It's Because I'm Such a SNOB

[NanceGreggs]

It’s Because I’m Such a SNOB
By Nancy Greggs

With all of the discussion of late as to why once chooses to be a Democrat or a Republican, I thought I’d do a little examination-of-conscience as it were, in an attempt to figure out why my political leanings are what they are.

In doing so, I have figured out the ultimate reason for being a Democrat – and it’s time to ‘fess up.

I realized that I chose to be part of a group that uses intellect and common sense to approach the challenges that face our nation. I cannot abide stupidity, or a deliberate ignorance of the facts. I have no patience for those who mimic talking points instead of formulating their own ideas. I abhor the notion of blindly accepting what is said when it is in total contrast to what is done.

In short, I am a SNOB. I’m just not dumb enough to be a Republican, especially these days.

I am too intelligent not to notice that the GOP’s idea of fiscal responsibility has led to a national debt figure that is beginning to rival the number of grains of sand on the average 200-mile stretch of beach. If only I wasn’t smart enough to comprehend the most basic principles of mathematics, I might not have put two and two together.

My ability to not only read, but to comprehend what I am reading, is also a big obstacle in embracing the GOP, along with the intellectual capacity to retain what I have heard. I just don’t have the required idiocy to hear Bush or Cheney say one thing one day, and the opposite thing the next, and not realize that they’re lying. If only I were stupid enough to totally erase statements like “we’re invading Iraq to destroy their WMDs” the minute I hear “we’re invading Iraq to liberate its people from a dictatorship”, the Republicans might have had a fighting chance. But I am just too damned smart to forget what was said from one day to the next, and not stupid enough to not notice the contradictions.

Language skills have probably posed a bigger obstacle than most when it comes to accepting the things the GOP trots out. Again, this is where the SNOB factor comes in, but I really find it downright amusing that anyone would be dumb enough to place their unwavering trust in a man who extols the importance of putting food on one’s family – or, more to the point, entered the presidential race with a complete inability to pronounce the word nuclear (as though it would never come up in conversation). There's my inner SNOB again, totally dismissing an allegedly university-educated man on the basis that if he can't speak coherently, maybe he shouldn't be running a country.

There have just been too many concepts advanced by the current crop of Republicans that I am too well-educated to accept – like the earth being 6,000 years old (because you can’t dis the Fundies), the internets being a series of tubes (because you can’t dis one of your own), or global warming being a conspiracy perpetrated by the solar or wind-energy conglomerate (because you can’t dis the oil companies – who, as we all know, have the best interests of the environment at heart).

Along with the IQ factor, there’s also the fact that common sense keeps rearing its ugly head, which keeps me from wrapping my well-functioning brain around certain theories, like the War on Terror having to be won while our actions keep recruiting more terrorists, or torture being the sure-fire way to win hearts and minds.

And when logic comes into play, the Republican mindset really loses me. We should take the advice of the PNAC boys, because they’ve never been right about anything. We should accept that this administration can keep the country safe, because they couldn’t get food and water to NOLA in the aftermath of Katrina. We should understand that Supporting the Troops is best expressed by not equipping them for combat, and then ignoring them when they come home wounded and in need of care.

No offence, GOP, but I am just too intelligent to be one of you. That’s because I am a SNOB, insistent on throwing my lot in with people who make sense, people who base their policies on facts rather than ever-more-ridiculous fantasies, a party that relies on appealing to the intelligent rather than preying on the easily-manipulated brain-dead.

What can I say, except that I am proud to be a Democrat, the obvious refuge of the well-informed, well-educated, well-read SNOB.

Perhaps I can couch it in more palatable terms, just to be kind: If I were as dumb as the proverbial post, you can rest assured that the Republican Party would have been my first and only choice. And that's a fact.

[Chemical Bill]

1. You tell em! n/t

[PurpleChez]

2. Count me as another proud snob.

[PDJane]

3. You go, girl!

[JohnnyLib2]

4. Yes, you are. Many of us are. And Limbaugh has been exposing

us for years. His formula is straightforward: label intelligence, education, common sense and logic as snobbish, elitist, and all attributes to be ridiculed. Thank you for helping us stand proud. Who knows, you may be able to resuscitate the word "liberal" one fine day!

K & R

:kick: :applause: :dem:

[MadMaddie]

5. Nance....I guess that makes me a snob too...

not being afraid of every minute of every day like the Repuglics...

Thanks Nance for pointing out that the basis of Democracy is for the citizen to challenge it's government when it is necessary and that involves thinking, analyzing, challenging and plain looking at the facts.


2007 it is necessary....My fellow Snobs keep up the pressure and honor the Constitution!!

Thanks Nance!

K & R

[babylonsister]

6. Big nom here, Nance!

The big problem is ignorance, fer suur!

[JeffR]

7. I thought there was gunfire in the neighborhood

until I realized it was the distant sound of heads exploding at the site-that-cannot-be-named-here.

K & R!
:kick:

[JeffR]

8. BTW, everyone

She does not eat snails and has not, to my knowledge, read The Divine Comedy or the Aeneid.

[tavalon]

9. Yup

It's a problem having a brain. Would that more suffered with that malady.

[Duppers]

10. Bravo!

I've been told that I'm a snob too by many who don't like the fact that I'm not one of the dumb-as-dirt pod people. The name of their game is conformity and this is a cultural war....and they're going to lose. We're a threat and they hate us almost as much as we now hate them.


Someone posted this link last week to an online book that highlights what we're talking about:

http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey

[Sparkly]

11. Thanks from another in the mob of snobs!

One of the things that has always irked me most about the new Republican batch o'crap is the blatant anti-intellectual rhetoric, particularly when it comes to presidential races. (In 2000, all that talk about "nobody likes the smart guy" and "who'd you rather have a BBQ with," which of course carried over to 2004.)

I think "intellectual" as a perjorative is part of a larger stereotype they aim to create, wrapped together with words like "elitist," "New England," and of course, "liberal."

They swim with words like: hippie, yuppie, Volvo, Birkenstocks, hot tub, Chardonnay, feminized, Northern, Yankee, urban, city-folk, San Francisco, secular, humanist, artsy, pot, peacenik. Combined, it's the definition of SNOB (and/or, weirdo).

The separate package of words is what they've used Bush to represent: Good ol' boy, cowboy, average, American, heartland, regular, southern, genuine, tough, down-home, traditional, God-fearing, rural, manly...

Of course it's a false dichotomy, but I'd rather wear that SNOB label alongside you than swallow their stupid, phony pack of platitudes.

K&R!! :kick:

[qwlauren35]

12. I guess that's one perspective.

Personally, I've known a lot of intelligent Republicans in my day. VERY intelligent Republicans. I don't agree with them politically, or even philosophically. But I don't go around suggesting that ALL OF THEM are unintelligent.

I'm fairly convinced that we have a complete moron for a president. And I'm not happy that the power brokers within the Republican Party support him. But I respect the fact that they feel obligated to do so, NOT because they like or respect him, but because to do anything else would damage the party. And possibly bring an end to the benefits they derive from having control of the White House.

There seems to be a lot of name-calling on the boards today. I wish we were above that, but I guess not.

If she had said self-centered, I could go along with it. Myopic and short-sighted, yes. Arrogant, yes. Unconcerned about the poor, definitely. Irresponsible in regards to the environment - absolutely.

But unintelligent? Nope. Just can't go there.

[Sparkly]

13. I think her point is the willingness to set aside their intellect

to buy into the GOP spin. Their abilities to read, comprehend, observe, etc. are subjugated to their desire to believe the unbelievable.

[qwlauren35]

14. And I just don't see it.

I'm not talking about "the masses". I'm talking about the top dogs. They're not stupid. They're getting horribly, ridiculously, incredibly rich. And frankly, so are a lot of people underneath of them who are following the stock market and investing heavily in the companies getting rich from the war...

That's why I said that they are self-centered and myopic. They don't care what this does to anyone else, as long as it makes them rich.

Now, if you're talking about the people who don't see this at all, and don't even know it's happening... well, yes, I question their intelligence. Just as I question anyone who is paying more attention to Anna Nicole Smith than to the pending vote in congress over the Iraqi war. (Unless it's a form of denial - a soldier's spouse who is trying to avoid thinking about the subject isn't stupid. Just overwhelmed.)

But similarly, if you're talking about people who are so committed to the Christian Conservative Right that they accept being stuck with Iraq, and Bush, just to avoid a pro-choice administration that supports an expansion of gay civil rights... well, that's not "stupid" either. No single word describes it, but stupid doesn't fit.

Please don't get me wrong; there are some really ignorant Americans in our country. But frankly, a lot of them don't vote period. And they are the ones who really piss me off.

[NanceGreggs]

15. I AM talking about "the masses" here ...

... the people who hear the prez, the administration, et al caught in one lie after another, but simply ignore the contradictions.

Case in point: Ask a Bush supporter how the War on Terror is ever going to be won. They acknowledge that for each alleged terrorist killed, another dozen are incited to take their place. So how do you 'win' a war when you're the one doing the 'recruiting' for the other side, increasing their numbers every day? Their explanation -- well, they don't have one. Except to say, "Well, we've GOT to win the war on terror, that's all I know."

People who continue to accept concepts that defy not only intelligent thinking, but common sense and logic, are stupid. I don't consider that name-calling; I consider that a statement of the obvious.

[DFW]

16. Well, not to plagiarize the old Certs commercial, but

You're both right.

Obviously there are Republicans with smarts. They are not conservative in the
literal sense of the word. They are not traditionalists, and they couldn't give
a hoot about such inconvenient old concepts as the Constitution and its bothersome
Bill of Rights.

The intelligent ones are in it for one or both of two things: money and control.
Do not confuse being a control freak with being conservative. The control freak,
through some quirk (some would say, grave defect) in their personality, cannot be
at all at peace with themselves unless they control the thoughts and lives of others.

The ones out for the money will say and do anything to amass more wealth. They'll
cloak their desire for it in terms of patriotism and militarism, fervent nationalism,
but they're out to get rich, and they don't care on whose back.

There are a few, a VERY few, who believe it is better to fight for the rights and for
the control of the two groups mentioned above than it is to cede control to a party
of such diffuse and diverse ideas as the Democrats present. They are the ones who hold
their noses and vote their party, much as those Democrats who supported Howard Dean did
with John Kerry in 2004, because they couldn't go with the alternative. But these are the
very few, in my experience.

The way I see it, the smart ones without ideology, but with an agenda (control and/or money),
are the ones manipulating their (ever-dwindling) masses. It is always appealing to the
intellectually lazy to have someone else do your thinking for you. You think I'm wrong?
Then go explain the popularity of Fox Noise or National Hate Radio (Limbaugh, Coulter, etc.).
I see posts on various boards quoting these quacks word for word all the time. They're
good at what they do, and their bank balances prove it. These people are smart. Their followers
are not. These people are rich, influential, and totally devoid of any ideology except for
wanting to maintain a maximum of: attention, therefore money, therefore control, therefore
more attention. The cycle keeps them where they are, and it will do so even when the 29%
becomes 9%. That's enough to keep them in silk and limousines, and that's all they care about.

They call themselves conservative because it's convenient. The number of stupid people who
keep them in riches and in control prove just how convenient. If their control starts to
loosen, then rejoice, but don't think they'll give up without a fight. And watch out. The smart
ones fight dirty, and the stupid ones always do what the smart ones tell them to do.

[NanceGreggs]

17. I agree ...

... but I wasn't talking about the powers-that-be here - only the people who don't have the brains to weigh what is preached to them against logic and intelligent thought.

I would never dismiss the intelligence of people like Cheney -- sure, he's evil, self-serving, corrupt, greedy -- but not stupid.

I am talking here about those hangers-on who still believe everything they are told, no matter HOW contrary to logic it may be.

(Although I would have to add that there are some REALLY DUMB Republicans who have achieved office, like Santorum, Allen and Inhofe.)

While I think Bush is TRULY a moron, installing him in the WH was an incredibly smart move on the part of the Republicans (at the time, at least). He appealed to all of the people out there who thought an alleged down-home-boy -- who couldn't pronounce words correctly, didn't bother with reading newspapers, etc. -- was "one of their own", someone they could relate to.

Of course, as things have turned out (people identifying themselves as Republicans WAY DOWN, while those identifying themselves as Democrats WAY UP), people are beginning to realize that maybe having a SMART president isn't such a bad idea after all ...

[DFW]

18. Only as long as the hangers-on have something to hang on to

There still are some Republicans who have achieved office (remember that Georgia
clown who wanted the Ten Commmandments posted everywhere, but couldn't name one
of them when Colbert asked him?), although Allen and Santorum are conspicuously
and mercifully gone. Imhofe is still there, embarrassing the people of Oklahoma,
but he is an endangered species at the moment (a rare case where I support extinction).

A smart president is usually good, but not always what the nation wants, unfortunately.
We were clever enough to figure out that Bill Clinton was a better choice than Bush, Sr.
or Bob Dole, but not clever enough to prevent Bush Lite from attaining office. Don't
forget Adlai Stevenson's legendary (and disputed) reply to the woman who is supposed to
have called out to him in the 1950s "you have the support of every thinking American!"
whereupon Stevenson is said to have answered, "That's not enough! I need a majority!"


One bit for contemplation---how can there be so many Bush supporters out there who want
English as the sole and official language of the United States? Shouldn't their standard
bearer be required to master it first before they require it of the rest of the country?

[NanceGreggs]

20. Great post, DFW!

The Stevenson line is classic!

I think the nation always wants a smart president -- unfortunately, the level of 'smarts' considered necesary can vary, depending on the state of the nation.

Let's not forget that when Clinton left office and Bush was (ha, ha) elected, things were going well. There was a surplus, we were at peace, the economy was doing well, etc.

So along comes an idiot like Bush, and people think, "Well, everything is going along swimmingly, so we just need a guy who can maintain the status-quo -- and, in the meantime, can tackle things like abortion rights, gay marriage, flag-burning, and so on."

It's when the country is in real TROUBLE, as it is now, that people start wanting not only a president who is smart, but one who is ULTRA SMART (i.e. smart enough to know how to turn things around.)

It's like home repairs, to use a simple analogy. When your garden hose is leaking, you figure any dummy can fix the problem. When your roof is leaking and your house gets flooded every time it rains, you start thinking that maybe you need a real professional for the job.

I think the nation is starting to realize that it's time for a real professional ... while the 29-percenter dummies still think a bit of duct-tape and chewing gum will do the job.

[DFW]

21. Thanks, Nance, but I wonder sometimes...

DOES the nation always want a smart president? Bush Lite NEVER gave the
impression he was anything of the sort, although he does exhibit the sort
of street smarts one might expect from a sewer rat in Manhattan who knows
how to survive the winter.

But there are times, as you pointed out, when the nation does seem to reach
a point of general contentment, and this is when we are at our most vulnerable.
The collapse of the economy that gave us the Great Depression came on the heels
of the Roaring Twenties. Bush Lite got in not because Clinton did such a bad job,
but because he did such a decent job. Under our system, no president should be
able to amass the power to do everything he or she wants, because though we can
have such benevolent presidents as Bill Clinton, we can also suffer under the
likes of Bush, whose intentions lie in the opposite direction.

The shame of it is that even though a two-term president left the country in decent
shape, we still received not another capable leader, but a camp counselor.
That is a complacency that we as a nation dare not afford ourselves. No greater
indication of that exists than the two administrations of Bush Lite, although
Reagan was the most beloved campfire story-teller the country has had. The RW campers
of this country still revere him, despite the mess he left behind.

Like Stevenson said--all thinking Americans is not enough.

[NanceGreggs]

22. Yes, exactly my point ...

... because things were going well after Clinton, too many people thought we could "afford" a less-than-vigilant administration -- because hey, what could go WRONG?!?

Voters should be educated in terms of not choosing the guy you think can handle things when they're already running smoothly -- think about the guy you want in the WH when the unthinkable happens -- because in today's world, the "unthinkable" could be just around the corner ...

[Cabcere]

19. Zing!

Scathing as usual, Ms. Greggs. :)

[mloutre]

23. Nance, you over-educated elitist liberal snob. You're probably French too, right?

All seriousness aside, this is a particularly inspired rant this time. More to the point, it's also true. And you wrote it so gosh-darn well, too. What can I say, you rock. Totally. You blew me away with this one. I'm in your thrall now. I want to have your babies, even.

:0)

[blondie58]

24. bravo, bravo , bravissimo

a most excellent rant- and yet once again, you have me all riled up.


Perhaps they should be challenged to something a little more intellectual at the next Presidential debate- say a spelling bee, or a debate-using facts.

I just hope that the average American sees what we, as the upper class- see.