Liberals need to stop sneering at people

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
The "high moral ground" is another example of hopelessly conceited liberal political condescension to voters.

If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.

I don't see the logical link between your two sentences. The "high moral ground" is bad in order to win in a democracy open to demagogery. True.

How is demagogery (=flattering the voters with what they want to hear, instead of saying what you actually think) not condescension to voters? Flase promises and lies are what insults a voter's intelligence the most. It's better to get elected, but it's infinitely more condescending than honesty. Even if honesty means telling them "you are stupid".

[Alexander's Horse]

The link is this: you can't do anything if you don't get elected.

[GePap]

Re: Liberals need to stop sneering at people

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
One lesson coming out of both the US and Australian elections for me is liberals need to stop sneering and talking down to ordinary people. Nobody is going to vote for you if you constantly lecture them and act like you know better.

I personally don't understand the idea that I should demand everyone act the same intellectually, but allow everyone to act individually in all other aspects- if I am sick, I go to a doctor exactly because he knows more than I. I can agree with the notion that one need not be condecending, but on certaint things some people do know better- its crazy to think otherwise. I know **** about fixing a car- if the mecahnic talks to me and I dfon;t get it, whatever- he knows, I don't.

A good example is the Bush is stupid rhetoric.

a. He isn't stupid and

b. this implies those who voted for him are stupid too.

Hardly a clever way to win over a voter!

Yes, Bush being stupid, and I call him that all the time, is fine shorthand. NO, he is not actually stupid, otherwise he would not be where he is. He is thought, intellectually uninterested- he is smart-but I don;t know if I would call him intelligent.

All this sniffing at the popular vote for Bush is really counterproductive. Social Democratic parties need to stop being captured by interest groups with their trendy middle class causes and get back in touch with the grass roots.

"The grass roots" is an interest group.

Some elitist left wing social commentators should take Bill O'Reilly's advice and just shut up. It would be good for the parties they are trying to support and currently just shooting in the foot by alienating readers.

So basically, act stupid because people who know less don't like to be reminded of this- enforce intellectual socialism essentially..great....

This basic political craft is something conservative parties have been very good at recently. A few years ago they were ones looking down at the masses with disdain and they suffered electorally as a result.

Yes, they did get smart, they saw how they could manipulate the poor lower classes by blaming them fancy pants know-it alls, as opposed to them fancy pants robber barrons....the masses must rejoice!

The conservative parties around the world are just killing their opponents in basic tactics on the stump.

Well, except in Latin America and India, and other parts of the world- and in a place like China or Japan the whole notion is moot, and in someplaces like Spain the left has won, but hey, I guess the US and Australia does equal the "whole world"

One former Australian Labor MP (Democrat to you Yanks) commented after Labor's electoral rout last month that when he joined the parliament he noticed when he shook hands that a lot of the MP's were missing fingers - initially he thought it was a code - but really it was because they were former working men who lost fingers in industrial accidents. Now, the Labor MP's are all former party operatives and officials - not a worker among them. Is it any wonder that 30% of unionised workers voted for the conservatives?

You still have unions in Australia? Wow. Oh, aned are you not the guy who says that all American politics are to the right of Australian ones?

There's a message there somewhere.

That cultural class warfare is working- and that the left has to start storming palaces again?

Just my 2 cents. [/QUOTE]

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
The link is this: you can't do anything if you don't get elected.

I don't see how not getting elected is condescending to voters.

My beef with the post I quoted is that you believe the "moral high ground" is condescending to voter. We agree that it isn't efficient, but condescending ?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
The link is this: you can't do anything if you don't get elected.

Progressives always spoke down to the peoiple- the question is why the effectiveness of this has changed. Evcen in their triumph two days ago, the republicans have never had the sort of massive mayority the dems had 60 years ago- and its not like FDR was some lower class bloke...

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Zulu Elephant

But what can the Dems give up without giving up their core beliefs?

Are you seriously claiming that centrist Democrats like Clinton don't represent the party's core beliefs?

[Alexander's Horse]

Its condescending to patronise voters with your moral superiority rather than arguing the issues.

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by GePap


Progressives always spoke down to the peoiple- the question is why the effectiveness of this has changed. Evcen in their triumph two days ago, the republicans have never had the sort of massive mayority the dems had 60 years ago- and its not like FDR was some lower class bloke...

In FDR's time the Democrats owned the South becuase they were closer to the people.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
Its condescending to patronise voters with your moral superiority rather than arguing the issues.

Then we are in a misunderstanding.

I never advocated the patronising of voters through the display of "moral superiority". An ethics shouldn't be made a show of, especially a too 'perfect' one: it just doesn't sell, and something will unvariably look fishy.

What I advocate, however, is to respect the voters by offering them our actual take on the issues, and discussing the issues by saying what we really intend to do. Such honesty is far less patronising than lies, than flattering the voters by telling them the opposite of what you think.

And if the voters disagree with your take on the issues, then so be it. Democracy is about the voters deciding their collective fate. It's not about knowing what label the head-stooge has.

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by Spiffor

What I advocate, however, is to respect the voters by offering them our actual take on the issues, and discussing the issues by saying what we really intend to do. Such honesty is far less patronising than lies, than flattering the voters by telling them the opposite of what you think.

I agree with that.

[DanS]

Maybe you need to develop a 30 second elevator speech on each issue, Spiffor. You have to have a story to get people interested in what you have to say before they will listen to a complicated position. Because let's face it, most politicians who have complicated positions just use that as an excuse to hold incomprehensible positions.

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by DanS
Because let's face it, most politicians who have complicated positions just haven't worked on their issues enough to distill the essential elements to voters.

Another thing the conservatives have got very very good at.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
I agree with that.

And IMHO, this is the main reason why the Democrats lost. The American public is largely more reactionary than the Democrats are. The main issues of this election were Moral Issues (21%), the War on Terror (18%) and the need of a strong leader (17%). For those who had these issues primarily in mind, Bush was a very clear winner. And for a reason: Because Democrats are much more liberal than the Republicans. Because the Democrats oppose the idea of a strongman-democracy.

On those issues, the American public agreed largely with the Republican agenda. It's only normal the Republicans get a comfortable victory.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse


In FDR's time the Democrats owned the South becuase they were closer to the people.

No, they were strong in the south because southern democrats were a bunch of racists still smarting over the republican Lincoln ending their control over them negros...they were strong nationwide becasue progressives put together a coolition of the racists, and the negors, and the weorking man by giving them every day improvements in their lives throught progressive ideas.

[Sprayber]

And the liberals stick their fingers in their ears and sing loudly so not to hear good advice.


Kind of sad really cause it would be really nice to have an alternative to the radicallization of the republicans.