It’s common wisdom that Liberals have greater compassion for the poor and downtrodden than their conservative counterparts. They champion public policy initiatives to give the less fortunate access to a better education, quality health care, and a whole host of other social services to prevent them from sliding through the cracks of our society. Liberals want to create true equality in this country, where everyone – regardless of race, class, gender, or creed – has the same opportunities at the starting line in the marathon of life. Liberals speak for the common man. Meanwhile, conservatives – we’re so often told – care more about limiting the size of government and preserving individual economic freedom, especially for the wealthy, than helping the needy.
I don’t doubt that this is true; I’m a Liberal myself. But I’m here to tell you a dirty little secret about what goes on in the liberal’s mind when he expends enormous amounts of energy doing good deeds. Indeed, behind the Liberal’s charitable intentions is a darker sentiment. I’ve been in denial about this for many years, but I’ve had enough of all this repression. I have to out myself – and I’m taking all my fellow Liberals with me! You may want to sit down before I tell you this. The Liberal – are you sitting down? – has great contempt for the common man and the less fortunate in our country.
I just heard a collective outcry of outrage and incredulity – ‘What!?’ I know I’m in big trouble for dropping a bomb like this. (Thankfully, I’m not a faculty member striving for tenure.) I know, it sounds crazy, especially coming from a self-declared Liberal. How can Liberals have contempt for the very people they try so hard to help? As I’ve already conceded, liberals do have greater compassion for the less fortunate, and they support policies that give people an equal chance to succeed in life. But it doesn’t follow that their greater compassion means they actually like and respect the common working (and unemployed) stiffs they represent. It really doesn’t. I challenge all you outraged Liberals to take an honest look at yourselves and ask – ‘Do I actually like the people who make up the lower-classes? Would I want to hang out with them? Invite them to come along to the latest art exhibit at the MFA? To the latest Rohmer film playing in Northampton? To the local micro-brewery for a few pints of their house porter and a discussion about the performativity of gender as depicted in Boys Don’t Cry? To my next book club meeting where we’ll indulge in a little wine and cheese while discussing the multicultural marvels of Zadie Smith’s debut novel White Teeth?’ Don’t kid yourselves.
We generally assume that our sympathies lie with people we like. But this isn’t always the case. We often feel bad for those we consider inferior, people to whom our hearts cry out, but whose presence at our Saturday evening cocktail party would only elicit embarrassment. Remember, the common man drinks Coors and doesn’t know or care that his purchase not only reflects his poor tastes but also supports an abominably right-wing (did I hear fascist?) family. Also remember, this Joe Six-Pack is a NASCAR enthusiast, drives through sleet and snow to attend the Monster Truck show performing 100 miles away, watches the WWF with no sense of irony, proudly sports a mullet hair-do, and fails to understand that the likes of Archie Bunker and Al Bundy are actually parodies of working-class ignorance, not paragons of working-class common sense. Does this sound horribly elitist – and classist? Of course it does. Elitism is at the heart of Liberalism.
Did I just hear another collective cry of outrage? Maybe it’s just my imagination. If you still don’t believe me, let’s take a closer look at Liberal public policy to see if we can find signs of elitism. We’ve already established that Liberals favor compassionate social policy. No argument there. But left-wing intellectuals reveal their contemptuous paternalism in the very design of their policy initiatives. For example, Liberals were the architects, and continue to be the ardent supporters of, federal nutrition programs like food stamps and school lunch. Instead of leaving the unfortunate to their own devices with a wad of cash, Liberals give them food stamps to make sure they buy food for their children and don’t squander their money on scratch tickets or booze. Believing the poor and downtrodden are too stupid to make intelligent decisions independently, Liberals engineer social programs that control the behavior of its recipients. We don’t trust these people to spend their money wisely. And we shouldn’t, because these people will make poor decisions – more often than not. The needy are a product of their socialization – i.e. (pick your poison), unfortunate economic circumstances, inadequate education, excessively dysfunctional family life – and are not always in the position to make the kind of informed decisions we would make. We Liberals understand this and have compassion for people in unfortunate circumstances, but we surely don’t have respect for them as equals. Instead, we pity them for not being knowledgeable and enlightened like we are. With our policies we show our contempt by treating the unfortunate like children – not our own children, mind you, but rather faceless orphans, wards of the state.
When I suggested to a friend of mine, George Thomas, a regular contributor to The Collegian, that he respond to my article in print, he said – ‘What do I have to add? You do a wonderful job of putting the knife to your own kind – the Liberal. You don’t need my assistance.’ Perhaps. But I believe it’s a healthy exercise to put our own values to the test, to skewer them until we see the ugly and unappetizing insides. Blindly adhering to our ideas without reflection is not only irresponsible but also dangerous. Twentieth century history teaches us that when sanctimonious do-gooders reduce their wards to abstractions and carry out their social engineering projects without reflection, they become totalitarian monsters. Stalin and Mao are two of the more notorious examples.
Despite our having enjoyed one of the longest economic booms in world history, inequality has continued to grow in the United States. The gap between the privileged and the unfortunate is widening, and it becomes more difficult for these two groups to find common ground in the middle-class ethos. Their worlds have become increasingly alien to one another. The middle-class is disappearing. Mix this troubling trend with the right historical circumstances to give the Left a significant political presence (however unlikely), add a self-righteous Liberal elite that refuses to acknowledge its dark side, and we have concocted a formula for the rise of an American Pol Pot.
Maybe George Lucas has something to teach us here. Luke Skywalker had to come to terms with his origins – his father’s turn to the dark side – and the darkness and fear within himself before he could defeat the Empire. His father, Anakin, had similarly noble intentions in his youth but was drawn to the dark side because he failed to acknowledge and thereby tame the evil in his own heart.
Despite his capacity for following in the footsteps of Darth Vader, allow me briefly to defend the Liberal. His compassion may in part stem from his contempt for the underclass and the common man, but at least he’s not guilty of a greater crime -indifference. Our conservative friends, for all their talk of preserving individual liberty, in the end just don’t give a crap about the suffering of the unfortunate. At least the Liberal does. But to keep himself grounded, the Liberal must only remember to temper his do-goodism with an occasional dose of self-awareness. That’s, I hope, where I come in – to be the Yoda to you Luke Skywalkers out there.
Robert J. Lacey is a UMass graduate student.
bendee: Robert J. Lacey
