George Will notes how disdain for the judgment of average Americans has become a dominant theme in "progresive" thinking, to the point that some Democrats "relish interpreting the party's defeat as validation." Will connects this phenomenon to the culture of victimhood under which liberals implement their pet projects (or power grab) by positing an infantile American public.

I agree with Will, but think that something else is at work too. As I argued here, the deepest urge of many liberals is to prove their intellectual and moral superiority. One of the ways they accomplish this is by eschewing obvious explanations for misconduct -- greed, cruelty, or (in extreme cases) evil -- as too simplistic. Liberals would rather identify "root causes," as if the basic motivations just mentioned are insufficiently rooted. And the root causes that satisfy liberals generally turn out to be flaws in America and its policies. Such liberals thus are able to trash the American public coming and going, as too simple-minded to focus on root causes and, ultimately, as the root cause itself. President Bush can be viewed as the representative of this cartoon version of the public. No public figure seems less inclined to worry about the things liberals deem root causes, and few public figures have more vigorously pursued the kinds of polcies that constitute the alleged root causes of our woes. No wonder they hate him.

Returning to Will's observation about the liberal reaction to the election, it occurs to me that liberals don't want to give the public much credit even when it elects Democrats, and this fact reinforces my thesis. The liberals attributed Clinton's win in 1992 to "the economy, stupid" coupled with "Bubba's" ability to connect with rednecks. If they viewed Clinton's win in 1996 as the result of anything more uplifiting, I guess I missed it. Compare this to the way Republicans talk about Reagan's victories or Bush's recent triumph. All of this suggests that leading Democrats don't hold the public in contempt because they are now the minority party; rather they are now the minority party because they hold the public in contempt.

Posted by Paul at 11:13 PM  |    |  

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.powerlineblog.com/mt/mt-diespammers.cgi/8689

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Contempt:

» Holding The Public In Contempt from Ed Driscoll.com
Back in 2002, Garrison Keillor smeared newly-elected Norm Coleman of Minnesota. In mid-2004, he released a book called Homegrown Democrat: a Few Plain Thoughts from the Heart of America , which demonstrated the warm feelings he plainly thought about th... [Read More]

Tracked on November 16, 2004 12:44 AM

» Holding The Public In Contempt from Ed Driscoll.com
Back in 2002, Garrison Keillor smeared newly-elected Norm Coleman of Minnesota. In mid-2004, he released a book called Homegrown Democrat: a Few Plain Thoughts from the Heart of America , which demonstrated the warm feelings he plainly thought about th... [Read More]

Tracked on November 16, 2004 12:47 AM

» Holding The Public In Contempt from Ed Driscoll.com
Back in 2002, Garrison Keillor smeared newly-elected Norm Coleman of Minnesota. In mid-2004, he released a book called Homegrown Democrat: a Few Plain Thoughts from the Heart of America , which demonstrated the warm feelings he plainly thought about th... [Read More]

Tracked on November 16, 2004 12:48 AM

» Democratic Elitist's Belief In Infantilism Of The from Vista On Current Events
George Will is right spot on with his analysis [Read More]

Tracked on November 16, 2004 08:14 AM