The Pompous Liberal Chattering Class

Five years certainly hasn’t changed much for members of Maryland’s liberal chattering class have come out of the woodwork to lecture the “rubes” about issues of grave importance in modern day liberal salons and cocktail parties.

The first (and most vitriolic) of the pieces was by Barry Rascovar on Monday, addressing his misconceptions on immigration policy in the Republican Party. Rascovar’s piece frankly was a barely coherent mish-mash of hate and vitriol that was an amalgamation of MSNBC stereotypes of Republican Policy.

Here are just some, and I use this term loosely, “thoughts” from Rascovar’s column:

  • “Or is it just that Republicans are narrow-minded bigots?” 
  • “It seems they don’t want anyone entering this country unless the immigrants are Anglo-Saxon Christians who believe the “G” in GOP stands for God.” 
  • “Hostility toward immigrants is in the Grand Old Party’s DNA.” 
  • “Discrimination is alive and well in the Republican Party’s Maryland branch.”
  • “They don’t want immigrants coming to this country and they don’t want to do anything to help stem the tide – other than stationing armed troops on our southern border.”
Mind you, Rascovar’s ad hominem attack against Republicans, from Maryland in particular, is of course absurdly false and not back up with anything resembling a shred of evidence. There is disagreement within the Party (as it is the Democrats, incidentally) on how to deal with the current border crisis. There is no wing of the Party that wishes to close the borders entirely. And among the leaders of anti-Chinese venom that Rascovar tried to pin on 19th century Republicans included prominent Democratic legislators of the time, as well as labor-union hero Samuel Gompers and the American Federation of Labor.

A nice compliment to Rascovar’s hate-screed against Republicans came from the O’Malley house organ, Center Maryland. Sure, Mark Newgent has not once but twice completely discredited Laslo Boyd before, but that didn’t stop Boyd from talking about “The War on Reason.” In actuality, the “War on Reason” that Boyd decries is the war in support of science against Junk Science. Boyd even channeled Rascovar’s mention of the “Know-Nothings” when it came, in particular, to climate change.

Here’s the key takeaway of Boyd’s piece:
Anyone reading this column can easily fill in the specific issues to which I am alluding. Climate change is an established fact, not a debatable theory. We have visible evidence all around us. The oft-cited figure that 97% of the scientific community agrees on the findings has not stopped opponents from ridiculing and ignoring reality. Every time there is a cold day, some clever Fox talking head giggles about “global warming.”

For those unwilling to acknowledge the challenge of climate change, it would at least be honest to admit that you don’t care at all about future generations or about the quality of life on this planet. The challenge for those who accept science is to stop wasting their efforts trying to convince the deniers and focus on creating a political consensus among those still willing to use reason.

What Boyd of course fails to point out is the fact that nobody denies that climate change is happening. The climate changes all the time and it has changed several times over the last several billion years. But even Boyd’s facts are wrong. The idea that “Climate change is an established fact, not a debatable theory” is true, but the debate is over whether humans have any impact on climate change and to what extent is where the debate is. One of the reasons that Boyd is referring to “climate change” instead of “global warming” is the fact that the science is far from settled and prominent meteorologists like Joe Bastardi and others are skeptics. Charles W. Cooke wrote about the science problem in National Review and Kris von Csefalvay wrote about the geek problem and the separation of science from God. Both pieces show that the mainstream liberal acceptance of science has little to do with actual scientific inquiry. 

Of course, one reason Boyd may be such a cheerleader for “reason” is that Center Maryland and KO Public Affairs stand to profit from hysteria about these ideas.

The truly damning part about Boyd’s piece is his talk about “creating a political consensus among those still willing to use reason.” What exactly is his definition of reason? Reason would suggest that we don’t legalize one substance that has the potential to harm people while banning other substances that have no less of a capability of harming people. I’m of course talking about Boyd’s cheerleading for marijuana legalization while we are simultaneously banning moonshine and taxing the life out of cigarettesScience also tells us that children conceived in utero are, in fact, human beings. That certainly has not stopped Boyd from ridiculing pro-life arguments and ignoring reality in that instance.

Reason would also dictate that anybody who suggests that the Supreme Court staged a coup d’état in the Hobby Lobby case probably doesn’t get to define reason, but that doesn’t seem to have stopped Boyd in this case.

My point in point out these pieces has nothing to do with the content of their thoughts, because their pieces are so egregiously outrageous that their ideas don’t actually merit discussion. But it has a lot to do with the mindset of the chattering classes. Rascovar and Boyd exemplify the Pompous Liberal Chattering Class of political pundit. Their pieces and their rationale have nothing to do with arguing in favor of leftist philosophy or thought. They’re ideas are not backed up by science, or reason, or even ideological background.

Their pieces are predicated on the idea that they are better than you.

Rascovar and Boyd, from these and other pieces, truly believe that they are better positioned to determine was is rational, what is reasonable, and what is right for society more than most. They certainly believe that they are more educated and more “worldly” than any registered Republican. Rascovar may think that his 43 years covering Annapolis as a journalist or his book (so popular it’s available for one cent on Amazon) gives him some sort of sage-like wisdom that needs to be imparted upon the people. Boyd may think his doctorate from the University of Pennsylvania is supposed to impress people. But their tone and style of argument resembles something more like this:

The liberal mindset lends itself to this type of compartmentalization and this type of know-it all style. That may have worked twenty years ago, but this is the modern era of politics, journalism, and media. Boyd and Rascovar (in particular) damn well know that what they are saying is at best a stretch and and worst fabrications. People can easily find sources of news, opinion, and commentary that are outside of the old ways of doing things, something they should know given that they are now plying their wares on the Internet instead of traditional print media. They really think that they will never be called out of on their nonsense and the rude, insulting way they treat those who disagree with them politically.

Some call for the boycott of the Pompous Liberal Chattering Class. I disagree on that. We should do whatever we can to expose these type of people for what they are, and help bring people to the realization as to what the governing and chattering classes really think of middle and working class Marylanders. 

Send this to a friend