“A man’s admiration for absolute government is proportionate to the contempt he feels for those around him”. Alexis de Tocqueville
Tocqueville, in a few exquisitely chosen words, sums up the gut feelings of the uber-eco-communists who gathered in Copenhagen with the infantile demand that the rest of the world is theirs to do with as they please.
Let us break down the genius of Tocqueville with some borrowed Wikipedia Encyclopedia text describing contempt:
“Contempt is an intense feeling or attitude of regarding someone or something as inferior, base, or worthless—it is similar to scorn. Contempt is also defined as the state of being despised or dishonored; disgrace, and an open disrespect or willful disobedience of the authority of a court of law or legislative body… (Professional protesters?)
Robert C. Solomon places contempt on the same continuum as resentment and anger, and he argues that the differences between the three emotions are that resentment is directed toward a higher status individual; anger is directed toward an equal status individual; and contempt is directed toward a lower status individual. Contempt is often brought about by a combination of anger and disgust. (If this isn’t what liberals are like what is?)
Contempt has five ugly features. Contempt requires a judgment concerning the appearance or standing of the object of contempt. In particular, contempt involves the judgment that, because of some moral or personal failing or defect, the contemned person has compromised his or her standing vis-à-vis an interpersonal standard that the contemnor treats as important. This may have not been done deliberately but by a lack of status. This lack of status may cause the contemptuous to classify the object of contempt as utterly worthless, or as not fully meeting a particular interpersonal standard. Therefore, contempt is a response to a perceived failure to meet an interpersonal standard. Contempt is also a particular way of regarding or attending to the object of contempt, and this form of regard has an unpleasant effective element. However, contempt may be experienced as a highly visceral emotion similar to disgust, or as cool disregard. (Sound elitist maybe?)
Contempt has a certain comparative element. David Hume in his studies of contempt suggests that contempt essentially requires apprehending the “bad qualities” of someone “as they really are” while simultaneously making a comparison between this person and ourselves. Because of this reflexive element, contempt also involves what we might term a “positive self-feeling” of the contemptuous. A characteristic of contempt is the psychological withdrawal or distance one typically feels regarding the object of one’s contempt. This psychological distancing is an essential way of expressing one’s nonidentification with the object of one’s contempt and it precludes sympathetic identification with the object of contempt. Contempt for a person involves a way of negatively and comparatively regarding or attending to someone who has not fully lived up to an interpersonal standard that the person extending contempt thinks is important. This form of regard constitutes a psychological withdrawal from the object of contempt.
Although contempt may not be a primary emotion as seen in Robert Plutchik’s color wheel-like circumplex model of emotions, the argument for whether or not contempt is a ‘basic’ emotion (universally recognized) has been disputed and disagreed on for years. Paul Ekman, a widely recognized psychologist, found six emotions that were universally recognized: anger, disgust, fear, joy, sadness, and surprise. Findings on contempt are less clear, though there is at least some preliminary evidence that this emotion and its expression are universally recognized. Another study by Ekman and Karl G. Heider shows evidence for universality in a study across cultures in which the level of agreement about a contempt expression compared to the other six basic emotions (anger, disgust, fear, happiness, sadness, surprise) was greater than 75% in all samples.”
And THIS, I believe, is one example of what sets conservatives and liberals apart. They have utter contempt for anyone who does not subjugate themselves to them. In this case, Copenhagen and global warming as a whole, are nothing but an “infantile demand” unhindered by any test of reason, morals, or science.
It isn’t any more complicated than that except Copenhagen’s “admiration for total government” is global in nature so the contempt the environment mental cases have on non-believers or those who will not pay up is on the grandest scale since Marxism and Nazism.