Scorn of the Left

I've noticed that when someone on the left debates someone on the right, the arguments of the lefty most often consist of sarcasm, sneers, belittlement, name-calling, and scorn rather than substance.  I've often wondered why--outside of the fact that they've given themselves over to an anti-God worldview and philosophy and therefore it's not surprising that they should display such odious behavior.

But just now I read an essay by Thomas Sowell which explains it.  I reproduce the key passage:

"What socialism, fascism and other ideologies of the left have in common is an assumption that some very wise people -- like themselves -- need to take decisions out of the hands of lesser people, like the rest of us, and impose those decisions by government fiat.

The left's vision is not only a vision of the world, but also a vision of themselves, as superior beings pursuing superior ends. In the United States, however, this vision conflicts with a Constitution that begins, "We the People..."

That is why the left has for more than a century been trying to get the Constitution's limitations on government loosened or evaded by judges' new interpretations, based on notions of "a living Constitution" that will take decisions out of the hands of "We the People," and transfer those decisions to our betters.

The self-flattery of the vision of the left also gives its true believers a huge ego stake in that vision, which means that mere facts are unlikely to make them reconsider, regardless of what evidence piles up against the vision of the left, and regardless of its disastrous consequences." (emphasis mine)

Thank you, Dr. Sowell!  This makes sense.  It explains the intellectual snobbery of those on the left, their obvious attitude that anyone who disagrees with them just can't be too bright, that their opponents are lesser beings--perhaps even subhuman!--and needn't be treated with the respect one would extend to a fellow human being.

"And the serpent said to the woman, "You will not surely die.  For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." (Gen. 3:4,5)

Re: The Jehovah vs. Yahweh "Controversy"

The following is a response to one person who took exception to another's use of "Jehovah" in reference to the great I AM, insisting that Yahweh is the correct way to render it:

That's okay...we're English speakers.  We allow speakers of other languages considerable latitude in their pronunciation and spelling of names, places, etc.  Why shouldn't that same forbearance be extended to us?
I'm reminded of the name "James".  In other languages it's rendered Jakob, Jacobus, Iago, etc.  How we came up with James I don't know!  But would you deny parents the right to name their child James because it doesn't conform to the original language? 
In German and some Slavic languages that J is pronounced like we English speakers pronounce the letter Y.  (Go ahead, take a crack at Ljubljana!)  Hence the perfectly logical Iago in Spanish.   I don't know for certain, but suspect that the Hebrew letter we use the V or W for (depending on how you pronounce it) has an actual pronunciation midway between the two.  I've heard that pronunciation in Urdu, for instance. 
What about the name Jesus?  It's actually Yeshua, or Joshua in our rendering.  Again the Y sound has been replaced by our J sound.  Is that blasphemous?  I think Yeshua would be very tolerant!
So what I'm trying to say is, be forbearing and allow people their linguistic/cultural differences.  Even our own.