The Atlantic - Latest Comments in Through a lens darkly

Re: Through a lens darkly

Reality Man — Sat, 13 Sep 2008 12:36:50 -0000

Having grown up mostly in suburban Massachusetts but also having lived in red and purple states, I can say that most of the time us "coastal liberal elites" don't really care or talk about much of the rest of the country in the obsessive way conservatives seem to think we do. In general, people like Midwesterners for being friendly and that's about it. Culturally, most of the people I grew up with were like the "Boston Kids" on SNL, not the Kennedys, yet most of the liberal elites I met in Boston were rather nice and honest people with stable home lives who gave to charity and such. However, in our political environment, those of us from Massachusetts are somehow not supposed to have any pride in coming from a state with gay marriage, high levels of education and literacy, a strong Jewish cultural presence, etc. because that is all somehow "elite" and cosmopolitan and thus somehow bad. I'm fucking sick of it. If you're going to act all holier than thou because you go to church more often than me, you better actually walk the walk. The thing is, too many conservatives from down South don't do that, yet because they have power and a megaphone, nobody calls them on their hateful bullshit.

Re: Through a lens darkly

MoeLarryAndJesus — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 09:36:24 -0000

FreshEDoug writes: "Even the term "bible belt" is often said with scorn by people outside of it. "

It's often said with scorn by the people inside of it, too. And why wouldn't it be?

Re: Through a lens darkly

DougEFresh — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 08:53:34 -0000

I abandoned the working/middle class thing in response to your point about what people on the coasts think about those in the middle of the country.

There certainly are going to be blue collar liberals in cities who won't trash their peers in the midwest. Just like a black churchgoer in NYC isn't going to make disparaging remarks about people who believe in Christ. But their are people, and trust me, they exist in Detroit, who think that people of faith are idiots, that a southern accent is a sign of stupidity. If someone hears these points out of the mouths of liberals, after awhile, a connection is going to be made.

Unfortunately for liberalism, the megaphone is usually given to the loudmouth actor or producer in LA rather than the union worker in Ohio or dare I say, a community organizer in Chicago. People who are a bit more in touch with the middle class.

Re: Through a lens darkly

Guest — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 01:05:36 -0000

“I think it is a fairly common rivalry of big city vs. rural people throughout the world. People in big cities tend to be earlier adopters of fads, technologies and fashions while it takes longer to get out to the further regions. Cities also tend to be populated by a more liberal group of people. So when conflict between the two is played out, it can be seen in a liberal vs. conservative framework.”

I don’t think anything you’ve said here is too inaccurate. There’s even a book I’ve wanted to read written about this very topic but the name of the title has long since escaped me. The point being; it’s about the conflict between rural and urban, not blue states and red states.

What really pisses me off is how people who live in the Northeast or Northwest and/or with left of center views are thought of as elitists. My home town had about 90,000 people when I lived there and no one who ever spent as much as an hour there would ever call it “upscale”. My mother’s parents settled there were they immigrated; for most of their years my grandfather was a janitor, my grandmother a housewife.

“Hollywood has often portrayed people in the south and bible belt in a manner that often is one of mockery. Even the term "bible belt" is often said with scorn by people outside of it.

The phrase "Will it play in Peoria" is an admission that city people are out of touch with rural folk, often from a point of view that something is too sophisticated for simple midwesterners.”

First of all, we’ve already abandoned the whole “working-class / middle class white” dynamic for sheer geography. That’s a major shift.

Secondly, we must talk about context. Comedies poke fun at people, it’s what they do. I don’t think that anyone in Hollywood actually thinks every last person who speaks with a Southern accent is some inbred idiot. However, when a person from the South acts stupid, (either in a movie or real life), there is a highly accessible and familiar caricature to be used. To the extent that it is better known that the “Boston Kids” skit from Saturday Night Live, that’s just how luck is sometimes. But I don’t think such a caricature should be banned outright. Just because you say these specific Southern people are stupid and use the typical caricature doesn’t mean or shouldn’t mean at least, that you think all Southerners are that way.

Speaking briefly about Midwesterners, ha-ha, here’s a story for you. My mother-in-law is a 60-ish evangelical Pentecostal who grew up on a farm with no running water (yes, they had an outhouse) and barely finished high school. Did I mention that she played the steel guitar in her youth? She has gone down to Alabama with her husband to visit her husband’s grown children several times over the last few years. Every time she comes back she can’t stop complaining about how much she hates it down there; how everything is dirtier, everything looks poor. This woman lives in the Midwest and has never known anything in the same solar system as wealth. Yet the Deep South is crap to her. Me? I’ve never been down South, save the airport in San Antonio, so I wouldn’t know.

Re: Through a lens darkly

DougEFResh — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 18:49:51 -0000

Nuada,

I think it is a fairly common rivalry of big city vs rural people throughout the world. People in big cities tend to be earlier adopters of fads, technologies and fashions while it takes longer to get out to the further regions. Cities also tend to be populated by a more liberal group of people. So when conflict between the two is played out, it can be seen in a liberal vs conservative framework.

Hollywood has often portrayed people in the south and bible belt in a manner that often is one of mockery. Even the term "bible belt" is often said with scorn by people outside of it.

The phrase "Will it play in Peoria" is an admission that city people are out of touch with rural folk, often from a point of view that something is too sophisticated for simple midwesterners.

I think the problem gets amplified because the media centers are in the two largest cities, so their voices are heard disproportionately while rural voices are somewhat ignored in the popular culture.

Re: Through a lens darkly

carole — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 18:44:35 -0000

I forgot. Wind-surfing is difficult to do. You use every major muscle in your body. It is not a wussy sport. You dont just get on and ride.

Re: Through a lens darkly

Martin — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 18:40:23 -0000

It's not a numbers game, it's a power game.

Compare Rev. Wright casting blame and Rev. Falwell. Falwell blames the gays, Wright blames those that control the government. Falwell blames those out of power, Wright blames those in power. That's the difference right there.

You can't be condescending to a mainstream white person who is governor of a state unless you are coming from a position higher than that - which almost nobody is. You just can't. You can't look down on someone higher than you.

So the problem here is that there is a lack of respect for the relative positions of each player. Those that are in power have no right to complain - because they are in power. They just have to take it. Employees can bitch about the boss till the cows come home, but the boss can't bitch about the employees because the boss always has the right to fire the employees. Ultimately, if something goes wrong, you can only blame those that had the power to get it right.

"When do people on the coasts talk about people in the middle of America in a negative way?"

By and large they never do. The 'flyover' meme came from Rush. Liberals weren't disparaging people in Arkansas, but Rush was telling people in Arkansas they were being disparaged to get them to vote. The only people saying disparaging things about them were the Republican pundits.

Re: Through a lens darkly

Carole — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 18:38:44 -0000

Palin annoyed me a little before the convention, but I did not really dislike her. However, I cannot stand, in fact I hate, individuals who think they are better than someone. There was no reason for anyone to mock Obama about the community organizer job. I will always dislik/hate her for that. I also used to do that type of volunteer work and found it rewarding. If she believed in God, she would not be this way. I was taught to help those less fortunate and I have always tried to do that and I haven't been to church for years.

Re: Through a lens darkly

JonF — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 18:20:28 -0000

Re: but I don't pay for their lifestyle.

No one is paying for my lifestyle either-- I earn a good salary, But that does not stop the Religious Right from bashing me and mine with their assumptions of being God's Own while gays like me are hellspawn.

Re: Through a lens darkly

Guest — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 17:32:34 -0000

Great, now the terms “liberal” and “coastal” mean the same thing? I’m sure the people of the Carolinas and Georgia would be surprised at that. For clarity, let’s separate the two for a moment.

When do people on the coasts talk about people in the middle of America in a negative way? I’m from a town that literally touches the Atlantic Ocean; we loved to talk shit about NYC because we all identified with Boston. But I never recall us east-coasters going, just out of the blue, “you know those people living in the middle of the country…..fuck them”!

And when do liberals talk shit about people in the middle of the country, SOLELY because they live in the middle of America? Liberals might talk shit about conservatives who live in the middle of the country. But Minnesota is in the middle of America and Minnesota has matched Massachusetts as the birthplace of many a progressive leader. Wisconsin is also in the middle of America and Wisconsin Senator Russ Finegold is every liberal’s hero. Liberals talk shit about conservatives, period, just like conservatives do to liberals.

And for that matter, don’t you think liberals in the middle of America talk shit about their conservative neighbors? (I don’t consider myself all that liberal but I’m definitely more left than right.) Well, I can assure you, they do.

Re: Through a lens darkly

M.C. — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 17:15:15 -0000

I read somewhere that the Palins have an income in the low six figures -- well outside EITC territory. Also well into the upper middle class in all but the most absurdly expensive zip codes.

That's one thing that needs to be brought up more often. A lot of middle America is full of people who make perfectly good money. Many have degrees, and some have graduate degrees. They work in different industries than people on the coasts, but there is a lot of work out there. A lot of it requires specialized knowledge in engineering or geology or something, subjects that many lawyers and journalists never touch.

When people on the coasts talk about the ignorant people in flyover country, they forget about this demographic. I don't think these people are looking for government handouts, and I'm sure they vote Republican for the low taxes as much as for any false consciousness about their interests. Liberals forget at their peril that most of the country is middle class, even in middle America.

Re: Through a lens darkly

Guest — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 17:15:14 -0000

What I don’t get is how any honest person can agree with the conflation of all of the pieces of the typical argument.

Yes, I can agree that conservatives go to church more often than liberals. But two codicils would be that; (1) most Americans don’t go to church on a weekly basis and (2) attendance at weekly church services is not always the most accurate measurement of one’s inner religiosity.

I can also agree that so called “white working-class / middle classes” voters are more conservative when compared to Afro-Americans and Latinos who earn similar wages. The only explanation that jumps out here is race relations; either the racist sentiments of whites or the perceptions of whites have racist sentiments by Afro-Americans.

But I don’t understand how someone can honestly make the arguments that they do. Why can’t working-class / middle class whites be liberal? Because liberals condescend to working-class / middle class whites. Why would they do that? How does that benefit their goals?

And how do they do that? Liberals mock the values of working-class / middle class whites. What is a working-class / middle class white value? They must be different than the values of working-class / middle class Afro-Americans and Latinos; the electoral evidence bears that out.

Now I’ve been a working-class / middle class white my entire life, I’m not aware of any values that are exclusive to my ethnic-economic social group. People in my neighborhood, hell, even people in my own family sometimes disagreed over things that could be considered values.

Are working-class / middle class white voters any more religious than rich white voters…..is there any evidence to bear that out? And how do you truly determine religiosity, as the saying goes, “going to a church doesn’t make you a Christian anymore than going to a garage makes you a car.”

Are working-class / middle-class whites more like to hunt or own guns…..would that hold true everywhere from Missouri to Massachusetts? Remember now, firearms are rather expensive, (the cheapest shotguns are pump action and a good one would cost you several hundred dollars.), not to mention all of the assorted hunting accessories many buy. And impressions can be deceiving here as well, as illustrated by Kerry being an elite for wind-surfing, (not a very expensive hobby at all), and Bush being a regular Joe with his cigarette boat, (which can cost several hundreds of thousand of dollars.)

Is there any factual evidence that the average conservative, (aside from those who are strictly social conservatives), consumes Hollywood’s culture with any less frequency than liberals? Is there any factual evidence that the average white working-class / middle class voter consumes Hollywood’s culture with any less frequency than someone wealthier? I still don’t see how things like Hollywood culture condescend or puts-down white working-class / middle class values. Even if you want to argue that Hollywood puts down things like God and guns, you need to prove that, once again, white working-class / middle-class voters not only consider such things as core values but actually demonstrate them as core values as well.

The image of effete rich liberals who hate Jesus and love French stuff vs. the hard-working frugal conservatives who live in church and think anything un-American is crap…..it just doesn’t have any basis in reality.

It’s not difficult to pick apart the whole argument. Arugula is not actually any more expensive than any other green leafy vegetable, except for maybe iceberg lettuce. Lots of beers are more expensive than lots of wines. You can even get fancy lattes in gas stations in the region where I live; the latte machines are right next to the milkshake machines.

Re: Through a lens darkly

Nathan — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 16:23:17 -0000

Well put Ta Nehisi. I would only add that, being white, being from a small town in an impoverished backwater of America, I find charges of "working class condescension" to be themselves condescending to - white small town, working class folks. It assumes A. - all people in small towns are similarly inclined to hunt ducks and live in trailers; B. - they are similarly inclined to be hyper religious and C. - they don't have the same level of concern for issues like the environment, economics and social integration as 'dem big city folks'. To the ears of many, people like Clive Crook can be paraphrased as sounding like this; "We all know small town people are ignorant pig-fuckers. But they have a right to be ignorant pig-fuckers and liberal Democrats need to respect their pig-fucking, bible thumping ways, or they'll keep losing elections to Republicans, who don't condescend to pig-fuckers." That's back-handed praise for the salt of the Earth if I've ever heard it.

Re: Through a lens darkly

rlarrett — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 16:11:47 -0000

I object to the central premise of all this - that liberal, urban America condescends to small town life, and I would point to the American entertainment industry for proof. Is there a more popular story in our culture than the one about the small-town kid who moves to the big city to find fame and fortune? Only one - when the big city slicker finds himself (unwillingly) in a small town. These premises are a staple of our popular culture, and have been mined for more movies, plays & TV than one can count. But here's the thing - in both cases, the small town always triumphs! Whenever the small-town kid takes on the big city, they eventually earn the respect of the city slickers, buoyed by grit, innocent charm, and small-town values. On the other hand, when the situation is reversed, the cocky urbanite invariably discovers that these yokels aren't as dumb as they look, about the true goodness of rural living, etc. Never is there a good word for the city! Actually, America reveres it's small-town roots, and all you have to do is look cross-eyed at it be accused of "condescension". Well, I say enough! As noted city slicker S.J. Perleman put it, "How you going to keep them down on the farm, once they've seen the farm?

Re: Through a lens darkly

Guest — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 16:02:26 -0000

"The "patronizing superiority" is in the idea that small-town America is the font of common-sense and everyday wisdom, and that that knowledge is the true knowledge that makes America great--not the thoughts of bookish urbanites. There is almost no difference between that attitude, and said bookish urbanites dismissing small-town America as a haven of ignorance. It's the same thing."

But it’s not really even “small-town America” that’s more moral and wise. It’s small-town America in the Midwest, Boarder South and Upper Plains. Back when I lived in Massachusetts, I had close relatives who lived in a town…..more like a village actually…..of about 4,000 people. I don’t know the political make-up of the town in question. But my point here can be illustrated thusly. John Kerry only got about 60% of the MA vote against Bush in 2004. Yes, that sounds like a pretty good margin. But it still means about 40% voted for Bush; this is after taking into consideration that John Kerry has represented MA for about 20 years and Bush had gone around the country for months using the word “Massachusetts” as an ugly pejorative.

I agree, the whole line of reasoning that people in small town are automatically more upstanding than people who live in cities is ugly and stupid. But residents of small towns in blue states don’t even get that. It’s all about “heartland” voters!

Re: Through a lens darkly

Joel — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 15:17:36 -0000

But for you to treat one's sexual lifestyle as of no more moral significance than whether one likes NASCAR or arugula (I dislike them both, for what it's worth), is the road to moral anarchy.

---

What if you're not a Christian? Are the predominantly secular nations of Europe places of moral anarchy? Are non-Christians, by definition, nihilists?

Re: Through a lens darkly

Robert M — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 15:10:18 -0000

Thanks for the tighten up. I think you've got to clear this up: "Condescension happens, no doubt. But it's a lazy, weak, and ultimately dishonest, thinking that sees..... everyone else as authors of victimology". Authors of victomology?

Are you trying to say that everyone else's circumstances means they're a victim? That telling your story, the mere fact you are alive, that makes you an author of victimology?

If so that is worse than being lazy, weak and dishonest. This is a form of hatred/fear based on the belief that if not for you there go I and you might recognize it. That is despising people for being alive.

Re: Through a lens darkly

DougEFresh — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 14:09:36 -0000

In fact, a family like Sarah Palin's (you know, just as many kids, and kids-with-kids, but no Governor in the house) almost certainly gets more from the Earned Income Tax Credit per child than your welfare "queen" gets for hers.

I am sure Palin's husband makes enough to phase out any EITC. Also, there is no additional EITC for having a third, fourth or fifth child.

Re: Through a lens darkly

Erik — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 13:50:38 -0000

"This idea of resentment and perceptions of condescension hasn't always even been a right vs left issue. Back in the day, LBJ and his Texas crew felt very slighted by the east coast establishment. Texans felt that the easterners looked down on them as nouveau riche hillbillies who were lucky to be sitting on a bunch of oil and should defer to those who were properly raised and schooled. "-DougEFresh

The whole elitism/condescention (spelling?) issue really crystallized for me during Ted Kennedy's video at the DNC. Just look at him enjoying his schooner, which in turn reminded me of Kerry's windsurfing. Oh, you east coast liberals and your ocean, u think you're so special.

Re: Through a lens darkly

Chet — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 13:43:00 -0000

The whole issue with the "welfare queen" was that the rest of us were paying for her lifestyle, such as it was.

So, in fact, you are subsidizing Sarah Palin's bush country moose hunting.

Re: Through a lens darkly

William Ockham — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 13:41:31 -0000

Clive Crook's article is nothing more than his internalization of Spiro Agnew's speeches of the early '70s. That is to say, he's accepted the views of Pat Buchanan and William Safire, who authored those speeches.

Re: Through a lens darkly

DougEFresh — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 13:36:20 -0000

This idea of resentment and perceptions of condescension hasn't always even been a right vs left issue. Back in the day, LBJ and his Texas crew felt very slighted by the east coast establishment. Texans felt that the easterners looked down on them as nouveau riche hillbillies who were lucky to be sitting on a bunch of oil and should defer to those who were properly raised and schooled.

Some of these Texans may have been dixiecrats who were to the right of those they hated, but it is hard to make that arguement against LBJ, who headed one of the most liberal eras in US history.

I also remember seeing a similar dynamic on the Republican side when Pat Robertson ran against GHW Bush in the 88 primary. 41 and some of his people certainly had a different view of the religious right than his son has.

Re: Through a lens darkly

AKBY — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 13:27:51 -0000

Demagoguery and condescension seem fundamentally opposed to me.

I would argue that demagoguery is the worst kind of condenscension. Demagoguery actively exploits other people's prejudices, whereas condescension exploits one's own prejudices.

Condescension (absent demogoguery) is pretty easy to spot for those on the receiving end. Demagoguery not so much. But if you can spot demogoguery, instead of falling victim to it, then you see its inherent condescension.

Re: Through a lens darkly

Pesto — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 13:24:19 -0000

"I can hire one half the working class to kill the other half." -- Jay Gould, Robber Baron

That may be the most condescending thing any American has ever said. Nonetheless, Gould seems to have been right.

Re: Through a lens darkly

Ta-Nehisi Coates — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 13:22:00 -0000

Duly noted Erik.

Thomas,

Posted the Matt Damon vid.