Charles Krauthammer finds the liberals explaining to themselves that they are losing only because the American people are so dumb, and conservatives are so evil.
A year later, after stunning Democratic setbacks in Virginia, New Jersey and Massachusetts, Obama gave a stay-the-course State of the Union address (a) pledging not to walk away from health-care reform, (b) seeking to turn college education increasingly into a federal entitlement, and (c) asking again for cap-and-trade energy legislation. Plus, of course, another stimulus package, this time renamed a â€œjobs bill.â€
This being a democracy, donâ€™t the Democrats see that clinging to this agenda will march them over a cliff? Donâ€™t they understand Massachusetts?
Well, they understand it through a prism of two cherished axioms: (1) The people are stupid, and (2) Republicans are bad. Result? The dim, led by the malicious, vote incorrectly.
Liberal expressions of disdain for the intelligence and emotional maturity of the electorate have been, post-Massachusetts, remarkably unguarded. New York Times columnist Charles Blow chided Obama for not understanding the necessity of speaking â€œin the plain words of plain folks,â€ because the people are â€œsuspicious of complexity.â€ Counseled Blow: â€œThe next time he gives a speech, someone should tap him on the ankle and say, â€˜Mr. President, weâ€™re down here.â€™â€
A Time magazine blogger was even more blunt about the ankle-dwelling mob, explaining that we are â€œa nation of dodosâ€ that is â€œtoo dumb to thrive.â€
Obama joined the parade in the State of the Union address when, with supercilious modesty, he chided himself â€œfor not explaining it [health care] more clearly to the American people.â€ The subject, he noted, was â€œcomplex.â€ The subject, it might also be noted, was one to which the master of complexity had devoted 29 speeches. Perhaps he did not speak slowly enough.
Then there are the emotional deficiencies of the masses. Nearly every Democratic apologist lamented the peopleâ€™s anger and anxiety, a free-floating agitation that prevented them from appreciating the beneficence of the social agenda that the Democrats are so determined to foist upon them. …
Part Two of the liberal conceit: Liberals act in the public interest, while conservatives think only of power, elections, self-aggrandizement, and self-interest.
It is an old liberal theme that conservative ideas, being red in tooth and claw, cannot possibly emerge from any notion of the public good. A 2002 New York Times obituary for philosopher Robert Nozick explained that the strongly libertarian implications of Nozickâ€™s masterwork, Anarchy, State, and Utopia, â€œproved comforting to the right, which was grateful for what it embraced as philosophical justification.â€ The right, you see, is grateful when a bright intellectual can graft some philosophical rationalization onto its thoroughly base and self-regarding politics.
This belief in the moral hollowness of conservatism animates the current liberal mantra that Republican opposition to Obamaâ€™s social democratic agenda â€” which couldnâ€™t get through even a Democratic Congress and powered major Democratic losses in New Jersey, Virginia, and Massachusetts â€” is nothing but blind and cynical obstructionism.
By contrast, Democratic opposition to George W. Bush â€” from Iraq to Social Security reform â€” constituted dissent. And dissent, we were told at the time, including by candidate Obama, is â€œone of the truest expressions of patriotism.â€
No more. Today, dissent from the governing orthodoxy is nihilistic malice. â€œThey made a decision,â€ explained David Axelrod, â€œthey were going to sit it out and hope that we failed, that the country failedâ€ â€” a perfect expression of liberalsâ€™ conviction that their aspirations are necessarily the countryâ€™s, that their idea of the public good is the publicâ€™s, that their failure is therefore the nationâ€™s.