard Weaver wrote a book called, 'Ideas Have Consequences.' Russell Kirk placed Edmund Burke in an American context. William F. Buckley famously said he’d rather be governed by the first 2,000 names in the Boston phone book than by the faculty of Harvard. But he didn’t believe those were the only two options. His entire life was a celebration of urbane values, sophistication and the rigorous and constant application of intellect.

Driven by a need to engage elite opinion, conservatives tried to build an intellectual counterestablishment with think tanks and magazines. They disdained the ideas of the liberal professoriate, but they did not disdain the idea of a cultivated mind...

But over the past few decades, the Republican Party has driven away people who live in cities, in highly educated regions and on the coasts. This expulsion has had many causes. But the big one is this: Republican political tacticians decided to mobilize their coalition with a form of social class warfare...

What had been a disdain for liberal intellectuals slipped into a disdain for the educated class as a whole. The liberals had coastal condescension, so the conservatives developed their own anti-elitism, with mirror-image categories and mirror-image resentments, but with the same corrosive effect...

The political effects of this trend have been obvious. Republicans have alienated the highly educated regions — Silicon Valley, northern Virginia, the suburbs outside of New York, Philadelphia, Chicago and Raleigh-Durham. The West Coast and the Northeast are mostly gone.

The Republicans have alienated whole professions. Lawyers now donate to the Democratic Party over the Republican Party at 4-to-1 rates. With doctors, it’s 2-to-1. With tech executives, it’s 5-to-1. With investment bankers, it’s 2-to-1. It took talent for Republicans to lose the banking community.

Conservatives are as rare in elite universities and the mainstream media as they were 30 years ago. The smartest young Americans are now educated in an overwhelmingly liberal environment.

This year could have changed things. The G.O.P. had three urbane presidential candidates. But the class-warfare clichés took control. Rudy Giuliani disdained cosmopolitans at the Republican convention. Mitt Romney gave a speech attacking 'eastern elites.' (Mitt Romney!) John McCain picked Sarah Palin.

Palin is smart, politically skilled, courageous and likable. Her convention and debate performances were impressive. But no American politician plays the class-warfare card as constantly as Palin. Nobody so relentlessly divides the world between the 'normal Joe Sixpack American' and the coastal elite.

She is another step in the Republican change of personality. Once conservatives admired Churchill and Lincoln above all — men from wildly different backgrounds who prepared for leadership through constant reading, historical understanding and sophisticated thinking. Now those attributes bow down before the common touch.

And so, politically, the G.O.P. is squeezed at both ends. The party is losing the working class by sins of omission — because it has not developed policies to address economic anxiety. It has lost the educated class by sins of commission — by telling members of that class to go away."

Read the full column here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/10/opinion/10brooks.html?hp

[MUAD_DIB]

22. I used to watch Firing Line as a kid with my dad. I never understood what Buckley

was talking about until I was older (I just thought his mannerisms were funny), and although some of his ideas seemed reasonable later on I realized that I didn't agree with conservatism as a whole.

My dad was never really a mindless conservative, and since he voted for Clinton twice I would have to believe that he didn't see a future in conservatism either.

[barbiegeek]

43. There is plenty of Tech & Engineering Republicans

They are a little more independent minded Repugs, but they are repug either out of their strong religious faith or high taxes issue. They are upper middle class and hate paying higher taxes when the people above them (who they want to emulate, the serious big $$ president & CEO) are in a lower bracket with more ways to divert their income, or they do it to hang with the CEO's hoping to move up.

[HughMoran]

51. I'm an engineer

I turned my white-bred Republican coworker (also an engineer) into an Obama supporter after working on him for many years. :) Also, many engineers are now foreign-born and they really despised how Bush acted toward the rest of the world. My bosses have also been liberal for the past 15 years or so, which is nice :)

[Bluenorthwest]

52. You make the point of the OP very well

"There ARE plenty of tech and engineering Republicans." Case, rested.

[lumberjack_jeff]

61. Can you please elaborate?

The inferrence of the OP is that education has a direct relationship to liberalism.

I don't see how the observation that many (most?) engineers are Republicans supports the OP's premise.

[HughMoran]

73. I had to re-read a couple of times to determinine the intent...

I think the poster is drawing a different inference - one related to the leanings of the person who makes broad-brush statements using the wrong verb tense.

[grantcart]

66. good points and oneof the few times I agree with Brooks

I have to wonder if he and others had taken a more aggressive approach to Bush and the Iraqi war if the Republican Party might not have more independent thinkers.

He seems to be a team player until the team gets kicked out of the tournament for losing and then found out to have been cheating.

[Cleita]

16. Much of it is about race and other bigotry, like homophobia and

sexism. There is always the token who is accepted by the white people. I used to be that token. They never knew I was Latina until I got fed up with the racist stuff I had to listen to and outed myself. Then they would say, but you aren't like them. :eyes:

[Kablooie]

19. Intelligent conservatives do exist. I wonder if they buy into this insanity?

Except for Frum every other publicized conservative simply spouts the party hate and propaganda.

Will this gain them votes? Will the conservative public believe that this kind of behavior will create a better country for us all?

[Mopar151]

35. Elements of theRepugnicant policy

Have been scaring small-government, frugal, traditional conservatives since Bush the 1st. The tipping point occurred in the summer of '08, IMHO.

[Dr Morbius]

20. A fine piece.

...but without disrespect, you may be reading too much into it.

Once the customer starts thinking, you're in danger of losing the sale.

I think that's all there is to it. Religions are the same way.

[Jack Sprat]

26. Unable to feel

Much like a serial killer possibly? Just numb. Might be the reason they can't project themselves ever in need. They can't imagine that they could become seriously ill or disabled tomorrow. If they see an object, they are afraid to examine it or look on the other side of it. I think they might be afraid of their conscious, so they just don't allow themselves to think too deeply about anything.

[EFerrari]

28. Anti-intellectualism is a consequence of authoritarianism.

These people don't do ideas, they do directives.

[saltpoint]

36. Yur god-durned right. That way they don't have to kow tow to none of

them smarty-pants scientists neither.

[grantcart]

68. ab-soultlee right

[rhett o rick]

171. Abso-friggin-lutly. nm

[Kablooie]

29. I think it started with race but went crazy when they saw a black man who was so superior to them.

It completely destroys their world view so they explode.

[rufus dog]

30. Nice work

Being close to 50 and living through the Clinton years, as a 'responsible hard working American' who many people assume that I must be a Republican based upon where I live, I never thought it was about race. Although race is a bonus for them and racism is rooted in ignorance. Anti-intellectualism maybe, I am sure you are referring to the base, not the phony leaders who get a good education and then trash the liberal elite. I believe the base just has a need to hate. Like WWF fans, they need a villain, be it Khadafi, Iran, Iraq, bin laden, a tree hugger, a feminist, a black, a hispanic, a jew, a gay, an atheist, a Professor, an educator, a Democrat.

These people are not embraced by Democrats, in fact they will be challenged to be accepting, where as Republicans will fully embrace them if they pledge allegiance to a religion, a movement, a hate for Democrats. The 'elites' within the repub party will be the first to make disparaging comments about the 'unwashed masses' but will use them as to further their agenda. Exhibit 1 is the Palin family.

[grantcart]

34. but as they are embraced a whole lot of people go the other way

[Hekate]

31. KnR, grantcart. Very interesting read.

[grantcart]

32. tks

[FrenchieCat]

37. That summarizes what I see.....

But frankly, boiled down, what we have here is an entire party of stupids, who have driven
just about everyone else out of the party. That would answer why Steele, Boehner, McConnell, McCain, Palin; who represent the leadership that we see at the political level...why all of them are, let's just be honest; stupid.

Stupids don't have ideas that make any sense, and they usually have no shame in lying, cause they think everyone does it too.
Non-Virtuous Vices that come natural to many like jealousy, spite, selfishness and thoughtlessness (just remember their Convention)
are exactly what they are good at....cause, one develops these boiler plate vices in childhood without even trying.
The art of growing up, however, is in learning how to handle and shape these negative primal urges into constructive emotions that come from living; empathy (they really hate that), sympathy, truth, consideration, appreciation, moderation, and patience. Many think going to church instead cleanse one of all sins, so you can begin again the next day as a terrible person, and that's like...OK.

Sure, there are a few intelligent ones still left way at the top who uses the stupids cause they can.

Maybe I'm an arrogant French-bred Elite, but that's how I see them.

[pundaint]

40. Yes, and I fear some of those conservatives may have shifted to the Democratic Party.

Some have even been elected.

[Morning Dew]

38. Excellent piece. n/m

[pundaint]

39. Degrees are neither certification of intellectualism nor intellect. Then there

was the last administration - 5 post-graduate degrees...

But I do agree with your larger premise - these racist yahoos do exhibit no affinity for critical thinking.

[grantcart]

70. My point was not about intellect but about anti intellectualism

The fact that you have degrees doesn't necessarily indicate that you are smarter or will be better leaders. It is a sign that you are not an anti intellectual.

When you are the last in your class and your obviously smarter than that it is a sign that McCain didn't put much effort into his classes.

Palin's tour of colleges also doesn't show much discipline but her inability to answer questions in her major is astonishing, but its her popular support in the party that indicates a fondness for those that thumb their noses at books.

[pundaint]

145. My experience differs somewhat from yours. Some abandon formal education beause

they found themselves in anti-intellectual schools. Many complete their degrees because they don't think about anything at the time and just followed the path, focusing on ticking the next box on the way. In his recent speech on education, our president came damn close to advocating social promotions, over qualification testing.

A lot of those people acting out live in their own heads, which is intellectual, but they furnish those heads very poorly. I could replace intellectual with learning, and be in agreement.

[JTFrog]

41. K&R

[awoke_in_2003]

45. It is about class...

they don't hate intellectualism, per se- they just want to be the only people to have access to education.

[14thColony]

46. Well-stated

And anti-intellectualism is no.11 on Dr. Lawrence Britt's 14 Characteristics of Fascism, and one of the key pillars of fascism I was taught as a PoliSci undergrad long ago. It's one of the truly defining characteristics of that political ideology.

[Philosoraptor]

47. Absolutely right!

[Odin2005]

48. Many of these people are simply unable to comprehend not believing in authoritarian dogmas.

[RagAss]

49. I believe you hit the nail on the head.

They always needed that Big Daddy with a beard in the sky !

[miscsoc]

50. Sort of agree with this

I think this applies to much of the voting base, and the muscle behind the tea parties. But as for the elite in the conservative movement, a different framework of understanding is needed. Ideas per se, often quite elaborate ones, are not anathema to these people, it's reality that's the problem (Think of the old state sponsored Marxist theorists of the Soviet era - their learning and ideological sophistication was often real, the problem was their indifference to accurately describing the world around them)

Neoconservatism is a case in point - at the higher levels (where people like Frum, actually, resided) the foreign policy discourse was often quite intellectual and refined, (really, they churned out a lot of intricate drivel) but it was not "reality based". Also the free market ideologues of the various think tanks are certainly engaging in ideological activity, at least as much as their counterparts in the old eastern bloc used to. Again it's where reality intrudes that they switch off.

Anyway, just wanted to throw in that comparison to stalinist ideology since i think its fairly apt.

[Bluenorthwest]

53. Obviously it is not all about race. Barney Frank is white and

they shouted slurs at him as well. That makes it clear. But it also makes the lines sort of fuzzy, because while 'our side' would not shout slurs in public, many of them do in fact agree with the Tea Bag crowd that Barney should not have rights equal to straight people. And that is when you get to take a look at this 'intellectualism' and really get to wondering. Dogmatic, faith based prejudice is not intellectual. A calm, carefully crafted set of rationalizations for bigotry is just as offensive as a slur shouted on the steps. The end results of 'faith based' policy are far worse than the results of some nut shouting slanders.
Just something to consider. Intellectual is not a word I'd use to describe those who use faith based dogmas to rationalize real world prejudice against their fellow Americans. No matter what Party they claim to be in.

[miscsoc]

58. it's not just about race. it's about race

and homophobia rooted in repressed homosexuality.

more seriously, i agree with the above post. the left isn't free of homophobes and the like, but it's a lot freer than the other side, and a generally progressive world view tends to wear down prejudice when people develop it a bit. Not always though, here in the uk I'm aware of a couple of ultra left groupuscules with less than enlightened views on homosexual love.

[Klukie]

54. I could not agree more!

I have witnessed it on many occassions and I would only add that it is completely fear based..the anti-intellectualism, the racism, the adherence to religion (fearful of going to hell). The fear of the unknown makes them hate. The next time you are in a conversation with someone of this caliber..bring up fear and see what kind of reaction you get. I think it all boils down to kill or be killed mentality.

[lumberjack_jeff]

55. Education does not equal intelligence.

We win elections be convincing 51% of the public that we have the right ideas. 28% of the public have college degrees. Sara Palin and GW Bush are part of that 28% and GW has about as elite an education as it is possible to purchase.

Of necessity, politics is partially about us vs them. It is stupid to pick a "them" who outnumber the "us".

[grantcart]

71. Never said that it did

But degrees and advanced degrees are a sign that you are not 'anti-intellectual'.

A lack of degrees is not a sign of 'anti-intellectualism' but Sarah Palin's campaign and the history of the Republican Party over the last year are.

[lumberjack_jeff]

101. We embrace the other side of this view at our peril.

I still identify with a democratic party which is the party of the working person.

If our new core constituency is low-to-moderate income people with advanced degrees...

... let's just say that High School math prepared me for anticipating the result.

That said, I do see an element of truth to what you say, but it takes two to tango. This is a dance in which we have happily become full partners. They call the highly educated liberal 10% of the country elitists, who retaliate by calling the 90% idiots.

Our echo chamber is doing us a disservice. If you doubt what I say, look at Robb's demographics thread. Except in age, we are not representative of the country as a whole.

Other DU'ers have said that DU is anti-intellectual. Frankly, that's about as stupid as it gets. I buck a trend. I want to bring people to the party, but I'm working against a louder group who want to kick 'em out.

[liberation]

74. Yeah, but this thread is about the anti-intellectualism of the right...

... which you completely avoided to mention in your post.

This is not about college grads vs. everyone else.

[anachro1]

56. This is why

American politics has become little more than a bunch of irate monkeys flinging their own feces at each other, hoping something will stick.

[johnlucas]

267. Correction

anachro1 should have said:
"American politics has always been little more than a bunch of irate monkeys flinging their own feces at each other, hoping something will stick."

Had to fix that right there. For accuracy.
John Lucas

[Alcibiades]

57. Good post

"Uncomfortable with ideas in general and not simply liberal ideas in particular..."

Did you steal that line from me? I've been saying this for years!

It is at least partly about race, though: these same Palin people are the ones who would have (and I am sure many did) supported Lester Maddox and George Wallace. It is hard to parse out one form of the stupidity from the other--in fact, it cannot be done, because, in order to understand it fully, you have to understand the entire teabagger gestalt.

[grantcart]

64. I did but I only steal from the best

[Alcibiades]

163. You're more than welcome to it

One of the reasons I repeat myself so much is the hope that some of these little aphorisms will go viral.

[The Genealogist]

59. Insofar as racism is an emotion-driven response and

that a good education can crush racist ideology in a person. Educated people learn to think critically, to take apart theories and ideas, analyze them, and to leave behind the bad. Now, this is not always the case, of course. There are educated racists out there, no doubt about that. However, I would be comfortable in saying that a minority of properly educated people are racist. I would also suggest that there exist at least two categories of educated racist: one category is the properly educated racist who still clings to the emotional rush of racism. Another category is the intelligent racist who discovers what power there is in harnessing and manipulating the emotions of racism.

[NoSheep]

63. They are indeed anti thought. Just go read the comment section at Yahoo

Unbelievable stuff there. Just blows my mind.

[bhikkhu]

67. Yes, the "intellectual" may be their "them" of the moment

...but once you go there stupidity is hard to shake.

I was listening to NPR yesterday, where they talked about the rise of hate in the US, and mentioned that 25% of repugs believed Obama was the Anti-christ, among other ridiculous things. That should be a shocker to anyone, and my main thought was - that has to be the stupidest political party, ever.

[KittyWampus]

76. What the OP misses is the fact the Rightwing knows how to use symbolism. They are better at it.

The Right knows how to market their Neo-Liberal crap to appeal to the Reptilian Mind.

All too often the Left thinks all it needs to do is offer an intellectual argument to win people over.

Rational arguments NEVER win people over. Not even Liberals.

Human beings respond on deeper levels and tend to ignore rationales that don't agree with their pre-formed world view.

So the problem isn't just the anti-Intellectualism of the Right. It's the aversion intellectuals and policy makers on the Left have to creating, organizing and disseminating useful symbolism.

Marketing is necessary for any idea, any platform, any policy.

The Left SUCKS at marketing and often deride the process of packaging information.

[grantcart]

90. Coincidentally I had an OP two days ago on the subject.

I think that the Republicans are stuck with abstract (and untrue) bumper sticker slogans while the Democrats will be communicating principles 'incarnate' with real people.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/grantcart/283

[Tumbulu]

134. I think that you have raised a valid point, however

the left did not suck when it came to marketing Obama. It worked. And this first step of success has really infuriated the rabid wrong as we may finally be getting this skill under our belt.

[whathehell]

137. The Left DOES suck at marketing.....Why do you think that is?

I'm curious...They have thinkers to "update" them on messaging and such..I don't get it.

[pundaint]

150. We don't have a well-defined product. Narrow definitions make it easier to keep on message, or

agree to a message, for that matter.

We have a Party with proponents of Pro-Corporate legislation and Pro-People legislation (in retrograde), that's a tough marketing mix. Perhaps if we focus on what's best for the People for a while, we could fix this.

[whathehell]

263. I think our "product" so to speak is certainly more appealing to voters when compared to Repubs

and we should certainly be able to play to this...After all, we may be partly corporate..But they are ALL corporate, minus the god, guns and gays meme....They don't do shit for people..We do more than they...I frankly think it's something they've simply (and stupidly) ignored...Hopefully this will change.

[LynneSin]

77. Why do you think they worship people like George W. Bush and Sarah Palin

they both are very dimwitted people.

[mopinko]

78. knr

i think you have got it. so, does this mean that the mao jokes are on the wrong side of the fence, them? it should be toddmao and sarahmao?

[OneGrassRoot]

79. I'm curious if anyone claiming to be another religion besides Christian...

considers themselves a teabagger.

You're right. Fundamentalist Christians of the Palin variety are against much more than people of color. They are indeed against anything THEIR INTERPRETATION of the Bible doesn't seem to condone or explain.

Gray areas? Nah...they can't handle that. Everything must be black and white. Quite literally.

[socialist_n_TN]

80. NO, it's not WHOLLY about race...................

but that IS a large part of it IMO.

I think that the rage part of it can be summed up in one sentence though. They're enraged because their entire WORLDVIEW has been put into doubt over the results of the '06 and '08 elections, ergo they feel threatened.

Think about it. For 30+ years, the right has been fed the fiction that THEY were the "silent majority". And not just a majority, but they were a BIG majority. It was even somewhat correct at various times. But what happened was that as they got farther and farther right with no challenge, they lost even the SIGHT of the center. They REALLY began to believe that the racist and classist bullshit that they heard from their far right buddies was what EVERYBODY believed. Those last two elections put that mindset and worldview into doubt and this is the reaction to that doubt.

[Gwoppi]

84. All fascism is about anti-intellectualism

eom

[No DUplicitous DUpe]

85. Grant, Thank you for this excellent piece....

I agree with you 100% - and I really enjoyed reading all of the comments, as well. And if anyone disagrees with your column, you have at two word answer, that pretty well proves your point - Sarah Palin.

Well done!

K&R.

[grantcart]

89. thank you

[jbeing]

93. A Lurker Speaks Up

So, be kind. It's my first time. 

Maybe a larger issue (If we step back) is one of fear. I grew
up in Texas with many of the conservative, church-going,
self-denigrating and yet proud people. The one thing I noticed
was an undercurrent of disappointment and fear. Of course,
it's anecdotal evidence, but seeing them when I was a child,
and now as somewhat of an adult, I have this sadness for them.
They were told their whole lifetimes that if they did the
right things, prayed, worked hard and trusted their
government, their clergy and their employers, that there's
would be a good life. Well, look at what happened. 

Some very loud voices jumped in and told them what the source
of their fear was. Since no one else (including Liberals) was
actually taking the time to listen, Conservative elements
began co-opting and pre-empting their anxiety with words and
images that sound and look like the truth, even though they
are largely self-serving and exploitative.

Sometimes I feel that Liberals (LARGE L) like me tend to
dismiss these people as fringe - Say 10-20 percent of the
population. But that's 30-60 million people. They can't all be
fringe. I don't agree with what they say, but I think it's
time we look deeper into what's bothering them. If we're
supposed to be the "smart and educated elites,"
maybe it's time use those smarts and listen to what's ailing
them. Conservatives, Tea-baggers, God Squad, whatever you want
to call them are acting out, because of a real or perceived
threat. Rather than minimizing their fears and concerns, maybe
we should try to understand where all this is coming from.

I think it begins with empathy. The Conservatives seem to have
lost something valuable to them (they are using euphemisms
such as Our Country, Saving the Constitution, etc.). Racism,
uber-patriotism, and anti-intellectualism are the symptoms of
a larger problem. It's like they're on a ledge about to jump.
I wonder how we can talk them down.

Appreciate any of your comments. 

[onpatrol98]

102. Best Post/Reply Yet

I think your post/reply is the best post yet. After reading it, I was reminded of why I first started joining forums. I wanted to share in ideas with like minded individuals, keep up with current events, and discuss the issues of the day.

Keep Posting!!!

[jbeing]

127. Thanks

I don't want to wear out my welcome.

[caraher]

129. No danger of that, I think

I forgot to say welcome in my other post!

Empathy is important. Remember how that was mocked by the right when Sotomayor was up for confirmation?

[jbeing]

132. yeah, I remember

but I have never seen actual empathy fail. I meant seeing the world from the other side's POV. Sometimes just listening is the best strategy, especially when you're dealing with someone who is frightened.

[lumberjack_jeff]

116. Exactly. Well said.

Best. Debut. Post. Ever.

[jbeing]

139. Very kind of you to say

My thinking is that we complain about people we see as our enemies. What if we first saw them as people that have valid concerns. Maybe they are unable to express exactly what is bothering them and have accepted what is told them by the right wing. but that takes listening skills and finding a way to validate them as people. We (I'm not immune to this) tend to think in terms of arguments - them vs us - rather than understanding what they mean. It's not always what they say. There is a reason so many people are upset. If we jump to conclusions about racism or anti-intellectualism, they we will never bridge the divide. We will all suffer as a result.

What do you think?

[lumberjack_jeff]

140. I have no problem conceptualizing conservatism as the enemy.

But the best ammunition we have against that enemy is taking away its support. We take away that support by understanding why their message is appealing to people, and convincing those people that the message is simply the worm in which a fishhook hides.

It's politics. We have to grow up and realize that we win by getting people to vote for us. Even people we don't like.

[jbeing]

146. The Enemy?

We're talking about peoples' lives and hopes. I don't agree that dehumanizing people because they don't disagree with us is the adult way to act. I'm not talking about manipulation, but dialog.

We get the government that mirrors who we are. I believe that if things change we need to enlist the best of what's in us - on both sides. Sorry, to sounds so Pollyanna about this, but what's happening now isn't working. There's got to be another way. I'm just suggesting that to change their perception of us, we need to change our perception of them.

[lumberjack_jeff]

154. The ideology, not the people.

Conservatism... not people who call themselves conservative.

Some people gravitate to "leaders" who offer surety and inspire confidence to ameliorate their fear. As Steven Colbert jokingly said; "GW believes the same thing Wednesday as he did Monday - regardless of what happened Tuesday." They're consistent and confident. The penalty for being wrong is far smaller than being inconsistent.

I don't dehumanize people who disagree with us, I want to change them, free them from the influence of the enemy.

I get a lot of crap for being willing to use some of their tactics. I say that here's the difference, the bad guys will create problems explicitly for the purpose of creating things for their audience to be afraid of.

We think that Rush and Beck manipulate people. They don't - they fulfill needs. If we can fulfill those needs, we then get the opportunity to deliver tangible benefit as a byproduct. The trojan horse on the left holds economic justice and the general welfare. The trojan horse on the right contains liquid shit.

I would start by making people see the same negative imagery for "Corporation" as now exists for "Islam". They should be scared of the right things.

[jbeing]

156. I agree

that Rush and Beck fulfill needs. But it's a one-way conversation. There's never a dialog with their listeners. The only people who get to speak already agree with the host. Or, they get shouted down. Since the US is not about preventing people from speaking, maybe we should promote the idea of listening.

Instead of conflict, maybe we can be the problem solvers. But we have to know what the problems are - from the POV of people who don't see things as we do. The in-your-face approach or fighting fire with fire hasn't worked so far.

Some people will always be convinced by a hard sell, but it's the softer approach that solves problems, and makes for a longer-term relationship and a better world. The problem with the softer approach is that it's hard to do. It take times and effort. That's why it works better one-on-one - You (I) and the person with whom you (I) disagree.

We spend too much time branding conflicting concepts rather than developing relationships.

I don't want to be scared of the right things. I would guess that Conservatives don't want to be scared either. That is something we may have in common.

You make many strong points and I don't want to negate what you write.

[lumberjack_jeff]

160. The reason you don't want to be scared, is because you're a liberal.

You and I don't have the same psychological needs as conservatives do. There are inherent differences. 15,000 years ago conservatives were sure that hundreds of tigers were hiding in the tall grass. Liberals realized that the conservative was paranoid. A smart liberal realized the field would be better used growing potatoes. A brilliant liberal got the conservative to champion the idea and plow the field as a security measure.

The conservative was able to channel his fear in a productive way, and the village ate better. Was he manipulated? Meh.

http://blog.buzzflash.com/contributors/3014
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100224132655.htm

[jbeing]

161. That Got a Laugh Out of Me

In most ways I agree with you. I just thought we could find a way to be more effective. Being a Liberal is an ideology. I thought maybe we could get beyond labels and find some common ground as people. You can call me naive - I won't mind.

[lumberjack_jeff]

164. Researchers are realizing that much of ideology is hardwired.

Read the two links in my previous post.

Personally, I think 30% of people are hardwired to be conservative. The best you can hope for is to channel their fear into productive purpose.

[jbeing]

233. I read them

Thanks. I've read Lakoff's books and find them eye-opening. But they deal with political framing and influence. Not inter-personal communications. I'm getting tired of the constant anger and arguments. there's got to be a better approach. If Liberals are supposed to be the smarter or more intellectual group, do we have the responsibility to start the healing (communication) process? I'm exhausted. Have a good night.

[caraher]

117. I think we DO understand what's bothering them

The problem with that 10-20% is they are living with a lot of anxiety brought on in part by the economic conditions of our age (such as globalization, casino capitalism and high unemployment) and turn to people they trust for answers - who ruthlessly exploit those anxieties and foment fears of phantom enemies (such as the specter of Nazi Marxist socialist secret-Muslin Kenyan president out to raise your taxes and kill your grandma). They are systematically misinformed.

We could probably talk most of them down if they simply turned off the RW noise machine (Beck, Rush, FOX). At a talk I attended Robert Kennedy Jr. said that most Republicans are simply misinformed Democrats. I think that's going a bit too far, but there's a kernel of truth there.

[jbeing]

131. Maybe so

but many of the people you refer to are poor. Poor in finances, poor in a world view and poor in spirit. They are as much victims of what is happening to the rest of the world. Imagine having a child and not having the ability to empathize with a parent in Iraq. Image needing to feel a part of something (patriotism) that you are willing to sacrifice your child. And imagine wearing a tri-corned hat and acting like a psycho to express your anger. What a mental and emotional mess these Conservatives have become. It's like some major meltdown.

They may be misinformed by a noise machine, but they were already in a bad state before Fox. No one listened.

As for the Bobby Kennedy quote: That sounds nice, but how do we know it to be true. Just sounds like rah rah for our side. I would love to see a Democratic (Party) listening tour of Republicans and Tea-Baggers. I would love to see our side invite these outsiders into our party. It may or may not work, but it wouldn't hurt.

[caraher]

246. The Bobby Kennedy Jr. quote is based on his personal experience.

The context was his work on environmental issues, and he was talking about the many times he found himself in deeply "red" territory discussing some environmental outrage or other. And these self-identified conservatives would become just as outraged about the things that he told them as any of us would, and mainly wanted to know, "Why didn't anyone tell us this before?"

So yes, it is a bit of a self-serving quote, but it draws on some genuine experience and not mere wishful thinking and self-congratulation.

[livetohike]

120. Welcome to DU!

:hi: and great post, too. Fear is a great motivator. Bush/Cheney used it for their entire eight years. People respond to this by shutting down their ability to reason and protecting what they have.

[jbeing]

133. Thank You

My only point is that we spend a lot of time putting down these people and spend so little time trying to understand where they're coming from. We could learn a lot about them and ourselves. Maybe thing could improve.

[No DUplicitous DUpe]

143. jbeing, Welcome to DU! In your honor, I just donated to DU so you would have a donor star...

...by your name. I really liked what you had to add to the conversation, and I hope to read more insightful posts by you in the future.

Once again, Welcome to DU!
:hi:

[jbeing]

149. Wow

Thanks. I appreciate your kind words.

I just signed up today. What does donate and donor star mean? Sorry to be so ignorant about how all this works.

Hopefully, I can contribute and learn from all of you.

Again thanks.

[No DUplicitous DUpe]

157. Well, the star by your name means either you made a donation...

...to this website, or that someone made a donation to DU, and assigned you the star, which remains for a year.
Maybe some will disagree, but a star next to a new member's name (with a low post count) adds a measure of respect by members who have been around here for a long time, and may be wary of new members.

[jbeing]

159. Thanks

I appreciate your kind gesture. I will pass it forward.

You made me feel great.

[ProSense]

193. Sorry, but after eight years of Bush and Republican rule supported completely by

many of these very people, this is simply an excuse:

So, be kind. It's my first time.

Maybe a larger issue (If we step back) is one of fear. I grew
up in Texas with many of the conservative, church-going,
self-denigrating and yet proud people. The one thing I
noticed was an undercurrent of disappointment and fear. Of
course, it's anecdotal evidence, but seeing them when I was a
child, and now as somewhat of an adult, I have this sadness
for them. They were told their whole lifetimes that if they
did the right things, prayed, worked hard and trusted their
government, their clergy and their employers, that there's
would be a good life. Well, look at what happened.

Some very loud voices jumped in and told them what the source
of their fear was. Since no one else (including Liberals) was
actually taking the time to listen, Conservative elements
began co-opting and pre-empting their anxiety with words and
images that sound and look like the truth, even though they
are largely self-serving and exploitative.

Sometimes I feel that Liberals (LARGE L) like me tend to
dismiss these people as fringe - Say 10-20 percent of the
population. But that's 30-60 million people. They can't all
be fringe. I don't agree with what they say, but I think it's
time we look deeper into what's bothering them. If we're
supposed to be the "smart and educated elites,"
maybe it's time use those smarts and listen to what's ailing
them. Conservatives, Tea-baggers, God Squad, whatever you
want to call them are acting out, because of a real or
perceived threat. Rather than minimizing their fears and
concerns, maybe we should try to understand where all this is
coming from.

I think it begins with empathy. The Conservatives seem to
have lost something valuable to them (they are using
euphemisms such as Our Country, Saving the Constitution,
etc.). Racism, uber-patriotism, and anti-intellectualism are
the symptoms of a larger problem. It's like they're on a
ledge about to jump. I wonder how we can talk them down.

Appreciate any of your comments.

There are millions of liberals and progressives who are suffering the injustice of corporate greed who haven't resorted to violence.

Anger, and there is plenty of it, is justified. Violence is not. Nothing is an excuse.

They want what the want: an intolerant country where people who look like them and share their narrow perspective succeed.

They lost something all right, they see a "muslim," "non-American" black man at the helm of the country, and that's unacceptable.

[jbeing]

216. You're right

but I was wondering if there was a way to change the way we deal with each other in a less violent way. It seems like we've been trained to have conflict (and not healthy conflict). Do you think there is any way to bridge the divide?

[ProSense]

221. "I was wondering if there was a way to change the way we deal with each other in a less violent way"

The country isn't engulfed in violence of a politcal nature. The teabaggers are the ones reacting violently to the actions of politicians.

[jbeing]

229. I think things will be rough for a while

but they will calm down. It may take a tragedy (I hope not). I think that life is so hard for many of these people that they will just evaporate into there private lives. Maybe it's wishful thinking. I'm looking for some answer to this. We can't continue on the same course we've been traveling. Any ideas?

[ProSense]

230. "It may take a tragedy (I hope not)."

You believe a tragedy will calm things down? Really?

[jbeing]

234. No

Sad to say, but I think a lot of these people will go into hiding if something happens. Their fear will increase at the possibility of retribution. Not a prediction. Our society always has violence just under the surface. That's why I hope that we can find a more effective way of diffusing the tension. We should be living in an amazing country with amazing possibilities. I can't figure this out. I'm just trying to see how other people thinking about this.

[ElboRuum]

197. I don't know if they CAN be talked down.

We've kind of reached a bit of a watershed point in our nation. Our lives are complex and becoming moreso every day.

These people you speak of want simplicity and the world can no longer afford to offer it. This isn't 1950 anymore and maybe what they were taught back then doesn't apply now. I find no end of irony in the fact that it has been their devotion to the simple life, with simple thoughts, simple beliefs, and a simple devotion to a caricature of what American life truly is that has led them time and time again to vote for people who want to replace the simplicity that they so crave with the complexity of life in a predatory socioeconomic environment.

In short, they helped destroy the very way of life they so longed for because they couldn't be bothered with what was really going on around them, preferring instead to cling to the very comforting and erroneous idea that the evidence that the rug was being pulled out from under their simple little lives was a lie.

Even if we could "talk them down" from the ledge, we could never deliver unto them the society they feel owed, at least not in their lifetime. Nor would we WANT to. Progress truly waits for no one and we've gone way past the idea that the 1950's were a wonderful time and that not only that they can, but should, return. These people are growing increasingly less relevant in this society because at this point in time, not only is it desirable for our society to evolve past the mindless nostalgia for the salad days of the '50s and get over the third decade of the '80s, but it is also NECESSARY.

They're clinging to a way of life that can no longer be reconciled against what is very real. They want to consume without a thought given to the environment because that's what they've always done. They want to believe that evolution is a sham and fossils are just God's way of having a bit of a joke at our expense because that's what they've always believed. They want to believe that someday, if they work hard enough and keep their noses clean enough, that riches await them, because that's what they've always been taught. They don't want to accept the fact that you can't shit where you eat forever without eventually soiling your dinner plate. They don't want to accept the fact that maybe, just maybe, their belief that a single book contains the full compendium of wisdom and important history is a bit wrongheaded. They don't want to accept the fact that they, by voting time and time again for people who mouth the words which support their desire to keep things simple but take away all avenues of advancement while their heads are turned, CAUSED their own plight.

Like children, they put their fingers in their ears, scream the words of Mary Had A Little Lamb at the top of their voices, and tell themselves that everyone else who thinks differently about the world is trying to take away what they've already GIVEN AWAY.

They won't be talked down until they grow up, and I, for one, am not insane enough to try to reason with these adult children of undue privilege.

[jbeing]

218. So what can be done?

do we wait for the next generation to fix this? Maybe I'm being too simplistic, but things seem to be going downhill. I was raised a Jew in Dallas. The people around me were what I would kindly call rednecks and racists. They insulted Jews, Mexicans and African-Americans (using the negative terms for both). But they invited us to dinner, helped my family when my father died. They were there day and night, helping us. At the same time they would say things like "They Jewed me down" in front of us, like we weren't Jewish. To say I was confused is an understatement. How could such racists be so kind? Sometimes I think they don't understand the meaning of the words they use. At the same time, I can never thank them enough for all the care and support they gave my family.

Maybe that's I think there is a chance they can be "saved" from their ancient prejudices. I hope so.

What do you think?

[ProSense]

223. " How could such racists be so kind? "

Kind?

Often, racism only rears its ugly head when people feel threatened. There is absolutely no excuse for racism. It's long past the time that such attitudes be excused as ignorant and "just they way they were raised."

[jbeing]

227. So how do things change?

if they feel threatened, how do they ever feel safe enough to co-exist with people who don't live or feel like they do. I'm not looking for excuses for them. I'm just trying to find a way to change things without the conflict. Call it conflict resolution or communication or whatever. There has to be a solution. Where does it start?

What do you think?

[ProSense]

228. They learn to change.

Where are all the people who couldn't deal with the Civil Rights movement? Do you believe civil rights should have taken a back seat to their fears, stubbornness or willful ignorance?


"I'm just trying to find a way to change things without the conflict."

What conflict?

[jbeing]

232. The Conflict

that makes everyone hold onto their own bit of turf. As a Liberal I feel that we should work together to solve our problems. Conservatives want to portray themselves rugged individualists, depending on no one (Except Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Unemployment Insurance, etc.). I think that freedom of (and from) religion is a cornerstone of our country. They don't. Then there are other conflicts (Needless Wars, Immigration, Abortion, You name it). Do you think that these problems can ever resolved? If so, how?

Another thing that I find amazing: I lived through 9/11. I was down there at work when it happened. But as shocked as I was, I find the fear that Middle America (or the people with whom I've spoken) overwhelms me. It's as if they heard the sounds and smelled the wreckage, and it never left them. Oh well, I'm rambling. Have a good night.

[ProSense]

235. Life is full of conflicts by that definition

People learn to deal with them. The manifestation of intimidation, violence and other espicable actions of the teabaggers cannot be excused by claiming ideological differences. There is no excuse.

[ElboRuum]

258. I don't know if anything CAN be done.

Unless a person wants to change they will not be changed. And many have been this way for most if not all of their lives. Sometimes you just can't get over that kind of inertia.

[jbeing]

264. It Seems the Republicans have

not only co-opted the conversation, but they have also have co-opted the inertia that their message implies. "You don't have to DO anything. You have BE something. No effort, just belief and repeat what you're told until you believe it."

There's got to be a way to counteract this. It's good for no one. Not even Republicans, Conservatives and Weekend (Weakened) Patriots.

I'm just searching for some information on what can be done. I thought if we tapped into enough brains, we might come up with a goal and strategy that would change the dynamic between Left and Right.

Any thoughts?

[pundaint]

244. Well said. First we need to identify what exactly the Democratic Party stands for, then we can

an outreach strategy.

[unpossibles]

87. I too have been thinking about this for some time

It's definitely not an accident. Conservative commentators like Limbaugh have for years lambasted Universities as liberal brain washing centers, decry the intellectual elite, waged war against science via the ID movement and the anti-global warming campaigns, complained about schools being taken over by communists, have pushed for home schooling and a sort of anti-intellectual pride, and have made a point of getting people to distrust the media (except for FOX and EIB of course, the only "fair and balanced" sources) which essentially makes people distrust information.

The obvious and direct result is that when you try to argue with a conservative and make it a point to even try to cite sources, they will shut you out completely, claim your source is biased and go on ignoring the mountain of evidence which goes against what they believe/have been told to believe. Seriously, it makes it nigh impossible to get through to them. I've had some friends-of-friends with whom I thought I was making headway, then they'd come back with their brains filled with rush/mush and I realized it's almost pointless. That's really sad.

What's worse is I doubt the conservative leaders who did this have thought of the long-term effects and problems, some of which we're beginning to see. They use these people to get their deregulation and other things which hurt their supporters, and if you try to show them what's behind the curtain, so to speak, they get angry with you.

Why?

Because it makes them feel stupid & weak if they realize they were duped. So instead of going with the empirical evidence in front of them, they will refuse to admit error and keep on keeping on, and will blame you for (a) calling them stupid even if you're not and (b) entrench further in their beliefs that the "liberal elite" look down on them. I don't look down on someone who fell for something, but it's hard to not be saddened by continued willful ignorance and the snowballing effects of it.

Everyone makes mistakes and anyone can fall for a con; all I ask is that no one should wallow in them proudly.

[socialist_n_TN]

92. I've had the same sense of frustration..................

when trying to argue with the hard righties. They not only don't look at any evidence contrary to what they believe, I've also found that they won't even answer legitimate questions when they're actually trapped in a logical impasse. They will CHANGE THE PARAMETERS OF THE QUESTION RATHER THAN ANSWER IT.

I've pretty much come to the conclusion that it doesn't do any good to actually argue with these folks because even if you win by any objective criteria, it won't make any difference. The ONLY reason to keep arguing with this group is to positively influence any lurking middle-of-the-roaders that might be watching/listening/reading.

[jbeing]

126. Yes, it can be frustrating

to discuss something with a person who so adamantly believes in what they are saying. Kind of like us. From my experience I've found that I have given myself the right to feel as I do about issues. With that right firmly a part of me, I can then let others feel strongly as well. I try (not always with success) to have respect for other people (I've found that almost everyone comes with a life story attached). Even so, I find that they may not have respect for me. But I see that as a problem to be solved. First, I try to listen to what they say, and make sure I understand their point-of-view. This, I find, makes it much easier to communicate. Now, remember, I'm not trying to manipulate them into thinking like me. I'm trying to let them know they are being heard and that I can be influenced. Then, I tell then how I see an issue, based on my experience.

Bringing it down to people and individuals and hopes is a good way to start communicating. I'm not naive enough to think that this works with everyone. But I've decided that is the kind of world I want to live in. Respect for myself that leads to respect for others. I'm not sure what this means to anyone else. I just wanted share my POV.

Sorry if I went on too long. The arguing should stop. The understanding should begin.

[socialist_n_TN]

155. Oh, I have no problem with anyone................

believing what they believe, but when they won't even answer a question without CHANGING it (the question, not their minds), there's no hope for any sort of legitimate dialog.

As I said, I'll still argue with them occasionally, but only because I'm NOT going to lose the chance to potentially influence someone else who possibly hasn't made up their minds yet.

[jbeing]

158. I understand

how frustrating they can be, but there is a human being under all that dogma do. I would be willing to bet they are scared and may not be able to articulate it. That would make me grasp at straws to stop the fear.

BTW-How do you handle that situation - to influence someone else who hasn't made up their mind?

Have you heard of anyone who has changed the mind of someone who has their mind set? How did they (or you) do that?

[socialist_n_TN]

250. As I said, I don't even try to.....................

change the minds of a hard set rightie. I just try to argue the facts and mostly ask questions. The "question method" is the way I prefer to argue. I think that this method is the best way to try and get someone to a logical impasse and HOPE that they can SEE the impasse they find themselves in. And I don't disagree that their positions are based in fear. They're ALL afraid of change, IMO.

As to trying to influence someone who hasn't made up his mind, I don't have a set way of trying to do that, but I think that the discussion itself does the most good. So many of these right wingers have the attitude that if you don't DISAGREE with my assertions, you MUST agree with them. And I think that a lot of people who haven't made up their minds think that way too.

So many of the squishy middle will go along with the flow. If they think that EVERYBODY around them is a right winger, well that must be the correct view, so I'll be one too. If they SEE that not EVERYBODY in the world is a hard right winger, then MAYBE they'll feel like it's OK to go along with their inner liberal/progressive/socialist in, at least, SOME matters.

That's actually the reason I got involved in political discussion again a few years ago after a long hiatus. I've always voted, supported progressive views and even admitted to being the L word when pressed, but for a lot of years I didn't make a deal out of it. IOW, I didn't argue with the righties around me. I changed after the '00 elections. I just got tired of the right wingers I was around thinking that, because I didn't actively disagree, I actually AGREED with them. So I started talking about it. And all of a sudden, I started getting emails and private messages from folks telling me to keep it up and encouraging my side of the debate. Almost like a "silent" group of closet progressives. THAT led me to believe that it's better to argue with them than keep the peace.

[jbeing]

251. Can you give me some examples of how you argue

specific points. Or rather, not argue, discuss. I find it difficult to confront people who hold onto their beliefs like lifesavers. They always seem to first label me as a Lib, then put down my ideas before they hear them. It's frustrating. I find myself overwhelmed by their anger and fear. Any suggestions?

[socialist_n_TN]

252. What works for me is............................

as I said, just asking questions and using the answers to hone in on logical fallacies.

One question that I like to ask is: How can people who don't BELIEVE in government be expected to govern when they actually achieve political power? If you think about it there's really only two answers to why someone who doesn't believe in something gets into it. They either want to shut it down (Grover Norquist RE: Government, shrink it to baby size, so you can drown it in the bathtub) OR they want to take personal advantage of it (too many Republican scandals to mention). THAT was why W's administration and their Legislative branch majorities were so incompetent. They didn't believe in what they were doing.

My answer to your last question is merely to be proud of what you are. Big things NEVER get done in this country if it wasn't for progressives. In discussions with the RW, just ask questions. It's less confrontational than yelling talking points at each other and their answers will lead them to illogical statements that you can then ask MORE questions. If it gets physical, get the Hell out of there!

[jbeing]

255. Thanks

It usually never gets physical, because I try not to confront, but ask and listen. Then, I tell them what I found troubling about a portion of what they said (and could they explain what they meant). That usually gets them talking. As Zig Ziglar said, "When they're talking, they're buying. When you're talking, you're selling. I try not to sell too hard. Their eyes glaze over and they start to repeat their mantras. I try to get them talking with a few simple comments on my part. I sometimes have to repeat that I respect what they have to say (even when I don't) and that I hope they understand what I'm trying to say. Think of it as planting a seed of thought or doubt. The problem is I can't sit around for months (years) and see if anything is growing.

BTW-I used to be very militant about my beliefs. As I aged and had children, my perspective changed. I realized that I want them to have a safer and happier world than I have known. i find that I have to model the behavior I want them internalize. Not easy for a guy with a temper. But I am trying.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

88. great post! Hey, a book I'm enjoying lately:

Idiot America: How Stupidity Became a Virtue in the Land of the Free ~ Charles P. Pierce (Author)
You might like it too, it's hilarious, infuriating, very scholarly and just all around right-on-target. As all social critique should be :)

there's a great interview with Pierce on the book's Amazon page:
http://www.amazon.com/Idiot-America-Stupidity-Became-Virtue/dp/0767926145

[Orsino]

91. It's about race, too.

And more so in the past couple of years.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

96. I'm sorry, but it is most definitely about race. Just because anti-intellectualism

is the order of the day for these *morans* doesn't mean that everything else is mutually exclusive.

Of course it's about race...

and the big, bad LIBRUL Devil and its media...

about anti-intellectualism and everything "mathy" and "sciency"...

and about the Big Corporations...

and about fascism, war, hyper-nationalism...

It's about all these things.

[grantcart]

99. obviously some anti-intellectuals are racists

but the anti-intellectuals are driving the bus.

The point being that they are not simply against progressive ideas but against conservatives like Buckley.

Buckley famously took on the John Birch Society and would not tolerate their inclusion in Republican events. Now the JBS descendents, the Tea Party does not tolerate Buckley's heir David Frum.

Racists were in the Republican Party before and will be welcomed in the future but what is transforming the Republican Party is the anti-intellectual screeds of Limbaugh et al conducting purges.

[ProSense]

181. Here's the problem:

Buckley famously took on the John Birch Society and would not tolerate their inclusion in Republican events. Now the JBS descendents, the Tea Party does not tolerate Buckley's heir David Frum.

This stuff means nothing to the people who are engaged in teabagger rallies. The anti-intellectuals maybe driving the bus, but the passengers are good old-fashion bigots and racists.

[lisainmilo]

97. I agree! n/t

[Echo In Light]

98. I'm more concerned w/those who don't cast themselves as RW yet side w/many RW tenets & 'values'

... largely b/c they're unwary of doing so since RW tenets/characteristics/traits are often strategically sold and espoused w/o accurately identifying them for what they are.

It's that awful luke-warm, middle o' the road approach that, b/c of the prevalence of corporate media and cultural institutions that, often through example amplify conservative RW beliefs/values, conditions a large % of the populace toward RW goals - which explains why so many see a "liberal" in a rep who actually serves the profit over people corporate structure/culture first and foremost. These are the ones afraid to offend and/or rock the boat, and so dismiss the potential dangers of the way-to-the-right segment of the populace, who uncritically latch onto M$M LARGE PRINT rhetoric that is coupled with a sense of familiarity since many of their friends/family/peers are in the same position, receiving their cultural directives/propaganda from similar corporate 'news' sources, and from there, as people are wont to do, prefer to cast themselves as actually knowing shit from shinola ... which is also how the Conspiracy Theories Are Non-Existent meme gets so much mileage; it's easier to side w/a disinformed, perceived majority than it is to take the time to research how and what the US govt actually is, and represents, and be deemed 'crazy' for doing so by one's peers/family.

[Rex]

103. Not new, people have been getting the barby for talking outside the box

for centuries. We just are lucky enough to live in a somewhat modern time period where I can say I don't believe in God and not get the rack or thumbscrews.

[NAO]

106. racism, anti-intellectualism, etc are various tactics. It's REALLY all about MONEY

As Jack Clark frequently points on in his fantastic podcast, Blast the Right:

Everything the right-wing does is designed to accomplish one of two things, either (a) transfer wealth from everyone else to the rich, or, (b) distract everyone else from the fact that (a), that wealth transfer, is occurring.

It is that simple. It is so powerful an explanatory statement that it bears repeating:

Everything the right-wing does is designed to accomplish one of two things,

EITHER

(a) transfer wealth from everyone else to the rich,

OR

(b) distract everyone else from the fact that (a), that wealth transfer, is occurring.

And THAT explains why they stoke racism, why the embrace anti-intellectualism, why they froth at the mouth about flag burning, or the pledge of allegiance, or whatever (b) strategy they are using that particular day.


****

BLAST THE RIGHT
http://www.therationalradical.com/podcast.html

[NanceGreggs]

107. Excellent piece of writing!!!

:applause: :patriot:

[PatSeg]

108. Obama is everything that these people hate

He is just too COOL - young, intelligent, well educated, and good looking as well. They prefer leaders who mirror their own inadequacies like Bush and Palin. They tend to pick their leaders the way they pick their friends.

[Wednesdays]

109. Big K&R...the anti-intellectual crap even pervades DU

Take, for example, this beaut of a sub-thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8022276#8022304

"The whole 'can't prove a negative' is bullshit." :crazy:

[femrap]

110. I still believe there is

a racist group within this Willful Ignorant repugnant mass. And I believe John Dean's book explains how roughly 22% of any population is capable of only Religious concepts that provide no grey area whatsoever.

Opinion is now Fact....thanks limpballs, Dobson, etc.

[grahamhgreen]

111. I think they are just trying to divide the people to push a pro-corporate agenda. Suddenly,

the propaganda machine is spewing divisive messages, when, before the crapsurance bill passed, it was all about bipartisanship.

The wanted bipartisanship as an excuse to pass a bill with no public option, now they want to divide those of us on the left and right who want to get rid of the mandate.

[upi402]

112. no news here

:argh: and I'm still furious that we are to close our eyes to what's coming...

[ClusterFreak]

113. This is one of the most well-reasoned, and insightful posts I've ever read on DU.

A pleasure to read.

:toast:

[grantcart]

118. Thank you Cluster

[pitohui]

115. oh sure they hate smart people TOO but it's all about race

the fear that a black man might pick up a dollar has been behind everything from the systematic destruction of the public schools to the fight to prevent sick people from getting medicine

the fact that obama is black AND smart is a delicious double whammy that's delightfully hard for them to swallow

but they wouldn't hate smart people so much were it not for their perception that smart people are much more likely to be "race traitors"

[Wednesdays]

122. "...that obama is black AND smart is a delicious double whammy..."

Reiter: The entire foundation has to be torn down and repoured. If not, there will be at least a subsidence at the southern end of the barracks. Subsidence, and then collapse.
Goeth: And you are an engineer?
Reiter: Yes. My name is Diana Reiter. I'm a graduate of Civil Engineering from the University of Milan.
Goeth: Ah, an educated Jew … like Karl Marx himself. Unterscharfuehrer!
Hujar: Jawohl?
Goeth: Shoot her.
Reiter: Herr Kommandant! I'm only trying to do my job!
Goeth: Ja, I'm doing mine.
Hujar: Sir, she's foreman of construction.
Goeth: I'm not going to have arguments with these people.
(Hujar starts to drag Reiter away; Goeth stops him)
Goeth: No. Shoot her here, on my authority.
Reiter: It will take more than that …
Goeth: I'm sure you're right.
(Reiter is shot)
Goeth: Take it down, repour it, rebuild it, like she said.

[Brewman_Jax]

119. It's about race

the same brain-dead TeaKluxKlanner birthers that can't accept the fact that a black man is President are likely the ones that wanted to amend the Constitution so Arnold Schwarzenegger could run for President.

[Fire1]

121. I totally disagree. They have provided definitive proof time and

time again that it is most definitely about race and privilege. Intellect has absolutely NOTHING to do with it. Their sentiments are quite clear, in that, even the most down troddened and uneducated among them are still superior to the black race and/or culture.

[Boojatta]

123. For Thomas Edison, Bill Gates, and their wives, what's the total number of degrees?

The McCain and Palin foursome consists of 3 college and 1 advanced degrees. Sarah Palin went to 4 different colleges before finally graduating while Todd Palin is a high school graduate. Senator McCain was in the lowest 1% of his class at the Naval Academy and Mrs. McCain is the only one of the four to have finished a respectable academic career with a bachelor and masters degree from USC.

[grantcart]

135. Thomas Edison and Bill Gates were not anti intellectuals.

The point, and virtually everyone else got it, was not to compare eduational bona fides but to compare the level of anti intellectualism that the right has got.

More education does not denote more intelligence or better leadership, but it does show a respect for education and unlikely openness to anti-intellectual absurdity.

McCain and Palin went to school but did very poorly. Their actions afterward showed that they disdain intellectual pursuits.

Palin's inability to answer the easiest possible question in her major shows that she did not go to college to master the academic material.

[Boojatta]

162. "The point, and virtually everyone else got it"

Did you post a poll on this topic and are the votes in that poll the basis for your claim? If so, then please post a link to the poll. I like polls.

[grantcart]

240. The recs are in fact a poll or you can go up the thread and see you stand almost alone in

your observation.

Either way works

[liberation]

148. For every example of a successful dropout there are about half a million stories of failure...

A lot of people seem hellbent in finding a justification for academic failure... when all they end up doing is proving that correlation does not imply causation, a lesson which, ironically, would have been apparent had they stayed in school.

BTW, Bill Gates is not a good example. He did not technically drop out of his own accord, as much as he was asked to leave Harvard for having appropriated illegally the minicomputer (which was Harvard's property) which him and Allen used to develop their first product.

There is an absolute danger in the approach that the American society has taken which considers money, a very flawed and one-dimensional metric which display sociopathic characteristics, as the only measure of succes and automatic validation (Esp. regarding intellectual matters). Eistein for example, never really made much money, so he would be considered a failure and not worthy of being listened to under today's standars. Truly a sad state of affairs for any society to devolve into...

[athenasatanjesus]

174. Funny how you use 2 people that stole ideas to get to the top as examples. nt

[elleng]

128. I'd go so far as to say they hate people that are plain ole EDUCATED!!!

[emdee]

130. I don't know about that. I am so furious right now.

A RW just now told me on a different message board that in the Tea Party movement there is no "garbage" like was seen on Obama's inauguration day. I'm fuming as I await her definition of "garbage."

I think it is all about race (and I'm as lily-white as they come) but they especially hate intelligent blacks.

ARG!

[Raoul]

138. insufferable Ron Christie

Don't know if it's the smug look on his face or the one freaking eyeball that goes up but I hate the Motherf-er.

[glinda]

141. Keep people stupid to control them is the idea.

[MajorChode]

147. It IS about race, and has been for some time

Racism is the tie that binds all of the grabastic groups the GOPhers claim as their constituency. Were it not for racism, there simply wouldn't be a Republican party today. All of their ideology, if you can call it that, centers around keeping white people in power or at least in positions economically superior to minorities. They will do anything to achieve this goal, even if it means bringing the entire country down a notch or two as a result.

[rhett o rick]

172. Racism is a tool to divide the masses and conquer. nm

[MajorChode]

195. While that may be true, in this case it's simply demagoguery

GOPhers use racism to appeal to the base instincts of their constituency just as they also appeal to hate, mistrust, xenophobia, homophobia, and sexism. I don't think they are smart enough to use it as a tool to divide and conquer. I think they honestly feel that way. They couldn't possibly be such good actors.

[rhett o rick]

215. You are exactly right, the republicans arent smart enough to use racism as a tool.

It isnt the republicans we should fear. They are also a tool of the corporate cabal.

[MajorChode]

217. I think they do use it as a tool when it suits them

They just don't use it as a tool to divide, but rather to join. In other words, they want the vote of the racists, they just don't want to overtly appear as racists even though they are.

There are numerous examples of this. Atwater's Southern Strategy. Raygan's "state's rights" speech. Rove's push poll about McCain's adopted child. I could go on and on. The bottom line is, they use racism because it's part of their character and they can easily identify with racists, but because they don't walk around in brown shirts and yell "white power" at their campaign rallies, the media, and in many cases the Democratic Party members of congress give them a free pass.

[alarimer]

152. Anti-intellectualism is not exclusive to conservatives

although it is one of the driving factors of conservatism.

There are plenty of "progressives" who believe in things that have no basis in reality (like 9/11 conspiracies, homeopathy, "alternative" medicine, etc). I would include in this things like excessive celebration of the "common man". That is actually found on both sides.

[Boojatta]

167. Isn't there an incentive to excessively celebrate the "common man"...

provided that the common man votes?

I suspect that, if only one percent of people who are eligible to vote actually voted, then politicians would praise characteristics of voters more than they would praise characteristics of the "common man."

[paulk]

153. k and r

agreed

[ProSense]

165. It's both, but race plays a big part.

It was anti intellectualism during the Bush years. If this wasn't in part due to race, you would have seen the teabaggers surface during the Kerry campaign.

Spitting on a Congressman, hurling slurs, hanging the President in effigy---it's about race. The backlash against immigrants is racist.

Anti-intellectualism is a factor, but the lunacy and violence of the teabaggers is largely racism and hate.

[WillyT]

166. Big K & R !!!

:kick:

[Bluzmann57]

175. Ah never mind

I was going to say that I'm not the most educated man, never graduated college, work a blue collar job, sit and drink beer, watch sports on tv and live, belong to a Union,etc. And I am an avowed Libera. But it just ain't worth arguing with people who are intellectuals. You go your way and I'll go mine. Just don't look down your nose at me like I'n some kind of lower life form. I was also going to say that I have learned more in my 52 years on this planet than most intellectuals, but again, it just isn't worth it. So just forget about it. My life goes on as does yours. I will, however, stay politically active and continue to speak out and fight for what I believe in.

[grantcart]

179. Its not about being educated or even being an 'intellectual'

Its about advancing a hatred of education, science and reason.

I understand very little about science personally but I understand the peer review process and embrace the conclusions and try and understand them the best I can.

What you believe in is based on your experience and reason and not based (I assume from your post)on a hatred of people who have done well in school or work for their brains.

There was nothing in the OP about looking down on anyone except those that hate knowledge, place their superstition above science and follow leaders who spew hatred and yell with red faces.

I don't even look down on their religion, but I do look down on their lazy and uninformed approach to it.

[Bluzmann57]

182. A reasoned approach

You show a reasoned and calm approach to the "anti intellectualism" problem that seems to be part of the problem with the teabaggers. As I said, I am a blue collar guy who actually started attending a two year college. I could not control certain things (hormones) and subsequently fathered a child. Having been raised by religious and responsible parents, I decided that getting a job and supporting the kid was probably the honorable thing to do. I never have returned to college full time, although I have taken some classes. I blame myself for that and no one else. And so, let me be clear, I am not really an "anti intellectual" but rather an anti snobbish type against the snobbish sorts who think they are better than me or my types opf people. And I will also admit that I may come off as aloof or snobbish to some people, especially when it concerns music. So anyway, thank you for your reasoned approach and peace to you and your family. And to all of us for that matter.

[grantcart]

183. agreed, well said and you sound like a great father.

[liberation]

208. Thank you... you made a very good point IMHO

The whole demonizing of us educated folk is just astounding.

I am tired of people thinking they do have the same validation in my field of expertise just because they have their own personal opinion, while completely thinking that me trying to correct their obvious mistakes is somehow an attempt at using my PhD to "victimize" them. It is just so irrational that I find it astounding.

Seeing so many people in DU furthering the whole meme set forth by Rush Limbaugh et al of the whole "liberal elitist intelligentsia" is rather sad, and down right appalling to tell you the truth.

I have to explain this in terms of sports for many people to fucking get it: Think of some fat overweight dumbass who is watching an NFL game on the TeeVee. Now, would a guy with 5 superbowl rings to his name have to tolerate that same dumbass telling him how to play the game? Hell no. Is that elitist? Sure. Is it an insult? No. The guy with 5 rings has walked the walk, he knows enough about football as to actually win games. The couch potato can talk until the second coming of Christ, but that won't change the fact that he has not walked the walk. Talking is very easy, knowing what the hell you are talking about? That is the complicated part.

Not a hard concept to get really. I have no idea why intellectuals and academics are singled out for this whole hatred. Probably a lot of unresolved insecurity issues regarding poor academic performance seems to be the logical source for the bias by some people.

[scentopine]

176. Stop it - please, please, please dont forget this fact,

its really smart people on wall street who rape us every fucking day and outsource every job in America to all points East and South of America.

And it was really smart people who fucked us over with mandates and insurance company driven health reform.

The image is of a Priuus driving smart liberal who negotiated a free trade agreement that sent jobs to China.

Please keep this in mind. People say I'm smart. I am starting to be ashamed of fucking smart people. Seems all they do is figure out how to screw the not so smart out of a living wage. What the fuck is wrong with being defined by what you do rather than how much shit you have?

Jesus. Insurance mandates is like gasoline on a fire. What the hell did dem leadership expect? A big fucking round of applause for another wall street bail out plan?

I'm ready to grab a pitch fork too.

Like every movement there are bad elements who grab attention. But its the tip of a broader iceberg. Soon, we will see a post that says the anger isn't about democrats or republicans. Its about a creating a feudal state.

And that will be much closer to the truth.

[grantcart]

178. It has nothing to do with being smart or being educated

Its supporting blatant anti-intellectual sentiments.

The Republicans are attacking their own intellectuals and science in general.

It is an out and out hatred of education, concepts, objective reasoning.

[scentopine]

180. I have been surprised by the right wingers I know

they now hate Bush they feel betrayed. I will insist there is more to this than people think. Until we create jobs that do some good in the world for people in our own country the anger against the educated class is 100% justified. I'm have a modest education, middle class income and some creative success and a bucket of intuition that tells me that this isn't going to blow over.

Until we deal with wall street and out sourcing - liberals (like me) and smart people in general will be hated. The anger is healthy. I'm angry at wall street and insurance companies - who the fuck wouldn't be? A zombie, maybe. With the right leadership I will have no problem grabbing a pitchfork and marching on Washington and Wall Steet. And if some tea baggers go along so be it.

[ElboRuum]

191. How are you managing to equate "manipulative" and "ambitious"

...with "intelligent" and "educated"?

Really. Do you think the fuckheads on Wall Street are either intelligent or educated? No, they are ambitious and manipulative. You don't need a big pile of brains to give over to avarice. And believe it or not, proficiency at manifesting the fruits of greed isn't brain surgery.

[scentopine]

198. Don't kid yourself - they pull in the top grads from ivy league

it is extremely competitive. Google said something like "how do we compete with Goldman Sachs?" They are right to worry about it.

Having said that I know they are also insourcing from India and China and outsourcing to the same places, but fact is you need top grades.

When I told a wall street douche bag that they are destroying America - he responded with " Do you know how hard I work?"

THAT IS THE PROBLEM - We Dont need the fuckers on wall street working so hard to fuck us over and over, we need tradesmen, scientists, engineers, et all to be working their asses off!!!! Trade toilet paper on wall street? You get minimum wage, not the working class.

[ElboRuum]

204. Oh, I don't kid myself about that...

No, I'm sure there are some decent minds. Maybe I didn't express it well in my previous post. What I was getting at is the difference between being manipulative, ambitious, and avaricious and smart/educated. You seemed to be equating the two somehow. But for the record, I don't believe that these guys and girls on TP Avenue are there primarily because of their intelligence, they are there because their character is such that they'd rather gather up all the money in the world and take a swim in it regardless of WHO it fucks over.

[donco6]

185. I agree. Not only is ignorance a virtue -

but bellowing about your own ignorance is glorious to these chuckleheads.

[riverbendviewgal]

190. You hit the nail on the head

"They hate people that are well educated."

and thus so I find most who are like that are also racist.

My brother is proof of this.

He lives in the NE of the USA. yet he adopted the nickname of BUBBA in his adult life. He is
real redneck, ex-marine, who never went to war, just typed at a desk in DC.

He told me he hates Obama, and Pelosi..He really, really hates her. He loves Sarah Palin. He says she is real smart.
I believe he hates Obama because he is black and that he is educated. He believes Obama is Muslim and was not born in the USA.

My brother never went beyond high school and he had a hard time with that.

He mocks me for my knowledge and that I am from Canada. I chose to become Canadian and never have regretted it.

He is proud to not know anything about any country except that he hates all the countries. He believes the USA is the best and the world owes everything to the USA. He really hates illegals as well.

He attacks me, calls me a moran, and that I am a traitor like Jane Fonda He says I danced in the nude in the late 60's, smoking pot and protesting.
2 out of 3 he is right. LOL.

He knows how our Canadian health system works as he saw my husband and son die of cancer. He is aware of the treatments they received and how it didn't cost us and how I didn't get bankrupt. Yet he badmouths Canadians as socialist and communists.

My older son says to let it rest. I can't be a teacher to someone who doesn't want to learn.

[grantcart]

238. of course they are not mutually exclusive

[SoxFan]

192. I see what you're saying, but...

I'm going to take issue with some of what you said.

First, I don't see the big deal about Sarah Palin having majored in communications. My brother has a degree in communication; he's now the afternoon drive personality on one of the highest-rated stations in New England. He also worked his ass off for Barack Obama and Carol Shea-Porter, and no one would confuse him with an uninformed teabagger. He also watches indie films and listens to indie bands and reads voraciously.

Harry Truman never finished college. George W. Bush has degrees from Yale and Harvard. Who had the better sense of history?

What I'm getting at is that we shouldn't confuse academic credentials with intellectual curiosity.

[scentopine]

205. If the trend continues i can safely predict that

your brother will eventually be replaced by a satellite feed because some CEO fucker on wall street in a monopoly position knows he can increase his take home pay this way.

I go into home depot and grocery store here and I hear exactly the same play list as our "all about the music" radio station.

Its all part of the same collective. I feel like I am being brainwashed with the same Van Morrison song over and over and over and over as if someone decided he's hip and old and safe. Sort of like Roy Orbison - great guys but jesus how much can you take before it becomes torture>?

[liberation]

213. Funny, I just got off a place playing a "soft listening" neutered version of Nirvana

I think they are winning, and the brainwashing is just too much to take.

I stopped watching TeeVee in real time, because the commercials and some of the comments/shows are simply so mind bogglingly stupid that I feel it is all part of some mass social control experiment. I have to watch the Daily Show or some of the couple of series I follow on the DVR, so I can skip the commercials.

Everything has been corporatized, our whole worth as humans (and most of our interactions) are now measured and focused around monetary figures. We have organized our whole existence around profit, an arbitrary concept with no correlation with physical reality. Seriously, it seems we are living in a combined dystopian version of the future Huxley and Orwell warned us about.

[grantcart]

237. I didn't think I would have to put such a fine point on it but

There is nothing wrong in majoring in communication with an interest in journalism.

Couric asked her to name a national publication that she read to keep up and she couldn't come up with something.

This is the equivalent to asking a biologist to name one of their favorite species

or

A history major their favorite historical period

or

A political science major their favorite national leader

or

A musician their favorite song.


You could not ask an easier question to a serious student who majored in communications with an interest in journalism, its not like she majored in physics!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11

[mstinamotorcity]

210. A very good op

Don't forget the corrupt money side of the organization.The repugs have stood for what my mother and some like her would say "old money". They do not want to give up money that has been hood winked and stolen through generations and somehow washed clean with the next generation. They always think corruptly two steps ahead. They may not appreciate intellectualism but they have gotten used to the high life.:hi:

[Beartracks]

220. You are correct, sir.

I cringe when I see posts at DU that automatically describe all Tea Baggers -- or even all conservatives -- as de facto racists. While there may be some social conservatives who are motivated to some degree by race, I think it's pretty obvious that the broad foundation of what passes for conservative activism these days is as you describe it above.

------------------------

[ProSense]

225. Being a

teabagger is cringe worthy.

All I see is a lot of people making excuses for a movement largely driving by fear mongering and racism.

[grantcart]

259. Nobody is making excuses for anybody

Making a more accurate diagnosis on exactly what kind of cancer we are fighting is necessary to find the right diagnosis.

Of course there are lots of racists and perhaps a majority in the Tea Bag Movement.

But my concern is over a much larger group including Republicans who are not in the Tea Bag movement and are not racists, but still won't look at the evidence of climate change.

The anti-intellectual bent in the Republican Party is much wider and even more virulent than race.

Take for example the primary challenge in AZ against McCain. It isn't based on a racial premise but on a premise that McCain isn't faithful enough to a set of core beliefs, beliefs being the key word.

[AlbertCat]

239. An African American that confirms their belief system like Steele

Actually, I don't think they like him either.

It's race. Bein' all uppity ej'cated just gives an extra push to the hate.

[uponit7771]

254. Unnn, K&R but I don't think they like Steele either, they have no respect for him they tolerate him

[Cha]

265. Teabaggers just want to have

stupid.