Maggie's Farm

People have more nuanced points of view and labels often do them and our country a disservice.
Perhaps you didn't pick up a nuance of the video: that it appears to have been done to illustrate some lib talking points- with effective counters to them. I see the theme of the video as "How to Defend Yourself in a Debate With a Lib." The counter-arguments are calm and logical. No one is claiming that all libs spout all of those talking points at all times, which appears to be your assumption when you state that "People have more nuanced points of view." Of course they do. But the odds are that in an exchange with a lib, a wingnut will encounter at least one of the lib talking points expressed in this video.

Big Al, no, I just prefer authentic discussion, even among those who disagree, over an assumption of stupidity and a lack of respect on either side.
Do libs claim that those who disagree with them are, e.g., stupid and/or ignorant and/or bigoted? I will not claim that all libs do it all the time, but on numerous occasions I have been accused of all of those things for having the temerity to disagree with a lib. IMHO, this is one of the main lib talking points: we libs are brighter/better educated/more enlightened etc. than those wingnuts. I call libs doing this playing the Adlai card, as they have been doing it at least that long. ["Senator, you have the vote of every thinking person!" "That's not enough, madam, we need a majority!"] It also might be called playing the Folk Song Army card.Given the long-time lib view of wingnuts, I find your statement rather interesting.

What is being skewered in this video is sloppy thinking. By and large the video is not saying to the lib, "You are stupid," but rather "Your argument is self-contradictory," or some such statement.

I speak as a Post Liberal born and raised in bluest libland.

Like it or not, the video accurately describes some lib talking points.

From the video: “Liberal elites are the brightest and best people to make decisions for everyone else.” [at the beginning] This is a very common lib talking point. Had I money for each time some lib said it to me, I would be rich.

From a family friend’s Xmas message in 2008: We start the New Year with great hope that our President elect with his vast intelligence and a cadre of the best around him can pull the Country out of this abyss we find ourselves in.

Halberstram’s “The Best and Brightest.”

Recall all the campaign claims about Obama’s high IQ, without any documentary evidence.

Need I find more quotes ?

As the video points out, this talking point contradicts another lib talking point: the Democrats are the “party of the people.” I call this the Lake Wobegon paradox. Libs claim that they are of the elite, that Democrats are brighter than average.Yet by definition, “the people” are average. Do you object to this contradiction being pointed out?


From the video: “Everyone would be a liberal if only America weren’t so dumb.” [last 1-2 minutes]

The above talking point from the video bears some resemblance to the following quotes.
The POTUS: “Part of the reason that our politics seems so tough right now, and facts and science and argument does not seem to be winning the day all the time, is because we’re hard-wired not to always think clearly when we’re scared. And the country is scared, and they have good reason to be.”


Senator Kerry: “Facts, science, truth seem to be significantly absent from what we call our political dialogue.”
The implication here is that Senator Kerry and the POTUS have “facts and science” on their side, while those who disagree with them do not. If all people were only as smart as the Senator and the POTUS, so they could marshall facts and science….[BTW, did either the Senator or the POTUS take any math or science courses in college?]


The video accurately describes some lib talking points. I fail to see what your objection is to that. Granted, not all libs will profess all of these talking points all the time. As I see it, your objection is that lib talking points are effectively skewered.

It is difficult to skewer arguments and NOT be condescending. What do you consider a nice way of stating, “Your claim is not consistent with fact X?” In addition, many libs find the mere existence of Post Liberals to be condescending to them. “I used to be a lib, but upon close examination of the facts, I decided to become a wingnut.” Neoneocon has written on this. That has also been my experience. [Given the decades-long condescending attitudes of libs towards those who disagree with them, my reply to any lib who finds the video condescending is as follows: heist on your own petard.]


With regard to treatment of the Indians and female suffrage, I am not sure that the video is correct . IMHO, there is about equal blame with regard to Indians. For example, it was Andrew Jackson who forced Indians from the Southeast US to go to Oklahoma. Most of the Indian Wars after the Civil War took place under Republican administrations. However, I doubt that Democrats greatly dissented from government policy at the time. Regarding womens' suffrage, I have no idea.

OTOH, the video is spot on that the Democratic Party was the party of slavery, secession, and segregation. These facts are conveniently absent from the Democratic Party website.