Methinks the Other Party Thinks You’re an Idiot

I read and shared an article the other day that I found pretty inspiring. It was Vox’s “The Smug Style in American Liberalism.” I appreciate it so much because it’s so rare that you get an honest internal criticism meant to help one group be better (rather than a scathing critique of the other, meant to score points). I’ve seen a lot of liberal friends I know respond really positively to it, and I’m really proud of everyone.

(Mother Jones, in fewer words, counters that liberals are condescending, instead.)

Another friend started a conversation with me where he said he read the article and liked it, but he thought “smug” applied pretty well to both edges of the political spectrum. I thought about it and I think he may be right.

Let’s work through an overly-simplified narrative:

A liberal might say that poor people that vote against them are foolishly voting against their own interests (their economic well-being); rich people that vote against them are only voting for their own limited interests (keeping their advantage at the expense of anyone else); anyone that votes for them is voting “on principle” to promote economic justice.

A conservative might say that poor people that vote against them are only voting for their limited interests (getting free stuff); rich people that vote against them are voting against their interests (the freedom to run their business and keep it healthy); anyone that votes for them is voting “on principle” to grow a healthy economy.

So that narrative, if it has any validity, would suggest that each side thinks it’s the only position of any noble principle, and that the other side is so bankrupt that those voting for it are either voting selfishly, or dumb enough to be voting against their own interest.

Could it perhaps be the case that some poor people that vote Republican are doing so “on principle” because they think their economic plan is best for everyone? Perhaps they even don’t believe in overly-progressive taxes on principle? Could it be the case that some rich people that vote Democratic are doing so “on principle” because they believe it’s the right thing to do, the Christian thing to do, or even the healthiest thing for the economy?

So I think there is a good chance that smugness and condescension happen across the political spectrum. I’m probably biased here, but I suspect they are part of the same Wedging forces that lead to polarization and general antipathy: we have collapsed into such tiny bubbles, and are exposed so often only to the ridiculous people on one side of the spectrum, that we cannot fathom how a smart, reasonable, well-intentioned person could disagree with us. It’s getting beyond our collective capacity as a public.

So perhaps we’re all becoming the idiots.

–Erik

Erik Fogg

Erik Fogg is co-author of ReConsider’s written work, co-host of the ReConsider podcast and author of Wedged: How you became a tool of the partisan Political Establishment and How to Start Thinking for Yourself Again. Erik has a masters degree in political science from MIT and has spent years working with various NGOs, Harvard, MIT, United Nations and various private advocacy groups organizations. He’s ghost-written published books. He’s now running a software startup. Erik grew up in a very red part of Pennsylvania and moved to a very blue part of Massachusetts. Having a foot in both worlds has enabled Erik to see how both sides of the political spectrum caricature the other and has sparked his mission to create a real dialogue that cuts through the noise. Erik podcasts from his office in suburban San Mateo, surrounded by 17th and 18th-century European art, a costume-construction toolkit and table, a VR kit, and a small bed for his Boston Terrier, Oscar.

View Comments

  • Perhaps, but when it goes beyond point of view to behavior and actions which are violent and destructive, that is just wrong. Defending those actions is as difficult to fathom as it is to understand why the violence occurred. But, I suppose that is the theme of STC--understanding another's opinion.

    • Oh, totally agreed. I think you've hit on an important point: one's allowed their perspective, but not allowed to violate other people's lives in the name of those perspectives, definitely.

  • The irony of people wondering why their party doesn't vote in their own interest, after a myriad of examples of acting people to do exactly that... every vote to expand voting rights dilutes the rights of the person casting their ballot. And yet african americans, women, and those between 18-21 all gained, against the self-interest of the voter, for instance.

    We all vote on principle, some of the time. We may simply disagree on when is the right time to do that.

  • Ok, can't let this one slide. As I've gotten wiser (not older per se, they don't automatically equate), the differences are deeper. Condescending & smug apply to both sides. I don't like the polarization. America was meant as a melting pot to bring out the best in people living here. Our Founders never wanted a 2 party system. But we have one. I have democrat friends. Not many. I'm told I'm "too conservative". My absolute hot point is abortion. All life is God given. Humans have no business taking unborn children's lives. Democrats talk big on "choice", then tell you what you are allowed to choose. In prefer a strict interpretation of the Constitution. Congress and especially BHO rips apart at will. Neither side is perfect, but I look at "that" side and who represents them now and think:: not even if I were dead would I vote democrat. Smug? No. Disgusted is a better word.

    • Hm! I wonder if your disgust applies only to a few people, or to the entire half of the country that tends to vote Democrat? Do you think there are good, well-intentioned people in that half of the country?

Recent Posts

Ukraine XI: Asymmetric Momentum

Ukrainian victories on the ground have been swift, dramatic, and devastating. And each win seems…

1 year ago

Ukraine X: The Absolutely Dazzling Counter-Blitzkrieg

The Russians just got whipped. What the heck happened?

1 year ago

ReConsidering Russia: The Complex History of Russia

Mark Schauss is the host of Russian Rulers History and Battle Ground History. Known for…

1 year ago

Ukraine IX: Oh HI, MARS

https://play.acast.com/s/d1a6ddca-f102-4b5c-8d87-630132fe5aaa/62f43f685dc1ea00136539f2 Hot Updates Severodonetsk fell slowly as expected, but then Lysychansk fell quickly because Russian…

1 year ago

It Was the Best of Times, It Was the Worst of Times, Part 2

https://embed.acast.com/d1a6ddca-f102-4b5c-8d87-630132fe5aaa/62d0a6529385dd0012e405d1 Lots of ways we can split this. Much has been discussed about decoupling of…

2 years ago