In a recent Washington Post op-ed UVA professor Garard Alexander asks; Why are liberals so condescending? His complaints about liberal intellectual condescension were not unreasonable. In fact, as a liberal who tries to avoid intellectual incompetence and condescension in public dialogue [ironically efforts to avoid of one sometimes lead to the other], I found myself nodding in agreement with much of Alexander's claims. The problem is that after reading the column one is left with what seems to liberals like a plausible answer to his query - because conservatives are stupid. Sadly, Alexander presents no argument or evidence to the contrary.Professor Alexander's analysis is not inaccurate, it is incomplete. If liberal dismissal of conservative ideas is unjustified, then condescension is a real problem. Unfortunately, Professor Alexander simply assumes that all condescension is intentional and unfair, implying that reasonable conservative ideas are regularly being suppressed or ignored. While there are no doubt at least some examples of this problem out there, Alexander provides none. Why? Is it because the most visible liberal condescension is directed at unreasonable conservative ideas? Is it because Alexander's purpose is not to make a thorough argument, but to strike a political blow? Without clarification from the professor, we cannot answer these questions REASONABLY.
Because he is describing a real problem, and because intellectuals of all stripes should regularly re-evaluate their efforts to practice what they preach, I think Alexander should have gone further than he did. Just shooting the messengers, who should be the target audience of his argument, leaves open the very real possibility that at least some liberal condescension is justifiable. It is certainly not hard to imagine liberal intellectuals responding superficially and defensively to Alexander's piece by simply rattling off prominent conservative leaders and arguments like Sarah Palin and death panels, or President Bush and the English language(condescension or wit?).
I suggest that the critical energies of academics like Professor Alexander would be much better spent on substantive ideological, policy, process, and institutional concerns. Pretending that the credibility of the messenger is all we need debate looks to me like a significant factor in the oft chronicled "dumbing down" of American public debate.