What, exactly, is a smug liberal? There’s been a lot of discussion, and even the beginnings of some reflection, on what this term means, and I personally think Vox writer Emmett Rensin nails it: smug liberals think half the country is gullible and dumb.
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.
Smug liberals think half the country can’t examine their own lives, goals, aspirations, dreams and ambitions and figure out what they need from the government (or more importantly, don’t need), and then vote in accordance with that analysis. Hicks can’t do analysis! Hillbillies can only fall for gullible claptrap! Those rubes should listen to us. We know what’s best.
Perhaps a disdain for the rural and working class Americans has always plagued the Democrats, but they were never able to so openly admit it, given that blue collar and farming voters were a significant chunk of their base. Without those damn hicks, no Dem could get elected. Then the Dems went global, and started to gut the manufacturing base of the US, and they lost their working class voters.
Not because working class voters are morons. Quite the opposite, Working class voters can analyze their own interests just fine, and they understood perfectly the Dems were making a deal with the devil, and the blue collar voters would be paying the principle price. The trouble is that the GOP was essentially making the same deal, until Trump came along.
I used to read quite widely across liberal media, but now so much of it is just straight up fiction, I can no longer stomach it even as a hate-read. Alternet, Raw Story, Salon, all the former Gawker Media sites – they are just pure, unadulterated smug liberal garbage. I still read Slate more or less daily, as the most hysterical contributors have been purged and it’s now just run of the mill smug. Tolerable. But just. But even the somewhat rational. Moderate Slate cannot grasp that the smug attitude of the left is a huge part of the communication problem.
Your response is very similar to a significant portion of the response to this piece. That is to say, of the people who replied to me on Twitter and elsewhere, the vast majority of people who were “team smug” offered some variant of what you just said, like, “But we’re right, and they’re wrong, and so what do we do?” All due respect to you and all those people, that’s precisely the problem. You are the problem. That is to say, just because you have an analysis of why someone voted the way they did and you think that it’s wrong, you don’t have to say it out loud. Having said it out loud lots of times, and it having not been effective as a rhetorical move to shift the political landscape in the direction that you want, why not try another tack?
The central message is that screaming racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, whatever the fuck phobic – that’s not working anymore. Now what? Obviously this interests me because hate messages are starting to pour in across social media, prompted by the Vice piece that will air in full later today. I especially like Andrew, on Facebook, who says that since I think violence is the only truth, perhaps he should get some feminists together and come and give me some truth. Please do, Andrew. Give it a fucking go. Or Zachary who hopes I get splashed with acid and die quickly.
My other commentators are about as enlightened, too. So far, I am ugly, stupid, a cunt, fat, old, a bitch, a whore and I should kill myself. Go to YouTube or Facebook or any other social media site, and you will see lots and lots of similar comments.
What you won’t see is any kind of reasoned refutation of my argument.
Smug liberals had better learn how to articulate their arguments in favor of women voting, or they may find themselves rather shocked.
If you thought there was nothing worse than Trump, think again.
Lots of love,