Back in the 1960s and 1970s, liberal hypocrisy manifested itself most acutely in their practical choices about minorities, for instance sending their own kids to exclusive private schools while supporting forced busing for middle-class families of lesser means. This was best memorialized in Phil Ochs’s classic folk tune, “Love Me, I’m a Liberal” —
. . . and I love Puerto Ricans and negroes,
As long as they don’t move next door!
So love me, love me, love me, I’m a liberal.
Ah, the people of old Mississippi
Should all hang their heads in shame.
Now I can’t understand how their minds work,
What’s the matter — don’t they watch Les Crane?
But if you ask me to bus my children,
I hope the cops take down your name.
So love me, love me, love me, I’m a liberal.
This hasn’t changed, of course: Rich liberals still send their kids to exclusive private schools while steadfastly opposing school choice for low-income minorities. But the new face of liberal hypocrisy is environmental, Al Gore’s private plane trips and energy-hogging mansions being well-known examples.
Elizabeth Rosenthal offers a splendid piece on the subject in the Sunday New York Times entitled “Green Development? Not in My (Liberal) Backyard.” She notes how widespread is liberal opposition to wind-power projects, bike lanes, and other things green that they want the rest of us to embrace. Rosenthal seems a little befuddled by it all:
Policymakers in the United States have been repeatedly frustrated by constituents who profess to worry about the climate and count themselves as environmentalists, but prove unwilling to adjust their lifestyles or change their behavior in any significant way. In Europe, bike lanes crisscross cities, wind turbines appear in counties with high-priced country homes and plants that make green energy from waste are situated in even the wealthiest neighborhoods. So what is going on here?
One difference is that the U.S. allows environmentalists to block or slow up anything with a lawsuit. Europe and Canada don’t tolerate this. By one recent count, there are at least 70 proposed wind-power projects being held up by environmental lawsuits. Meanwhile, there are multiple lawsuits blocking several solar-power projects in the California desert, one of the few places where solar power might — perhaps — make some sense. And Al Gore wonders why people don’t take him seriously?
I thought it fitting that Drudge was plastered with Chernobylesque headlines yesterday while Bing had a photo of coal cars lined up. I am pretty sure nukes will not be coming back anytime soon (the greeners will not allow it).
Which leaves their preferred way to save earth--killing babies. Who knew Gaia's appetite for blood was as voracious as Baal's?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBeing a liberal means demanding that other people have to live up to your standards. It doesn't mean that you have to live up to your own standards.
Kind of like a certain president who chastised rich people for abusing tax "loopholes", while at the same time donating used underwear to charity.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMeanwhile, elitist dimwits like Thomas Friedman lament that the USA can't proceed boldly on green energy like their beloved Chinese tyrants; completely oblivious that it's the very environmentalists they champion who represent the greatest obstacle to progress and development.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAgain with the myth of the "rich liberal":
"Back in the 1960s and 1970s, liberal hypocrisy manifested itself most acutely in their practical choices about minorities, for instance sending their own kids to exclusive private schools while supporting forced busing for middle-class families of lesser means."
I think conservatives would do well to familiarize with the wealth of statistical data that show that "rich" Americans vote overwhelmingly Republican, and as you move down the income scale, voting trends get bluer and bluer until you reach the lowest income levels, who vote almost entirely Democrat. The maps here paint the picture pretty starkly:
External Link
It may be comforting to think of your opponents as rich hypocrites, sending their kids to exclusive private schools. The truth, if you're interested, is that the majority of working and middle class people are Democrats, and the VAST majority of Democrats send their kids to public schools - to a greater degree than their Republican neighbors. So Steven Hayward and Phil Ochs can keep this mythical elite alive in writing and song, but truth is that they represent a tiny portion of the Democratic party.
As for environmentalism, I agree America has a persistent and troubling case of NIMBY-ism, and it's certainly not contained to liberals (or environmentalism).
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou may notice that the NYT turned comments OFF for this article.
NIMBYs in rich San Mateo county have blocked BART from connecting San Francisco with San Jose for over 50 years now. Any chance they will permit "High Speed Rail" to cross their county when the time comes?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBmore Liberal apparently was raised on lead paint chips. The statistical evidence shows the rich vote and donate to liberals. There was a great article about this in the Standard with this accompanying chart.
As is clear, the rich folks are voting for and donating to liberals. Moonbats need to believe the myths, but that's just part of the religion.
Liberalism is a religion, one that requires little in the way of sacrifice from the adherents, but stokes their moral vanity. Skipper and Muffy "feel" good about supporting green nonsense, as long as they don't have to deal with the unpleasant parts.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"As for environmentalism, I agree America has a persistent and troubling case of NIMBY-ism, and it's certainly not contained to liberals (or environmentalism)."
Huh? That makes no sense. The primary purveyors of NIMBY-ism are the "environmentalists" who declare everything to be an environmental crime of some sort. Are you that desperate to shield the Green Religion from criticism that you'll deny the bare facts?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNever mind that BMore's chart shows the result of exactly one election which had many, many more factors at play than simple socioeconomic status, and which was unusual in result in many ways. An indication of how people vote as a general matter? Absurd.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBmore Liberal, my guess is that if there is data with a high enough ceiling, it would show that there is an inflection point where more wealth is correlated with more liberal notions. It would be similar to the way Democrats do best with high school dropouts and PhD's. I doubt there is, as there probably isn't solid polling on people earning 200k+, 500k+, maybe 1 million+. Lawyers, investment bankers, the entertainment industry, and professional sports might be enough to tip the balance here.
Aside from that, my recollection of my elite private school was that it was filled with liberals with liberal parents.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAs a (minor) bit of trivia...Och's originally wrote "Love me, I'm a Liberal" to make fun of those who weren't far enough to the left, who he saw as sellouts and weak-sisters. It was remade in the 90s by Jello Biafra and Mojo Nixon to reflect the Clinton-era, a version well worth listening to...
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBMore Lib is just playing the classic "look over there" game progressives play when confronted with their own hypocrisy; trying to change the subject from the progressive left's hypocritical stances on the environment and public education to who donates more to which party (and not being honest about that latter point besides).
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse@Diogenes: funny, my public school was also filled with liberals with liberal parents - it's a wonder we ever lose elections!
@Zman, aside from making throw away ad-hominem attacks, refutes the academic study I cited about voting patterns with an article in the weekly standard about campaign contributions. Hm. Who's eating lead paint chips?
@Rob Crawford: perhaps this is the first you've heard of NIMBY-ism, but environmentalists are certainly not "the primary purveyors" of it. In fact, the term is most often used in regard to potentially harmful development like nuclear plants, chemical plants, skyscrapers, etc. - hardly pet projects of environmentalists. Learn basic facts before accusing others of denying them.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseActually they don't even have to send their kids to private schools. Upper middle class liberals who don't want to pay private school tuition simply create public "magnet schools" and "optional programs" to separate their kids from minorities they don't like. On occasion they might attend the same school together, but they almost never sit in the same classrooms.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse** "I think conservatives would do well to familiarize with the wealth of statistical data that show that "rich" Americans vote overwhelmingly Republican" **
I guess it depends on the rich to whom you refer - the working "rich," or the more idle kind. I give you 5 counties in mostly conservative, Western states: Blaine County, Idaho (Sun Valley), Summit County, Utah (Park City), Teton County, Wyoming (Jackson Hole), and Eagle and Pitkin Counties in Colorado (Vail and Aspen, respectively). These 5 counties are all easily among the most liberal in their states.
In Utah McCain won by 29 points. In Summit County, though, he lost by 16.
The other counties:
Pitkin (-9, -49)
Eagle (-9, -23)
Blaine (25, -34)
Teton (32, -24)
In other words, in the richest counties in these 4 states - among the richest counties in the nation - Obama did far, far better than he did in the state overall, or in the nation, where he only won by 6 points.
Of course now that you know that the idle rich lean Left, that proves not that the Right is greedy, but that the Left is more enlightened.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOchs also said he could never be as moral as his songs :-)
But are you saying you'd prefer liberals to be dogmatic leftists? It seems to me that far from criticizing the hypocrisy, we should praise it - and generalize from it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOne thing that European and American alternative energy projects have in common, and that they will always have in common, is that none of them will ever have any measurable effect on the climate.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNYC Resident: So you think placing burdens on others that you are not willing to bear yourself, is praise worthy?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMarkW-
I think there is something to be said for favoring practicality over consistency. Moreover, the fact that some liberals idealize one thing but do another opens the door to an argument that the principle is in need of revision.
It's not enough to lambaste liberals for hypocrisy, because the solution could easily go the opposite way conservative intend.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"It's not enough to lambaste liberals for hypocrisy, because the solution could easily go the opposite way conservative intend."
No, because they're not willing to walk the talk. Period.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse