Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
If theres one belief that binds the disparate factions of the American right together, its the belief in American exceptionalism, both for the nation and for individuals. The mythology that conservatism is about promoting excellence and encouraging strivers is found throughout conservative media and literature, from the story of John Galt in Ayn Rands Atlas Shrugged to Reagans description of America as a shining city on a hill. While it often manifests as contempt for the poor and the vulnerable, in the abstract this conservative enthusiasm for doing better could, in theory, be channeled productively toward actually pushing people to achieve.
So why are so many conservatives abandoning this enthusiasm for the exceptional in favor of what can only be described as jealous sniping aimed at people who are actually trying to expand the world creatively and scientifically? Theres a lot of high-falutin talk on the right about supporting the strivers, but in practice, the conservative response to someone who tries to stick his head above the crowd is to beat it down with a hammer. Conservatives may think of themselves as lovers of excellence, but in reality, Who do you think you are? is swiftly becoming an unofficial right-wing motto.
Its easy to see why, despite their supposed enthusiasm for excellence, conservative pundits would offer up liberal scientists, journalists, and artists as hate objects for their base. This is a time of economic instability and ordinary people are seeing their fortunes declining. Its easy to turn that anxiety into rage at people conservative audiences think have easy, charmed lives as coastal elites.
But in doing so, conservative pundits are exploiting their audiences, turning their class-based anger away from the people who are actually causing their economic problems, such as the Wall Street elite, and toward people who may be successful but who are not doing any harm to other Americans and are often trying to help them. If you can get your audiences to hate journalists and scientists, they won't hate the wealthy bankers who actually screwed them over.
Right-Wing Backlash Against 'Smartypants' Like Neil deGrasse Tyson | Alternet
If there’s one belief that binds the disparate factions of the American right together, it’s the belief in American exceptionalism, both for the nation and for individuals. The mythology that conservatism is about promoting excellence and encouraging strivers is found throughout conservative media and literature, from the story of John Galt in Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged to Reagan’s description of America as a “shining city on a hill.” While it often manifests as contempt for the poor and the vulnerable, in the abstract this conservative enthusiasm for doing better could, in theory, be channeled productively toward actually pushing people to achieve.
So why are so many conservatives abandoning this enthusiasm for the exceptional in favor of what can only be described as jealous sniping aimed at people who are actually trying to expand the world creatively and scientifically? There’s a lot of high-falutin’ talk on the right about supporting the strivers, but in practice, the conservative response to someone who tries to stick his head above the crowd is to beat it down with a hammer. Conservatives may think of themselves as lovers of excellence, but in reality, “Who do you think you are?” is swiftly becoming an unofficial right-wing motto.
It’s easy to see why, despite their supposed enthusiasm for excellence, conservative pundits would offer up liberal scientists, journalists, and artists as hate objects for their base. This is a time of economic instability and ordinary people are seeing their fortunes declining. It’s easy to turn that anxiety into rage at people conservative audiences think have easy, charmed lives as coastal elites.
But in doing so, conservative pundits are exploiting their audiences, turning their class-based anger away from the people who are actually causing their economic problems, such as the Wall Street elite, and toward people who may be successful but who are not doing any harm to other Americans and are often trying to help them. If you can get your audiences to hate journalists and scientists, they won't hate the wealthy bankers who actually screwed them over.
Why is the right so dead set against education and success by Americans? Why do they hate and fear American excellence?
It's interesting the people the Right hates the most: teachers, artists, muscians, philosophers, the highly educated, etc. The same people Mao hated and forced to work on farms instead of practicing their professions.
This thread is a fail right from the outset. As Doc noted, using Alternet isn't a good opening move. Secondly, you and Alternet mischaracterize the the inspiration for the article. Here's an excerpt from the NR article:
This rather unspecific message is a call to arms, aimed at those who believe wholeheartedly they are included in the elect we. Thus do we see unexceptional liberal-arts students lecturing other people about things they dont understand themselves and terming the dissenters flat-earthers. Thus do we see people who have never in their lives read a single academic paper clinging to the mantle of science as might Albert Einstein. Thus do we see residents of Brooklyn who are unable to tell you at what temperature water boils rolling their eyes at Bjørn Lomborg or Roger Pielke Jr. because he disagrees with Harry Reid on climate change. Really, the only thing in these peoples lives that is peer-reviewed are their opinions. Dont have a Reddit account? Believe in God? Skeptical about the threat of overpopulation? Who are you, Sarah Palin?
It's very common for conservatives to run across liberals who don't know jack but assume the posture of being scientifically literate and this only because they're liberals. A liberal, in their conception, is intelligent and scientifically literate and one need not actually know anything about anything because to be liberal means that one is always correct.
It's the cheap and transparent posturing of liberals which is as offensive as a skunk's stench to non-liberals. Here's a news flash for you - adherence to dogma doesn't equate with being sciency or enlightened. The liberal tends to really rely on appeal to authority as the basis for their belief in their own science sophistication. They can't though, generally, argue their way out of a wet paper bag when someone questions the validity of the position presented by liberal appeal to authority. Here's a hint for you - to be enlightened means that one has the mental horsepower to power your way through an analysis of a situation or argument, to make a case, to refute, to question, to seek answer. This was all settled back in Galileo's time when he battled the Aristotelians.
The complaint is that liberals have tended to regress back to Aristotelian appeals to authority as the basis for their self-image of being scientifically literate wunderkinds. The persona of being intelligent and enlightened that liberals wear like a cloak is what rubs people the wrong way. It's like liberals have forgotten that reputations have to be earned and you don't get to wear a persona through association. If one liberal is intelligent and well-spoken that doesn't mean that you get to benefit from the reputation that he's earned for himself by showing himself to be intelligent and well-spoken.
^^^You completely missed my point, but I suppose that is no surprise.
Blaming it all on "the bankers" is too close to Nazi rhetoric for me.
Big Pharma, Big Corn, Big Oil, Big Labor, etc, etc, have just as much if not more control than Wall Street does.
Blaming it all on "the bankers" is too close to Nazi rhetoric for me.
Big Pharma, Big Corn, Big Oil, Big Labor, etc, etc, have just as much if not more control than Wall Street does.
Blaming it all on "the bankers" is too close to Nazi rhetoric for me.
Big Pharma, Big Corn, Big Oil, Big Labor, etc, etc, have just as much if not more control than Wall Street does.
Big Academia, Big Medicine.
The problem, in short, is with rentseekers.
Yeah, the same kind of backlash that suggested the world was round instead of flat. "Global warming" (renamed climate change) has been shown to rely on bad science and selective "evidence". It's funny that the same people who unquestioningly worship at the feet of "scientists" used to preach "question authority".
Right-Wing Backlash Against 'Smartypants' Like Neil deGrasse Tyson | Alternet
If theres one belief that binds the disparate factions of the American right together, its the belief in American exceptionalism, both for the nation and for individuals. The mythology that conservatism is about promoting excellence and encouraging strivers is found throughout conservative media and literature, from the story of John Galt in Ayn Rands Atlas Shrugged to Reagans description of America as a shining city on a hill. While it often manifests as contempt for the poor and the vulnerable, in the abstract this conservative enthusiasm for doing better could, in theory, be channeled productively toward actually pushing people to achieve.
So why are so many conservatives abandoning this enthusiasm for the exceptional in favor of what can only be described as jealous sniping aimed at people who are actually trying to expand the world creatively and scientifically? Theres a lot of high-falutin talk on the right about supporting the strivers, but in practice, the conservative response to someone who tries to stick his head above the crowd is to beat it down with a hammer. Conservatives may think of themselves as lovers of excellence, but in reality, Who do you think you are? is swiftly becoming an unofficial right-wing motto.
Its easy to see why, despite their supposed enthusiasm for excellence, conservative pundits would offer up liberal scientists, journalists, and artists as hate objects for their base. This is a time of economic instability and ordinary people are seeing their fortunes declining. Its easy to turn that anxiety into rage at people conservative audiences think have easy, charmed lives as coastal elites.
But in doing so, conservative pundits are exploiting their audiences, turning their class-based anger away from the people who are actually causing their economic problems, such as the Wall Street elite, and toward people who may be successful but who are not doing any harm to other Americans and are often trying to help them. If you can get your audiences to hate journalists and scientists, they won't hate the wealthy bankers who actually screwed them over.
Why is the right so dead set against education and success by Americans? Why do they hate and fear American excellence?
Blaming it all on "the bankers" is too close to Nazi rhetoric for me.
Big Pharma, Big Corn, Big Oil, Big Labor, etc, etc, have just as much if not more control than Wall Street does.
You do damage to your argument using sources like Alternet.
