Coakley and the common touch

Remember when I said, based on a single photo of her, that Martha Coakley’s fleshless visage and compressed lips suggested the superior Massachusetts Puritan-liberal, God’s elect, looking down at the rest of humanity? .

This is from the Boston Globe, quoted by Michelle Malkin:

Coakley bristles at the suggestion that, with so little time left, in an election with such high stakes, she is being too passive.

“As opposed to standing outside Fenway Park? In the cold? Shaking hands?” she fires back, in an apparent reference to a Brown online video of him doing just that.

Do you believe that? A democratic (small “d”) politician scorning the idea of shaking hands with voters?

But how can we blame her for her arrogance toward ordinary humanity? After all, she is a member of a political party led by this man:

Comments

Kristor writes:

Of course she scorns hoi polloi! She’s one of the anointed. Or as Noemie Emery put it, she is one of the educated class. That’s the thing about gnosticism: one can’t hate and reject reality and also truly love the salt of the earth. The Democrats have been losing the working man for decades. It will be interesting, one day, to watch the private sector unions realize that they have more in common with management, more shared interests and common values, than they do with the Democrats.

LA replies:

By coincidence, I just posted a comment by Charles T. in which, following, Sowell, he suggests calling gnostic liberal the anointed.

January 15

Charles T. writes:

The photos in this thread are great. They convey the sense that these people are truly “Anointed” and are prepared to lead us to utopia.

Perhaps we should use the term, “Our Anointed Gnostics” to describe them. A tone of sarcasm on our accents would be appropriate as we verbalize the phrase.

However, I still like Thomas Sowell’s term, “The Anointed.” This term is the epitomy of self-aggrandizement. They have self-promoted themselves as our secular, philosopher kings. As Sowelll has described them, they are endowed with that a special sort of grace that only liberals can claim for themselves. The self-promotion that liberals are famous for is clearly seen in these photos.

We are expected to worship them.

Tim W. writes:

The Coakley photo reminded me of images I’ve seen of Massachusetts Chief Justice Margaret Marshall. It’s that same self-absorbed, holier-than-thou condescension one always sees in high ranking liberal women. Marriage is an evolving paradigm, she told us, and who is better suited to decide the direction of that evolution than Margaret Marshall?

Liberal men sometimes come off as buffoons. Think Joe Biden, Dick Durbin, or Al Gore. But the liberal women rarely break that smug, Orwellian pretence of superiority. Barbara Boxer demanding that a general call her “Senator” rather than “ma’am,” for example.

This is, I believe, a key to the popularity of Sarah Palin, as well as the irrational level of hatred directed against her. She’s a woman who has achieved political prominence, but still acts like an actual woman. Conservatives love her for it, and ignore her lack of qualifications and other negatives. Liberals see her as an unevolved entity who has failed to become one of the soulless, unfeminine robots they parade before us as representative of enlightened womanhood.

LA replies:

That’s a more interesting explanation of Palin hatred than that she’s unsophisticated, a hick, etc.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at January 14, 2010 11:06 PM | Send