or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Elitist Liberals and Inherent Moral Superiority
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Elitist Liberals and Inherent Moral Superiority

post #1 of 33
Thread Starter 
Recently, I responded to a friend's post on Facebook. The topic was gay marriage--specifically the 9th circuit's decision on CA's amendment being unconstitutional. Many of my friends on FB and their friends expressed joy at the decision. One posted this quote from the decision.

‎"A PRIVATE MORAL VIEW THAT SAME-SEX COUPLES ARE INFERIOR TO OPPOSITE-SEX COUPLES IS NOT A PROPER BASIS FOR LEGISLATION."

In my post, I noted that had serious reservations about gay marriage, though I acknowledged it really didn't affect me directly. I also noted that I fully supported gays living their lives together in loving relationships, and supported rights that civil unions provided. I noted that 9th circuit was one of the most liberal in the nation. The response was predictable. People came out of the woodwork with the typical arguments: First, it was interracial marriage all over again. Then, it was "why do you want to stop people from having equal rights?" Then it was questions comparing the gay marriage amendment to prohibition. Finally, someone went all Godwin's Law and compared those who oppose gay marriage to those that wanted the Jews dead or gone.

To be clear on this issue, my position is that CA's amendment is not federally unconstitutional. There is not established federal law that prevents a state from deciding issues like this. In fact, federal clearly defines marriage as being between a man and a woman.

Now, let's look at that quote again: ‎"A PRIVATE MORAL VIEW THAT SAME-SEX COUPLES ARE INFERIOR TO OPPOSITE-SEX COUPLES IS NOT A PROPER BASIS FOR LEGISLATION."

This struck me in its hypocrisy. Hadn't the justices just decided something based on a private moral view? The fact is they feel gay marriage should be legal, and then concocted a legal justification for their decision. Thinking further, I began to look back at some of the comments in the thread. Clearly, these people all favor gay marriage. But could they not see the problem with the decision, even if it aided them?

That's when it occurred to me. They didn't care, because their cause is all that mattered. THEIR private moral view was that gay marriage was right, and that was the end of it. If someone disagreed for any reason, that person had to be attacked. That person would be called a bigot (even if in not so many words). That person would be told he was imposing his private moral views and religious on others. That person would be told that he was against "giving everyone the rights they deserve." He might even be called anti-American, or what not. This certainly applied to me. My argument is simple: I don't support calling gay unions marriages. "Marriage" is a societal institution between a man and a woman, and has been in most cultures for thousands of years. Changing the definition could lead to even more changes later, which could end up destroying the meaning of the institution eventually. Change it for gays, and there is no legal or moral ground to deny ANY future changes, particularly the wish to mary more than one person.

Finally I realized this problem was not limited to this issue. It seems as liberals consider their position to be the default moral position in any situation. War is wrong. Why? Because, we said so. The rich should pay more in taxes? Disagree? You hate the poor. It doesn't matter what data you show to demonstrate it's a bad idea, because their inherent moral superiority takes over. Pick any issue you like, from gay marriage, to to taxes, to healthcare. Any disagreement for any reason will result in a verbal assault. The -isms (as trump likes to note) will fly. The mainstream media supports this. And yet the irony is striking. Liberals tend to oppose-or at least do not embrace-traditional moral and family values. From sexual freedom, to same sex parent households, to cradle to grave government...liberals tend to push traditional values aside. Yet they are somehow the ones who lecture the rest the nation on making moral judgments.

In short, the liberal position is the one that is portrayed as being inherently morally superior. I would like to know why, in your opinion, this is.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #2 of 33
This seems like a variation on the theme that "you can't legislate morality" proposition typically offered by some.

The problem is that all legislation is an attempt to legislate morality...someone's morality.

Now granted, some laws enjoy nearly 100% moral agreement (don't murder, steal, rape, etc.)

Others enjoy much less agreement but are still attempting to enforce someone's morality on a wider group.

I agree that claiming that someone else's morality doesn't get to play certainly reeks of a moral superiority claim.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #3 of 33
I saw this posted recently in another location and it certainly hit the mark.

Poor people are too stupid to make their own decisions.

Rich people are too evil to make their own decisions.

Government bureaucrats are genius saints who are smart and pure enough to make decisions for everybody.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #4 of 33
The default moral position is equality. Equal status, equal rights, equal treatment. It's that simple.
post #5 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

The default moral position is equality. Equal status, equal rights, equal treatment. It's that simple.

You mean equal except for 12 year old girls and medical decisions related to their own bodies and HPV?

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #6 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

The default moral position is equality. Equal status, equal rights, equal treatment. It's that simple.

Hmmm.

Equal status? What do you mean?

Equal rights? Which rights?

Equal treatment? What do you mean?

One the of fundamental principles of this country is equality before the law. Is that what you mean by equal treatment? Equal status? Equal rights?

Secondly, where does liberty come into your "default moral position?"

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #7 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

You mean equal except for 12 year old girls and medical decisions related to their own bodies and HPV?

Non-sequitur.

I think you're confusing equality with absolute freedom, which doesn't and shouldn't exist.
post #8 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Non-sequitur.

I think you're confusing equality with absolute freedom, which doesn't and shouldn't exist.

How do you define "absolute freedom?"

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #9 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Hmmm.

Equal status? What do you mean?

Equal rights? Which rights?

Equal treatment? What do you mean?

One the of fundamental principles of this country is equality before the law. Is that what you mean by equal treatment? Equal status? Equal rights?

Secondly, where does liberty come into your "default moral position?"

Liberty can never be absolute, but we should aspire to allow as much liberty as possible when it doesn't harm other people, directly, and in many cases indirectly.

Your questions are silly.
post #10 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Liberty can never be absolute, but we should aspire to allow as much liberty as possible when it doesn't harm other people, directly, and in many cases indirectly.

So do you have any reasonably objective and consistent way for us to know where you place that boundary where too much liberty or too little liberty exists? Or this simply whatever/wherever tonton thinks there's too much?


Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Your questions are silly.

Nice avoidance tactic. But they aren't silly simply because you claim they are. They are perfectly valid clarifying questions to your claims.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #11 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Non-sequitur.

I think you're confusing equality with absolute freedom, which doesn't and shouldn't exist.

I wasn't aware that controlling your own body with regard to vaccines was "absolute freedom."

I guess that's just a nice way of dismissing your own hypocrisy.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #12 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Non-sequitur.

I think you're confusing equality with absolute freedom, which doesn't and shouldn't exist.

This is the argument that none of them ever seem to understand. When one's freely decided action puts the lives of others in danger, that's when it's reasonable to discuss curtailing a freedom. How these nutters on one hand argue for absolute freedom and on the other want to maintain the war on drugs is mind boggling. To your point that trumpet so clearly can't fathom, one does not have the freedom to not vaccinate based on moral grounds and destroy the herd immunity of everyone else who does. Medical, allergic grounds can certainly be valid--fortunately there is some wiggle room with herd immunity; we just can't have the morally outraged or scientifically illiterate taking up those limited free non-vaccination spots.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #13 of 33


Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

This is the argument that none of them ever seem to understand. When one's freely decided action puts the lives of others in danger, that's when it's reasonable to discuss curtailing a freedom.

Vaccinations for non-airborne diseases are in no form putting someone in danger. That is the most ridiculous claim I've ever read. I pulled the facts, FACTS for dying from HPV and it was 4,000 people a year. You're equally likely to die from drowning so let's just ban all boats, pools and bathtubs to be safe as well. You don't address the numbers because you aren't interested in facts, you are interested in controlling twelve year old girls. There isn't a single instance of uterine cancer that cannot be prevented with regular pap smears. For someone to die from it they have to literally neglect their own health for decades.

Quote:
How these nutters on one hand argue for absolute freedom and on the other want to maintain the war on drugs is mind boggling.

Name a freedom that would be left if we curtailed every activity that didn't bring claims of 100% solutions or that risked 4,000 lives a year out of 300+ million.

Quote:
To your point that trumpet so clearly can't fathom, one does not have the freedom to not vaccinate based on moral grounds and destroy the herd immunity of everyone else who does.

There is no herd immunity for HPV. Please stop lying. First half the herd, aka boys can't be treated. Second, we are human, not cattle.
Quote:
Medical, allergic grounds can certainly be valid--fortunately there is some wiggle room with herd immunity; we just can't have the morally outraged or scientifically illiterate taking up those limited free non-vaccination spots.

Gotta break a few eggs to make an omelet. Don't worry, we can get to 100% if we just make women wear burkas, don't let them drive or show their faces, and make sure they are escorted everywhere by a male family member while wearing a chastity belt.

Don't worry about their rights or concerns, we've got to protect the herd darn it!

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #14 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

The default moral position is equality. Equal status, equal rights, equal treatment. It's that simple.

100% correct on this .
post #15 of 33
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

The default moral position is equality. Equal status, equal rights, equal treatment. It's that simple.

We both know very well that you want to add another item to that list: Equality of outcome.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #16 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

We both know very well that you want to add another item to that list: Equality of outcome.

Wrong. I believe in the power of capitalism to motivate people.

Now tell me what else you believe wrongly about my beliefs.
post #17 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

We both know very well that you want to add another item to that list: Equality of outcome.

Nope. I just think there should be a higher floor of outcome.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #18 of 33
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Nope. I just think there should be a higher floor of outcome.

Excellent...so do I. The problem is you don't understand how to accomplish that without mandating that it happens.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #19 of 33
You use that word "floor" and I don't think it means what you think it means.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #20 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

THEIR private moral view was that gay marriage was right, and that was the end of it. If someone disagreed for any reason, that person had to be attacked. That person would be called a bigot (even if in not so many words). That person would be told he was imposing his private moral views and religious on others. That person would be told that he was against "giving everyone the rights they deserve." He might even be called anti-American, or what not.

As Jonah Goldberg pointed out recently, liberals are the aggressors in the culture war. They are not happy with a model where everyone keeps their own ideology/church/lifestyle, but lives in peace anyway, due to a government that doesn't take sides and limits itself to law and order duties.

They have certain ideas about what's right and wrong, and are not happy to practice them in their own communities, but want to use the Federal government to impose them on everyone else. And as part of this aggression, dissent must be quashed (as you discovered on Facebook).
post #21 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by ascii View Post

As Jonah Goldberg pointed out recently, liberals are the aggressors in the culture war. They are not happy with a model where everyone keeps their own ideology/church/lifestyle, but lives in peace anyway, due to a government that doesn't take sides and limits itself to law and order duties.

They have certain ideas about what's right and wrong, and are not happy to practice them in their own communities, but want to use the Federal government to impose them on everyone else. And as part of this aggression, dissent must be quashed (as you discovered on Facebook).

I'm outta here. This place is officially a farce.

I guess it's the liberals who are forcing anti-marriage legislation and personhood amendments on others!
post #22 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

I'm outta here. This place is officially a farce.

I guess it's the liberals who are forcing anti-marriage legislation and personhood amendments on others!

You don't recognise your own ideas as an ideology too?
post #23 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by ascii View Post

As Jonah Goldberg pointed out recently, liberals are the aggressors in the culture war. They are not happy with a model where everyone keeps their own ideology/church/lifestyle, but lives in peace anyway, due to a government that doesn't take sides and limits itself to law and order duties.

They have certain ideas about what's right and wrong, and are not happy to practice them in their own communities, but want to use the Federal government to impose them on everyone else. And as part of this aggression, dissent must be quashed (as you discovered on Facebook).

The real truth is Conservatives are always afraid to try something new and make all inds of excuses against the Liberals. What great concept does the Conservatives have with a budget that doesn't screw the poor or middle class? The solution is none.They just talk and say bullshit all the time.
post #24 of 33
Elitist liberals consider their morality so superior, they think it's normal to attempt to destroy opponents rather than debate ideas.

Then they go to cocktail parties and preach about tolerance.
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #25 of 33
Hey! What do we call it when leftists claim the moral high-ground when they assert that a decision by private organization (e.g., the Komen Foundation) is the result of caving into or buckling to pressure from (conservative) special interests, but are then silent when the same organization reverses its decision under pressure from (liberal) special interests?

I mean I know that it generally goes without saying that those who support the "right" of women to kill their unborn children are morally superior to those oppose such actions. But what about this example above?

Is this another example of claiming moral superiority?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #26 of 33
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Hey! What do we call it when leftists claim the moral high-ground when they assert that a decision by private organization (e.g., the Komen Foundation) is the result of caving into or buckling to pressure from (conservative) special interests, but are then silent when the same organization reverses its decision under pressure from (liberal) special interests?

I mean I know that it generally goes without saying that those who support the "right" of women to kill their unborn children are morally superior to those oppose such actions. But what about this example above?

Is this another example of claiming moral superiority?

Short answer: Yes.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #27 of 33
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

I'm outta here. This place is officially a farce.

I guess it's the liberals who are forcing anti-marriage legislation and personhood amendments on others!

ascii is right...you don't understand your own ideology.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #28 of 33
What better place to post this than here?

"Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum has advocated capping medical malpractice awards at $250,000, but in 1999, his wife sued her doctor over a back injury and asked for twice that amount

As ABC News reports, Santorum's wife, Karen, sued a Virginia-based chiropractor for half-a-million dollars for allegedly bungling a spinal adjustment.

The suit charged that in November 1996, Karen saw Dr. David Dolberg for a spinal alignment, according to an article by Roll Call on Dec. 13, 1999. The adjustment, however, was performed improperly and resulted in a herniated disk that caused her physical pain and emotional suffering, and required surgery and multiple doctors' visits, she alleged.

She sued for $500,000, despite the fact that her medical bills totaled approximately $18,800.

While the jury awarded Karen $350,000, a judge later reduced the amount to $175,000.

By the time of the lawsuit, then-Sen. Santorum had taken up the cause of tort reform, twice sponsoring or co-sponsoring bills limiting the non-economic awards for pain and suffering that a plaintiff could seek to $250,000.

Roll Call reported on Jan. 10, 2000, that the senator had testified that his wife had "trouble walking, bending and lifting and has suffered humiliation from weight gain associated with her injury."

"We have to go out and do a lot of public things. She wants to look nice, so it's really difficult," said Santorum, according to the 1999 Roll Call piece.

Santorum also testified that it would be tough for Karen to go knocking on doors "because of her physical limitations and the poor self-image."

"She has always been intricately involved in my campaigns," Santorum said, explaining that he and his wife "knocked on 20,000 doors together" during his previous campaign.

When asked about the apparent contradiction after the verdict, Santorum told the Pittsburgh Post Gazette on Dec. 11, 1999, "The court proceedings are a personal family matter. I will not be offering any further public comments, other than that I am not a party to the suit. But I am fully supportive of my wife."
~ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1276575.html
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #29 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

What better place to post this than here?

"Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum has advocated capping medical malpractice awards at $250,000, but in 1999, his wife sued her doctor over a back injury and asked for twice that amount

As ABC News reports, Santorum's wife, Karen, sued a Virginia-based chiropractor for half-a-million dollars for allegedly bungling a spinal adjustment.

The suit charged that in November 1996, Karen saw Dr. David Dolberg for a spinal alignment, according to an article by Roll Call on Dec. 13, 1999. The adjustment, however, was performed improperly and resulted in a herniated disk that caused her physical pain and emotional suffering, and required surgery and multiple doctors' visits, she alleged.

She sued for $500,000, despite the fact that her medical bills totaled approximately $18,800.

While the jury awarded Karen $350,000, a judge later reduced the amount to $175,000.

By the time of the lawsuit, then-Sen. Santorum had taken up the cause of tort reform, twice sponsoring or co-sponsoring bills limiting the non-economic awards for pain and suffering that a plaintiff could seek to $250,000.

Roll Call reported on Jan. 10, 2000, that the senator had testified that his wife had "trouble walking, bending and lifting and has suffered humiliation from weight gain associated with her injury."

"We have to go out and do a lot of public things. She wants to look nice, so it's really difficult," said Santorum, according to the 1999 Roll Call piece.

Santorum also testified that it would be tough for Karen to go knocking on doors "because of her physical limitations and the poor self-image."

"She has always been intricately involved in my campaigns," Santorum said, explaining that he and his wife "knocked on 20,000 doors together" during his previous campaign.

When asked about the apparent contradiction after the verdict, Santorum told the Pittsburgh Post Gazette on Dec. 11, 1999, "The court proceedings are a personal family matter. I will not be offering any further public comments, other than that I am not a party to the suit. But I am fully supportive of my wife."
~ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1276575.html

Actually a better thread would be a thread on general politician hypocrisy. I suggest you start it. I'm sure we'll have lots of good examples to post about how our political overlords (left and right, Democrat and Republican) want one thing for their subjects and another for themselves.

No, this thread is about how liberals try to adopt and claim that their moralizing is superior to other's moralizing and thus, they should be exempt from questioning or criticism of their moral positions and that the moral positions of others are to be excluded from public discourse and political life.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #30 of 33
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Actually a better thread would be a thread on general politician hypocrisy. I suggest you start it. I'm sure we'll have lots of good examples to post about how our political overlords (left and right, Democrat and Republican) want one thing for their subjects and another for themselves.

No, this thread is about how liberals try to adopt and claim that their moralizing is superior to other's moralizing and thus, they should be exempt from questioning or criticism of their moral positions and that the moral positions of others are to be excluded from public discourse and political life.

Well put. by the way, I just ran across this:

Maxine Waters calls Speaker Boehner and Majority Leader Cantor "demons."
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #31 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

What better place to post this than here?

"Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum has advocated capping medical malpractice awards at $250,000, but in 1999, his wife sued her doctor over a back injury and asked for twice that amount...

There's no problem there. You work within the system that exists today. He is advocating a change to the system in the future.
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #32 of 33
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

There's no problem there. You work within the system that exists today. He is advocating a change to the system in the future.

It looks like hypocrisy though, I have to agree.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #33 of 33

Jonah Goldberg on The Tyranny of Cliches, Creating NRO, and the Firing of John Derbyshire:

 

Quote:
"Liberals are sure they're in the reality-based community and anyone who disagrees with them either has a bad brain, or in some other way rejects empiricism and science, and they are the only ones working with the building blocks of facts and reason," says National Review's Jonah Goldberg, author of the new book, The Tyranny of Cliches: How Liberals Cheat in the War of Ideas.

 

We don't know anyone like that.

 

 

Quote:
Goldberg's new book, which follows his best-selling 2008 Liberal Fascism, argues that liberals should stop claiming their ideas derive solely from science and fact but never ideology--a way of arguing that stifles honest debate. Liberal arguments sometimes take the form of hackneyed cliches meant to sound self-evident but that in reality disguise a political bent...

 

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Elitist Liberals and Inherent Moral Superiority