Frank Rich: "No Sympathy for the Hillbilly"

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I like how he supports his argument by comparing these people to third-class Titanic passengers. Like, you know who the bad guys in that story are, right, Frank? Right?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I'm just absolutely baffled that there are Serious People writing Serious Thinkpieces arguing that the problem is that the Democratic Party isn't contemptuous enough of people who don't vote for it. It really lends some credence to the idea that, when you're insulated from the actual outcomes of bad policy (e.g. by being a famous liberal pundit, or whatever Oakvale is), you start to view politics as a purely will-to-power (or will-to-feeling-superior, really, since wielding power typically requires winning elections) exercise rather than something that has real consequences if the bad guys keep winning.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I'm just absolutely baffled that there are Serious People writing Serious Thinkpieces arguing that the problem is that the Democratic Party isn't contemptuous enough of people who don't vote for it. It really lends some credence to the idea that, when you're insulated from the actual outcomes of bad policy (e.g. by being a famous liberal pundit, or whatever Oakvale is), you start to view politics as a purely will-to-power (or will-to-feeling-superior, really, since wielding power typically requires winning elections) exercise rather than something that has real consequences if the bad guys keep winning.

I am not a politician and don't feel the need to lionise the electorate. You have zero idea as to what degree 'bad policy' affects me but by all means continue your preening.

The way "preening", and similar accusations such as pretentiousness, get thrown around in arguments like this is starting to remind me an awful lot of the saw about the bro in "don't taze me, bro" not in fact being the one doing the tazing.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

How do you gain votes from an electorate convinced that tax cuts spur economic growth, and that healthcare costs can be lowered by letting insurance companies operate beyond state lines (whatever that entails...), that unionization of the manufacturing sector lowers workers' standards of living -- and all that other rot -- that their deeply held political principles are just shibboleths? Efforts by the Democratic Party to argue otherwise just amounts to Democrats lecturing voters that their false beliefs are indeed false -- and no likes a lecturing hectoring know-it-all.

Well, for starters, the Democrats could study how the Republicans convinced these voters of those things in the first place.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

It is pretty funny how the various narratives being spun about the mysterious Midwest whites is very similar to competing colonial depictions of natives. Are they a vast tribe of aggressive unreasonable non-woke types who should be feared and despised? Are they a dying, noble breed more in touch than the effete observer? Do they merely need to be tamed and introduced to microbreweries and coding lessons so they can be brought into the brave world if the future?

I think there's actually a lot about the current relationship between urban and rural/small-city America that replicates the metropole/periphery dynamics of colonial empires.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Talking about these people like they're hardcore conservatives is a bizarre predilection of many Democrats. Sure there are plenty of conservatives and partisan Republicans in any state, but the Obama-Trump voters who swung these states really aren't a part of that. They would be quite easy to swing back, but it doesn't sound like you're interested in doing that.

It's really remarkable how what will benefit [party that just lost] the most going forward is always whatever best suits the political views of the person talking, isn't it?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Talking about these people like they're hardcore conservatives is a bizarre predilection of many Democrats. Sure there are plenty of conservatives and partisan Republicans in any state, but the Obama-Trump voters who swung these states really aren't a part of that. They would be quite easy to swing back, but it doesn't sound like you're interested in doing that.

It's really remarkable how what will benefit [party that just lost] the most going forward is always whatever best suits the political views of the person talking, isn't it?

     How does this suit my political views? The kinds of things that Democrats would propose to bring these people back into the fold are not policies I would be particularly enthused by.

I'm agreeing with you and being snide about NSV, not being snide about you.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Talking about these people like they're hardcore conservatives is a bizarre predilection of many Democrats. Sure there are plenty of conservatives and partisan Republicans in any state, but the Obama-Trump voters who swung these states really aren't a part of that. They would be quite easy to swing back, but it doesn't sound like you're interested in doing that.

It's really remarkable how what will benefit [party that just lost] the most going forward is always whatever best suits the political views of the person talking, isn't it?

     How does this suit my political views? The kinds of things that Democrats would propose to bring these people back into the fold are not policies I would be particularly enthused by.

I'm agreeing with you and being snide about NSV, not being snide about you.

Yes my posts always deserve snide treatment from this board because I don't worship white working class voters and socialism.  Love the "tolerant progressives" here. 

Your posts deserve snide treatment because you're openly contemptuous of the idea that you have any moral responsibilities towards other people and expect those other people, or at least the subset of other people that posts on Atlas Forum, not to be cross with you for it.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Talking about these people like they're hardcore conservatives is a bizarre predilection of many Democrats. Sure there are plenty of conservatives and partisan Republicans in any state, but the Obama-Trump voters who swung these states really aren't a part of that. They would be quite easy to swing back, but it doesn't sound like you're interested in doing that.

It's really remarkable how what will benefit [party that just lost] the most going forward is always whatever best suits the political views of the person talking, isn't it?

     How does this suit my political views? The kinds of things that Democrats would propose to bring these people back into the fold are not policies I would be particularly enthused by.

I'm agreeing with you and being snide about NSV, not being snide about you.

Yes my posts always deserve snide treatment from this board because I don't worship white working class voters and socialism.  Love the "tolerant progressives" here. 

Your posts deserve snide treatment because you're openly contemptuous of the idea that you have any moral responsibilities towards other people and expect those other people, or at least the subset of other people that posts on Atlas Forum, not to be cross with you for it.

When you walk past a homeless person on the street do you give that person a dollar every time?

Most of the time, yes, and when I don't I feel guilty about it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

To at least some extent, yes. If I don't "owe that person money" directly then I at least owe it to them to support a form of social organization that stands some chance of not leaving them homeless. I should point out that the state that's done the best job of combating homelessness is Utah, so it's not even a matter of left-wing politics or policy as such, simply of being willing to look for meaningful solutions to these problems in the first place.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

1. You're aware that we have a number of respected right-wing posters, right?
2. You can't just shout "MUH SAFE SPACE MUH SAFE SPACE MUH SAFE SPACE" and expect most people under the age of, say, thirty-five to agree with you that it's a devastating Sick Burn. This is true even of people who don't think "safe spaces" are a great idea in the first place.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Oh, now you're doing the "mocking people for being emotionally/morally sensitive" thing. You're so cliché.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Oh, now you're doing the "mocking people for being emotionally/morally sensitive" thing. You're so cliché.

It's ironic when a group of people that hurls insults so rapidly can be so morally sensitive that they are almost unable to cope with reality.

I didn't say anything about being "unable to cope with reality", I said I felt guilty about something I occasionally do. This is how having a conscience works. I can't believe you're making me spell this out.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Shouldn't you be at work right now? It's eleven-thirty on a weekday.