"In the United States I have always believed that there was a big difference between Conservative and stupid. Boy is it getting harder to prove that one by the minute"
About this Quote
Rick Mercer sets up a contrast between a thoughtful conservative tradition and the spectacle of anti-intellectual posturing, then laments how thin that boundary can appear in contemporary American politics. The statement presumes a respect for conservatism as a serious philosophy rooted in prudence, limited government, and skepticism of sweeping change. What troubles him is not conservatism itself but the public performance of willful ignorance, the elevation of slogans over facts, and the readiness to deride expertise when it conflicts with partisan narratives.
The line gains its bite from the way it mirrors a common experience among observers: the fatigue of trying to defend principled conservatism while prominent figures court outrage, deny established science, or traffic in conspiracies. When debates over climate change, vaccines, or election integrity become tests of tribal loyalty rather than tests of evidence, it gets harder to draw a bright line between conviction and contempt for knowledge. The joke lands because it compresses the dissonance into a single exasperated beat: belief in a difference colliding with the daily news cycle.
As a Canadian satirist, Mercer is also speaking from the vantage of a close neighbor whose media diet is saturated with American politics. His barb reflects the broader concern that polarized incentives reward performative certainty over careful thought. Cable panels, social feeds, and fund-raising emails prefer viral simplicity to rigorous argument; the loudest voices often set the tone for the whole ideological camp. That distortion injures conservatism as much as it injures public discourse, because it reduces a complex tradition to a caricature that is easy to attack and hard to defend.
The underlying plea is not for ideological surrender but for intellectual standards. If conservative ideas are to persuade, they need champions who treat reality as binding, revision as a strength, and disagreement as a path to clarity rather than a cue for mockery.
The line gains its bite from the way it mirrors a common experience among observers: the fatigue of trying to defend principled conservatism while prominent figures court outrage, deny established science, or traffic in conspiracies. When debates over climate change, vaccines, or election integrity become tests of tribal loyalty rather than tests of evidence, it gets harder to draw a bright line between conviction and contempt for knowledge. The joke lands because it compresses the dissonance into a single exasperated beat: belief in a difference colliding with the daily news cycle.
As a Canadian satirist, Mercer is also speaking from the vantage of a close neighbor whose media diet is saturated with American politics. His barb reflects the broader concern that polarized incentives reward performative certainty over careful thought. Cable panels, social feeds, and fund-raising emails prefer viral simplicity to rigorous argument; the loudest voices often set the tone for the whole ideological camp. That distortion injures conservatism as much as it injures public discourse, because it reduces a complex tradition to a caricature that is easy to attack and hard to defend.
The underlying plea is not for ideological surrender but for intellectual standards. If conservative ideas are to persuade, they need champions who treat reality as binding, revision as a strength, and disagreement as a path to clarity rather than a cue for mockery.
Quote Details
| Topic | Sarcastic |
|---|
More Quotes by Rick
Add to List
