Why US elites hate religious conservatives

I spent 23 years living in Louisiana, 11 in Texas and now a 1 1/2 in the Washington DC area. The idea that Elites, which in this article seems to mean educated urbanites, "hate" or "despise" religious conservatives is rediculously overblown; for the most part they (elites) aren't even thinking of them (religious conservatives! I rarely hear the topic even come up in conversation, unless I, a daughter of a Southern Baptist deacon, bring it up.

Living in the Bilble Belt, however, was another story. It was perfectly acceptful to disdain Northeasterners (and to most Southerners, this includes much of the mid-atlantic area). Remeber the 2004 presidential debates when Bush scornfully reminded the audience that Kerry was from "Liberal Massachusetts", as if Bush had forgotten the HE was the President of Massachusetts.

Question: HOW badly do elites hate religious conservatives?

Answer: Badly enough to slander and smear us -- including Governor Sarah Palin -- at every opportunity.

Case in point: a headline to be seen on a so-called "progressive" blog found elsewhere on beliefnet.com which screams: "Palin cut funding for pregnant moms in need"

The OPPOSITE turns out to be true: Funding for pregnant moms in need in Alaska has more than tripled since Palin took over as Governor.

The smear revolves around state funding for Alaka House Covenant, which was $1.2 million in 2006, the year Palin was elected Governor. During the legislative negotiations this spring, a powerful committee chair in the Alaska legislature tried to up the funding to $5.0 million (a nice round figure), but in final negotiations with the Governor the final number was brought in line with other increases and requests ... and approved by both branches of government at $3.9 million.

But these fine details got lost in the efforts by "progressives" to take down this woman. Instead, we get dishonest headlines -- even on a beliefnet.com blog -- suggesting that Palin is a heartless hypocrite.

THAT alone should tell the world HOW badly elites hate religious conservatives.

The Religious Right fanatics are not true Evangelical Christians. The Religious Righters need a good dose of Paul Tillich, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Reinhold Niebuhr and Walter Rauschenbusch.

People love to play the persecuted victim card...

How about this for some good reasons:
1. Hostility to modern science, particularly biological sciences (but also the implications of astrophysics and geology if they'd care to notice).
2. Simplistic interpretations of scripture.
3. Prejudice covered by appeals to #2 above.
4. A general paranoid style (like, everyone's out to get them).

The GOP is morphing into this style, which is why I'm pulling away.

I've lived in a trailer, myself. Grew up on a farm. Picked cotton until you could strip it with a machine. Chopped cotton and got doused with herbicide before we knew it was toxic. Was an enthusiastic supporter of Richard Nixon. And I managed to get degrees first at Cal and then at Yale. I was not Mr. Big Man on Campus either place. I was extremely uncomfortable but recognized the value of the degree.

I think the contempt expressed for Christian conservatives does have to do with the trailer park mythos in part, but it's also in part the fault of the Christian conservatives themselves. Making views on abortion or gay wrongs or prayer in school litmus tests, the sine qua non, so to speak, of political rectitude, impresses the "elites" as just plain silly. And probably McCain is in that number.

I believe that resourceful conservatives who see more than one path to reaching their political goals will gain the respect of everybody, even Yale legacies, like the ones they tend to elect. Demanding criminalization of abortion is not the end all and be all of being pro-life. Stopping gay marriage does not prevent heterosexual divorce. Larnin' them Russkies with a nuke or two and huntin' down them A-rabs does not make America secure. Present the elites, however liberal or conservative they may be, with good sense, and they'll take you seriously even if you won't be getting any invititations to weekend in the Hamptons in your mail. Claim moral superiority to the "left" in that you're not gay, and you'll continue to receive contempt.

Thomas R,

I too have suffered from the "wonder what people's intentions are", albeit because I spent too many years seeing things thru the narrow filter of "I'm gay - do you hate me?"

It's been a lot easier for me since I mostly shed that and just take people at face value. The energe I spent trying to second guess appearances when I'm no mind reader and certainly no heart reader.

Don't know if it is self-confidence I needed to live my way into, or just another blessing of reestablishing spiritual connections and disciplines I'd been neglecting, but I think it is as much the latter as the former.

I dispute this assessment of "hate". As people, I know many wonderful evangelicals. As organized religious and political movements, I don't care for and lament the spiritual damage done to impressionable minds by the distorted, judgemental, wealth-loving, punishing God that I see reflected all too often, and I certainly don't like a politics that has no doubt or uncertainty in its righteousness, seeks no common ground and accepts no compromise. BTW, I have the same reaction to the fundamentalists of the left who brook no dissent or questioning or second-guessing.

Rod, I think that your intro to the excerpt would have been more true to Mr. Bageant's piece if you had written ncludes a class-based insight into why the American elites, including conservative elites, despise religious conservatives

Nevertheless, thank you for bringing this writer to my attention.

The one area where he may have a point is the Trannies, the transnationalists. There is a segment of center-right/center-left "elites" who favor international institutions over national sovereignty. The neo-cons are among them, which is why they are so hostile to Ron Paul. Even though Paul favors even more economic freedom than the elites, he favors it under American government, not WTO and other organizations and he favors real freedom, not a system that benefits the politically connected.

The rest of the guy's article is just a rehash of "What's a Matter With Kansas?" and belies his own ignorance of how the economy works. His laundry list of problems: income inequality, universal healthcare, etc. are "solved" in Europe—yet their elites are more entrenched and have far greater control over the economy. He doesn't even understand that making government and unions more powerful will give elites more power, not the other way around.

Wow . . . let the whining now begin! After all the adulation of Sarah Palin's toughness, doesn't all this self-pity make you feel just a little bit . . . unmanly?

So, now I'm merciless and strong! And you all are feeble (minded) and weak! Bwah ha ha ha . . . I feel better already. But don't worry, puny rightwingers, I will be a merciful overlord. (I am, OF COURSE, a member of this fabled elite. That goes without saying. Mine is the superior intellect . . . .)

Kidding aside . . . the column itself is pretty darn interesting. But it's hard for me to believe you read it, Rod, and still think it confirms all of your own positions. What about the final paragraphs, for instance?

But all systems of power need a convincing and unlikable enemy, which can bury the contradictions of the system. In our case incoherent, undereducated black urban males fit the bill perfectly. They are being attacked not because they are a threat to the power structure, but precisely because they are not.

What voters are expected to believe is that after a 30-year class war against the bottom 90% of income earners, the source of their troubles are black rappers and inner city fathers and not criminality on Wall Street or a corrupt political system. The road to the White House over the past 30 years has been paved by pretending to believe the absurdity that the individuals who pull the levers of power over people's lives are named Willie Horton, Sister Souljah and Ludicrous, and not Robert Rubin, Phil Gramm and Hank Paulson.

If as a society we are prepared to believe this, then we have lost the stuff that makes free men.

To which I say, this guy rocks. But is this what you really believe, Rod? What about the rest of you? (walks away, boggling slightly)

Cosimano, can you attempt to elevate the dialogue with something a tad bit more intelligent than a bare-assertion, logically-fallacious and venomous one-liner?

Incidentally, several days ago I asked rhetorically here how long it would take someone like the folksy poseur and radical leftist Garrison Keillor to disgorge some bile. Why is it that leftists insist on living up to every central-casting cliche about them? I mean, surprise me for once. It would have been shocking if Keillor could actually have remained silent.

This is a strikingly unoriginal, true-to-form museum exhibit of leftist contempt, circa 2008:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/keillor/2008/09/03/republican_convention/

It's hilarious that Keillor dismisses Al Franken's inability to pay taxes as "a tax snafu by some bookkeeper with dandruff on his shoulders." Here's something I understand and every other American understands: We may not like taxes, and think that our tax burden is onerous, but on a gut level we get that if we don't pay our taxes, we go to jail.

To people like Keillor, it's just a "snafu" and his accountant's fault. Earth to Keillor: This cuts with voters, and it cuts deeply. The contrast between elitist radicals like Keillor and average Americans could not be more stark.

There was a time as a boy in the 1980s when I would actually RECORD Keillor's Lake Wobegon monologues on my boom box so I could enjoy them repeatedly on autumn nights, while the train whistled through my town.

That was before I knew Keillor was an unrepentant partisan hack.

This is definitely a class issue. The Dems had a candidate who amassed a bunch of campaign cash for his mistress by harping endlessly about the two Americas--the one the libs now freely call "white trash" being hailed as the more virtuous of the two. Too bad he didn't make it to the VP nomination.

Remind me, what was that meme about pro-Hillary feminists not being offended by left-wing attacks on Sarah Palin?

They may not all like her, but they definitely know misogynist hate when they see it -- and it has been on full display from the Left the past few days:

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/pro-hillary-clinton-group-decries-sexism-at-palin-2008-09-02.html

"We will defend Sarah Palin against misogynist smears not because we like her or support her, but because that's how feminism works," the group’s statement reads.

"However Northerners and urbane people tend to be more polite or dishonest depending on your perspective. Rural Southern people I think are more willing to say they don't like Northerners, or urbanites, to their face. Despite what you might think I'm not saying this is really a better way of doing things. In fact in many ways I'd prefer people just shun me than that, but the advantage of it is when I know someone there who seems to like me it's because they most likely do like me. The way it works in the North I've seen is people feel it's useful, or kind, to pretend to like people they really can't stand. It's an emphasis on "neighborliness" I suppose rather than "hospitality." Also if they don't think a "hick" is amongst them then they'll badmouth them, but if they think one's amongst them they'll be polite."

this is why i cannot stand the south, this resentment. YOU LOST THE CIVIL WAR GET OVER IT.

"yankees is different than us." it amazes me that someone can move from texas to north carolina and still be one of "us" despite travelling, what, 1000 miles?, to get there. someone from pennsylvania moves 250 miles to virginia and he's a yankee. it's the civil war, still! deal with it guys - you don't get to own black people. it's over. give it up already.

ironically, despite the official hatred of gubmint 'n' taxes, in a very real sense, every southerner is a welfare queen. our evil yankee money paid and pays for your roads, schools, precious and disproportionately distributed military installations and contracts, and on and on. we've paid for and built your infrastructure. now we're moving there in droves to pump up your economies. you'd still be even more an uneducated backwater than you are without us. how about a little appreciation?

"Making views on abortion or gay wrongs or prayer in school litmus tests"

TR: This might be true. Having a value you won't compromise about could seem a sign of unsophistication. There was a time Christian conservative wouldn't compromise about the mandatory sterilization of the genetically unfit even though it was a popular idea among the educated. Several educated Christians likely found this embarrassing as I know of at least one Christian Nobel Laureate who went against this kind of unsophistication and defended eugenics wholeheartedly.

So the inability of conservative religious types to hedge on issues concerning human life and family arrangement maybe is a sign of idiocy or an unsophisticated mind. (And obviously, God bless both then)

"this is why i cannot stand the south, this resentment. YOU LOST THE CIVIL WAR GET OVER IT."

I'm talking cultural differences you fool. My ancestors were Unionists. I have no love for the Confederacy and I never even mentioned them.

"Rural Southern people I think are more willing to say they don't like Northerners, or urbanites, to their face."

Perhaps I didn't explain that well enough though and gave an impression I was defending this more than is accurate. Let me restate it.

"In my experience rural Southern people are more willing to say the most hurtful and rude things to people they don't like. I know of stories where my Arkansas relatives reduced Hawaiians or Filipinos to tears with racist insults. My mother was insulted in harsh terms for being Catholic. Some insulted my parents for keeping a disabled child like me rather than sending me to an institution. The upshot of this was that they could also be more honestly friendly and loving."

I don't see how that could sound like a Neo-Confederate sentiment, but maybe "A great many Southerners are still hurtful racist scum, but they have their good ones too" is an Apologia pro Confederacia now.

Franklin, when I was a kid in the 1970s, I seem to remember much more analysis on TV. My parents were Republicans, but had great things to say about Jimmy Carter's fiscal responsibility, for instance, as did their circle of friends.

People who've been in the Congress & Senate for a long time say that it used to be more respectful than it is today; although there were always floor fights, the atmosphere was never more toxic than today.

You're right, though, that campaign literature has always vilified "the other guy," but now, we're seeing that kind of rhetoric carry over into the nightly news. They'll rag one little story to death--especially if it's about sex--leaving big stories untold.

Jim: "You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons."

~ Blazing Saddles

As is almost always the case, in that passage a religious conservative is flattering himself. It's hilariously wrong to assert that U.S. elites have a problem with religious conservatives out of some master-slave psycho-drama, that it's a "display of the traditional contempt that the merciless strong have for people they consider to be the feeble minded weak." He wishes. Sorry, though, it's the ideas.

U.S. elites don't have a problem with all religious conservatives, only the ones who agitate to try to push culture in their desired direction. Elites have no problem, for instance, with the Amish. In my experience, in fact, they respect and admire the Amish.

What the elites "hate" (to use your incorrect word) are intrusions of religious belief and religious speech into our society, and any religion-derived controls placed on what citizens can and can't do. We elites "hate":

- opposition to gay marriage (which is based, erroneously, on the Bible;
- opposition to gays (which is based, erroneously, on the Bible;
- support for "morals" laws, including anti-sodomy laws;
- talk of God and prayer in public schools, whether in the classroom, the athletic field, or anywhere on school grounds or under school custody;
- talk of God and prayer in domestic politics and foreign affairs (where it damages each);
- opposition to sex, violence and vulgarity in the media (which everyone is free not to consume);
- support for the war on drugs (which, while not a cause celebre of religious conservatives, certainly has a lot of support among them);
- opposition to abortion (certainly, at least, during the first trimester);
- opposition to vaccines which will spare women from cancer, out of the belief that it may send a message that pre-marital sex is not shameful and dirty;
- opposition to gay adoption;
- opposition to foreign aid which includes sex education and birth control;

...etc. etc. etc. In each of the above cases, we elites believe that the religious conservatives' preferences make the country a worse place, needlessly cause suffering, needlessly dampen human creativity and pleasure, and so forth (the details varying from case to case).

Again: despite victim mentality which is so seductive to the aggrieved religious conservative, there is nothing complicated going on here than the following: We think their positions stink and make life worse.

-Oss

I'd just like to second Sigaliris' comments of 11:42. It's pretty clear most people didn't get the 'divide and conquer' theme of the previous post either.

It's boomerang time.

Besides the fact that Nutroots "protestors" in Minneapolis have attacked old people, thrown bleach in the face of delegates, dropped sand bags on buses, thrown rocks through windows ... it now turns out that they attacked a busload of Cub Scouts who were en route to the convention center to take part in presenting colors.

A busload of Cub Scouts?!?

I mean, come on! Are Nutroots nutters just deliberately trying to morph into demonic villains?

So is the Joker in charge of political strategy at the DNC now?

Watcher: "Reaganite... It would not have been a "smear" to have accoused Palin of cutting funding for some program. That is, after all, her job, to be a fiscal watchdog. .... The 'smear' is her presumptive motives being broadcast. You know, the 'revelation' to the world of just how evil she is inside."

Watcher, thanks for drawing the distinction. I see your point.

Nevertheless, everyone should know that Governor Palin actually TRIPLED funding for Covenant House Alaska (which helps pregnant, homeless teenage moms) over a two year period. The $5.0 million funding number was merely floated in legislative negotiations between a legislative committee chair (who put it out there as part of the bargaining) and other legislative leaders and the Governor's office. They all finally agreed on the $3.9 million number.

Annual state funding for Covenant House Alaska has more than tripled during the two-year tenure of Governor Palin, from $1.2 million in FY 2006 to $3.9 million in FY 2008.

A busload of Cub Scouts?!?
I mean, come on! Are Nutroots nutters just deliberately trying to morph into demonic villains?
So is the Joker in charge of political strategy at the DNC now?
Posted by: Houghton | September 3, 2008 1:10 PM

Houghton, where is your evidence that the protesters in question have any connection with the DNC?

Did you get that from the same place you got your information about the guy in the photograph from the earlier thread?

I think a lot more people are tired of religious conservatives than you know Rod. I think a lot of it has to do with hypocrisy.

Why should we listen to Catholic officials who were oblivious or actually helped cover up child molestation because the Holy Roman Church is short on priests?
Why should we listen to 40 million Evangelicals that had Ted Haggard as their leader? Haggard liked gay prostitutes and crystal meth.
Why should we agree with religious conservatives who overwhelmingly
helped elect George W. Bush after no WMDs were found in Iraq?
Why should we listen to Sarah Palin espouse the virtues of abstinence-only eductaion when her own daughter is fooling around and is having a baby with a guy that says he's a "f***ing racist" on his MySpace page?

Benjamin Franklin was quite clear about folks who would "compound gospel and law". He said they could serve neither and would end up cheating the Republic.

John E., I can always count on you to keep me honest.

No, I was just making a wisecrack. I thought it came across as such; I generally hate emoticons, but I'll make sure to put up a ;-) next to any in the future.

Hey, I was serious about Rogue Ales, by the way. I tried a glass of their Mocha Porter last night. Awesome.

The linked article was pretty good. To me the author was pointing out that the US is a combination of plutocracy and mob rule. Within this system the plutocrats are the elites, not politically left Northeasterners. The plutocrats have a problem because they don't have enough votes to elect a government friendly to their policies. Which is where the mob rules comes in.

For example he pointed out that on trade and globalization the elites are to the right of public opinion. This is not because globalization is popular with North East liberals who look down on Southern conservatives. Globalization is popular with the people who fund the think tanks that propose these policies. Also, the author also said that social issues are the only area where the elites are to the left of the public.

Other Jim pointed out that this was a rehash of "What's the matter with Kansas", but actually this critique is older than that book. For example I borrowed the phrase "plutocracy and mob rule" from a book I read 20 years ago and can't remember the author to credit them.

In my reading of Rod's initial comment I think he got this distinction because he didn't say liberal, he said elite in his comments.

Some of the comments on this thread remind me of talk radio callers who disparage the trustafarians who hate them. It is clear from their comments that by trustafarian they mean college educated professionals who tend to vote liberal. It is never pointed out that profession means their job, so these people work for a living too! I think they missed the point of the article.

Oss, how's that sexual revolution working out for you? Admittedly, it's been a boom for the penicillin, psychiatric, divorce lawyer, porno and abortion industries, which is odd, because I thought liberals did not like the pharmaceutical companies or big business.

You mention gay adoption. Personally, I have no problem with that as long as gays are allowed to only adopt the children born of gay unions. Just as heterosexuals can only adopt children born of heterosexual unions, equality would seem to require such a policy.

"MargaretE, I think you're mistaken about something... It IS NOT the "prevailing cultural norm", is the media's portrayal of the cultural norm."

Posted by: Watcher | September 3, 2008 2:17 PM

You might be right, Watcher. I confess most of my friends are university professors, journalists, artists and the like. And they are, to a MAN (and woman) in complete lockstep politically and religiously (as in, they HAVE no religion!) They're also heavily media-saturated. So maybe my experience is not "normal."

BUT all you have to do is turn on Oprah or The View, pick up a women's magazine, watch an Obama campaign "rock video," or whatever, to get a taste of what the culture's putting out there – and to very impressionable people who don't think too hard for themselves. I honestly believe the "elitist" mindset is trickling down to the masses pretty quickly.

I'd like to say that I find the level of hate and bile and vitriol spewing from the Left on this blog, shocking and appalling.

I'm really surprised at how deeply you seem to hate us. (By "us", I mean religious conservatives -- I'm a Roman Catholic.)

Really, you should be ashamed.

It's the image of what we think is the average person. I see it as rather conservative - because aside from the liberal enclaves in the big cities, most of us really DO live "conservatively". We're faithful to our spouses, we obey the law, we don't run around like the nutroots outside the RNC convention, and we live by pretty much all the social mores of the "right wing".
But we're told that is old fashioned, out of style, and "not the norm".
Posted by: Watcher | September 3, 2008 2:17 PM

By whom?

As if the norm were "sophisticated sexuality" and "flexible families" and "enlightend agnosticism" and "rigid scientific doctrine" as portrayed by the whiners here, who constantly attempt to portray themselves as the future, the wise, the forefront of intellectual thinking.

None of that is intrinsically incompatible with the social norms you described above. I live pretty in the way you describe as "conservatively" and I'm fairly liberal.

Could it be that you are whacking at a straw man?

why are my comments being held for "blog owner approval"? there is no justifiable reason.

John E., I admit to going over the top myself. I also tend to mix what passes for my own sick sense of humor with serious commentary. Unfortunately, I think presidential elections have a tendency to drive both sides over the top; the earbiting and eyepoking from all sides in recent comments threads here being a case in point.

I'm as guilty as the next feller, which is why I pretty much backed away from the keyboard the past 2 days.

I will say that I'm kind of in the same boat as Margaret E who commented above. I'm also one of these hand-wringing traditionalists who still listens to NPR, loves art and literature and philosophy, keeps a backyard kitchen garden, reads widely and likes to find the merits in multiple points of view. I certainly am not sitting in the dark listening to Dr. Dobson, while firmly grasping a shotgun, waiting for Daily Kos readers to come pillage my home. And yet I -- as a person only in my late 30s -- find myself increasingly out of step with the broader culture. Remember the whole "Junie B. Jones" comments explosion I set off a few weeks ago with some simple observations?

I'm also painfully aware that my own style of commentary can drift into the pungently pugnacious zone. As entertaining as it may be to me, it allows me to have blind spots I'd rather not have. In any case, if I compare the DNC's leadership to the Joker's nihilism -- even if I disagree with much of the DNC's platform -- it's safe to say I'm dipping my toe into the waters of hyperbole.

Anyway, on "Rogue Ales": I live on the Great Plains, so I think you should be able to find the brand locally in most parts of the U.S.

better yet, why do conservative bloggers attempt to silence commentators for no sensible reason? odd that the post in which i asked why my posts are being held, shows right away, but when i attempt to post my original comment, it needs approval.

Victor Davis Hanson asks an interesting question: Why do we like Sarah Palin? He has a little to say about liberals views of the fly-over states as well:

"Much has been written why Palin both brings strength to the McCain ticket and is a gamble at the same time. Why then the growing wave of popular sentiment in her favor?

Various reasons, but one I think is that millions of Americans are simply tired of being lectured at by smug elites. Jetting Al Gore made tens of millions finger-pointing at us about our global warming. Obama's America, apparently unlike Rev. Wright's Trinity Church, is a cruel, downright mean and dysfunctional place. John Kerry's United States is one of the half-educated in need of Ivy-League enlightenment and tutorials.

So along comes someone (unlike Biden's vastly inflated middle-class biography) who really is from the working class. She likes it—and finds snowmobiling, hunting, fishing and living in small-town America not as a wasteful use of carbon-emitting fuels, cruelty to animals, gratuitous depletion of our resources, or proof of parochial yokelism. Instead it is a life of action in an often harsh natural landscape, where physical strength is married to intelligence to bring us food, fuel, and progress."

Why is it that this thread seems to have brought out the worst in just about everyone who has posted?

This is silly. Elites run the Republican Party, also. Do those Elites hate the people they represent????

Wake up sheeple!

Go Ron Paul!

hysterics,

The fact that I acknowledge that many rural Southerners are bigoted toward urban Northerners, while you reject my personal experience -- and that of many others -- that they opposite is just as often true as a sign of "hysteria" on my part -- and, again, on the part of many others -- only goes, if anything, to prove my point. You think that I am a "hysteric." I don't think that you are one -- despite your satirical tag. I do think that you have indulged yourself more deeply than is healthy in the opiate of anger -- but you're hardly alone in doing that, either in the North or the South, either in the East or the West. I've done it myself, so I know whereof I speak. I'll pray for you tonight and I wish you all the best.

Isn't it ironic that "elite" is only a negative thing to be in America, which is of course an elite among all the nations on earth?

Doug: I'm waiting for Rod to go after Palin's pastor with the same zeal he went after Obama's. He sounds like just as much of a loon. Didn't even many conservative Evangelicals rip Falwell for saying 9/11 was God's judgment against America? Yet Palin's church can go off a week ago on how Islamist terrorism against Israel is God's judgment against the Jews, and we get crickets from Rod?

Amen, brother! That's what I'm sayin'! :)

George Will on Elitism...

http://www.newsweek.com/id/156348

Oooh, Peggy Noonan, honey, make sure the mic is off next time:

According to a Politico story (with video tape!):

“It’s over,” said Noonan, and then responded to a question of whether Palin is the most qualified Republican woman McCain could have chosen.

“The most qualified? No. I think they went for this — excuse me — political bullshit about narratives,” she said. “Every time Republicans do that — because that’s not where they live and it’s not what they’re good at and they blow it.”

Murphy chimed in:

“The greatness of McCain is no cynicism, and this is cynical.”

Maybe the problem is that we don't really hate each other at all. I mean, really, "hate"?

If I were driving down the road, and a van from Westboro Baptist church overturned in front of me, I'd stop to help save the people inside. Even though I think they're monstrous bigots.

If it had been a van full of Jews, Nazi's wouldn't stop to help. If it had been a van full of Tutsis, Hutus wouldn't stop to help.

Rod is on the opposite side of the political spectrum from me. I prayed for his family's safety during the storm. Erin Manning is on the opposite side of the political spectrum from me as well, but I'd be willing to bet if I were down and bleeding, she'd be there to help me.

For all the violence and looting during Katrina, I doubt anyone bothered to check political affiliation, or degree of "eliteness" before rendering aide.

Certainly we infuriate one another, disappoint one another, frustrate one another. We sometimes feel that the other side is reckless, hypocritical, power-hungry, misguided, deluded, or just plain ignorant.

But true hatred, the kind of thing that lets you murder the other side without compunction, to pray for their death, to machete their children and make lampshades of their skin...no, I do not for one minute believe that we truly HATE social conservatives, and I don't think most of them hate us.

Maybe the best thing we could do is really tone down the rhetoric, rather than inflaming things constantly.

The social elite don't see the world exaltly like the religious conservatives. The problem with Christian conservatives is that they view any different view as prescuction.
However If Mr Dreber would study the teachings of Christ he would learn the following: "If the people of the world hate you, remember that they hated me first." John 15:18
Futhermore Jesus Christ said:
He should also learn the instructions of Christ; "I was hungry and you fed me... a Stranger and you welcomed me"
"Give all to the poor".
Sounds like a socialist, doesn't he?
Finally, "If you love me, keep my comandments"

Too bad ALL CHRISTIAN conservatives never studied the teachings of Christ.

quote: "Sounds like a socialist, doesn't he?"

No, because Christ doesn't say that helping the poor is the government's responsibility. Studies have actually shown that conservatives give more money and time to charities than do liberals. It's not that Christian conservatives don't care about the poor. They are just skeptical of the left's view of the role of government in all this.

Rod, you sure do have a way of attracting homosocialist readers. Of all the people in the world, elite leftists are to be pitied the most; they have been given most or all of the advantages God can offer, yet insist on squandering it all on a mess of pottage. They are to be pitied but never trusted because, as Socialists and haters of traditional religions, they would squander every American's advantages as well.

I love the way rr described elite leftists:

They believe...the forces of modernity, social justice, and "science" triumph in time over their enemies...ideals of the left with respect to economics, sexuality, government, etc. win out. Religion...(i.e. religion they find disagreeable) will gradually wither away. It will be replaced by things such as enlightened secular humanism, vaguely tolerant New Age “spirituality” or religious knock-offs of secular humanism and Unitarianism such as the liberal brand of Christianity one finds in say the ECUSA.

quote: "Uh..if you actually read the Book of Acts, the early Church was actually not only socialist, but practically communist (not in the Marxian sense, of coure)."

Yes, they share goods among each other and helped each other out. My church has read the Book of Acts and does this too believe it or not. But where pray tell does this involve the GOVERNMENT? Can you show me chapter and verse on this? It involves the church in a big way. But modern socialism is first and foremost about government action. There is a big difference between the church and the government.

rr

MargaretE
Ossicle, I kid. Actually, you gave a very honest answer, and I think you're dead on. That's exactly why elitists like yourself hate religious conservatives. But I'm starting to wonder why we use the term "elitist" for people like Ossicle. They're pretty much everybody I know, and their's is the prevailing cultural norm. What's so "elite" about it?

There are, indeed, very stupid Ivory-tower academics churning out all sorts of nonsense. Somehow this is supposed to reflect poorly on Democratic politicians, although no one's ever quite explained why. There is, objectively speaking, a lot more, and lot worse, nonsense churned out by the far right, but people aren't suggesting some white-supremacy militia is setting Republican policies. (I'm sure 'Daily Kos' has suggested that, and also that the moon landings were faked and that Hungarians are dirty ghoulies who wash in peanut oil. Because, apparently, now 'Daily Kos', means 'any post ever made there by anyone'.)

Those were the original elites, but you can only make fun of college professors for so long before voters realize, hey, those guys aren't running for office.

So Republicans started defining 'elite' as 'anything we can make fun of'. At all. There are all sorts of terms you can use to describe Obama more than McCain, but, even subjectively, it makes no sense to consider Obama 'richer' or 'more out of touch with middle class' or 'earned less of his own money' or any of the other normal meanings of 'elite'.

Despite some people not liking it, it really is an issue of framing, because, otherwise, it's sheer nonsense. If you operate in the imaginary world where all liberals are latte-sipping unemployed college students, atheists, minorities, and elite millionaires, well, that's what you'll see.

I, OTOH, fail to even slightly fit into any of those categories. As does every other Democrat I know. (Well, I do know a few college students.)

Seriously, look at the red states and the blue states. Zoom in. Pick any red or blue county. Look at the actual divide and you'll see it's almost always within 65/35. 99% of Democrats are not 'liberal elite', and 99% of Republicans are not whatever the stereotype there would be.

For a thought experiments, grab every Democrat and pair him up with a Republican that lived almost exactly his lifestyle. You'd have maybe 10% extra people left over at the end. And you guys left-overs would be more disreputable than ours...we'd have a lot of actors, you guys would have a lot of militia members. (We wouldn't actually have a lot of professors, simply because we'd pair them off with right-wing think-tank guys who do basically the same thing, except don't also get paid to teach.)

And that article would be a good deal less confusing if it used 'beltway' instead of 'elite', because using elite the way it does, while actually correct, renders it near incomprehensible in this world where Republicans (and some Democrats) constantly use it to mean something entirely different.

And this 'consensus' is exactly what the Netroots is attempting to fight. We're kicking those idiots out. The motto of Daily Kos is more and better Democrats.

I recommend that you guys do the same on your side. Of course, you've got a slightly paradox there, in that if you start putting in politicians that do what people actually want, instead of the beltway consensus, you'd essentially lose on every one of your issues. (No, despite what the article says, you'd lose on your social issues too. The consensus is 10 years ahead of the societal curve on homosexuality...or, rather, it was five years ago, and hasn't moved since. Whereas society has. And will keep moving. And society hasn't wanted to outlaw abortion for decades.)

RR inspires me to point out something else: no society survives and grows without the dynamic tension between conservatism (preserve what we have) and liberalism (I'd choose progressivism, actually, but the reader should get the picture, I'm sure). A semantic point worth emphasizing: small-c and small-l is what I'm talking about. A descriptive label is never definitional to the individuals in the group so described. I'm a lifelong Democrat, I've never pulled the "big lever" in any election, and my mix of liberal and conservative attitudes and opinions does not make me a "moderate".

People feel. Lack of feeling is a key component of evil. In my travels (sorry, don't mean to be lyrical or pompous) I've encountered only one sure way to solve the problems and resolve the conflicts of any time or context:

Leave your anger at the door, and when you sit down, agree that everyone at the table is there for the good of the community. Anyone who is not explicitly there for that good either doesn't belong there or needs to be investigated. ;-D

One other thing often forgotten: today's liberals usually become tomorrow's conservatives.