Valid Point, Poor Article

I kind of agree with the point of this article about smug liberalism, but the article itself doesn't do a very good job of conveying the point (and you can probably look to this other Vox article for a good reason why).

There is certainly a fair amount of smug disdain from [more liberal] Democrats toward large elements of the Republican base, but pointing out all the ways that liberals are, in fact, correct, and that liberal positions have more soundly reasoned grounds is a poor way to convey that.  Further, the Kim Davis example is particularly problematic since liberal women (see; Clinton, Pelosi, Sotomayor) are quite regularly attacked for their looks.

The problem is not that liberals are right and conservatives are wrong. The problem is that the Republican party itself is not interested in governing or allowing for government to function.  It isn't ideology.

The problem is that people who don't agree, broadly, with the Democratic party don't have a capable, competent party to turn to.  They have to vote Republican or not at all.  Small parties like the Greens and Libertarians don't have sufficient standing to really impact things.

I am quite liberal myself, but I know that, aside from questions of fact (which are real, not smugness) there are other approaches to most problems/situations that I disagree with but which certainly can be valid.  There is not really a home for those positions any more.

People who don't like Democratic positions have a choice between a party they don't agree with and one that is full of extremists, reactionaries and racists, and some of those people, who may be none of those things, will nevertheless vote for that party because they see it as the lesser of two evils...which, frankly is also what a lot of Democratic voters do.