No, that's not what this wonderful post by Connie du Toit says.

Nor is the title even my characterization of what Connie says. It's my satirical reaction to it by way of deliberately grotesque oversimplification. But why should liberals feel out of place at a gun range? And why should conservatives feel out of place at a ballet or art museum? The kind of things that go to the heart of human differences and make people hate each other really ought to be topics for humor.

And, if possible, self-deprecating humor on both sides, instead of hateful pronouncements like this provocative tidbit of conventional (now all too typical) liberal wisdom:

"There are two Americas. One is the America of Lincoln and Adlai Stevenson; the other is the America of Teddy Roosevelt and the modern superpatriots. One is generous and humane, the other narrowly egotistical; one is self-critical, the other self-righteous; one is sensible, the other romantic; one is good-humored, the other solemn; one is inquiring, the other pontificating; one is moderate, the other filled with passionate intensity; one is judicious and the other arrogant in the use of great power."

While nothing will ever explain the process fully, I think that what Connie du Toit said gets close (uncomfortably close, IMO) to understanding the psychology of this divide:

If we, as conservatives, cannot laud beauty and shun ugliness... if we are not able nor willing to discriminate against ugliness, ignorance, or the simpleton by risking a supposed encroachment on another's freedom to choose badly, then we will lose. If we cannot champion the arts, language, and culture and both appreciate and understand it, then our stewardship of our civilization has ended. We have consciously and callously handed it to the other side or dropped the baton entirely.

Our civilization will be lost to those who at least pay lip service to loveliness. Our cities, our great institutions, are full of those on the ideological left with the ideaological right locked in our houses or scattered into the woods... and when a young mind is given the choice between the ugly emptiness, selfishness, and simplisme of the right, or the elegant pseudo-sophistication of the left, what do you think they will choose? They will choose lovliness, in whatever guise it is offered.

We must take back these institutions, but not destroy them as Rousseau or those who copycat his ideas have tried to do. No, we must become the intelligentsia again, and worship at the alter of loveliness. We must once again put value on a liberal arts education and not mock it. We must become it.

Or we, and all that the Enlightenment and the Founders gave us, shall perish from the earth.

There is no risk of Barbarians at the gates when we are nothing more than Barbarians ourselves. We must choose better and exercise a wholesome discretion in favor of beauty, in all things.

It is worth noting that she starts with an admission that she is a snob. This is something I was taught never to admit, and to this day I refuse to admit it.

Of course, whether that makes me a liberal or a conservative is not the point, because I don't aspire to either "category." If I am a snob, then I am in denial about it. Perhaps that's a feature I share with "liberals"; perhaps not. (It would not surprise me if there are conservatives and maybe a few Libertarians and libertarians and pseudolibertarians who keep such things in the closet.)

Here's a paradox for you. I think that conservatives tend to be less snobbish. But that's wrong, because to the extent that they are snobbish, they tend to admit it. Liberals, however, tend to be so steeped in snobbery -- and from such an early age -- that no sooner do they learn how to be snobs than they learn how to deny it.

Don't you dare say that we're better than other people! (Even if we know we are....) This is an all-permeating denial that denies even itself.

Hey don't expect me to write about it. All I can do is leave a comment like the one I just tried to leave (I think the comments are delayed or closed):

Wonderful, wonderful post. The problem is, it just makes me so incredibly sad, because it's a reminder that my mother was right, that some things are beyond the appreciation of some people, but to dare discuss them is to risk being considered a snob.

Yet to not discuss them is to give up.

To pretend we are all the same is either delusional or a dissembled exercise in condescension. (Dumbing down cultural education is fine for your kids but not for mine.) The reason "liberals" tend to "own" the finer aspects of culture is that many "conservatives" these days have been manipulated into seeing culture as involving battles over sex education and religion in the schools. While the latter battle over condoms and baggy pants, the former are laughing at them as they send their kids to safe private schools.

As I say, it's sad. (More disturbingly, I worry that IQ might be implicated. Can't talk about that of course.)

I mean, we all hate each other, right? That's a given. But is it necessary to kill each other over it? Was it necessary to have the culture war between radically simplistic Abolitionists and radically simplistic property rights fanatics who believed in human chattel escalate to a shooting war? Why is it that the British were able to do away with slavery without a Civil War?

Might the origins of the Civil War be at least partially related to this observation by Oscar Wilde?

America is the only country that went from barbarism to decadence without civilization in between.

Bear in mind that while this is one of Wilde's most famous quotes (I first read it in high school), his Wiki entry claims it is unsourced.

If it is "misattributed" to Wilde, then it's one of the most famous misattributions of all time.

Come on, he really must have said it. If it looks like Wilde and sounds like Wilde, then it might as well be Wilde. Right?

Get with the program! We need to know how barbarous Wilde thought we were even if we weren't!

Sorry for this digression, but it seems worth the time spent. (I'd hate to think that a masochistic national inferiority complex would fuel a massive misattribution!)

Here the remark is said to have been made during Wilde's 1882 tour. And this reviewer rather uncritically attributes it to Lady Windermere's Fan, but the review involves a butchered "updated" version of the play.

Still no actual page citation anywhere. No line and verse, no citation to a scholarly anthology anywhere

It is said to be "atttributed" but not sourced here.

What the hell does "attributed" mean? This is a famous man of letters. His writings were widely published and he did tour the United States. Had he written this down it could be looked up, and had he said it, it would have been reported. I'd like to know when it was first attributed to him; if it was while he was alive, it's more probable he said it than if some unknown prankster misattributed Clemenceau (1945) to Wilde.

It also comes up as an "unsourced" quote attributed to George Bernard Shaw. But the earliest actual, citable, reference to the quote I can find would seem to be in Frank Lloyd Wright's autobiography, which mentions "a witty Frenchman":

* America is the only country that went from barbarism to decadence without civilisation in between

o Also attributed to Oscar Wilde and Georges Clemenceau. Earliest citation to Clemenceau by Hans Bendix, "Merry Christmas, America!" The Saturday Review of Literature, 1945-12-01, p. 9. Mentioned in Frank Lloyd Wright: An Autobiography (1943):

+ A witty Frenchman has said of us: "The United States of America is the only nation to plunge from barbarism to degeneracy with no culture in between.

Not that it especially matters who said something that so obviously and profoundly might as well have been said by someone profound. But let's assume Clemenceau said it and not Wilde. Would that make it more serious? I think so. Wilde was a humorist, and Clemenceau was a more of a moralist. People swallow moral criticism more easily when it's packaged as comedy.

And Wilde, the foppish Englishman, traveled to America and appreciated this country in a manner that Clemenceau, the clueless Frenchman (and architect of the precursor to World War II) never could.

I admit, I'm not much of a fan of Clemenceau, and I don't like seeing his quotes rebadged, if that's what's going on. However, if the goal here is to understand American psychology, I think the fact that the remark has broader appeal coming from Wilde than it would coming from Clemenceau is more interesting than either the remark itself or how true it might be. (Of course, if Hitler had said it, it would have been considered a despicable and evil remark, and likely rebutted eloquently by FDR.)

Another famous quote (being less likely to generate ill will because of its general nature) is widely attributed to nearly everyone :

Anyone who is not a socialist at 16 has no heart, but anyone who still is at 32 has no mind.

There are many different versions of the same basic quote ? Take your pick?

A man who is not a liberal at 16 has no heart; a man who is not a conservative at 60 has no head. - Benjamin Disraeli (1804-1881) Any man who is under 30 and is not a Liberal has no heart; and any man who is over 30 and not a Conservative has no brains. - Winston Churchill (1874-1965)

Georges Clemenceau [another French Premier and former socialist] Not to be a socialist at 20 is proof of want of heart; to be one at 30 is proof of want of head. - Georges Clemenceau (1841-1929)

Not to be a Republican at 20 is proof of want of heart; to be one at 30 is proof of want of head. - Fran?ois Guisot (1787-1874)

He who is not a Socialist at 19, has no heart. He who is still a Socialist at 30, has no brain. - Otto Von Bismarck (1815-1896)

Anyone who is not a socialist at 16 has no heart, but anyone who still is at 32 has no mind. - Woodrow Wilson

The man who is not a socialist at 20 has no heart, but if he is still a socialist at 40 he has no head. - Aristide Briand (1862 - 1932) [French premier and former socialist]

As George Bernard Shaw said, one who is not a socialist at 20 has no heart, and one who remains a socialist at 40 has no head.

I think there are basic differences between the way certain types of people and certain types of minds view the world. They are translated into politics by a process of reduction, which all too often means liberal versus conservative and you have to take your pick.

I'm not taking a pick! I think it's grotesque mental tyranny to tell people that they should pick and then belong to one group or another. People should be allowed to think for themselves. The problem is, that just isn't in the interest of those who want to lead or those who want to follow, which makes it wildly impractical in the real world, but food for a blog post.

(The wonderful thing about writing blog posts is that there's just as much right to misunderstand as there is to be misunderstood. Not so in real life.)

UPDATE: Thank you, Connie du Toit -- for the link and the kind words!