Support NeoGAF

[Jintor]

I'd be interested to hear some thoughts on this article. I think it makes some cogent points, but feel it is somewhat lacking on solutions or advice.

There is a smug style in American liberalism. It has been growing these past decades. It is a way of conducting politics, predicated on the belief that American life is not divided by moral difference or policy divergence — not really — but by the failure of half the country to know what's good for them.

In 2016, the smug style has found expression in media and in policy, in the attitudes of liberals both visible and private, providing a foundational set of assumptions above which a great number of liberals comport their understanding of the world.

It has led an American ideology hitherto responsible for a great share of the good accomplished over the past century of our political life to a posture of reaction and disrespect: a condescending, defensive sneer toward any person or movement outside of its consensus, dressed up as a monopoly on reason.

The smug style arose to answer these questions. It provided an answer so simple and so emotionally satisfying that its success was perhaps inevitable: the theory that conservatism, and particularly the kind embraced by those out there in the country, was not a political ideology at all.

The trouble is that stupid hicks don't know what's good for them. They're getting conned by right-wingers and tent revivalists until they believe all the lies that've made them so wrong. They don't know any better. That's why they're voting against their own self-interest.

As anybody who has gone through a particularly nasty breakup knows, disdain cultivated in the aftermath of a divide quickly exceeds the original grievance. You lose somebody. You blame them. Soon, the blame is reason enough to keep them at a distance, the excuse to drive them even further away.

Finding comfort in the notion that their former allies were disdainful, hapless rubes, smug liberals created a culture animated by that contempt. The rubes noticed and replied in kind. The result is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Financial incentive compounded this tendency — there is money, after all, in reassuring the bitter. Over 20 years, an industry arose to cater to the smug style. It began in humor, and culminated for a time in The Daily Show, a program that more than any other thing advanced the idea that liberal orthodoxy was a kind of educated savvy and that its opponents were, before anything else, stupid. The smug liberal found relief in ridiculing them.

Elites, real elites, might recognize one another by their superior knowledge. The smug recognize one another by their mutual knowing.

Knowing, for example, that the Founding Fathers were all secular deists. Knowing that you're actually, like, 30 times more likely to shoot yourself than an intruder. Knowing that those fools out in Kansas are voting against their own self-interest and that the trouble is Kansas doesn't know any better. Knowing all the jokes that signal this knowledge.

The studies, about Daily Show viewers and better-sized amygdalae, are knowing. It is the smug style's first premise: a politics defined by a command of the Correct Facts and signaled by an allegiance to the Correct Culture. A politics that is just the politics of smart people in command of Good Facts. A politics that insists it has no ideology at all, only facts. No moral convictions, only charts, the kind that keep them from "imposing their morals" like the bad guys do.

Knowing is the shibboleth into the smug style's culture, a cultural that celebrates hip commitments and valorizes hip taste, that loves nothing more than hate-reading anyone who doesn't get them. A culture that has come to replace politics itself.

The knowing know that police reform, that abortion rights, that labor unions are important, but go no further: What is important, after all, is to signal that you know these things. What is important is to launch links and mockery at those who don't. The Good Facts are enough: Anybody who fails to capitulate to them is part of the Problem, is terminally uncool. No persuasion, only retweets. Eye roll, crying emoji, forward to John Oliver for sick burns.

What have been the consequences of the smug style?

It has become a tradition for the smug, in editorials and essay and confident Facebook boasting, to assume that the presidential debates will feature their candidate, in command of the facts, wiping the floor with the empty huckster ignorance of their Republican opponent.

It was popularly assumed, for a time, that George W. Bush was too stupid to be elected president.

The smug believed the same of Ronald Reagan.

John Yoo, the architect of the Bush administration's torture policies, escaped The Daily Show unscathed. Liberals wondered what to do when Jon Stewart fails. What would success look like? Were police waiting in the wings, a one-way ticket to the Hague if Stewart nailed him?

It would be unfair to say that the smug style has never learned from these mistakes. But the lesson has been, We underestimated how many people could be fooled.

That is: We underestimated just how dumb these dumb hicks really are.

We just didn't get our message to them. They just stayed in their information bubble. We can't let the lying liars keep lying to these people — but how do we reach these idiots who only trust Fox?

Rarely: Maybe they're savvier than we thought. Maybe they're angry for a reason.

The smug style, at bottom, is a failure of empathy. Further: It is a failure to believe that empathy has any value at all. It is the notion that anybody worthy of liberal time and attention and respect must capitulate, immediately, to the Good Facts.

If they don't (and they won't, no matter how much of your Facts you make them consume), you're free to write them off and mock them. When they suffer, it's their just desserts.

Make no mistake: I am not suggesting that liberals adopt a fuzzy, gentler version of their politics. I am not suggesting they compromise their issues for the sake of playing nice. What I am suggesting is that they consider how the issues they actually fight for have drifted away from their egalitarian intentions.

I am suggesting that they notice how hating and ridiculing the people they say they want to help has led them to stop helping those people, too.

More at the link.

---

Obviously this article is pretty hard on the left, but I don't take it as particularly partisan so much as pointing out that the 'smug style' dominance in the left is particularly strong for a ideology that espouses what it supposedly preaches.

 

[MartyStu]

I think identifying the 'problem' is much more important at this juncture than coming up with any solutions.

This is something I am noticing more and more as I meet other liberals. It is a massive turn off and an attitude I have been trying to curtail in myself as well.

 

[AnathemicOne]

The fuck is up with the vernacular on that article, "Good Facts" smh

 

[burgervan]

To be fair, the right has become so absurdly extreme that it's hard not to mock them.

 

[Slayven]

The left has some seriosu issues that that primary has really shined a light on. Like there is a large chunk of the left that believes in one size fits all to problems, and say issues such as race are too "divisive".

 

[johnsmith]

Smuggest liberals I've ever seen. Takes about 5 seconds for you to get the entire idea of the full video.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tmaXB-NprOM

 

[hawk2025]

This has been an excellent season for some calm self-reflection.

I appreciate the article for it.

 

[Jintor]

The fuck is up with the vernacular on that article, "Good Facts" smh

Sorry, it looks a little odd out of context. I think the usage the author is going for is much clearer in the article proper.

 

[MartyStu]

Smuggest liberals I've ever seen. Takes about 5 seconds for you to get the entire idea of the full video.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tmaXB-NprOM

Depends on whether or not Clinton is involved. Usually pretty reasonable until then.

 

[cdyhybrid]

Of course it's smug. It's based on European values.

 

[whytemyke]

I don't think you get to use the word shibboleth and then complain about a group of people who Lord over others all their knowledge.

 

[The Technomancer]

Yeah I've very very deliberately walked back and avoided the "voting against their best interest" rhetoric around poor conservative voters in the last couple years

 

[Earthstrike]

Well, this is what happens when one side of the political aisle embraces an anti-intellectualism movement to cater to evangelical christians. Nothing too hard to understand really.

 

[sphagnum]

The left has some seriosu issues that that primary has really shined a light on. Like there is a large chunk of the left that believes in one size fits all to problems, and say issues such as race are too "divisive".

Conversely, there's a large segment of liberals who believe anyone who doesn't support Hillary Clinton is a stupid/naïve/ignorant white male college student who just wants free stuff.

 

[hawk2025]

Yeah I've very very deliberately walked back and avoided the "voting against their best interest" rhetoric around poor conservative voters in the last couple years

Same.

It's a sobering, but important realization that it took me far too long to get to. And that I still slip into far too frequently.

 

[Jintor]

To be fair, the right has become so absurdly extreme that it's hard not to mock them.

Yeah, this was kind of what I have trouble reconciling with the article. Like when your political opposition is literally being homophobic/transphobic/racist etc, mockery is so easy to jump straight to.

 

[Slayven]

I stopped watching the daily show until Noah because, it was too preaching to the choir

Conversely, there's a large segment of liberals who believe anyone who doesn't support Hillary Clinton is a stupid/naïve/ignorant white male college student who just wants free stuff.

That is a thing this cycle but I am talking about have been around since the days of MLK at least

 

[QuiteWhittle]

Liberal smugness and sardonicism(didn't even know this was a word until like yesterday) is getting unbearable, yeah.

edit: I'm guilty of it too, no doubt, but I've started to examine my language.

 

[MartyStu]

Yeah, this was kind of what I have trouble reconciling with the article. Like when your political opposition is literally being homophobic/transphobic/racist etc, mockery is so easy to jump straight to.

Yeah, but it is something we really must resist.

When you walk into every conversation with your moral superiority worn on your sleeves, it becomes very difficult to learn anything or gain new perspective.

 

[Shao Kahn on the Lawn]

To be fair, the right has become so absurdly extreme that it's hard not to mock them.

The tone described in this article is just as likely to be used against other liberals who do not wholly embrace the underlying sentiment of the cause du jour.

 

[Slayven]

Honestly I think this is ultimately a problem solved by diversity.

 

[unholyrevenger72]

I didn't know being factually correct was being smug.

 

[East Lake]

The left has some seriosu issues that that primary has really shined a light on. Like there is a large chunk of the left that believes in one size fits all to problems, and say issues such as race are too "divisive".

The article is weird but I don't think that's what it's about. It's sort of like on the daily show when they go down to rural nowhere and have an interview with a local. The person being interviewed isn't aware of the jokes, or sometimes they're not quick enough to know the whole segment exists for the enlightened crowd to laugh at them.

Side result is that you can't effectively communicate with people that you look down on.

 

[MartyStu]

Honestly I think this is ultimately a problem solved by diversity.

No, no it is not. At least not only that.

It is a problem solved by self-reflection.

If you are not ready to be receptive, then it does not matter how many unique perspectives you are exposed to.

 

[Spinifex]

In Australia the conservatives oppose a Safe Schools initiative because they claim it 'spreads cultural Marxism'.

How the fuck do you not mock that.

 

[cdyhybrid]

No, not it is not.

It is a problem solved by self-reflection.

If you are not ready to be receptive, then it does not matter how many unique perspectives you are exposed to.

Being exposed to diverse opinions and experiences will prompt and encourage self-reflection.

 

[sphagnum]

That is a thing this cycle but I am talking about have been around since the days of MLK at least

I could have generalized it I guess, but it's not like that idea hasn't existed for decades now with the constant idealist vs. pragmatist thing that happens all the time in the Dem nomination cycles. But this cycle in particular has brought it to the fore.

Funny enough, I used to be one of the sorts of religious right-wing conservatives who liberals love to make fun of, and liberal smugness was absolutely a factor that kept me away from left politics for years because it felt like I was constantly under attack. Then when I eventually changed sides, I started doing it too until my mother told me that I was arrogant and it shut me up. Did some re-evaluating after that, especially once I transitioned to socialism from liberalism and remembered that people are created by the forces around them rather than instinctively being "stupid".

 

[uncelestial]

"The trouble is that stupid hicks don't know what's good for them. They're getting conned by right-wingers and tent revivalists until they believe all the lies that've made them so wrong. They don't know any better. That's why they're voting against their own self-interest."

Yeah well, if the shoe fits. Though I wouldn't call them stupid so much as embedded in a culture where shitty beliefs persist.

 

[Jintor]

I didn't know being factually correct was being smug.

Example A

 

[yanipheonu]

I mean, we are talking about people competing against the clusterfuck known as American Conservatism.

I'd probably be smug too. Like if I entered a tournament where I knew I'd win as soon as I walked in.

Sigh... Americans deserve better on all fronts.

 

[MartyStu]

Being exposed to diverse opinions and experiences will prompt and encourage self-reflection.

You would think, but that has not always been my experience..

Besides, 'diversity' does not just happen, you actually have to make an effort. Which already means you realize that there is a problem.

 

[Shao Kahn on the Lawn]

I didn't know being factually correct was being smug.

Political disagreement is rarely a matter of absolute right and wrong. The problems facing society are almost uniformly far too complex to have a simple, guaranteed solution.

For instance, economic research and practice has demonstrated that trickle-down economics is a myth. That's all fine and good, implying that corporations and the wealthy alike should be taxed more. How much more? What is the right balance? The answer isn't a fill-in-the-blank number: it's a philosophical balance that we must dictate as a society between fair and unfair.

The simple fact that you posted what you did in the way that you did confirms exactly what the OP is talking about.

 

[Puck Beaverton]

Vox would know.

Spoiler

They're right

 

[Lime]

No this is not the failure of the left. If anything, the left has been too meek and soft in being critical and radical in its ideology.

This is the real failure of the left:

http://www.commonhouse.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/brown-melancholia-of-the-left.pdf

 

[cdyhybrid]

You would think, but that has not always been my experience..

Besides, 'diversity' does not just happen, you actually have to make an effort. Which already means you realize that there is a problem.

I mean, obviously it's not an absolute. It just helps.

And even "accidentally" ending up in more diverse environments can prompt some people to look in the mirror.

 

[MartyStu]

Political disagreement is rarely a matter of absolute right and wrong. The problems facing society are almost uniformly far too complex to have a simple, guaranteed solution.

For instance, economic research and practice has demonstrated that trickle-down economics is a myth. That's all fine and good, implying that corporations and the wealthy alike should be taxed more. How much more? What is the right balance? The answer isn't a fill-in-the-blank number: it's a philosophical balance that we must dictate as a society between fair and unfair.

The simple fact that you posted what you did in the way that you did confirms exactly what the OP is talking about.

Not to pile on, but the is a very distinct difference between content and tone. The former all too often informs the latter in some rather ugly ways.

 

[Cagey]

The smug style, at bottom, is a failure of empathy. Further: It is a failure to believe that empathy has any value at all. It is the notion that anybody worthy of liberal time and attention and respect must capitulate, immediately, to the Good Facts.

Of course. In online discourse with the group the article describes, "empathy" isn't about understanding another's feelings and emotions, it's merely another clumsy misappropriated tool in the toolkit. "Empathy" becomes a means of pointing out another group's moral failings in discourse. If you can attack someone as lacking "empathy", you have identified that person as Not One of Us.

After all: we all have empathy, as we have proclaimed it ourselves, so someone lacking empathy, as we proclaim it, isn't one of us. Let us smugly tell those we identify as lacking empathy to listen to what we say as we're correct, and if they are truly listening, then they would admit we're correct.

The article's invocation of empathy as a means of attacking those who use the term to attack others is particularly delicious.

 

[Cindro]

The level of acceptance for the type of hateful garbage some people on the left say is insane. This is rampant on GAF, too. There was a political thread several weeks back where I (apparently foolishly) said that despite having a mostly liberal ideology, I won't be voting for Hillary. Somebody said that because of that, we deserve to, quote, "rot". Because some GAFfers are not voting for their candidate of choice, we should apparently die! No ban that I saw for that either. There were tons of "you're a racist/sexist/homophobe" types of name calling too for other people in that thread who also dislike Hillary.

Really unattractive way to push the liberal message of peace and equality for all, and it has been getting to an extreme level unbearable ugliness online this election cycle.

 

[sphagnum]

No this is not the failure of the left. If anything, the left has been too meek and soft in being critical and revolutionary in its ideology.

There's a different between criticizing an economic or political ideology/system and hating on the people it feeds off of. If we as socialists believe that we need to radicalize the working class, how can we do that when all we do is mock a gigantic segment of them (the white portion)?

EDIT: Obviously the white population is steadily losing ground demographically, but they're not going to go away. They'll still be a big voting bloc that controls a large amount of states even once white people are only a plurality and not a majority. And it's better to find ways to engage them than let them turn into a Freikorps.

 

[Macho Madness]

I've seen so much smugness from all parts of this primary. From Clinton supporters, Sanders supporters, people who say they're a part of the "real left", conservatives can also be smug they're just less vocal about it, etc.

The important point is to separate your fact from opinions. Some people have different priorities than you do. Accept that and you will have a better time talking with people. Find common ground and don't continually gripe about things you'll never agree on. But don't look down on people for having different opinions.

 

[MartyStu]

I mean, obviously it's not an absolute. It just helps.

And even "accidentally" ending up in more diverse environments can prompt some people to look in the mirror.

Yeah I know, I just took issue with Slay's one word answer. I know where he is coming from, but I think it is a bit of a copout.

Actually admitting that we are imperfect, that our beliefs are not bludgeons and that the impetus to work on ourselves should start with us.

 

[BennyBlanco]

That John Yoo interview was pretty good. Need to rewatch it.

 

[Lime]

There's a different between criticizing an economic or political ideology/system and hating on the people it feeds off of. If we as socialists believe that we need to radicalize the working class, how can we do that when all we do is mock a gigantic segment of them (the white portion)?

EDIT: Obviously the white population is steadily losing ground demographically, but they're not going to go away. They'll still be a big voting bloc that controls a large amount of states even once white people are only a plurality and not a majority. And it's better to find ways to engage them than let them turn into a Freikorps.

http://www.commonhouse.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/brown-melancholia-of-the-left.pdf

 

[anaron]

This sort of leans into the odd notion that education is conflated with intelligence and empathy. Too many rich, racist (but educated) assholes prove otherwise but you always see "uneducated" being thrown around as if that's the sole reason behind bigotry.

 

[hawk2025]

Smuggest liberals I've ever seen. Takes about 5 seconds for you to get the entire idea of the full video.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tmaXB-NprOM

They make a fantastic argument for shutting down their whole channel and establishing The Young Technocrats.

 

[mdubs]

I didn't know being factually correct was being smug.

I was waiting for this

 

[MartyStu]

I've seen so much smugness from all parts of this primary. From Clinton supporters, Sanders supporters, people who say they're a part of the "real left", conservatives can also be smug they're just less vocal about it, etc.

The important point is to separate your fact from opinions. Some people have different priorities than you do. Accept that and you will have a better time talking with people. Find common ground and don't continually gripe about things you'll never agree on. But don't look down on people for having different opinions.

You are talking to the wrong(?) conservatives then.

Some Libertarians and Evangelical types can be quite frustrating in the same way the article describes.

 

[Jack Remington]

Yeah I've very very deliberately walked back and avoided the "voting against their best interest" rhetoric around poor conservative voters in the last couple years

There's no reason to walk this one back. The election for Kentucky Governor was just a few months ago, and a bunch of poor people on Medicaid voted in a guy who wants to cut back Medicaid enrollment.

 

[JesseEwiak]

It's weird that if say, you're a gay black woman who got a Philosophy degree and now you're working in activism in New York and sharing an apartment with 3 other people while making 30k a year if you're lucky, it's perfectly OK to denigrate your choice of major, be called a hipster, SJW, and if you complain at all, you're told you need to stop seeing microaggressions everywhere. I guess that doesn't count as "working class" even though it's not a lot of money since ya' know, there's no welding involved or something.

But if you say anything negative about part of the white working class, and let's be honest, it's more specifically the rural white working class we're talking about here for the most part, you're a smug liberal who looks down on these people and they'd stop voting for Republican's if you were just nicer to them.

Bullshit. The vast majority of white working class voters will continue to vote for Republican's as long as liberals don't appease them by tossing women, minorities, and gay people under the bus.

I'll keep on fighting for programs to help them, such as the ACA and an increase in the minimum wage, but that doesn't mean I have to like them or accept their racism, sexism, and homophobia.

 

[Matsukaze]

I starting reading the article and Bill Maher's face kept flashing through my head.