Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
The Condescension Explosion
The very idea of condescension has always filled me with disgust. Actually, rage is probably the better word. The very idea that someone thought he was better than me, and would therefore feel all warm inside, by telling me what I can and cannot do, was not likely a prescription that was guaranteed to keep my blood pressure under control.
You can say the whole Leftist idea is one of condescension. These people really do think they are better than others. They are the anointed ones, the “experts,” who know how society should be run for the benefit of all.
I think the most appalling type of condescension is when the Left uses it on groups. Wasn’t it Harry Reid who speculated that if you are Hispanic you can’t possibly be a Republican? Or how about when the left takes black people for granted, that every one, or nearly every one, will vote Democrat? I just read a piece the other day, about my state, New Jersey, quoting a black pastor, who is voting for the Republican because the incumbent Democrat, Bob Menendez, never comes by his church, except at election time, maybe not even then.
Now, the condescenders are fixing their gaze on women. This is why I titled this essay the way I did. I think the Left is really scared that people are on to the act. But they can’t help themselves. Condescension is in their DNA. So, they double-down, using the convenience of this woman, Christine Ford, coming forth, to try and get half the population on their side.
Look, I do not know what happened to Mrs. Ford. I think something did happen to her. Watching her testimony, it is clear to me that she is troubled, and has been for a long time. That, and the fact that she is on the Left, makes it easy for her to think that Kavanaugh should not be on the Court.
While I do not know what the deal is with this woman, I feel confident in saying that Mr. Kavanaugh (now Justice Kavanaugh, thank goodness) did nothing for which he should be ashamed. There is no evidence. Rachel Mitchell, the sex-crimes prosecutor, whom the Republicans brought on to examine Dr. Ford, wrote that she could see no way that Brett Kavanaugh could be indicted for these charges. And Mrs. Ford’s testimony is filled with more holes than the best Swiss Cheese on the market. Besides, there has never been any other of this type of accusation made against Mr. Kavanaugh. And everyone knows that this type of thing does not occur in a vacuum.
However, the Left thinks that women believe Mrs. Ford overwhelmingly. I have more confidence in women than our “betters” believe. They think the overwhelming number of women think alike, instead of as individuals.
This is not the first time that these people have made the bald-faced statement that women think alike. For years, they’ve been telling us that not only do most woman support abortion, but they are so gung-ho about it, that it determines their votes. But back in July, pollster Celinda Lake, who is a Democratic pollster, made this comment: “Women are much less likely to be pro-choice” than men.
For decades, the Left in general, and the Democrats in particular, have been telling us that they are the ones who care. To my way of thinking, people who really care start with respect. They realize that people are individuals, made in God’s image. And they deserve the type of respect that will show that they are taken seriously.
While we’ve known for decades that the Left (which includes most “reporters”) harbors this disrespectful attitude towards people, with this latest assault on the reasoning faculties of woman, we can always hope that, come November 6th, that they will achieve the drubbing at the polls they richly deserve.
Published in General
I agree, George. The left wants technocratic rule of elites who know better than everyone else.
I think you know, Bryan (or if you didn’t you do now), that I don’t like the word “elite” generally. But what I am saying is that if you are on the Left, it can be pretty much guaranteed that 1) You do believe that there are “experts” who should be the ones who preside over society; and, 2) that you seem to believe in your heart that you are better than most people.
I use it in this case, specifically for their mindset: They are the “elite” as in the “anointed”. I think it is almost religious for them.
Okay. I accept that. I am just very attuned to the fact that self-described Populists use it, and I hate populism.
I never thought about it before, but, in today’s world, I guess you can call me a Jonah Goldberg Conservative.
That’s at the heart of progressive thought, society was to be run by a technocratic elite drawn from the superior Anglo Saxon Germanic race which were simultaneously to control the reproduction of the inferior races. That’s just what it was. They proudly embraced these notions and since they were intellectuals wrote about it.
What’s harder to understand is how it morphed to this collection of tribes focused on those same anglo Saxon Germanic males as the enemy. They’ve moved beyond progressive toward some sort of political insanity which might best be diagnosed by social psychologists, like Jordon Peterson perhaps? Still killing brown babies and still condescending and still centralizing, but in the name of what is not so clear.
I think you may have a misconceptions about the nature of Progressivism and its history.
The racialist/eugenics branches of Woodrow Wilson and of the Fascists were only examples among many, even in Wilson’s time as President. They were examples of how it had already “morphed”. Not examples of the theory at its origins, which came at least a century earlier.
The Progressivist theory of the creation, purpose, evolution, and final state of the world is, by its nature open to infinitely diverse variations on just what groupings of humans are assumed to be the most advanced. It can be determined by race, nation, social class, sex, degree of development of the intellect, or by whatever one pleases.
The Vision of the Anointed
I think Progressive condenscension is built into their underlying Marxist/Hegelian outlook.
Once you are confident you KNOW that History must unfold by the episodic struggles of dialectical materialism, and once you determine to cast the roles of oppressor/oppressed in that struggle by race (white v. black), sex (male v. female), sexuality (straight v. gay), etc., what are you to make of the gun-toting Hispanic lesbian Republican? (I love my Aunt Ida.) To the Progressive, she is an unaccountable bow in the Arc of History. And the Progressive view is human beings is so myopic, they cannot account for her, except by attributing her views to being the product of “false consciousness,” or ignorance, or malice–anything, but the result of the application of her own clear-headed reasoning to her own individual experience. To me, that’s where all the condescension comes from.
Charles Manson wanted to instigate a race war, under the assumption that Blacks would win and then need a white person — him — to be their leader. This is just an extreme version of the leftist idea that minority groups are a weapon to be used against the right but also reliant on the self-appointed leaders to organize their lives into a worker’s paradise.
Some of the elites of today seem shockingly dimwitted for elitists. It seems they aren’t making elites like they used to.
That’s because they aren’t. They are only wannabes.
There are three kinds of people:
This is why the media has jumped all over Kanye. He is daring to think outside the thought-box that the Left assigned him. It’s a Red-pill moment for America.
How dare a Black person exhibit independent thought! :-)
One might say, you view the left with condescension.
I think this cuts to the very core of what is going on. The left has been doing such a great job of “othering” conservatives for so long now, that the baseline for interaction is no longer one of respect – it’s one of disgust and demonization. I see it in someone on the left’s eyes when they find out I consider myself a conservative. Even with close friends or wives of close friends – there is a switch that is flipped once they find out. I’m now a monster.
I try, with utmost sincerity and consciousness, as worked up and angered as I may get with the insanity of the media, the hysterics and antics, and overall delusion that pervades left as a whole, not to direct that at any one person who may hold leftist views. I try to at least start from the baseline of respect and civility. Not to say it isn’t hard some times, but it’s one of the defining characteristics that I believe separates the right from the left in most cases – the desire to return to peace, civility and prosperity regardless of what the benefactor looks or sounds like.
Can you expand on this? I think the basis for much of what George said has been echoed many, many times on the left. Isn’t the mere of act of trying to argue something against stated positions of the opposition… the opposite of condescension?
Thank you for kind words, Kevin K.
I must admit that when I was young (back when the buffalo roamed the plains) I used to think the conservatives were bad people also. Thank God I grew out of it. You have to invest time and effort, though, into reading, listening to what others are saying, and then be willing to admit that maybe you’ve been arrogant, and not really thinking about the other side. It is a hazard of being young, which time has habit of fixing – if, as I say, you meet it halfway! :-)
I believe the word that best applies to the Left is ubermensch. Godless, self-deifying, arrogant and, ultimately, just better than you and me.
Do you listen to Dennis Prager, George? He did a fascinating hour this week on his prediction that the Left will become more violent as we continue to #resist. He based it on research showing criminals have higher self-esteem than the average person and the virtual endorsement of incivility by Hillary Clinton and Eric Holder. You see, they’re just so much better than us that rules, laws, ethics, and conventions of civility don’t apply to them.
Well, not “criminals”, but “convicted criminals”. Clearly a group that thinks it is too smart to be convicted. The non-convicted criminals are probably more humble and thus more cautious. The population studied is not representative of the entire population of criminals. That said, convicted criminals overestimate their skills/intelligence. </sidetrack>
I don’t mean to burst you bubble, but I hardly ever listen anymore. I used to be a big fan. I even became a member of Pragertopia, and Prager University. I still think his videos are great. But he has turned me off for quite some time. It’s not I even disagree with many he things he says. It’s the way he says them. He seems to be really hung up on himself. He is Mr. Conservative, in his mind, and any other conservative who disagrees with him on Trump, or his thoughts on this “war” we supposedly are having, is just foolish. He won’t even debate these things. To my knowledge, for example, he has never had Jonah Goldberg on, on Trump, for example, even though he said he would.
His thoughts on the Bible are still worth listening to, and I wish him well. But I just can’t listen for more than a few moments anymore.
Sadly, I have to agree with you on Prager. He was my favorite pundit for a long time, and I still hold him in very high regard, but he is just FULL OF HIMSELF! I started noticing when he has his hour on Fridays(?) when the phone callers can dictate the subject of his show. He always gives suggestions like “ask me about my favorite cigar, ask me about my favorite music, ask me about my favorite color.” He is not joking. He wants the subject to be about Me, Me and More Me. He constantly reminds the listener of what a superb human being he has been since his youth compared to other people, right after calling his producer by the condescending nickname, “The Living Martyr.”
I was not dissuaded of this opinion when I first met him in person. It was a one-on-one meeting (not part of a crowd) at our local radio station, and he was not very warm nor friendly, he was aloof. He tried to impress me with his knowledge and prestige and he made a sarcastic remark about my camera. The only other right-wing pundit that interacted this way with me was Laura Ingraham. I chatted for a while alone with Prager’s wife #2 and she was very pleasant.
Still, I give him the highest marks in clarifying important issues and writing extremely well about social subjects.
I am a little surprised at this. I’ve never met, and I certainly do not dispute that he could be like this. It is indicated by his radio persana. To use a phase that has been used before about celebrities: He actually believes his notices! What I am surprised about is that he wouldn’t try to hide this part of personality. He makes his money, surely, by convincing people that is nice, polite, etc. It is very sad.
By the way, I have been turned off by Laura Ingraham for years.
Well, it may surprise you both to learn that I’ve been noticing the same! “I said this years ago…” “I predicted… you can look it up in my writings…” I, I, I… I think his success is going to his head.
But. I still listen because we’re all flawed and need tolerance and forgiveness and he knows the Left as well as anybody and is able to impart much wisdom on subjects such as this post.
I have quit arguing with my leftist friends (former) and family. It’s a waste of breath. If I am pushed I respond with “you are bat-s–t crazy, condescending, rude and ignorant.” For sure that has stopped most conversations but the lack of being told I am some kind of idiot for backing Trump is pleasant.
Agreed. We are all flawed in some way, so you have to enjoy what you can from somebody and learn to deal with the bad parts.
There is a phenomenon that I have noticed for years with talk-radio hosts, political writers, and other pundits. There is a strong tendency to feel superior and less tolerant of others the longer they are in the business. I attribute this to the fact that they get to proclaim their opinions to millions of willing listeners and control the feedback. There is great satisfaction and feeling of validation when another person is willing to listen to your opinion. Most of us in the everyday world are lucky if we can find one such listener, even in our own families! And even then, if someone does not like what we say, they are free to disagree or put us in our place, and we have little control over that.
I used to enjoy watching Bill Maher(!) on his original TV show “Politically Incorrect” back in the 1990’s. He always had on opposing viewpoints and was generally polite and humble to his conservative guests. I rarely saw him show anger, and even if he did, he tried to curb it. But little by little, with the success of his show, he became more and more confrontational and dismissive of his conservative guests, until he became the monster we all know and love(?) today.
I really appreciate the pundits who have not let success go to their heads and I can name a few. Bill Bennett, Hugh Hewitt, Larry Elder, Walter Williams, and Jay Nordlinger are just a few I can think of off the top of my head. Rush Limbaugh has actually kind of mellowed and gotten a little less “superior” since his more fiery early days, though I don’t listen to him much anymore for other reasons. I suspect his wife (wives) has been keeping his ego in line.
One might be right about that.
Well, no; but utter contempt for their stupid ideas is condescension, and you can count me right in that camp. When necessary I manage to muzzle my feelings on this, but deep down I hold the left in complete contempt. And when there is no particular reason for me to be polite, I let them know it.
He’s an existential threat to the Democratic party. If even 20% of Blacks leave the Plantation, they get wiped out.
I hadn’t chosen to answer this, because I thought it was silly. But, since a few people have jumped to the thought, I will say this: Saying that the Left is consistently wrong, and that they may think what they think because they know they are superior in mind, does not make me condescending. I will even concede maybe some are nice people, who genuinely want to help. It doesn’t lessen the fact that they are being condescending. And to label me this seems to me that someone who is on Left thinks that I am on to something, and wants to deflect my words.
I do not hold people in general who are on the Left. I have a dear friend, of about 35 years, who is the left, and I love her. I do hold the ideas of the Left in contempt. And only when those people start to belittle and destroy a person do I hold that someone in contempt. Such as the Democrats who were on the Judiciary Committee, who tried to smear a good man, and therefore set things in motion whereby the family felt threatened.
If you didn’t think people on the right are better than people on the left, why would you be on the right?
I’ll admit, I’m a little befuddled that people get so upset at the idea that other people think their better than them.
One would think you do the things you do and believe the things you believe because you think these activities and ideas are better than the alternatives. I have trouble with the distinction between thinking the things you do and believe are better than what other people do and believe and thinking you are better than at least some other people. After all, you make better choices, ergo you are a better person. Everyone is elitist in their own specific preferences.