If you disagree with me, you've either been hoodwinked, or else you're a hoodwinker!

As I have been trying to make clear in these posts, I think Barack Obama's dismissive approach to people with different views is by no means limited to him. This approach is quite typical of the left, especially of the Democratic Party ruling class left (often referred to by the "embittered classes" as "the elite").

An assumption is made that when the "little people" are led, their thoughts are not their own, and can be discredited in much the same manner that one might dismiss "thoughts" uttered by a child who was repeating what he had heard from someone else. This reminds me of the Berkeley Code Pink group, which takes the position that grown men and women who believe in fighting to defend freedom or their country are children.

Here's a scan of one of the group's leaflets, which a friend and reader was kind enough to mail me.

codepink2.jpg

The idea that people who believe in the war are children in need of "education" is standard fare for the anti-war left; I've seen statements like this in countless articles:

Zanne Joi of Code Pink, one of the organizers of the debate, said its purpose is to keep the war "front and center."

A frequent protester at the recruiting station, Joi said: "Our hearts are broken every time we're there, to see people who say we're fighting for our freedom--we need to educate and inform."

In October Morgan organized a counter- demonstration outside the recruiting office, which attracted hundreds of pro-war demonstrators, outnumbering the anti-war protesters.

As I said at the time,
Not to be picky, but I think maybe Zanne Joi meant "reeducate."
It makes it a lot easier to convince yourself that you are right if you can imagine that the people who disagree with you are children. (Might this also explain why so many leftists are teachers, and teachers are leftists? Some of the worst political arguments I have ever gotten myself into were with teachers. The problem may be that people who are used to always being right cannot accept even polite disagreement.)

Sorry, but I was drifting away from the topic, and which is not "education," but the attempt by would-be rulers to marginalize -- and treat as children -- their would-be subjects. If people are children, it follows that they are followers. Some would call them sheep. But happens when a free citizen behaves as an adult, and refuses to be intimidated into accepting a subordinate role? In the event of clear evidence of stubborn recalcitrance, how is a free citizen who wants to be treated as an adult to be further marginalized?

One way to deny that he is thinking for himself is by attributing to him an improper or evil motivation. This happened to me once when, as a private citizen, I called the office of a San Mateo County Supervisor who was seeking to ban gun shows. Instead of listening to my argument, the receptionist only wanted to know whether I was a member of the NRA -- something which disqualified me from having an opinion. As I explained in another post:

One of the most common forms this classic ad hominem attack takes is to claim that an opponent works for or has been paid by some entity perceived as a malefactor.

The first time I experienced this personally, I had called the offices of a San Mateo County Supervisor who was seeking to prohibit gun shows, which I saw as a violation of the First Amendment. Before I could even state my position, I was asked, point blank -- "Are you a member of the NRA?" After I said I was, I was told that they had "heard enough from the gun lobby" and "we want input from ordinary citizens."

I'll never forget it. My argument was nullified without my being heard, much less addressed. I was considered a "lobbyist" -- simply because I had joined an organization and paid $35.00 or whatever it was. Not only was this deeply insulting, but it was profoundly illogical. Had I not bothered to join the NRA, my argument would have been exactly the same. And it would be exactly the same even if the NRA had paid me $10,000.

Had I not been a member of the NRA, I'd have probably been considered a misinformed child. Or maybe a bitter person who was down on his luck and "hoodwinked" by demagogues into supporting "wedge issues." But because I was an NRA member, I was seen as akin to a sort of "leader" -- at least as someone unlikely to be easily "reeducated."

A hoodwinker, even.

It may be that the ruling class mindset tends to divides the opposition into two classes -- followers and leaders. The former -- like children -- are less culpable and in need of education (new leadership/rulers), while the latter are seen as either motivated for personal gain (lobbyists) or possibly as malevolent. As hoodwinkers who ought to be ashamed, but aren't.

After all, these "leaders" are the people who get the followers all stirred up, aren't they?

I've never been able to understand why I have to be stereotyped in this way. I am not a childish follower in need of reeducation, nor am I leading (much less trying to "hoodwink") anyone.

This is supposed to be a free and enlightened country, right? Why is it that so many of the people who want to rule have a problem with free individual citizens having their own opinions?

I like to think that I make up my own mind, and I lead myself. But having my own opinion doesn't fit the equation that says followers are wrong because they are misled, and leaders are wrong because they're evil people.

Now, as I've said many times, in a free country, there is a right to be wrong. I realize that it is natural for the people who disagree with me to think I am wrong, and I am not so arrogant as to deny the possibility that they might be right, and that I might just be wrong. I know I can't expect them to admit that they might be wrong, and I'm not trying to win an argument over the merits of any issues here.

I'm left with one simple question.

Can't I even be allowed to be wrong on my own merits?

AFTERTHOUGHT: I want to stress that I do not mean to single out or castigate Barack Obama here. It may sound ironic, but I think he deserves credit for shedding light on an important subject that is not supposed to be discussed. That he said what he said so reflexively, when he thought he was among friends, that he's having so much trouble with the fallout -- this means that he did far more than irritate potential voters. I think he touched a nerve within his own party, by inadvertently exposing a very uncomfortable truth about the way their ruling class thinks.

Again, this touches on what Mickey Kaus mentioned earlier about "not crediting the authenticity and standing of your subject's views" which he called "a violation of social equality" and "a more important value for Americans than money equality." Kaus also said that "liberals lose elections when they forget that."

This is no minor point. It goes to the very right to disagree. It's at heart of what drives talk radio.

Hmmm.....

I'd even suggest it drives much of the blogosphere, but because I am a blogger, I shouldn't say that lest I be discredited as part of some "Blogger Lobby," and thus unable to hold legitimate opinions about blogging.

posted by Eric on 04.15.08 at 03:25 PM





TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://classicalvalues.com/cgi-bin/pings.cgi/6486






Comments

Re: teachers tending liberal (and other professions as well). Yes, they do, but part of that is belonging to unions, which moves folks in the Dem direction. High school teachers are politically more liberal than elementary school teachers, from my observation.

Neo-neocon and Dr. Sanity both had posts last year about the leftward leaning of therapists and others in the helping professions, as they are called. As a social worker, I can assure you my field is 95% left of even the average Democrat. There is a mentality of control that comes from "adjusting" people. As people often resist being adjusted, the helpers ascribe that to outside forces - families, economy, churches, societal attitudes - which interfere with the adjustment process. For all their talk about choice and self-determination, their actions reveal that they believe we are controlled by our environments, and not fully responsible.

Assistant Village Idiot   ·  April 15, 2008 03:39 PM

I try to be charitable about the impulse to ascribe immaturity or simple ignorance to political or ideological opponents: possibly the person across the table from me thinks so well of me that he can't imagine my disagreeing with him unless I were somehow ill-informed or hadn't yet fully examined the issue. Of course, that only works with people I know; it doesn't compute with people who've never met me but nonetheless assume I'm ignorant because I don't think voting on the economically conservative side is voting "against my economic self-interest." Sigh.

It's when, instead of ascribing ignorance, my opponents ascribe actual malevolence to me, that I get bugged.

Jamie   ·  April 15, 2008 05:45 PM

I feel sorry for Mandarin Gardens. I've been eating there regularly for over 25 years, often once a week. (Their Moo Shu Pork is especially good.) They are located directly across the street from the Berkeley Marine recruiting center. Their business has fallen 30% since this Code Pink stuff began. The people who run this restaurant work hard and are apolitical. All the businesses on that block are taking a big hit. A lot of people avoid the block, and the Code Pinkers (if that is the right name for them) often take up half the parking spaces.

chocolatier   ·  April 15, 2008 06:15 PM

I'm having a similar problem with a teacher (no less a FIFTH grade teacher) at another web site that I frequent. You described it so well:
Some of the worst political arguments I have ever gotten myself into were with teachers. The problem may be that people who are used to always being right cannot accept even polite disagreement.)

Any disagreement immediately puts you on the hit list and she will go out of her way to silence. Heaven forbid you have a difference of opinion, it immediately turns personal. If she could you would be on your way to the Principals office for reprogramming.

Great blog today - keep up the good work!

Hacker   ·  April 16, 2008 07:29 AM

I'm having a similar problem with a teacher (no less a FIFTH grade teacher) at another web site that I frequent. You described it so well:
Some of the worst political arguments I have ever gotten myself into were with teachers. The problem may be that people who are used to always being right cannot accept even polite disagreement.)

Any disagreement immediately puts you on the hit list and she will go out of her way to silence. Heaven forbid you have a difference of opinion, it immediately turns personal. If she could you would be on your way to the Principals office for reprogramming.

Great blog today - keep up the good work!

Hacker   ·  April 16, 2008 07:30 AM

The use of 'educate' and variations is standard practice for the left. The political right uses different terms and, overall, has less faith in redefinition as a tactic.

Liberals never persuade, they educate. Community activists - self appointed - are not advocating, they are educating voters.

'Social justice' and 'economic justice' are currently favorites. They weld the concept of justice, which all accept, to the idea that any nonsocialist society is by definition unjust.

These are standard practices and hardly new. Alter the words for something admirable, such as representive government, and you have the 'Peoples Republic Of China'.

The era of Stalin perfected the practice. Communists never had to change policies because they could redefine.

K   ·  April 16, 2008 11:10 PM

Post a comment

You may use basic HTML for formatting.





Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)



April 2008
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
    1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30      

ANCIENT (AND MODERN)
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR


Search the Site


E-mail




Classics To Go

Classical Values PDA Link



Archives




Recent Entries



Links



Site Credits