A long essay at Vox this week: The smug style in American liberalism, by Emmett Rensin puts forward a point of view with which I agree, but have never been able to clearly put into words - or maybe I've never truly understood the uncomfortable feeling I've had about US politics, ever since arriving on these fair shores in 2004.
I've never called myself "a liberal". This likely stems from the term in Britain relating to a type of politics that didn't match my own, more left-ish brand, known in Britain as Labour. The Labour Party is the party opposing the Conservative Party. The Liberal Party in the UK used to stand somewhere between, and has eventually morphed into something else. I realise, now, that what UK Liberals were was something akin to most modern US Democrats.
Emmett Rensin's essay puts into context my own uncomfortable feelings about "blaming" US voters (and non-voters) for being "dumb", "stupid" etc for their voting preferences. I've said in commentary here, in the past, that I prefer to think of those people who appear to be voting against their own best interests as being misguided, politically manipulated by mainstream media and sometimes even by their churches. I suspect Emmett Rensin would say that mine is still an attitude as smug as calling those people dumb or whatever.
In online commentary there's ample evidence that the chasm between the people "liberal" politics was supposed to be helping, and the people who ought to be being helped, is wider and deeper than the Grand Canyon. There has been little, if any, genuine attempt to cross it, and as long as "liberals" retain the attitude the essay writer defines as "smug" there never will be.
Anyway, for understanding it's essential to read the full, long essay. A couple of brief clips (my highlight):
It's good to see that my favourite biscuit (known in the USA as cookie) the chocolate digestive, retains its allure in England. It's the most charismatic biscuit ever created - the best, and original version is by McVities. Happily Walmart stocks them here, so I can still indulge (yes, I know Walmart is bad, but these biscuits are good enough for me to breach the bad barrier).
For an antidote to the tensions, tears or tantrums of the USA election season, take a look at THIS - it'll lift the mood at once:
This looks like a "must see" movie, later this year:
Blast from the past & the late lamented George Carlin. It's still relevant, though maybe will not hold good for the future!
I've never called myself "a liberal". This likely stems from the term in Britain relating to a type of politics that didn't match my own, more left-ish brand, known in Britain as Labour. The Labour Party is the party opposing the Conservative Party. The Liberal Party in the UK used to stand somewhere between, and has eventually morphed into something else. I realise, now, that what UK Liberals were was something akin to most modern US Democrats.
Emmett Rensin's essay puts into context my own uncomfortable feelings about "blaming" US voters (and non-voters) for being "dumb", "stupid" etc for their voting preferences. I've said in commentary here, in the past, that I prefer to think of those people who appear to be voting against their own best interests as being misguided, politically manipulated by mainstream media and sometimes even by their churches. I suspect Emmett Rensin would say that mine is still an attitude as smug as calling those people dumb or whatever.
In online commentary there's ample evidence that the chasm between the people "liberal" politics was supposed to be helping, and the people who ought to be being helped, is wider and deeper than the Grand Canyon. There has been little, if any, genuine attempt to cross it, and as long as "liberals" retain the attitude the essay writer defines as "smug" there never will be.
Anyway, for understanding it's essential to read the full, long essay. A couple of brief clips (my highlight):
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.........
....Abandoned and without any party willing to champion their interests, people cling to candidates who, at the very least, are willing to represent their moral convictions. The smug style resents them for it, and they resent the smug in turn.
The rubes noticed that liberal Democrats, distressed by the notion that Indiana would allow bakeries to practice open discrimination against LGBTQ couples, threatened boycotts against the state, mobilizing the considerable economic power that comes with an alliance of New York and Hollywood and Silicon Valley to punish retrograde Gov. Mike Pence, but had no such passion when the same governor of the same state joined 21 others in refusing the Medicaid expansion. No doubt good liberals objected to that move too. But I've yet to see a boycott threat about it.
It's good to see that my favourite biscuit (known in the USA as cookie) the chocolate digestive, retains its allure in England. It's the most charismatic biscuit ever created - the best, and original version is by McVities. Happily Walmart stocks them here, so I can still indulge (yes, I know Walmart is bad, but these biscuits are good enough for me to breach the bad barrier).
For an antidote to the tensions, tears or tantrums of the USA election season, take a look at THIS - it'll lift the mood at once:
This looks like a "must see" movie, later this year:
Blast from the past & the late lamented George Carlin. It's still relevant, though maybe will not hold good for the future!