In Defense of the GOP
It’s almost funny.
In a post yesterday, I suggested we seek to be the type of citizens described by Mark Slouka in Harper’s; citizens who are …
capable of humility in the face of complexity … formed through questioning and therefore unlikely to cede that right … resistant to coercion, to manipulation and demagoguery in all their forms.
Almost immediately, a reader responded thus in the comments section:
When I try to imagine an informed electorate, I remember all the forces that lie to and scare the ignorant among us. And the media that won’t lift a finger to stop them.
It’s a pleasant fiction to believe it’s happening with equal frequency across the political spectrum. But proud ignorance is the domain of one political party …
The emphasis is mine. In the event you weren’t sure, that commenter was referring to the Republican Party
So much for humility and resisting demagoguery: This commenter, and at least one other on the same post, seem to believe Republicans have cornered the market on “proud ignorance.”
Seriously?
I’m among the first to express disgust with much that has been (and continues to be) uttered by certain Republicans. Like the former smoker who becomes an anti-smoking crusader, this past member of the GOP frequently elbows his way to the front of the line of the party’s most vocal critics.
Regardless, it is entirely unfair for me or anyone else to suggest that Republicans (as a class) have all but monopolized “proud ignorance.”
Leading Democrats are perfectly capable of this trait, from the Speaker’s stammering, non-credible explanations of what she was and wasn’t told in briefings on “enhanced interrogation techniques” — to the Vice President’s blustery insults of Russia.
By the same token, there are any number of contemporary Republicans who have exercised considerable intelligence and dignity, from Sen. Lugar’s reasoned assessment of Obama’s handling of foreign policy — to Sen. Bond’s constitutionally grounded decision to vote for Justice Sotomayor’s confirmation.
Individuals who disregard these and other such examples — who gloss over them in order to whitewash one political class while demonizing another — are as guilty of proud ignorance as those they accuse.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
47 Responses to “In Defense of the GOP”
The reader notes that it is “proud ignorance” that is the domain of one political party.
I don't believe he / she is saying that “ignorance” is the domain of one political party, but “proud ignorance”, and this is most certainly the case.
Democrats demagogue and democrats bend the truth or lie, but the Republican party is the domain of people who a proudly ignorant, people who simply don't care about the basic facts of any given issue. They are anti-intellectual and proud of it.
This appeal to voters' values, I might add is a way for the GOP to get the votes of middle Americans when they aren't offering much of anything else to them. Its their way of saying we aren't up on a pedestal deciding for you– we are the same as you are.
And on the balance, I have seen a whole lot more misinformation coming from right field than from center or left these days. They have no shame.
The current demagoguery of the Republican party is sullying the good names of many men and women like Lugar and until recently I would have said Grassley and Spector as well. It saddens me because these are people that I have thought of as more great Americans than Rep or Dem, but they are being brought down by the Bachmans of the party.
National Public Radio Poll conducted by Public Opinion Strategies (R) and Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research (D). July 22-26, 2009. N=850 likely voters nationwide. MoE ± 3.4.
.
“I know it is a long way off, but thinking about the elections in 2010, if the election for U.S. Congress were held today, would you be voting for the Democratic candidate or the Republican candidate in your district where you live?”
.
Democrat Republican Other (vol.) Unsure Refused
% % % % %
7/22-26/09
42 43 3 10 2
“I have seen a whole lot more misinformation coming from right field than from center or left these days.”
Are you sure of that? Even so closely as on this Web site and in fact on this thread, already?
Yes. To the point that I don't believe a word that party leaders like Steele and Boehner say.Their goal is to obstruct Obama— so that the GOP can benefit from the resulting backlash.
Obama may have stumbled- but he is so much more credible that GW Bush was- or VP Cheney.
I somewhat agree with blueoysterjoe about the distinction made between 'ignorance' and 'proud ignorance'.
If anyone does think that ignorance is greater on one side or the other among voters, then they haven't been paying much attention. There were a slew of interviews of Obama voters, for instance, that showed that a lot of people really had no clue about virtually any of his policy positions. One particularly funny one had the interviewer pretending that McCain's positions were Obama's- and the Obama voters were vehemently supporting these ideas even though they represented the opposite of Obama's positions.
I'm quite sure there are equally ridiculous examples from McCain voters.
I think what that commenter was referring to was the 'anti-elitism' prevalent in GOP rhetoric. I hear Dems scoff at this, but partly it's a misreading. Those Dems will say, 'What in the world is wrong with being elite? Shouldn't we have a meritocracy where the cream of the crop rises to leadership positions?'
But they are missing the distinction between 'elite' and 'elitist'. The latter assumes that only the smartest people in the room can make policy, and the rest of the people should keep quiet and not question things. The 'elites' are 'elitist' specifically because they insist that they always know better. Perhaps a lot of the time they do, but it's also very dangerous to accept 'elitism' because it insists that no one question the authority of the elites.
I think people on the conservative side today- and really it's more of a 'heartland' or 'small town' sentiment, so it also includes some moderate Democrats- value common sense and the wisdom of the common man, more so than a lot of today's liberal/progressives do. Personally I think we need some intellectuals and some 'wise common folks', not one or the other. Even better is when that rare individual comes along who embodies both- and can think and reason with the best of the intellectuals but then also knows how to explain things so that everyone can understand.
However, cs, if the lefties are elite and I am dumb, how come it is only I that can afford to pay for my own healthcare?
Casual,
Wouldn't you agree that nationwide polls on localized elections are pretty useless?
I guess maybe you haven't seen next year's bill yet? Friend of mine who is a small employer got her's and it was a increased by 60% last year, it had gone up 30%. One of her employee had a c section this year (what a cute tyke!), but that sure put a damper on what should be a joyful occasion.
I took it on faith that such an august Democrat polling firm as Greenburg Quinlan would not let those Republican rascals oversample in conservative districts. I assumed the poll was taken at a Brooklyn deli.
I run a small business that provides insurance for it's employees. From my experience, it is unlikely that the premiums would have jumped so much unless, in the prior year, your friend got married and changed her policy from 'individual' to 'husband & wife' and then the following year it was modified from 'husband and wife' to family. The increases you describe are consistent with the increased coverage that each modification suggests.
I think that your story may be true but is suffering from the omission of several very important facts.
But, in response to the main posting here, neither side has cornered the market in ignorance, proud or any other kind. People are just people, working to get by and are not the cartoon caricatures that are described here on the internet. Only those that claim the superiority of their side over the other are truly ignorant because the party is comprised of fallible individuals. Investing in and individual aside from yourself is a fools errand. Mr. Bush made his supporters look foolish in their support through his mis-management of the Iraq war and his disinterestedness in Afghanistan. Mr. Obama, will likely do the same for his most die-hard supporters – it is the nature of the beast.
Couldn't have said it better myself:
And here:
More
David Brooks
And here:
Hey, Davebo, thought you might also get a an emotional life from this comparison as well…..
August 25, 2009
51.8 Approve
42.0 Disapprove
Spread
+9.8
August 25, 2001
56.0 Approve
33.0 Disapprove
Spread
+23.0
PWT,
You could be right about that. I know her husband lost his job and I think his insurance with it. So she may have added him, I don't know. I do know she added the tyke.
Everything was wonderful, …
“It's a sad tale that began in the '80s”
… then Along Came Rrrrrrrrrrrregan! grrrrrrrrrrrrr
I've heard this fiction a lot, produced much “better” by a still-bitter-and-surly-and-resentful Thom Hartmann.
“[I]f the lefties are elite and I am dumb, how come it is only I that can afford to pay for [anything]?”
You have too much, and are taxed far too little!
Uh oh… my comment is famous now
Now as to whether Republicans are just anti-science and anti-intellectual or actually stupid, this is interesting (apologies to our right-leaning commentators if you didn't know the answer to this one. no offense meant):
QUESTION: Do you believe that America and Africa were once part of the same continent?
YES NO NOT SURE
ALL 42 26 32
DEM 51 16 33
REP 24 47 29
IND 44 23 33
Pete,
I think you'll have to do better to establish parity than some possible dissembling from Pelosi and some mostly true, if impolitic, remarks from Joe Biden.
Meanwhile, in the Republican world, which is shaped by its political leaders and media personalities, Hillary Clinton murdered Vince Foster, Saddam Hussein attacked America on 9/11, Brownie did a heckuva job during Katrina, Bush made the country safer, Iraq has WMD, global warming is a hoax, drilling in ANWR will solve our energy problems, raising the top marginal tax rate back to Reagan era levels is socialism, the recession was Obama's fault, Death panels will decide whether your grandparents deserve to live, and Obama isn't an American citizen. Need I go on?
GD- I won't take offense as long as you don't take offense when I point out that citing one question from one unsourced poll without giving any information about the pollster, sampling method, etc…and expecting to draw any meaningful conclusion from that might indicate that one is anti-statistical analysis, anti-intellectual, or actually stupid.
http://www.dailykos.com/statepoll/2009/7/30/US/320
The Daily Kos weekly National Poll was conducted by Research 2000 July 27 through July 30, 2009. A total of 2400 adults nationally were interviewed by telephone. A cross-section of calls was made into each state in the country in order to reflect the adult population nationally.
Demographics are at the link
It was really just a joke, but thanks for adding the reference, GD.
So what is the point of these Dem vs Rep threads? It isn't like anything constructive is being discuses, like health care, national defense, ect…
Basically we end up arguing over who is better…which gets no where.
CStanley is now complaining about lack of sources!!
Shannonlee,
You're right. Ultimately, we need to move away from the current partisan divide pitting the current crop of Republicans vs. reality-based community. What we need is an entirely new political party to challenge the Democrats, or at least a new Republican party. Posts like this might spur that kind of transformation.
CS: “But they are missing the distinction between 'elite' and 'elitist'. The latter assumes that only the smartest people in the room can make policy, and the rest of the people should keep quiet and not queson thingsti.”
The “Left” doesn't have the corner market on elitist attitude any more than the “Right” is the sole-source of ignorance. Both sides have their “elites” and their “ignorant” factions.
I live in the Red State and I see the right-elitists all the time. They are also usually well educated and their tactics aren't all that different from their far-left counterparts. The most notable exception is the ones who claim to speak for God and how dare you question them.
In both cases, they are both so convinced of their own superiority and infallibility that it's inconceivable that anyone should question their position which manifests in a smug disposition and complete dismissal of any opposing view.
CStanley is now complaining about lack of sources!!
Yes, but my complaint was only made in jest, GS!
And there are actually a lot of times when people need to be questioned about sources- so I'm sure you'll begin asking other people besides just me, right?
Oh my.
You not only called him out on his sources, you called him “anti-intellectual, or actually stupid”.
But it was all, you know, a joke.
If anyone cares, here's a link to a recent complaint of mine about CStanley and her sources.
Maybe you'll raise your own standards, right?
@@The most notable exception is the ones who claim to speak for God and how dare you question them.@@
Thought you might have had me pegged until you came up with that one. God is way too merciful to play on my team.
Maybe “Proud ignorance is the domain of one political party” doesn't quite hit the nail on the head, but it does seem to me that on many issues the positions espoused by the most prominent Republican commentators, and held by the vast majority of the faithful, are at best intellectually untenable given the facts, and at worst predicated on contradictory, trivially disprovable and wholly fabricated assertions.
There are examples of this every day – e.g. from reading the healthcare headlines this morning a good republican must simultaneously hold the position that Socialized medicine is bad, Medicare is good, the public option is bad because it would have lower overhead, causing people to choose it over private insurance, which must axiomatically be more efficient because it is fueled by the profit motive. Doublethink much?
I think most of us can agree that ignorance, as well as self-interest, hypocrisy, corruption, etc. exist in both parties, and in my opinion pretty much equally.
So the question has shifted to whether Republicans are the only ones exhibiting “proud ignorance”. I assume for the most part we're talking about talk show hosts and people at town halls calling Obama a Nazi (interestingly, one of the most outrageous “Obama is a Nazi” group is actually to Obama's left, not right, a fact that is relevant to this discussion: http://www.larouchepac.com/health). Some Republicans politicians may be ignorant, hypocrites, etc, as some Democratic politicians are also, but for the most part they have steered clear of this behavior.
So, in order to disprove the argument that “proud ignorance is the domain of one political party”, we must only find some similar examples of Democratic commentators and citizen activists behaving in “proudly ignorant” ways.
1) How about the “get out of Iraq now!” crowd? Regardless of your views on whether we should or should not have gone to war, pulling completely out of Iraq while it was on the brink of collapse clearly ignored the clear disaster that would have created. They also were just as loud and disrespectful as the current town hall crowd.
2) How about those who want to boycott Whole Foods because their CEO has a different view of how health care reform might work than they do? While at the same time they criticism some people on town halls for getting in the way of honest debate.
3) There's the 911 conspiracy theorists on the left, which are comparable to the Birthers on the right.
4) And then there's this thread, where apparently some people don't see the irony of saying that only Republicans are “proudly ignorant”, a statement that is both ignorant and prideful.
@ blueoysterjoe
When the poster and the person who supported them, a TMV columnist nonetheless (who lacks a moderate voice apparantly) renounce their statements then you get one step closer to making sense when you post the above statement. As long as they are proud of their ignorance, I think the case is clearly made that their side has plenty of proud ignorance. I think both sides have plenty personally.
I agree with you wholeheartedly. I've always considered myself more of a liberal, but to say that only one party is ever ignorant, and that my party is totally infallible is ridiculous. Mistakes are made on both sides (as you made very clear with your examples), and ignorance exists on both sides.
In fact, I feel that people who make comments saying “X party is far more ignorant than my party” are acting from a purely emotional standpoint. And while I fear making the same generalization the person you mentioned made, I feel that people like this do not view politics from a rational point of view, but from a groupthink, emotional point of view that exists simply to say “I belong here”. I feel that this leads to poorly supported political views. You belong to a group, so you support everything that group does, even though if you gave it further thought you may disagree. The mentality is reminiscent of the phrase “my country right or wrong”; simply replace “country” with “party” and you have a statement that represents this type of emotional politics.
Both liberals and conservatives have good points, and diminishing one side based on a couple of examples is ludicrous, because both sides have people that make mistakes.
Oh my, indeed, George. If GD found the joke offensive, I'll be glad to apologize. I find it incredible that you're actually continuing to beat a dead horse about a thread where I named my source but didn't give you a hotlink to it- and again I'll ask whether you intend to similarly insist on sourcing from everyone on this forum who makes assertions without backing them up, or is there some reason that I have to meet this higher standard?
GD Quotes: “”"But their function within the conservative movement is no longer to educate and ennoble a populist political tendency, it is to defend that tendency against the supposedly monolithic and uniformly hostile educated classes.”"”
Compare and discuss:
[a] “I am more educated than you”
[b] “I am more noble than you”
@ epiphyte:
There are examples of this every day – e.g. from reading the healthcare headlines this morning a good republican must simultaneously hold the position that Socialized medicine is bad, Medicare is good, the public option is bad because it would have lower overhead, causing people to choose it over private insurance, which must axiomatically be more efficient because it is fueled by the profit motive. Doublethink much?
Actually both sides have staked out positions that leave them in this conundrum regarding SS. What was funny is that in the same day, I had just finished reading Ed Morrissey's column which castigated Obama for doublespeak on that same issue (but the other way around) because in one speech Obama talked about the very real concern that Medicare is running out of money, but then also in that speech said that Medicare is an example of government getting something right, so that people should have confidence in the govt's ability to run such programs. (As a side note- the same contradiction was seen in Obama's statements about the USPS- he has praised it as an example of a govt program that works well, but then in trying to refute the claims that public entities compete unfairly with private ones he said that USPS's private competitors do fine while 'it's the post office that's always having trouble.')
Anyway, I thought Ed had a point in his criticism of Obama, but then later in the day I saw the contradictory statements by Steele and realized that both sides have boxed themselves into a corner and are trying hard to spin the rhetoric, and hoping people don't notice the contradictions.
Come on, CStanley, what you actually said was that it was hard to provide sources:
If that's an good excuse for you, why not for everybody? Why are you holding anyone to a higher standard than anyone else.
And you know, I'm only one guy. I only have time for the particularly egregious.
; )
@ Rambie:
The “Left” doesn't have the corner market on elitist attitude any more than the “Right” is the sole-source of ignorance. Both sides have their “elites” and their “ignorant” factions.
I think we're talking about two different things (somewhat related, but not the same.) I'm not saying that there isn't arrogance among many conservatives- sure there is. You mention religious zealots, and sure, there's some of that. My experience hasn't been the same as yours, as I find those types pretty uncommon among religious people in general. I guess though, that the ones who are religious zealots sometimes also are political zealots who believe in the political gospels of Shawn Hannity and Rush Limbaugh.
At any rate- the phenomenon I was talking about on the left is a particular arrogance related to intellectualism and educational pedigrees. That same type of arrogance isn't common on the right, and in fact is often seen with disdain because many conservatives value 'common sense' smarts as much as they value 'book smarts.' I'd say that some people take this too far, to the point that they think that highly educated people are automatically to be distrusted- but by and large, I think it's just that people don't like to be condescended to and they (correctly, in some instances) see the ruse of 'you should just not bother your little head about it and let us take care of things because we know better.'
“”"I think most of us can agree that ignorance, as well as self-interest, hypocrisy, corruption, etc. exist in both parties, and in my opinion pretty much equally.”"”
I am not taking issue with you in particular adelinesdad, but it is noteworthy that “ignorance” is often used in context with “hypocrisy” and “corruption” when the latter are vices. One may be “culpably ignorant”, but this goes far beyond ignorance as such.
What's more, ignorance is not a virtue, but recognition of one's ignorance is. And while “proud ignorance” may mean taking pride in not knowing, it may also mean taking pride in not jumping to conclusions that people around you may be “expecting” you to take.
I have been in discussions where my refusal to condemn some particular political act was a matter of being “unreasonable.” Not that I was unreasonable for saying that the act was good. Not that I was unreasonable for -believing- that the act was good. But unreasonable for not being ready to conclude, in my heart, that the act was wrong. **This is in discussion with friends**.
Sometimes being “proudly ignorant” is taking pride in one's integrity in the context of professing ignorance. That it is not a matter of being (eg) hypocritical, or corrupt.
Unfortunately, it also invites social hemlock.
CStanley (from his thread): “I find it incredible that you're actually continuing to beat a dead horse about a thread where I named my source but didn't give you a hotlink to it”
CStanley (from the other thread): “I'm sure you are aware that it's time consuming, and although I try to get back and give you the citation it's not always possible for me to take the time to track stuff down and format the link codes and such.”
I don't see the difference between those two statements, George. He saying that he can make the effort to cite his sources, which is not the same as guaranteeing a link to those sources. That seems reasonable to me. Citing a source does not necessarily imply a link.
But it's none of my business.
George, since your the ONLY one who has ever complained to me about this (and I might note, several people in that thread that you linked to said that you were wrong about that complaint), I feel pretty confident that I'm not the “particularly egregious” one.
And, sorry, but although I've already nibbled at the bait more than I probably should have here, I'm not going to be dragged into another ridiculous argument about it. If you don't think my claims are adequately sourced, you can feel free to ignore my comments. Again, I feel pretty confident that other people find them worth reading, but if that's not your opinion, then I can live with it.
@@Again, I feel pretty confident that other people find them worth reading,@@
Amen, sister. Let's have a poll. I cast my vote in full support of CStanley for the most ambassadorial of postings and move that we ban GeorgeSorwell for continuously annoying passive/aggressive behavior.
largo,
True enough. I agree that ignorance is not a vice. We are all ignorant about some/many issues.
“Sometimes being “proudly ignorant” is taking pride in one's integrity in the context of professing ignorance. That it is not a matter of being (eg) hypocritical, or corrupt.”
That could be one meaning of the phrase, but I don't think that was the meaning of “proudly ignorant” as it was used in the original comment (at least not as I and many other interpreted it).
Proud ignorance. Sarah Palin, “Joe the Plumber” and their glorification. I can't think of any better examples.
Yes, Jim — Both were proud to flaunt it.:-)
kritt,
Is there a sense in which Socrates “flaunted” his ignorance? And if so, how would you distinguish this sense from the sense you used above?
(Mostly just curious. I am not equating the two, nor suggesting that you would).