"Liberal Triumphalism." [UPDATED]

That's what Christopher calls it.  But he's a Christian, a serious one, so he's being too kind.  With no such inhibitions, I'd call it "fatuous gloating" just for starters.

In many liberal circles, one of which Christopher links to, there is an atmosphere of pious, fervid relief that at last, the good, intelligent, enlightened people are in charge, and now the world the yahoos have screwed up for the last eight years will be set right. 

Not so fast, Louie.

I voted for McCain, even though his time had clearly passed, to express my preference for divided government.  I'm reminded forcefully in these days just why.  The atmosphere of lockstep agreement and smug self-congratulation that is the great pitfall of one-party rule -- either party -- is suffocating.  It's not that I think ideological warfare is invigorating and the quest for bipartisanship is inevitably saccharine and hypocritical.  It's that I think being forced to listen -- really listen, not just pay lip service -- and to deal keeps people on both sides more honest, more real, and more representative.  To listen, we have to think; to deal, as in any marketplace, we can't dehumanize each other. 

Nobody knows for sure who's really smart and wise and enlightened.  They just think they do.  Every set of human ideas is limited and lame in some way.  The only way for our ideas to more closely approximate reality is for them to be broken.  And the only way they get broken is in contact and combat with those who disagree.

UPDATE:  "Jane's Law" is referenced by Tom Strong in the comments (after the eponymous Jane Galt of Asymmetrical Information, aka Megan McArdle).

Jane's Law: The devotees of the party in power are smug and arrogant. The devotees of the party out of power are insane.

The 2003 post from which this comes is well worth revisiting.  It revisits the excesses of Clinton Derangement Syndrome while pondering the symmetrical excesses of Bush Derangement Syndrome:

[A] substantial portion of the Republican Party seemed, long before [the impeachment] [which McArdle did not oppose], to have lost all judgement. They were insane on the subject of Clinton. It wasn't enough that they disagreed with him politically; nothing would do but that he be the AntiChrist. They flooded the airwaves and newsprint with vituperative rants about the veriest trivialities of his administration. They raged impotently at the people in America -- THE FOOLS! -- who couldn't see that Clinton was the AntiChrist, even though it was as plain as the nose on your face. Every tiny shred of news about Clinton, no matter how innocuous, was waved about as evidence of his perfidy. I recall listening to some radio commenter go on and on about some Rose Garden ceremony for some law that was, as laws go, blandly heartwarming though ultimately useless, rather than, say, totally antithetical to basic concepts of liberty. The radio host used this law, which was so boring that I can't remember its topic except that it had something to do with kids and learning, as proof of Clinton's inherent evilness. How dare he cavort with children in the Rose Garden when, as we have already seen, he's EEEEVVVVVIIIIILLLL.

Republicans, I thought, seem to be insane. (This opinion was quickly vindicated when they nominated the charming, yet thoroughly unelectable, Bob Dole.) I wonder what makes them that way?

Now I know. The loss of the presidency clearly unhinges people's minds.

Democratic websites now offer the same vast well of spleen, the same conviction that every single news item with the word "Bush" in it somehow vindicates their thesis that Bush is not merely a center-right president with tax policies they dislike, but a proto-Fascist intent on establishing a dictatorship and herding his political opponents into camps. I'm not saying that all Democrats believe this, any more than all Republicans were crazy Clinton bashers. But just as the Republicans did, they tolerate an astonishing array of nutty opinion. And a very large percentage of the commentariat, from the blogerati upwards, are totally obsessed with proving that Bush is, like, the worst president ever.

Worth keeping in mind whenever someone on the right tells you President Obama will soon be enslaving the populace in Stalinist reeducation camps.

Comments

[GN]

Not so fast, Louie. 2nd that one, please

Nobody knows for sure who's really smart and wise and enlightened. 2nd that, also

After a significant period of arrogance at the top, demands from the top for blind agreement, and rationalizations about the mis-application of all accepted rule ... there is going to be a certain amount of gloating, a certain amount of YES, YES, YES as a false confirmation of changing direction that is pretty much emotional response to the hangover experienced from the Bush years.

So it is "wait and see" for some. The real test is when there are missed steps or wrong decisions ... the rubber hits the road at that point!! The measure is not what steps are taken, but rather the ability to change course when we, as MR likes to put it, get too close to the ditch

[realpc]

Amba, you just said everything I have been thinking! My relatives are some of the people you are talking about! You explained it so perfectly. I was getting frustrated trying to explain to myself why it can't possibly be true that they know it all and we're just dummies.

The very smuggest are probably the small-time enlightened know-it-alls, and I would hope that anyone with real serious political experience has a little more humility.

[realpc]

And it's fascinating to read explanations of the financial crisis that come at it from different political angles, and draw exactly opposite conclusions! But I was happily astonished to see that Michael Moore wrote on his website that there is plenty of blame to go around. I thought he would be leading the self-righteousness pack, but he's been over-taken.

[Tom Strong]

Jane's Law (Somehow, I only read about it recently).

[realpc]

"The devotees of the party in power are smug and arrogant. The devotees of the party out of power are insane."

Well maybe that's all it is. But wasn't the Republican smugness kind of different from the current Democratic smugness? Conservative smugs have God backing them up, so they're infallible and pure, but still beneath God. Progressive smugs have solved the riddles of biology and human consciousness, so they are way above God, and since he doesn't exist, they ARE God.

[Justin Gardner]

Amba,

Forgive me, but I find it a bit lazy to point to a couple posts (on the same blog no less) and cite that as evidence of some sort of overarching trend of triumphalism or gloating. Random bloggers may annoy you, but for the most part I'm seeing plenty of good discussion about how to move this country forward going on in the more studied corners of the liberal blogosphere (see Steve Benen, Kevin Drum, Brendan Nyhan, Marc Ambinder, etc.)

Of course I won't dispute that liberals are extremely happy and relieved, but if you look around the world you'll find the same mood.

In any event, I'd caution you to wait longer before you use such a broad brush.

[amba]

Point taken, Justin. But my brush is meant to tar those who are gloating, not those who aren't. I'm not denying the existence of the latter. This post is about the former.

In fact, it bugs me quite a lot that people in the center who do want to forge coalitions and compromises in order to move forward are painted by the right as insincere liberal stalking horses who only want to twist arms under cover of amity.

Tom: Jane's law is spot on!

[amba]

Justin, as for "if you look around the world you'll find the same mood": If you look at the two posts on the same blog linked by Christopher, you'll find they exemplify another liberal meme: abject relief that at last "the world" will think better of us.

It's possible to care too little what the world thinks of us, as the Bush administration surely did. It's a practical matter: if the Obama administration plays its cards right, it may be much more effective precisely because it isn't scorning and snubbing the rest of the world. Hard power is necessary but not sufficient.

But it's also possible to care all too much what the world thinks of us, to the point of compromising our security. Soft power, too, is necessary but not sufficient.

We need both halves of our national brain. In principle, Obama is calling on both halves. How it works in practice is indeed a wait and see.

[wj]

There are certainly some liberals who are gloating. And it is just as obnoxious as when the conservatives were doing it. But I console myself with the thought that, from what I've seen so far, they are going to find a lot of Obama's actions no where near what they gloatingly expect.

Not that I think Obama is going to emerge as a closet conservative in office. But I do see him governing as center/left, rather than the hard left that the triumphalists seem to anticipate.

[Christopher]

Again, what I notice is this tendency, and it's not just this one blog I point to, I could point to others.

Another example, Pres. Obama calls for an immediate economic relief, his proposal, etc.--we can't wait...etc. ring too close to the buildup to Iraq. Have we learned nothing? Deliberative disagreement is painted as the other (Republican) party getting in the way. Get on board or you're the problem is not a way to take in what I see as some legitimate concerns, even if the other party is expressing themselves in sometimes less than reasonable ways.

That's a problem. One because I think the other party have some points in terms of requiring accountability of spending and in thinking not just in terms of spending but in terms of tax credits. And two it is the job of the other party in our system to present some obstacles to further along a more thoughtful discussion. I wish the Democrats had been so inclined before we went into Iraq, Sen. Byrd not withstanding.

[realpc]

They aren't content to be rid of Bush, they want him tried as a war criminal. The Democrats I know blame him for 9/11. But they hated him with burning passion before he was even elected, before there was anything to blame him for. I was not aware of this derangement syndrome at that time, and assumed they had some real reasons to hate him. Although I couldn't see it.

Then I started noticing that the same people who hated Bush and blamed him for the decline of America also felt the same way about Reagan. Reagan started us on the long slide from happy prosperity down to poverty.

War, poverty, disease, natural disasters, all of these increase dramatically whenever the other party has the presidency.

[PatHMV]

What Christopher said. I cringe every time I see President Obama or Speaker Pelosi, or just random newspaper editors, talk about being "bipartisan," and in the same breath condemn Republicans who are being "obstructionist."

It's partisanship, in that world, to prohibit the use of taxpayer funds to pay for abortions and abortion counseling, but it's bipartisanship to lift that prohibition and allow such funding. I've seen few signs that "bipartisanship" means anything to President Obama or Speaker Pelosi other than as a cudgel to attack Republicans who won't submit to the Democratic demands.

As Simon regularly notes, we have real differences on any number of issues in our country. Those differences are important, and we who feel strongly about them can and SHOULD promote our views. Few choices at the Presidential level involve matters which can easily and clearly be predicted; the outcome of all is uncertain. It is not "obstructionist" for the minority party fight to have its views heard, and to demand compromises by the other side on important issues. "Bipartisanship" does not mean that one side should capitulate to the other.

In the run-up to the truly horrendous "TARP" legislation (the first bail-out package), I pleaded on-line for waiting just one week. Just one, single week to allow everybody to read the proposal, think about things, and decide what should be done. It is not too much to ask, that major decisions affecting hundreds of millions of people and billions of dollars be contemplated and examined at length before enactment.

[realpc]

I don't understand how Obama won the election, since the Bush administration had control of the voting machines. Democrats who were screaming about this until recently don't even seem surprised that a Democrat could win, even with the machines all rigged.

Why is it that so many people don't even make the feeblest effort to be logical? (This has nothing to do with intelligence, because sometimes the smartest are the least rational.)

[Outis]

PatHMV wrote: In the run-up to the truly horrendous "TARP" legislation (the first bail-out package), I pleaded on-line for waiting just one week. Just one, single week to allow everybody to read the proposal, think about things, and decide what should be done.

Pat, I don't think this is the best example. We would have been better off with Paulson's original proposal to purchase assets instead of the partial nationalization we got.

Earlier, Christopher wrote: Deliberative disagreement is painted as the other (Republican) party getting in the way. Get on board or you're the problem is not a way to take in what I see as some legitimate concerns, even if the other party is expressing themselves in sometimes less than reasonable ways.

Christohper, they HAVE to rush this through. If they don't, too many people will realize the amount of non-"stimulus" crap is in the bill (see Pelosi's comments about birth control, for example) and will also realize that so much of the money being spent can't possibly have any impact on the economy any time soon.

[karen]

Oh- c'mon, Outis. Don't you think million$ to the Arts is a worthwhile expense during our time of financial strife? We need inspiration, man. How can you deny ~the people~ their distractions and muses?

jk, you realize...

Hey, real? How about Al Franken- that lyin' Liar- who seems to have taken his state(Minnesota?)in a recount by having more votes than actual people who voted!!!

That Karl Rove!! What is he, now- a double agent??

We need more Joe the Plumbers to get to talkin'. We could actually solve issues at our level, i think. Higer up- the rot is too pronounced.

[karen]

Neiiiiiiii-ghhhh...

"Reuters reported:

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton suggested on Tuesday the world was breathing a sigh of relief that President Barack Obama had replaced George W. Bush and was working to fix the damage he had caused.

In her first news conference as top U.S. diplomat, Clinton said excitement over the change in power was "reinforced time and time again" during her welcome calls in recent days with foreign counterparts.

"There is a great exhalation of breath going on in the world as people express their appreciation for the new direction that's being set and the team that is put together by the president," Clinton said.

"We have a lot of damage to repair."

Gawsh- &i thought Reuters was a fair and balanced journalistic endeavour.

[Callimachus]

What surprises me is not so much the gloating and the Yes-We-Did! but the continued and redoubled enforcement of the party line about the past 8 years.

About an hour ago, I listened to a political reporter phrase a question to a (Democratic) legislator with a long preamble. I can't give it word-for-word, but this I promise you is a substantial reproduction of it, using the relevant key words:

"For the last 8 years you (Democrats) have been told at every turn by the neo-cons that you were anti-gun, pro-gay, unpatriotic," and so forth. Needless to say, after so much leading, he got the quote he was looking for.

[PatHMV]

So much for that new spirit of bipartisanship we were promised. Oh, and that whole "politics stops at the water's edge" crap, too.

Oh, and realpc, right on about the voting machines bit. I want an apology from every single liberal who ever slandered President Bush and the Republicans with claims of inevitable voting machine fraud which would prevent any Democrat from being elected President.

[Outis]

Don't you think million$ to the Arts is a worthwhile expense during our time of financial strife?

Karen, aren't they supposed to be starving artists? How else will we know they're "real"?

We need inspiration, man. How can you deny ~the people~ their distractions and muses?

That's why the bill includes $650 million for digital TV vouchers.