Last week, I wrote a diary series deconstructing Gerard Alexander's WaPo commissioned editorial, "Why are liberals so condescending". I called it "Conservative condescension: Projection and conservative victomology on parade". In a comment, Oaktown Girl wrote:
I have every reason to believe
you are quite correct in that the next Big Lie that conservative will turn into conventional wisdom "truth" is the "Liberals are condescending" meme. Here's my question: what's our one-liner counter to that?
A detailed, well researched series like you have presented here is fantastic and much needed for the historical record. But in addition to that, to really counter these assholes we need to come up with something quick, sharp, snappy, and hard to counter with mere vacuous jargon. So we turn on the TV and the the talking heads toss out the "Liberals are condescending" line as if it's God's own Truth. The token liberal guest counters with...?
Well, she's absolutely right, of course. And what better to answer than to throw it open to the whole Open Left community. You don't have to have read my whole series--or even a single installment. We've all heard similar sorts of narratives for decdes now--about how snooty old liberals just can't understand common folks like Timothy McVeigh, or whatever. My diary series is considerably more specific than that, and if you haven't read it, I encourage you to do so (a bit more about it on the flip). But this is all about kicking the doors wide open and asking your advice. I would suggest that there are three types of suggestions that would be particularly useful:
(1) One-liners. Things that Oaktown Girl's hypothetical liberal guest can quickly interject to cause maximum consternation and disruption of the ongoing "liberal condescension" narrative.
(2) Elevator speeches. The 30-second rap that puts the liberal counter-argument in a nutshell.
(3) Memes. Think of them as seed thoughts. They don't have to be cleverly expressed. Get the meme right, and others can riff off them.
Of course, those are only suggestions. Write anything you want, really. But help us come up with useful, pithy, devastating responses to the "liberal condescension" narrative that we can help spread far and wide in the weeks and months to come.
Here's a brief recap of my diary series from last weekend:
In Part I, I dealt with the introduction and transition of Alexander's op-ed, which argued that not only are liberals overtly condescending toward conservatives, but they're woven their condescension into four overarching narratives.
I took on each of Alexander's alleged liberal narrative of condescension in the next four parts of my series. In Part 2, I dealt with the "vast right-wing conspiracy" narrative, which more or less consciously attempts to grapple with the reality of rightwing hegemonic warfare. In Part 3, I dealt with the alleged "voters are dupes" narrative, which has a kernel of truth to it, but mostly consists of Alexander misunderstanding or ignoring the point of progressive criticisms of Democratic elitism. In Part 4, I pointed out that the "conservatives rely on racial appeals" narrative had been promulgated by no less crucial a conservative icon than the late Lee Atwater, and in Part 5 I dealt the narrative that "conservatives are driven purely by emotion and anxiety -- including fear of change" as opposed to liberals relying on reason, in part by quoting the likes of conservative icons Edmund Burke and Richard Kirk who made the same sort of argument themselves, claiming that it was a good thing, not something to be ashamed of.
Then, in my final diary, Part 6, I dealt with the underwhelming conclusion of Alexander's column.
STATE BLOGS
