That is a reasonable point. Liberals do not necessarily see divorce and recreational drug use as being immoral. At least in the sense that conservatives tend to use the phrase.
I wouldn't say we necessarily think divorce or drug use are good though. Just inevitable products of human history and things that have always been around. People have been trying to get intoxicated for pleasure since the dawn of civilization. There have also been couples who have fallen out of love since the dawn of civilization and split up? What good does it do to be draconian against either?
My fellow liberals often seem more comfortable about producing white papers and doing research than going out and talking to voters. There is a certain technocracy streak that I find disconcerting as if the Rhee and Ygelias types would like to just produce a peer-reviewed white paper that says "X is the best policy and we should enact it" and then have the voters say okay.
I think these people are honest and sincere in their desire to find good policy but they seem to find retail politics distasteful like an old law professor might find the study of law to be divine but the actual practice of law to be vulgar. Many of the more wonky liberals seem to not always understand that good policy is not necessarily good politics.
I would say that every American has some kind of basic imprinting that says it is bad to be elitist. We tend to react very strongly against the word. Plus there are all sorts of loaded images into American imagery.
Your last paragraph on social elitism seems to fit right into the heart of a GOP cartoon of liberals. I don't know anything about your politics and take it on face value that you are not making a judgment call. However, the last paragraph makes Democratic Party supporters look like Louis the XVI and the rest of the Bourbons. We are just decadent partiers while the plain folk work honestly.
Does the Democratic platform encourage drug use? Many liberals might support liberalizing the harsh and wasteful drug laws but that is a far cry from advocating for recreational narcotics as a political idea.
I suppose it is an interesting argument but I have a hard time thinking about what social elitism and social populism mean in this case?
It is true that there is a certain form of populism in some GOP redmeat politics. Notably Santorum calling Obama a snob and then falsely reporting that Obama wanted everyone to attend college. More recently, the line about how "smart" people will never be with the Republicans. By smart, I think he meant urban, somewhat to very "sophisticated", roughly members of the so-called Creative Class. I wouldn't be surprised if there was a dig at being Jewish in their as well. Or at least a dog-whistle.
However, I think that many young liberals and progressives are trying to avoid the old "high culture" criticism that used to plague the left or are possibly simply uninterested in high culture. My cultural tastes can probably be labeled as "snobby*" for the most part and one of my problems with many internet liberal sites is their dearth of good cultural coverage. Basically a failure to talk about anything above pop/geek culture that can be easily accessed by everyone. The only remaining bastions for good cultural reporting are: The New Republic, The New York Times, The New York Review of Books, and more niche journals like N plus One. Here, you will find serious and in-depth essays about avant-garde (or at least "high brow") culture. On ThinkProgress, it will be a video games or comic con, or YA literature** for the umpteenth time. Basically nothing that requires being older than 12 to appreciate.
Julian Sanchez talked about this a bit over the summer while giving a half-defense of Joel Stein's remarks about not reading the Hunger Games. He noted that there was at least somewhat of a sense of obligation at having adult tastes a few decades ago with Leonard Bernstein being American's ambassador general for classical music. Who is exposing kids to classical music today? I saw an old video clip of John Cage doing a TV appearance in the 1950s or early 60s. It was on some game show but they let him perform one of his pieces (Water Music) and too him seriously as a composer. That would not happen today.
*A lot of people tell me that they prefer passive entertainment in art, reading, music, TV, and film. Stuff that "does not require them to think". I don't understand this desire. I am generally bored by stuff that does not make me think.
**I don't get the fad of adult readers going crazy over YA literature. People tell me that this is where the revolutionary stuff is happening but only offer me axiom and tautology as evidence when pressed. Joyce and Beckett are revolutionary, The Hunger Games not so much both in terms of plot and prose.
Though I probably just proved the point of social elitism with this response.
Harvard Law professor Roberto Unger launched a youtube video sometime in June about why Obama needed to lose. The reasons seem largely because of Obama's portrayl of the progressive agenda.
What would the result of Obama be? The election of Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan. I have yet to see how this is going to help the progressive agenda except allowing some holier than thou leftists to feel good about themselves for not voting for Obama. What kind of judges and justices is Romney going to nominate for the bench? What economic policies will he enact? Nothing progressive.
To quote the article:
"The etherialists who are too good to stoop toward the “lesser evil” of politics—as if there were ever anything better than the lesser evil there—naively assume that if they just bring down the current system, or one part of it that has disappointed them, they can build a new and better thing of beauty out of the ruins. Of course they never get the tabula rasa on which to draw their ideal schemes. What they normally do is damage the party closest to their professed ideals. Third parties are run by people who make the best the enemy of their own good and bring down that good. Theodore Roosevelt’s’ Bull Moose variant of his own Republican Party drained enough Republican votes to let the Democrat, Woodrow Wilson, win. (His voters, believing he would not “send our boys to war,” saw the prince become a frog in World War I.) George H. W. Bush rightly believes he was sabotaged by the crypto-Republican Ross Perot, who helped Bill Clinton win. Ralph Nader siphoned crucial votes from Al Gore to give us George W. Bush."
I never liked Frank's "What's the Matter with Kansas argument?" because it is generally highly offensive to tell someone what is in their self-interest. It is perfectly feasible for these voters to think that Republican economic policy is in their self-interest. On an application level, I think they are wrong though. But there are probably things that I think are in my self-interest but am wrong about on an application level as well.
That being said, I think that social conservatives are being played, at least on the national level. Let's say the movement launched roughly at the time of Roe v. Wade. This was 40 years ago and for the most part, we are more socially liberal. Abortion is still legal, all sorts of pornography are easily available, Gay Rights are now a mainstay of politics for at least half the country. Perhaps social conservatives have control on a state level (but are still constrained by the Federal Government, there is no working around Lawrence v. Texas).
What victories do you think social conservatives have won in the past 40 years?
I come from a very similar suburb of New York as Mr. Williams. Though mine was on Long Island but it was the absolutely typical upper-middle class suburb that people moved to for the schools. We had an excellent arts department though not as many famous alumni as Chappaqua.
I don't remember battles over the school budget though. Perhaps I was just not paying too much attention but I can't recall a school budget or bond proposal that did not pass swimmingly. Though a decent amount of my classmates did have one or two educator parents. My mom was a teacher and education administrator. My dad taught briefly while attending law school at night. Some teachers raised their children in the school district.
That biography aside, I think you both have points. Education does need to be reformed but I think a lot of people especially highly type-A, competitive Capitalist types have contempt for teachers and academia. It is seen as place where people go when they do not want to be in business or compete. Even when it is competitive, the competition is mocked. Hence, Kissinger's famous line about academic politics being so brutal "because the stakes are so low."
I am also skeptical of the reforms offered by the charter school/teach for America/hedge fund money set. The whole Teach for America program over all is rather suspect to me. I think most people enter it with a sincere desire to do good but in the end they are young and largely naive people thrown into really tough situations with minimal training (a 5-week summer course). These kids are given the worst or the worse in terms of classrooms. Most large cities have their own mini-Teach for Americas that do the same program. The NYC subway ads are notoriously misleading propaganda.
The reformers rely too much on standardized testing instead of much harder to quantify metrics like critical reading, writing, and thinking skills and developing a deep curiosity about the world. Perhaps too many people think that these skills are innate and not teachable. Or they just want more pragmatic goals.
Every reform instituted in the past decade seems to treat a majority of kids as hopeless and only capable of learning though testing. Life is not a multiple choice exam and neither should most education rest on those metrics.
I think I understand the psychological appeal of conspiracy theories.
But in the end, they don't stand up to any scrutiny and we people are largely too incompetent to carry them out. Plus they are all so complicated that they would easily and quickly spiral into chaos.
My favorite beers tend to be more malty than hoppy. I am not a fan of IPAs but love Porters and Stouts. I can do an Imperial Hopped Pilsner like My Antonia from Dogfish Head though. For beers in the non-dark family, I go more for Pale Ales or regular Ales.
That being said, the best beers in America are still produced by microbreweries. Sometimes they do produce beers that are too "interesting" but they make some really damn good variety as well.
Agreed. Israel will be helped by people who stand strong against Hamas and Hezbollah and tell other Arabian governments, Israel exists (deal with it) but also people who recognize the plight of the Palestinians.
Israel needs a working two-state solution. The Settlements need to go away. The hard-right also need to be told that the Palestinians deserve their own state and to deal with it.
Wow your parents sound to be the opposite of mine.
I come from a long-line of New York liberal and Democratic Jews. My mom moved out to the Bay Area (after wanting to live in Northern Cal for 40 years) and she loves how liberal everyone is out here. She gushes about how she likes having friends that are more liberal than she is. My dad and brothers are also not Republican. My grandparents were ardent New Dealers* and at least one of my great-grandparents voted for Eugene Victor Debs.
I am kind of curious about the 20-25 percent of American Jews who vote Republican. Do they find frustrating to be a minority within a minority? What do they think of how most American Jews are still very proud Democratic Party supporters and liberals?
*My mom tells me two stories about this. One involves my grandfather being very upset at Adlai Stevenson losing and losing twice! The other is that both my maternal grandparents were very upset when Nassau County renamed Salisbury Park to Eisenhower Park. Nassau County was very Republican then and my mom reported that the rename left my parents feeling isolated and alienated as Democrats.
This is true. There is a guy at my coffeeshop that I have a good relationship with, we talk a bit a few days a week.
He considers himself to be a center-left moderate but clearly has some ideas that border on the not so moderate. He is very much against the Fed (I am not) and once told me how he thinks it is controlled by Rockfellers/Rothchilds. I quickly changed the subject.
Yet he is also a very smart, educated guy.
Everyone has their own crazy and illogical beliefs.
I went to law school with a woman who seems very smart. She attended Princeton as an undergrad and was the head of the environmental law society for a while.
She is a 9/11 truther and posts about it on every anniversary on facebook. I saw it for the first time this year.
I must say that I felt a bit disappointed when I saw this.
How can Jews be a thumb in the eye of secular statism? Almost 80 percent of American Jews are very liberal and pretty secular as things go especially compared to Evangelicals.
Eric Cantor is an exception, not a rule.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “What’s the Matter with New York?”
I think almost everyone realizes that divorce is going to be around and we are not going back. Plus plenty of Republicans get divorced.
I just used it as an example because Pinky used it. Generally my thoughts are the same as yours and that they really don't care about marriage.
"
Okay. My apologies as well.
"
That is a reasonable point. Liberals do not necessarily see divorce and recreational drug use as being immoral. At least in the sense that conservatives tend to use the phrase.
I wouldn't say we necessarily think divorce or drug use are good though. Just inevitable products of human history and things that have always been around. People have been trying to get intoxicated for pleasure since the dawn of civilization. There have also been couples who have fallen out of love since the dawn of civilization and split up? What good does it do to be draconian against either?
"
My fellow liberals often seem more comfortable about producing white papers and doing research than going out and talking to voters. There is a certain technocracy streak that I find disconcerting as if the Rhee and Ygelias types would like to just produce a peer-reviewed white paper that says "X is the best policy and we should enact it" and then have the voters say okay.
I think these people are honest and sincere in their desire to find good policy but they seem to find retail politics distasteful like an old law professor might find the study of law to be divine but the actual practice of law to be vulgar. Many of the more wonky liberals seem to not always understand that good policy is not necessarily good politics.
"
How often do conservatives arrive at a non-private/business solution to any social or economic problem?
"
On your parenthesis:
I would say that every American has some kind of basic imprinting that says it is bad to be elitist. We tend to react very strongly against the word. Plus there are all sorts of loaded images into American imagery.
Your last paragraph on social elitism seems to fit right into the heart of a GOP cartoon of liberals. I don't know anything about your politics and take it on face value that you are not making a judgment call. However, the last paragraph makes Democratic Party supporters look like Louis the XVI and the rest of the Bourbons. We are just decadent partiers while the plain folk work honestly.
Does the Democratic platform encourage drug use? Many liberals might support liberalizing the harsh and wasteful drug laws but that is a far cry from advocating for recreational narcotics as a political idea.
"
I suppose it is an interesting argument but I have a hard time thinking about what social elitism and social populism mean in this case?
It is true that there is a certain form of populism in some GOP redmeat politics. Notably Santorum calling Obama a snob and then falsely reporting that Obama wanted everyone to attend college. More recently, the line about how "smart" people will never be with the Republicans. By smart, I think he meant urban, somewhat to very "sophisticated", roughly members of the so-called Creative Class. I wouldn't be surprised if there was a dig at being Jewish in their as well. Or at least a dog-whistle.
However, I think that many young liberals and progressives are trying to avoid the old "high culture" criticism that used to plague the left or are possibly simply uninterested in high culture. My cultural tastes can probably be labeled as "snobby*" for the most part and one of my problems with many internet liberal sites is their dearth of good cultural coverage. Basically a failure to talk about anything above pop/geek culture that can be easily accessed by everyone. The only remaining bastions for good cultural reporting are: The New Republic, The New York Times, The New York Review of Books, and more niche journals like N plus One. Here, you will find serious and in-depth essays about avant-garde (or at least "high brow") culture. On ThinkProgress, it will be a video games or comic con, or YA literature** for the umpteenth time. Basically nothing that requires being older than 12 to appreciate.
Julian Sanchez talked about this a bit over the summer while giving a half-defense of Joel Stein's remarks about not reading the Hunger Games. He noted that there was at least somewhat of a sense of obligation at having adult tastes a few decades ago with Leonard Bernstein being American's ambassador general for classical music. Who is exposing kids to classical music today? I saw an old video clip of John Cage doing a TV appearance in the 1950s or early 60s. It was on some game show but they let him perform one of his pieces (Water Music) and too him seriously as a composer. That would not happen today.
*A lot of people tell me that they prefer passive entertainment in art, reading, music, TV, and film. Stuff that "does not require them to think". I don't understand this desire. I am generally bored by stuff that does not make me think.
**I don't get the fad of adult readers going crazy over YA literature. People tell me that this is where the revolutionary stuff is happening but only offer me axiom and tautology as evidence when pressed. Joyce and Beckett are revolutionary, The Hunger Games not so much both in terms of plot and prose.
Though I probably just proved the point of social elitism with this response.
On “Sit Down and Shut Up! (Because we are many and you are not)”
http://www.nybooks.com/blogs/nyrblog/2012/jun/18/curse-political-purity/
Harvard Law professor Roberto Unger launched a youtube video sometime in June about why Obama needed to lose. The reasons seem largely because of Obama's portrayl of the progressive agenda.
What would the result of Obama be? The election of Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan. I have yet to see how this is going to help the progressive agenda except allowing some holier than thou leftists to feel good about themselves for not voting for Obama. What kind of judges and justices is Romney going to nominate for the bench? What economic policies will he enact? Nothing progressive.
To quote the article:
"The etherialists who are too good to stoop toward the “lesser evil” of politics—as if there were ever anything better than the lesser evil there—naively assume that if they just bring down the current system, or one part of it that has disappointed them, they can build a new and better thing of beauty out of the ruins. Of course they never get the tabula rasa on which to draw their ideal schemes. What they normally do is damage the party closest to their professed ideals. Third parties are run by people who make the best the enemy of their own good and bring down that good. Theodore Roosevelt’s’ Bull Moose variant of his own Republican Party drained enough Republican votes to let the Democrat, Woodrow Wilson, win. (His voters, believing he would not “send our boys to war,” saw the prince become a frog in World War I.) George H. W. Bush rightly believes he was sabotaged by the crypto-Republican Ross Perot, who helped Bill Clinton win. Ralph Nader siphoned crucial votes from Al Gore to give us George W. Bush."
On “What’s the Matter with New York?”
I never liked Frank's "What's the Matter with Kansas argument?" because it is generally highly offensive to tell someone what is in their self-interest. It is perfectly feasible for these voters to think that Republican economic policy is in their self-interest. On an application level, I think they are wrong though. But there are probably things that I think are in my self-interest but am wrong about on an application level as well.
That being said, I think that social conservatives are being played, at least on the national level. Let's say the movement launched roughly at the time of Roe v. Wade. This was 40 years ago and for the most part, we are more socially liberal. Abortion is still legal, all sorts of pornography are easily available, Gay Rights are now a mainstay of politics for at least half the country. Perhaps social conservatives have control on a state level (but are still constrained by the Federal Government, there is no working around Lawrence v. Texas).
What victories do you think social conservatives have won in the past 40 years?
On “Sit Down and Shut Up! (Because we are many and you are not)”
There is a certain kind of leftist that would rather be a noble loser to history than actually win and need to govern.
On “Tales from the Nightstand: When She Woke by Hillary Jordan”
Three out of Five stars seems high based on the last line in your skip it section.
On “Teacher Hatred and Class Warfare”
I come from a very similar suburb of New York as Mr. Williams. Though mine was on Long Island but it was the absolutely typical upper-middle class suburb that people moved to for the schools. We had an excellent arts department though not as many famous alumni as Chappaqua.
I don't remember battles over the school budget though. Perhaps I was just not paying too much attention but I can't recall a school budget or bond proposal that did not pass swimmingly. Though a decent amount of my classmates did have one or two educator parents. My mom was a teacher and education administrator. My dad taught briefly while attending law school at night. Some teachers raised their children in the school district.
That biography aside, I think you both have points. Education does need to be reformed but I think a lot of people especially highly type-A, competitive Capitalist types have contempt for teachers and academia. It is seen as place where people go when they do not want to be in business or compete. Even when it is competitive, the competition is mocked. Hence, Kissinger's famous line about academic politics being so brutal "because the stakes are so low."
I am also skeptical of the reforms offered by the charter school/teach for America/hedge fund money set. The whole Teach for America program over all is rather suspect to me. I think most people enter it with a sincere desire to do good but in the end they are young and largely naive people thrown into really tough situations with minimal training (a 5-week summer course). These kids are given the worst or the worse in terms of classrooms. Most large cities have their own mini-Teach for Americas that do the same program. The NYC subway ads are notoriously misleading propaganda.
The reformers rely too much on standardized testing instead of much harder to quantify metrics like critical reading, writing, and thinking skills and developing a deep curiosity about the world. Perhaps too many people think that these skills are innate and not teachable. Or they just want more pragmatic goals.
Every reform instituted in the past decade seems to treat a majority of kids as hopeless and only capable of learning though testing. Life is not a multiple choice exam and neither should most education rest on those metrics.
On “A Heretic’s Pilgrimage: My Journey to the 2012 Values Voter Summit”
I think I understand the psychological appeal of conspiracy theories.
But in the end, they don't stand up to any scrutiny and we people are largely too incompetent to carry them out. Plus they are all so complicated that they would easily and quickly spiral into chaos.
So they leave me mystified and sighing.
On “Wait… aren’t the men on the right supposed to be the manly men?”
Who can harmonize really well?
"
Nice save
"
My favorite beers tend to be more malty than hoppy. I am not a fan of IPAs but love Porters and Stouts. I can do an Imperial Hopped Pilsner like My Antonia from Dogfish Head though. For beers in the non-dark family, I go more for Pale Ales or regular Ales.
That being said, the best beers in America are still produced by microbreweries. Sometimes they do produce beers that are too "interesting" but they make some really damn good variety as well.
On “A Heretic’s Pilgrimage: My Journey to the 2012 Values Voter Summit”
I don't understand the cult of Ayn Rand. I was bored 10 pages into the Fountainhead and never tried again.
"
I am on a work computer with disabled sound. No Ramones for me until late tonight.
Speaking on semi-relevance, Bonzo Goes to Bitburg (not the song you linked to I know) is one of my favorite Ramones song.
"
Agreed. Israel will be helped by people who stand strong against Hamas and Hezbollah and tell other Arabian governments, Israel exists (deal with it) but also people who recognize the plight of the Palestinians.
Israel needs a working two-state solution. The Settlements need to go away. The hard-right also need to be told that the Palestinians deserve their own state and to deal with it.
"
I can't quite tell who this is a response to.
Are you disagreeing with me or Pinky?
"
Wow your parents sound to be the opposite of mine.
I come from a long-line of New York liberal and Democratic Jews. My mom moved out to the Bay Area (after wanting to live in Northern Cal for 40 years) and she loves how liberal everyone is out here. She gushes about how she likes having friends that are more liberal than she is. My dad and brothers are also not Republican. My grandparents were ardent New Dealers* and at least one of my great-grandparents voted for Eugene Victor Debs.
I am kind of curious about the 20-25 percent of American Jews who vote Republican. Do they find frustrating to be a minority within a minority? What do they think of how most American Jews are still very proud Democratic Party supporters and liberals?
*My mom tells me two stories about this. One involves my grandfather being very upset at Adlai Stevenson losing and losing twice! The other is that both my maternal grandparents were very upset when Nassau County renamed Salisbury Park to Eisenhower Park. Nassau County was very Republican then and my mom reported that the rename left my parents feeling isolated and alienated as Democrats.
"
This is true. There is a guy at my coffeeshop that I have a good relationship with, we talk a bit a few days a week.
He considers himself to be a center-left moderate but clearly has some ideas that border on the not so moderate. He is very much against the Fed (I am not) and once told me how he thinks it is controlled by Rockfellers/Rothchilds. I quickly changed the subject.
Yet he is also a very smart, educated guy.
Everyone has their own crazy and illogical beliefs.
"
I went to law school with a woman who seems very smart. She attended Princeton as an undergrad and was the head of the environmental law society for a while.
She is a 9/11 truther and posts about it on every anniversary on facebook. I saw it for the first time this year.
I must say that I felt a bit disappointed when I saw this.
"
And I still think the neocons think in their heads about how they are playing the Evangelicals for fools.
"
How can Jews be a thumb in the eye of secular statism? Almost 80 percent of American Jews are very liberal and pretty secular as things go especially compared to Evangelicals.
Eric Cantor is an exception, not a rule.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.