Get PJ Media on your Apple

Works and Days

Liberals and Their Uppity Enemies

March 16th, 2014 - 9:58 pm

fox_news_channel_smashed_3-16-14-1

Why do liberals hate Sarah Palin? She has made far fewer gaffes than has Joe Biden, whose verbal mishaps have often been racist in nature. Is dropping your g’s worse than saying “corpse-men“? She does not believe that Canadians speak Canadian in the way the president thinks Austrians speak Austrian. Her life story is inspirational — working mom, without inherited privilege or capital, a successful pre-2008 tenure as an Alaska politician.

I think the animus — as opposed to just disagreement with her views — derives in part from the fact that she is vivacious and attractive in a fresh Sally Field sort of way, unlike the cheek-boned refinement of an Audrey Hepburn or Jackie Onassis. Or is it because her diction, syntax, and grammar (especially the use of the passive voice) resonate slightly lower middle-class America? She is what white grandees with real white privilege castigate as a beneficiary of white privilege that she never really had.

Much of the dislike is also because she is upbeat and unapologetic. She thinks America is a rare, good place and far better than the alternative. She is blunt about her values and politics, and does not seem to be skeptical, cynical, or ambivalent. Her “oh gosh” world is one of undisguised belief; she does not roll her eyes in David Letterman boredom. Nor does Palin adopt the Clinton on spec bite-the-lip, feel-your-pain anguish, clear evidence of the costs of feeling moral ambiguity.

To the degree she has any facial artifice, it is more likely a wink (but not in Jon Stewart fashion that you and she share private superiority over the yokels) than a John Kerry long face or the pained stutter of Barack Obama as his vast mind works so fast that his only too human lips cannot catch up.

In other words, to the liberal, who as Atlas carries the burdens of the world on his shoulders, she is one-dimensional, without nuance, and one of the clueless class in need of some pity — unless she dares rise up on her hind legs and walk with her betters. Palin so exasperates liberals that they are reduced to very illiberal, very aristocratic disdain for the way she dresses, the places she lives, and the sort of children she has raised. Middle-class white conservative Christian moms from Alaska are not what liberals mean when they talk of diversity. Palin is simply too uppity in liberal eyes.

Why do liberals despise Rush Limbaugh more so than, say, conservatives hate Bill Maher or Chris Matthews? Yes, he is vastly more successful and influential, and does them, as the president so frequently whines, a lot of political damage. Of course, the Left hates the fact that Limbaugh went from middle-class to a billionaire, and without the proper educational credentials and anguish along the way to contextualize his wealth. (Keeping millions of listeners entertained for three hours, 250 days a year, is supposedly easy; in contrast, teaching a graduate seminar fifteen times a semester on your dissertation is an ordeal, full of deep thinking and contemplative heavy lifting.)

Talk radio is the antithesis of NPR — loud rather than soft; throaty rather than nasal; commercial-full rather than ad free, its ideology sustained by the market not the public purse. But mostly Limbaugh not so much says as simply takes for granted things that liberals find outrageous, such as assuming capitalism creates more wealth for everyone without qualifying such second-nature assertions. In the world of Limbaugh the U.S. is the freest, richest, best country in the world and there is no reason to hide that fact, much less to feel guilty about it.  Does Limbaugh have any self-doubt? Does he wonder who in the past and present has suffered for his privilege? Does he not grasp the moral compromises that his country so often makes? Perhaps he does, but in a world where the good does not have to be perfect, and 51% is better than 49%, Limbaugh lets others worry about footnoting, tweaking, and nuancing his diatribes. His one-dimensional self-assurance drives liberals crazy. He too is uppity, without a shred of recognition that others far more sensitive, educated, and aware deserve his megaphone.

Liberals hate entire countries too, especially Israel. Why? Is it because unlike its neighbors it follows the rule of law? Is Israel too fair to gays and women? When liberals visit the Middle East do they prefer to go to Jordanian dentists in a pinch or to stay in a Palestinian hotel?

Liberals hate Israel because like a Palin or Limbaugh, it seems too self-assured. Does not Jerusalem care that Harvard or Oxford professors despise it? Cannot it do the calculus of seven million versus the 300 million who hate it in the Middle East? Apparently not.

One thing that liberals cannot stand is its purported lack of self-awareness. Of course, Israel knows why and how the world spurns it, but liberals believe that Israelis either aren’t aware of such pariah status, or, just as bad, they don’t seem to suffer for such knowledge.

Like Sarah Palin, Israeli just keeps going, without much worry why and how liberals have contempt for it. It is confident that it must be doing something right to have created such prosperity and stability in a sea of self-inflicted misery.

For liberals, Israel is sort of like conservative blacks and thus likewise is too uppity, especially given that it does not play the perpetual victim of the past but has confidently moved on. Liberals are willing to pity a contrite and victimized Israel, but not to admire its confidence and independence.

Liberals sure hate the Koch brothers. At first glance, this too baffles. It is not the money per se. After all, they idolize George Soros, who predates the Kochs in subsidizing political causes. The Google bunch outsource and offshore money. Steve Jobs didn’t give much to charities. Soros is far more brazen in his partisan giving, and unlike the Kochs is a financial speculator who was tried and convicted abroad.

The Kochs still make things and are involved in everything from oil refining to manufacturing to agriculture. To the liberal, it is not fair that a conservative should have such mega wealth and the power it brings. Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, Mark Zuckerberg, and others understand the complexities and responsibilities of wealth. The rub is that unlike Gates, the Kochs are boosters of the very institutions that helped make them rich. And like Palin, the Kochs have pretensions, in their case of giving to the fine arts and humanities, as if they think they are something more than they are. Yes, they are uppity as well.

Then there is Clarence Thomas. Liberals despise him too. He is not as fair-skinned as Barrack Obama, Eric Holder, or Valerie Jarrett. Nor is his accent free from a resonant Southern twang. He talks the same to every audience, without, to paraphrase Harry Reid, Obama’s inclination to change cadences and intonation to fit the particular political constitutency. He would never say Tal-eee-ban or Pok-eee-stan. Thomas to liberals is also uppity: he fails to appreciate just how much abuse that liberals have incurred to institutionalize affirmative action, to help people of color, to celebrate diversity. And what does Thomas do as thanks? For a liberal, Thomas takes hard-won liberal goodies, but does not acknowledge his debt to liberals for their sacrifices. He is a free thinker who makes no apologies for his past or present. Moreover, he is a far better representative of the black American experience of the late 20th century than, say, is the Hawaii prep-schooled, choom-ganger Barry Dunham, son of a white PhD and rather odious Kenyan hustler, whom we now know in his final and most successful reincarnation as Barack Obama.

Finally, liberals really hate Fox News. It trumps the audience of MSNBC and CNN combined and then some. Envy of its success accounts for a lot of the ire. So does its vast array of blond bombshells. For condescending liberals, they are supposed to be empty-headed bimbos, spouting Roger Ailes’ right-wing pabulum. But most are highly intelligent and go head-to-head debating left-wing JDs, MDs, and PhDs, with equal or often superior intelligence and often with comparable degrees. They smile rather than scold like an Elizabeth Warren or Barbara Boxer. They don’t drift off to La-La Land as the intellectually challenged Nancy Pelosi does.

So they too are uppity. How can they dare to analyze America each night without reading the New York Review of Books, the New Yorker, or the TLS? Does not America get their con — how they entrap the mindless couch potato with golden tresses as these Sirens sing songs of hate and selfishness to run us onto the shoals?

Bill O’Reilly keeps hawking his co-authored books as if they were Pulitzer Prize-winning Doris Kearns Goodwin tomes, and no one says a word, as he floods American with shtick history! Sean Hannity was a bartender, and he dares to fancy himself a Charlie Rose or George Stephanopoulos.

Yes, Fox is really uppity, slashing and burning its way to riches and power, without a shred of homage to the grandfatherly style of Walter Cronkite or the pained liberal face of Dan Rather, or the energized Brian Williams outraged again by yet another dastardly right-wing ploy. To paraphrase the furor of the Obama administration: Fox really believes they are a news agency.

How uppity is that?

(Artwork created using a modified Shutterstock.com image.)

Comments are closed.

Top Rated Comments   
A "liberal" is someone who is ruled by compassion. They want to be revered for their "goodness".

A radical leftist is someone who wants to dictate. To rule with an iron fist. To dominate. A totalitarian who, not finding actual "badness" has to invent it to demonize those who stand up against tyranny.

The distinction is important. The totalitarian cannot announce himself. His tyranny cannot be an open platform. Therefore, he dons the mask of the "liberal" and sets about the business of slandering his opponents claiming they are "enemies" of "liberalism".

To accomplish this he must corrupt the information stream. To make truth irrelevant and to replace it with "truthiness".

There is no such thing, of course. The truth is a boulder. It just sits there waiting to be discovered. Truthiness is a camouflage, replacing facts and evidence with narrative and concluding that they are of unequal merit.

The corrupted information stream no longer cares to tell the truth, it tells only the narrative. And those who act as resistance to the narrative must be denigrated, slandered, silenced.

It must break down morale. Weaken resolve. Create wedges. Be divisive. Try to cultivate infighting and keep the opposition...the resistance...from coalescing.

So, "middle America" should never have a hero. Blacks, Hispanics, gays, the youth...cannot have a "resistance" role model.

The nightly "news" must rend, tear, shred morale. Shake resolve and patriotism. Undermine places where congregations of people might oppose tyranny.

That isn't "liberal". That's treason.
19 weeks ago
19 weeks ago Link To Comment
Leftist elites hates Palin, Rush and Thomas because they represent middle class America. They love God, their families, liberty, independent thought and are associated with the TEA Party of Bible thumping gun owners.

They hate all these people and countries since they advocate individualism and self-reliance. They reject socialism, the collective salvation and big government nanny state redistribution. They think John Stewart and Chris Matthews are light-weights with junior intellects while they read Hayek, Tocqueville (Not "Alex), Burke and Ayn Rand.

Actually they fear us. We are so much more informed analytical than they are and we don't buy their BS. That's why!
19 weeks ago
19 weeks ago Link To Comment
Self deception is probably the most widespread mental disorder in the world.
Liberals hate conservatives because we strip them of their self deceptions. We point out the lack of logic and historical failures of policy. That is why, rather than being able to engage intellectually, liberals foam at the mouth.
Israel is hated because we have done likewise on a national scale. Not only have we on many many occasions demonstrated superiority on an individual basis our independent state has proven core precepts of both Islam and Catholicism valueless and wrong. We are stateless no more. We wander no more. Our continued existence and renewed international impact has forced many to examine their own beliefs. Many though prefer to retain the deception. They work hard to turn back the clock. A futile endeavor but far easier than abandoning what you have come to hold dear your entire life.
The age of self deception is coming to an end. Reality will be unavoidable. Good folks should hold on and ride out the storm.
19 weeks ago
19 weeks ago Link To Comment
All Comments   (82)
All Comments   (82)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
To sum up the comments: Liberalism is a con game perpetuated by elites telling lies to obtain, maintain, and retain POWER. The politically docile and gullible people, who believe the lies, are the dupes.
18 weeks ago
18 weeks ago Link To Comment
a liberal is a person that reminds me of a quote by Tolstoy.

"I sit on a man's back, choking him and making him carry me, and yet assure myself and others that I am very sorry for him and wish to ease his lot by all possible means---except by getting off his back."

18 weeks ago
18 weeks ago Link To Comment
It is truly maddening that so many liberals seem to be so smug and superior in their beliefs. I think it's quite telling that refutation of facts with facts doesn't seem to be in their toolkits - it's all about emotion. To paraphrase my college logic professor, you can always tell someone has lost an argument when they attempt to refute facts with ad hominem attacks.
19 weeks ago
19 weeks ago Link To Comment
Hey Hansen. You questions about liberals are answered here, except that they are referred to as the "left" or "leftists": http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/unabomber/manifesto.text.htm
19 weeks ago
19 weeks ago Link To Comment
Palin has made fewer gaffes than Obama. She has made fewer gaffes than the difference
19 weeks ago
19 weeks ago Link To Comment
Sarah Palin has made fewer gaffes than Obama or Biden or the difference between them.
19 weeks ago
19 weeks ago Link To Comment
What are you going to do this week that will make a difference for starts on correcting this catastrophe?
How about working for or donating to a win capable, conservative U.S, Senate candidate? If not weekly, then cumulatively?
harry the crook as much an anecdote as sanfranan has so welcomely become? A functioning U.S. Senate doing that quaint "check & balances" thing? A veto-proof, (impeaching??!!) U.S. Senate is not probable. No more stupid treaties. No more incompetents and marxists working for the ____-in-WH?. Echos of '08 - defund the waste, the illegal, and the outright stupid? The LIV, the MSM, the jihadis, the Euroweenies, Putin, the mullahs, ad nauseum changing for the better? BFS! Yes, do vent on PJM et al. It is healthy decompression for hideous circumstances.
Then DO something effective ...
"Deeds NOT Words" - George Washington, to Continental Army
19 weeks ago
19 weeks ago Link To Comment
We all really know deep down that liberals are the intellectual aristocrats because they keep giving one another the awards that tell us so.
19 weeks ago
19 weeks ago Link To Comment
Missing from many of the people mentioned is their good-humor. The real key, I think, to Rush, Palin, and FoxNews is that they never take themselves too seriously. They always have a light side. They can do self-deprecating humor and laugh at themselves. Liberals so often exude an "it's not funny, dammit!!" attitude.

Fortunately, sometimes that's what makes them so funny to laugh at.
19 weeks ago
19 weeks ago Link To Comment
Today's "liberals"?.... Nothing close to the classical definition, I have met only maybe two classical liberals.. plenty of dems and independents, but liberals?.. rare, extremely rare..

What passes for liberal today is actually better not defined as, but known as a "progressive"..

This piece is pretty much on target, because liberal hate is very closely aligned with elitist snob, the oh so well heeled effete limp wristed jerk who completely detests those who don't know their "proper place"..

They always have a reason, your college, or lack of, your accent, your home state, your Christian faith,... something, anything they can use to belittle and smear you as one of those uppity servant class they so love to detest.

The thing is, they are the least secure in their principles of any group I've ever seen.. Libertrians I agree with on some things, not others, but I never met one who went gonzo off the rails because he simply was challenged on something, they'd tell me why they believed it, but didn't scream at me for questioning it.. same with other political views, even religions..

but liberals take every challenge as a personal attack. I even was called a Nazi by some college clown for simply saying, "no, that's wrong, it doesn't work like that."

Now that is insecure..my wife's family, all legacy democrats.. not one liberal in it.. they we can discuss things, and sometimes I can talk them around.. but the few liberals I met while collecting comic books... dear God... People usually have to be raised feral in a cage to be so lacking in people skills.. they'll throw out a statement, then when there's an awkward silence before the first.. "Now just a minute here"... then you have some college kid at 20 telling you exactly how it was in 70's, and what a great guy Carter was...

They don't handle that kind of new material well, and having lived it cuts no ice with a liberal arts major taught by a loved radical professor that republicans are evil hateful selfish creatures who should all be gassed.. never noticing the irony of those last four words when denouncing somebody else as a hater..

19 weeks ago
19 weeks ago Link To Comment
1 2 3 4 5 Next View All