Are Liberals Misanthropes? (Disturbing Essay, Episode #6)

Dear ATSers,

This essay fits into the category of "disturbing" because of the unambiguous conclusion it draws, and how contary that conclusion is to the opinion of vast numbers of Americans.

If you ask a group of voters which group, liberals or conservatives, like people more, I expect the majority would say the liberals do. "They love the little guy," would be the common refrain. But the essay argues that, to the contrary, liberals dislike and distrust ordinary people.

He points out that liberal policies have the almost universal effect of reducing peoples' freedom, quality of life, or even life itself.

What I believe he's saying can be seen in two different ways of raising a child. Some parents take care of the child, feed him, provide shelter, and fight for him, while he's too young to do it for himself. Somewhere in the child's late teens, or early twenties, the parents expect their child to be out on his own, contributing to society, making his own decisions, and fighting his own battles.

Other parents continue to feed, shelter, and defend their child, into his thirties and even beyond, if the child wants to stay at home. That is not love, it is either a mental illness, or disguised hatred. The author is of the opinion that, in the case of liberals, it is hatred.

Allow me to give you some samples of his argument.

Liberals can’t like humanity. It would be contrary to everything else they believe.

Reducing an individual’s freedom diminishes that person and makes him smaller, makes him have less of what makes us human.

Individual freedom is a low priority for liberals. In fact, they see individual freedom as a problem, not a blessing. Liberals fear freedom. They don’t like freedom because they don’t like what people do with their freedom. If you don’t like humans and don’t approve of their behavior, you will not want them to be free. If you dislike humans, you’ll dislike liberty. In their view, humans are just no damn good.

Liberals love government. They advocate taking choice away from individuals and putting it in the hands of politicians and bureaucrats. That is a dehumanizing process.

Dislike of humans explains why liberals love regulations. Left on their own humans will buy large sugary soft drinks, showerheads that use too much water, watch Fox News and listen to conservative talk radio. Liberals never met a regulation they didn’t like.

In support of his argument, he calls upon several examples.

Automobiles provide freedom and independence of movement to individuals. Liberals love mass transit.

Abortion reduces the number of people in the world, but it's essential for liberals, as they don't like people.

The Keystone pipeline and fracking provides more abundant energy for Americans, but liberals believe that people are the problem, and their lives should not be made easier.

Regulations are estimated to cost the US economy $ 1.7 trillion a year and that number is growing. That doesn't seem to concern liberals who are apparently more interested in regulating people than allowing them wealth.

Liberals don’t want humans to enjoy themselves. They feel guilty about living and existing, and especially about living opulently.

If they feel guilty they have convicted themselves of some wrongdoing. They seek absolution by buying Priuses and recycling. Driving a hybrid is the modern equivalent to sacrificing a goat to appease the earth gods. It’s like going to confession and a way of doing penance for too much consuming.

And what is taught to children in schools? That their parents and ancestors are racist, they are destroying the eco-system and bringing the world to an apocalyptic end, and love to kill others through war. Basically, that their parents are bad.

When the liberals plans for an utopian future are discussed they center on changing human nature, making people more loving, or selfless, or tolerant, or less materialistic. Thus liberals make two statements. One, we can't stand people as they are, and two, we believe we can change basic human nature to be what we want it to be.

The final sentence of his essay is:

We are being governed by people who don’t like us.

In my mind he has made the case that liberals either don't like, or don't trust, people. That may be the main difference between liberals and conservatives.

With respect,
Charles1952

SORRY. HERE'S THE LINK
spectator.org...

reply to post by charles1952


I find it hilarious that anyone could have the sheer balls to pass this off as anything other than a heavily biased anti-liberal rant.

For a start, any statement, or collection thereof, which address an entire realm of thinking in such unfavourable terms, is at risk, nay entirely guilty of MASSIVE generalisation. Yes, there are liberals who would probably get behind a program to wipe the human race out so that there can finally be total peace on planet Earth, and if you are honest, you probably felt that way once in your life at some point too!

However, the same could be said, for different reasons, of the more conservative thinkers out there. There are going to be a few who would like to shoot all the people who are a different colour, creed, religion, pay grade, have a strange haircut, or any other excuse. But both these camps must have people in them who are NOT entirely psychotic, deluded, self obsessed, self indulgent, petulant five year olds in adult bodies!

To mark the entire liberal movement as people hating destroyers of freedom, is no more accurate than saying that all Britons are buck toothed weirdos who speak the Queens English, ride horses to work, and take the flag of the realm with them on holiday which they fully intend to plant through the bloated corpses of the local population, while claiming that territory as belonging to Queen Elizabeth , huzzar, spit spot, poppycock and so forth.

reply to post by TrueBrit

Dear TrueBrit,

Sorry for the delay in getting back to you, I was reading the posts in the thread commenting on the new ATS. As one poster said, whether you like it or not, what are you going to do about it?

But to get to your comments, they seem to express one main objection. If I understand you correctly, your complaint is that the essay is wrong in trying to deal with every individual, when there are some liberals who do not fall into this category.

You're right that it generalizes, but how can it not? Aren't we agreed that there is a generally accepted liberal philosophy which is distinguishable from the conservative philosophy? Certainly, there will be outliers, and various schools within each movement, but that is not really the topic of discussion.

Of course, the author doesn't approve of the liberal philosophy, just as there are articles disapproving of Monsanto, gun ownership, capitalism, Islam, etc. This seems to be at least as thoughtful as any other, and to my mind it raises an interesting question which should be answered on its merits.

Do liberals like and trust humanity at large? The author concludes they don't and he makes an interesting case.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by charles1952


I believe that liberal ideals promote compassion for ones fellow man, understanding of hardship, and a respect for the majority of the powerless, over the minority of the powerful. Thats the way it ought to be, the way all politicians ought to feel.

The trouble with Liberalism as with ALL political enterprises is, that all of them, bar none, have at some point been tarnished by self obsessed folk who hijack the positive messeges in all political thought, and use them to advance themselves. That is the problem, that is the issue that we face at this time. Liberalism would be fine without the influence of fincances and bloody stupid control freaks. Unfortunately, there seems to be no escape from these things at the higher echelons of politics, regardless of affiliation.

As for normal people who follow the liberal tradition, none of the liberals I have met or spoken too, come across as genocidal maniacs who want to kill the rich and use thier still warm flesh to feed the hungry, or anything as mad as that, so that puts them well above folk who are constantly banging on about immigrants, despite the fact that every nation on Earth bar Ethiopia could be argued to be full of the buggers!

Sometimes I like to read one side "ranting" about the other side. Because I can find truth in it. The truth for me becomes somewhere in the middle between the two opposing sides.

This however was cheap. Examples: Liberals don't want you to enjoy yourselves. Liberals hate humanity. Blah blah.

Looks like what I've learned during debates in high school what are considered to be false arguments.

A essay about how the liberal part of liberals is contradicting, with actual examples of policies, would be much better.

This essay is not disturbing but it's porn and confirmation bias having a hot and sweaty orgy.

reply to post by charles1952


Charles, believe it or not, I come in the defense of liberals.

Liberals tend to deal with issues emotionally. Conservatives tend to deal with issues practically.

We see this in the most often used terms and phrases.

Liberals feel for people.
Don't you CARE about the environment?
Don't you FEEL for the homeless?
Don't you have a HEART for the environment?

Conservatives on the other hand, use phrases like "Equal oppourtunity, not equal outcome".
Responsibility.
Individualism.
Ethics.
Work ethics.

I don't think liberals hate, but I do often feel as though their perceptions are coloured emotionally.

Sincerest regards,

beez

reply to post by TrueBrit

Dear TrueBrit,

I believe that liberal ideals promote compassion for ones fellow man, understanding of hardship, and a respect for the majority of the powerless, over the minority of the powerful. Thats the way it ought to be, the way all politicians ought to feel.

Those beliefs aren't the sole property of liberals. Depending on what you meant by the ideal of respect for the powerless over the powerful, those are all conservative ideals.

The question to be looked at is whether the results of the policies supported by liberals indicate that they have respect and trust for humanity or not. I believe the author's question is, how can liberals claim to like and respect humanity when their policies take its freedom and chance for independent growth and improvement? Why do they support policies that shout out "We don't trust your judgment, and don't expect you to act like adults."

That is the problem, that is the issue that we face at this time. Liberalism would be fine without the influence of fincances and bloody stupid control freaks. Unfortunately, there seems to be no escape from these things at the higher echelons of politics, regardless of affiliation.

But the article isn't discussing such things, it is discussing entire areas of policies which have been identified as liberal, not the strange behavior of some politicians.

As for normal people who follow the liberal tradition, none of the liberals I have met or spoken too, come across as genocidal maniacs who want to kill the rich and use thier still warm flesh to feed the hungry, or anything as mad as that, so that puts them well above folk who are constantly banging on about immigrants,

Is your position that conservatives are cannibals and genocidal maniacs? Or are you saying that they want to eat immigrants? I don't want to narrow the discussion to immigration, but I will say that the efforts of our government to get as many new immigrants as possible on government benefits (and vote liberal) reminds me less of a country encouraging people to be free and independent, and more of a jailer holding an open house.

Is your belief that the great majority of immigrants coming in illegally, are coming to get freedom not available in totalitarian South America? I hope not.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by TrueBrit

For a start, any statement, or collection thereof, which address an entire realm of thinking in such unfavourable terms, is at risk, nay entirely guilty of MASSIVE generalisation.

Human’s make generalizations and associations…..that’s how we survived natural selection.

Yes, there are liberals who would probably get behind a program to wipe the human race out so that there can finally be total peace on planet Earth, and if you are honest, you probably felt that way once in your life at some point too!

It’s crossed my mind. The fact that it’s crossed yours (and mine) throws out your previous argument about generalizations. Otherwise, how could you come up with such a suggestion?

But both these camps must have people in them who are NOT entirely psychotic, deluded, self obsessed, self indulgent, petulant five year olds in adult bodies!

I think both camps have sane people.

To mark the entire liberal movement as people hating destroyers of freedom, is no more accurate than saying that all Britons are buck toothed weirdos who speak the Queens English, ride horses to work, and take the flag of the realm with them on holiday which they fully intend to plant through the bloated corpses of the local population, while claiming that territory as belonging to Queen Elizabeth , huzzar, spit spot, poppycock and so forth.

NOW I’M CONFUSED!!! I thought that was the case! I know the part about “buck toothed weirdos who speak the Queens English” is accurate.

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by charles1952

 

Charles, believe it or not, I come in the defense of liberals.

Liberals tend to deal with issues emotionally. Conservatives tend to deal with issues practically.

We see this in the most often used terms and phrases.

Liberals feel for people.
Don't you CARE about the environment?
Don't you FEEL for the homeless?
Don't you have a HEART for the environment?

Conservatives on the other hand, use phrases like "Equal oppourtunity, not equal outcome".
Responsibility.
Individualism.
Ethics.
Work ethics.

I don't think liberals hate, but I do often feel as though their perceptions are coloured emotionally.

Sincerest regards,

beez

I agree with your examples but I think you fail to see the broader sense of misanthrope.

Sure, they say they feel for the people, environment, homeless etc.

BUT….what do they do for those they supposedly care for? They look down on them, they destroy others in order to give to them (welfare), they kill people in other countries who don’t share their views (war), they take human life to keep from inconveniencing others (abortion), they use MSM to manipulate people and push their ideals onto all of us, they preach equality yet pass laws that do the opposite, etc.

They do have a dislike for people.....people who disagree with them!

As a person who self identifies as a "liberal", I can only assume that I am atypical as a liberal, the author of this essay is misinformed, or he is projecting on some psychological level.

Beezzer is partially right IMO... Feelings are involved with my self-identity. I care about people. I am no tree hugging hippie vegan who cries for twelve hours if I step on an ant. I do not see myself as overly emotional at all. For that matter I do not even see myself as overly compassionate towards my fellow man.

I have no desire to take away any other persons freedoms - though the endless debate over whether or not taxation counts as robbing a man of his freedom. I just happen to feel that if one benefits from the community, then one gives back to it so that one might benefit more from it. I believe a robust economy sees wages high, prices low, and even the most impoverished capable of etching out a basic living.

But these are personal beliefs and I understand that rugged individualists disagree and prefer a dog eat dog approach.

Ultimately I am liberal because I feel that the most precious commodity we have on this plant is people. Not gold, tungsten, platinum, plutonium, diamond, carbon, water, oxygen... but life - particularly human life, as humans have the capacity to become something more than animal. We possess a potential to become so much more than we are. THAT is what I value above all else.

How, by definition, can a deep respect for and love of humanity be misanthropic by nature?

To be honest, I long for a world where Ayn Rand is long forgotten and we can get onto better subjects than whether greed and self-interest are more appropriate than group interest and common goals.

Originally posted by seabag


They do have a dislike for people.....people who disagree with them!

That's the emotional element.

Another old saying.

Liberals think conservatives are evil.
Conservatives just think liberals are wrong.

We take a more pragmatic approach to the world's dilemmas. Liberals the emotional element.

It's like a left brain/right brain writ large.

reply to post by ForbiddenDesire

Dear ForbiddenDesire,

Certainly that was one of the more amusing posts I've read in a long time. Thank you for sharing it with me. You do realise that you can only do it now and then, overdoing it will spoil the fun.

Consider. A brief post containing the following: "Cheap," "Porn," "Hot and sweaty orgy," all from someone named "ForbiddenDesire?" I can't wait for the movie to come out. (Remember not to embed it here, this is a family site.)

This however was cheap. Examples: Liberals don't want you to enjoy yourselves. Liberals hate humanity. Blah blah.

I hope you can understand that this is why I've been posting the Disturbing Essay series. They either have startling information, or connect old information in surprising ways, or reach unconvential conclusions. It's really not a sufficient counter-argument to say "Blah blah."

A essay about how the liberal part of liberals is contradicting, with actual examples of policies, would be much better.

But that's what the essay was. May I encourage you to reread it? He provides a half dozen examples.

With respect,
Charles1952

Liberals believe in personal freedom and liberty, just not yours.

Liberals hate name calling and putting labels on people, unless they're the ones doing it.

Liberals want to take from the rich and give it to the poor, unless that rich person is a liberal.

Liberals hate war, unless they wage it.

Liberals believe in the Constitution, except for the things it says.

Liberals believe in bi-partisan compromise, as long as the conservatives and republicans are doing the compromising.

Liberals support the office of the presidency, unless that person is a republican.

Liberals love religion, except for Christianity.


The same could be said for the democrats as well, except for those who are old time democrats without the progressive theology.

reply to post by beezzer

That's the emotional element.

Yes…you were/are correct.

The end result is the determination of misanthropy.

Does one really 'care about people' if they are alienating the majority and punishing those who don't comply with their views?

In Plato's Phaedo, Socrates defines the misanthrope in relation to his fellow man: "Misanthropy develops when without art one puts complete trust in somebody thinking the man absolutely true and sound and reliable and then a little later discovers him to be bad and unreliable...and when it happens to someone often...he ends up...hating everyone."

en.wikipedia.org...

You must admit they are at least misanthropes that haven't woken up yet!

reply to post by beezzer

Dear beezzer,

Thank you very much, I can't disagree with you at all. Of course, how could I? You are a bunny of very great brain.

Take an "emotional" liberal. He might say "The poor snail darters are declining in population." I have no trouble with that at all, in fact I will applaud him if he buys a few of them and allows them to multiply at home in a tank before releasing them.

I believe the author's difficulty comes with the next step, where the liberal says "It's mankind's fault, they're always messing up the environment. We'll pass laws telling people what they can do and can't do for 100 miles around snail darter territory." Someone will respond, "But what you're proposing will dry up half of the farms in the area, stop development, and put hundreds out of work, costing a billion dollars."

The "emotional" liberal will reply along one or several lines after saying "Tough. We need to save those little darters." He might say that the farmers have benefitted unnaturally or unsustainably and deserve to be cut back. Or he might say that this is a good case to wake up the (stupid, thoughtless) country to the plight of endangered species. Or he might say that we have been greedy and stupid in our water use and need to be told how to manage things. Whatever approach he ends up inventing it will be a variation of "Snail darter, good; humans, bad."

Mayor Bloomberg is a laughing stock for his food recommendations, Michelle Obama is seeing schools drop out of her lunch program. Both of them said, "People, you're too dumb to decide what to eat. We don't trust you with that decision. We'll force you to do what we know is right for you." I'd never say that to anyone I liked. Q.E.D.

I just had a thought. How about assigning liberals the task of discovering problems, and conservatives the task of finding the best way to deal with it?

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by Hefficide

Dear Hefficide,

You know I have a great deal of respect for you, and I hestitate to even comment, but I'm even more reluctant to let your words pass.

I suspect we have a very great deal in common, for you have expressed views that are comfortable to conservatives and Christians. I wonder if there is some semantic difficulty here. Perhaps I am a liberal, or you are a conservative, but it seems we agree.

Christians have always thought that man, as the possessor of an immortal soul, is the most precious thing on the planet. It is the only thing that will last forever. Conservatives (politically) see the individual as the basic unit of rights and liberties who should give up only those liberties neccessary to form a government, and the fewer given up the better.

I have no desire to take away any other persons freedoms

And whatever your preferred classification might be, the author would claim that is a solidly conservative foundation. The people the author describes as liberals are the people that believe there should be fewer individual freedoms because they don't trust people to use them the "right" way. As seabag pointed out, liberals have no trouble caring for those who support them in their efforts to restrain others, either politically, ideologically, or economically.

But these are personal beliefs and I understand that rugged individualists disagree and prefer a dog eat dog approach.

What individualists seem to want is a reduction of the "government eat dog" mentality. The individualists would prefer to give their money away of their own free will, and they do, even today.

For the past four or five years I've been involved in a dinner party with an attendance of beteen 200 and 350 people. It is a fund raiser for young adults who have difficulty coping mentally with the world. The group provides apartments, teachers in the basic life skills, etc. They have raised over a quarter of a million dollars at every dinner party I've been to, and on one occasion, got close to $400,000.

Ultimately I am liberal because I feel that the most precious commodity we have on this plant is people. Not gold, tungsten, platinum, plutonium, diamond, carbon, water, oxygen... but life - particularly human life, as humans have the capacity to become something more than animal. We possess a potential to become so much more than we are. THAT is what I value above all else.

I absolutely agree.

How, by definition, can a deep respect for and love of humanity be misanthropic by nature?

It isn't, and thats why I wonder about the accuracy of your self-classification.

With respect,
Charles1952

"When the liberals plans for an utopian future are discussed they center on changing human nature, making people more loving, or selfless, or tolerant, or less materialistic."

geez, i tell ya, it's just awful that we would want to strive for these qualities. simply appalling.

you know, i don't really get how 'conservatives' could be called conservative. they don't seem to be in favor of conservation of resources much. they usually like to tout consumption. it seems a misnomer...

Originally posted by TrueBrit
reply to post by charles1952

 

" I find it hilarious that anyone could have the sheer balls to pass this off as anything other than a heavily biased anti-liberal rant.

For a start, any statement, or collection thereof, which address an entire realm of thinking in such unfavourable terms, is at risk, nay entirely guilty of MASSIVE generalisation. Yes, there are liberals who would probably get behind a program to wipe the human race out so that there can finally be total peace on planet Earth, and if you are honest, you probably felt that way once in your life at some point too!

However, the same could be said, for different reasons, of the more conservative thinkers out there. There are going to be a few who would like to shoot all the people who are a different colour, creed, religion, pay grade, have a strange haircut, or any other excuse. But both these camps must have people in them who are NOT entirely psychotic, deluded, self obsessed, self indulgent, petulant five year olds in adult bodies!

To mark the entire liberal movement as people hating destroyers of freedom, is no more accurate than saying that all Britons are buck toothed weirdos who speak the Queens English, ride horses to work, and take the flag of the realm with them on holiday which they fully intend to plant through the bloated corpses of the local population, while claiming that territory as belonging to Queen Elizabeth , huzzar, spit spot, poppycock and so forth. "



Hmm....Spoken like a True Misanthrope....................

reply to post by Qi Maker

Dear Qi Maker,

It would be nice to change human nature, wouldn't it? Outside of drugs and surgery or brainwashing and hypnotism, how do you propose to make it work? Can we control human nature and still claim that we want humans to be free? Or, is the plan to turn them into robots?

Besides, who gets to decide what the new American human nature should be? Barack Obama? Hillary Clinton? Michelle Bachmann? No, thanks. Each individual chooses for themselves. I'd like everybody to be saints, but I don't want government regulations to require it.

With respect,
Charles1952

Originally posted by charles1952


I just had a thought. How about assigning liberals the task of discovering problems, and conservatives the task of finding the best way to deal with it?

With respect,
Charles1952

The problem with that is that liberals suffer from Munchausen syndrome, and would just create more problems then they would solve. As seen by any example!