Why do the rest of us feel such revulsion towards the Liberal Elite? Towards the people who live in cities in the northeastern or far western US or Old Europe? Towards the people who read the Guardian, the Economist and the New York Times. The ones who now say they will move to Quebec or Novosibersk because they feel soiled living in a country where everyone doesn’t vote the same?
The Liberal Elite think our revulsion is because of their opinions. It isn’t. There are lots of people who hold weird opinions. Trotskyites for example. I live in the San Francisco Bay Area. Where you live, all the Communists are probably either Maoists, Classical Marxists or (if you live in Europe) Big Labor Communists. In Berkeley we still have all those and we have Trotskyites too. And then there is the Far Right: David Duke, M. le Pen et al.. And the back-to-nature Greens. And those annoying people who go door to door on Sunday afternoon with pamphlets about their religion.
These people all have opinions I think are incorrect, dangerous, looney, or d) all of the above. But, although I dislike their opinions I don’t loathe those people. Well, not all of them, anyhow.
What is repellant about the Liberal Elite is not their opinions, but their attitude towards anyone who doesn’t share all their views. Every single view down to the latest, politically correct term for Fiji Islanders who have migrated to the US via Madagascar.
I am really tired of these people telling me that because I don’t think and vote in lockstep with them I am must therefore be old, fat, dirty, stupid and live in a house trailer. That I must have married my sister, be ignorant, uneducated and need them as a moral keeper to make sure everything from my car’s mileage to my recycling habits meets their expectations.
If there is any group on this planet who shouldn’t go around telling others they are unethical and stupid it is the crowd who believes in forged documents from Dan Rather and Andrew Gilligan, think Nixon was president in 1968, believe Al Gore invented the internet and look to Ted Kennedy and Jacques Chirac as moral paragons.
I don’t loathe the Massachusetts Supreme Court for being in favor of same-sex marriage. I am in favor of same sex marriage. I loathe them for saying that the 75% of the voters who disagree with me have no rights. I loathe them for instructing the Massachusetts State Legislature to vote not according to the will of that 75% of the voters but according to the will of the Court Justices “because those Justices know better.”
Their contempt for everyone else is the repellant part.
"you were founded as a free country and didn't have to fight for freedom."
The day the most Americans ever died was the day we fought the battle of
Antietam in the US Civil War. Nothing in WWI or WWII cost so many American
lives.
That very bloody battle was fought over the issue of freedom.
And the issue was not the freedom of the people doing the fighting and
dying but the freedom of a bunch of people of another race who were not at
the battle
Fighting wars to spread freedom is a big part of what we are about. It is
really dangerous to warn the US not to free people. Even if you are Kofi
Annan. We tend to free them anyway, regardless of the short term cost
because we are convinced the long term gain is worth it.
If you think it would have been better not to spill that blood, and that the
freedom won for those slaves and their descendants as a result of Antietam
and the other battles was not worth it, take that up with the descendants of
those slaves. Go tell Condoleeza Rice (currently National Security Advisor
and soon to be Secretary of State) for example, that it wasn't worth it.
Someone I know in Europe read this (and a covering letter) and sent me this response. I thought his response and my answers might be of general interest since they highlight the difference between Europeans and the US.
----------------------------------
From: "A Correspondent in Europe"
> I shall forward the mail to home and mull it there. A first read shows
> once again that I have the wrong idea about how y'all Republicans
> actually think about the issues.
Hehehehe. Not surprising. The US is the exception. We are the one's who are
different. Anyone who is dissatisfied with "there" comes "here". No one is
in the US unless either they or an ancestor disliked being "there" (used to
be Europe, now is mostly Asia) so much they got disgusted and moved.
> I wouldn't class myself Left, more like Deeply Cynical. It may surpise
> you that I don't think Arafat was a man of peace (I am perfectly aware
> he was a terrorist like wossisname, the Israeli prime minister) and I
> don't like the idea of gay marriage
Actually I _do_ like the idea of gay marriage.
Short Sidebar:
I am Catholic, divorced, remarried. My current marriage is a) not recognized
by my religion b) recognized by the state. "Marriage" means a set, a package
deal of legal and civil rights and privileges and also means a sacrament (at
least for Catholics). As far as the set of civil and legal rights and
privileges go, that is "Caesar's" (I presume you have enough general
Christian background to remember but let me say, they asked Jesus if it was
OK to pay taxes to Rome and he said "show me a coin you pay taxes with" and
he said "who's picture is on that coin" and they said "Caesar's picture" and
Jesus said "Then give to Caesar what is Caesar's and give to God what is
God" ie the civil government rightly runs civil things and the religion
takes care of the religious things and that doesn't conflict itself). So
render marriage to "Caesar" in the civil sense of my marriage (the part
recognized by the state of California).
BUT (and this is a big "BUT"): Let the voters decide what "Caesar" will do.
Do NOT let the people who think they are in charge tell the voters what they
can vote for.
Remember we have a "permanent revolution" government to a level that is
almost impossible for a European to imagine. Remember my state fired its
governor and replaced him with another governor. Can you (the voters of
England as a group) over-rule and fire the Law Lords (as I understand it
that is your equivalent to our highest court) if the Law Lords decide an
issue in a way to which the majority of the voters object?
End of Sidebar
> but calling it "marriage" is like elbowing your way into someone's
> church and demanding equal recognition for things against their faith.
I agree there is this problem that the word "marriage" has both a civil and
a religious meaning, But as I said, I have that dichotomy right now between
me and my wife, the State of California, and the Catholic Church. And we
have gotten along for years without trying to settle the issue by subverting
the right of citizens to vote for their own laws.
> I am however concerned about the convergence of secular and religious
> things in the US and some other countries.
Me too. That is why I object to the Left trying to enforce their "religion"
(their views on religion) on everyone else. As I said, the Left can stand
diversity of anything except opinion.
> I assume you know that "Liberal" means something completely different
> over here to in the US.
I actually think of "Liberal" the way you (I assume) think of it. Liberal =
Free Trade, low regulation, anti Big Government Unions. I find (here and in
Europe) that "left" and "right" lead to less confusion when talking to
people, but you have to remember there are a lot more "dimensions" (issues
to disagree on) to allow you to categorize everyone according to one number
("I am +18 to the Right, you are -14 to the left so someone who is +2 to the
right is exactly half way between us" doesn't work).
> I think it boils down to, we used to have a
> feudal state a few hundred years ago, where people at the bottom were
> very badly treated. "Liberal" meant "slightly less oppressive than the
> other lot" - basically descended from the people who overthrew the
> Royalists and founded our democracy.
Yeah, that is a pretty good definition of "classical liberal". The people
who won the "revolution" (not the Jacobins who won the French revolution but
the voting public who won the much slower revolution in English government).
> You've never had such extremes as
> you were founded as a free country,
No. We fought this war (against you) to win that right. And then we keep
having people try to take that freedom away. So we keep fighting to keep it. At Cold Harbor in 1864 and Belleau Wood in 1918. At At Bastogne in 1944 and in Falluja as we speak.
> so "Liberal" tends to mean "too FAR
> to the left, practically Communist, complete governmental control of
> everything" to you. (?)
For "most Americans" liberal means "Left". Not Communist and not classical
European Socialist (we have never had an effective socialist party. We are
the only western democracy not to have had one. Can you see why?) but "big
government, lots of rules from the government on employment conditions,
wages, car mileage, etc.
"Brussels" (the EU government) is a good example of what the US Liberals
like.
> Another confusing term for Brits is "Conservative", which is considered
> to have bad associations in European countries (not sure why)
In Europe "right" means "the people who lost the revolution (see above). It
means the Old Rich, the Bishops, the Great Landowners, the people who have
privileges because they and their parents had privileges.
Here "right" means more "Liberal" in the sense of "leave us alone and let
each of us go our own way".
> have a Conservative government, the Europeans are extremely leery as
> they assume it means something a lot more fascist than the British
> Conservatives actually are.
"Fascist" is a word with a pretty specific meaning. Unfortunately "Fascist"
as used in common parlance means "I don't like your views" and little else.
More on Fascism later if I have time. Or read "Anatomy of Fascism" by Robert
O. Paxton.