|
April 15, 2008
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. 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."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.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
Comments
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: 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: 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.
|
|
April 2008
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
April 2008
March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 AB 1634 MBAPBSALLAMERICANGOP See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
A Wright-wing conspiracy?
An Unkulunkulu atheist vows never to be out-atheisted again! Where Do The Commanding Officers Live? Choose your identity group carefully, kids! The Chickens Are Coming Home To The Roosters UGH! In The Middle Of The Road How many wrongs make a Wright? The Devil Speaks Supply and Demand
Links
Site Credits
|
|
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.