The ‘Science’ Behind Liberal ‘Superiority’

Nobody enjoys being lectured by self-satisfied, self-styled "superiors," especially those who disregard civil norms.

Public discourse isn’t improved by one side’s refusal to understand or even acknowledge opposing arguments.

Yet these are the ways in which some American progressives view themselves and conduct "debate."

Rather than considering all views, many liberals approach simple disagreement condescendingly, often acrimoniously, convinced that conservative viewpoints are stupid, meritless or, worse, evil and ignore or demonize them.

Their willful ignorance produces stunning examples of cognitive dissonance.

The left is littered with gun-control advocates who employ armed bodyguards , voucher opponents who send their kids to private schools and minimum-wage-hike proponents who pay staff less than the minimum wage – or nothing.

Progressives aren’t conflicted by advocating for "fairness" while their politicians grant unfair access to wealthy donors at $15,000 per-plate fund-raisers.

Progressive environmentalists approve massive carbon emissions — if they’re emitted by the right people.

The Blaze reported: "While touting green technology, and lobbying the federal government on environmental policy, Sergey Brin, Larry Page, and Eric Schmidt have put 3.4 million miles on their private jets…polluting the atmosphere with 100 million pounds of carbon dioxide."

Billionaire environmentalist Tom Steyer supports lawmakers who favor building the Keystone Pipeline — as long as they’re Democrats.

Some liberals who impose laws and regulations follow different – or no — rules.
In 2009, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner testified before Representative Charles Rangel’s House Ways and Means Committee to propose "a series of legislative and enforcement measures to reduce…tax evasion and avoidance."

Geithner had failed to pay nearly $40,000 in taxes, while Rangel was under investigation and eventually censured for tax evasion and failing to report income.

One "principle" explains these paradoxes: The more politically influential, well-connected or wealthy — and progressive — they are, the more immunity privileged Americans enjoy from the rules they seek to impose on others.

Many liberals see no conflict, or even irony, in supporting abortion, including late-term abortion, and public funding for abortion providers while condemning capital punishment as "unenlightened barbarism."

Liberal mobs demand "tolerance" and "inclusion" but see no inconsistency in enforcing their own unwritten, perverse "right-to-work law" causing Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich to be "resigned" for supporting the same legal and cultural standards for marriage their liberal president did until 2012.

Progressive dissonances include advocating general amnesty for illegals while forcing legal applicants for citizenship to wait abroad for years and pay for the privilege; insisting that America spends too little while outspending receipts by trillions; and encouraging able-bodied Americans to become government dependents rather than self-reliant.

If more illegals and more dependents meant more conservatives, would progressives demand secure borders and personal responsibility?

But, liberals’ greatest cognitive dissonance may be their definition of "diversity" which includes everybody — who aligns with them politically. Liberals reject conservative blacks , Hispanics and women as authentic advocates for their race, ethnicity or gender, because they hold unacceptably diverse views.

Much of progressive social "science" is formed by confirmation bias, "scholarship" which begins by establishing a premise and then working to discover the "data" and uncover the "evidence" which supports it. Accordingly, sociology is a science much like astrology is. Examples abound.

The "intellectual" foundation of progressive superiority is buttressed by liberals like Chris Mooney, author of "The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Deny Science – and Reality."

Mooney suggests that liberals "score higher on a personality measure called ‘openness to experience."’ And conservatives, "in contrast, tend to be less open – less exploratory, less in need of change."

Unsurprisingly, Mooney doesn’t explain or even acknowledge conservatives who advocate policy changes in education, spending and the tax code, seek regulatory, Social Security and welfare reform or progressives who cling to the status quo.
To meet Mooney’s standard for "openness to experience," one must embrace liberal orthodoxy. It never works the other way. Reflexive liberals describe deviations as "hatred," "stupidity," "racism," "misogyny" or "greed," among other affectionate sobriquets, no matter how well-expressed, intellectually-grounded or fact-based their opposition’s reasoning.

Convinced of their rectitude, liberals dislike debating their notions of culture, the size of government, the promises it’s already broken or the uncontrolled spending which has "stimulated" America’s massive debt, but, when forced to engage, their arguments which ignore, vilify or shout down conservative views aren’t really arguments at all.

They’re merely insecure, intellectually weak evasions.

http://www.pennlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2014/04/from_immigration_to_racism_enj.html#comments