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

Originally posted by badgerprints

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by charles1952

 

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

Sincerest regards,

beez

So conservatives aren't emotional but they hate?
Liberals are emotional but they don't hate?

This is the problem with people in politics.
They arbitrarily pick and choose how they are going to feel about others, then they make up some twisted set of rules to justify what they think.

When/where did I say conservatives hate?
I did state that liberal ideology is more emotional-based.

My opinion.

reply to post by Bluesma

Dear Bluesma,

I really appreciate you and the other posters who are criticizing the article. Thank you for the education. You haave done a fine job of destroying an argument, unfortunately you have destroyed an argument that wasn't made.

No one is criticizing interdependence, denying that groups are more survivable than individuals, or rejecting the idea of defending against outside threats. No one claimed that people should be isolated individuals with no protection against external enemies.

The point of the article was, again, that liberals believe that most humans subject to their governance are not deserving of the full rights and freedoms because they are either to stupid or perverse to use them properly. Firearms, large soft drinks, motorcycle helmets, Bucky Balls (ordered off the market by the Feds), NSA snooping, IRS targeted audits, all these and many more say "We don't trust you, you're stupid or evil."

As Obama said: "And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

The article is claiming the government should have the maximum power, because people need to be controlled. People are (according to the liberal belief) "bitter clingers" who need to be controlled.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by kosmicjack

Dear kosmicjack,

Consider for a moment the the flip side, the counter argument...when it comes to conservatives we are governed by people who either don't like or don't trust government. That's not very functional either.

That is a very useful way of looking at things. Reversal often clarifies issues. But you seem to be providing arguments for the other team.

Do you really think that Americans trust their government? Of course they don't. Do they like it? Not the president, but the government? They don't. It is reasonable to distrust government and not particularly like it. That's the only safe and rational position to take. Maximize (within limits) the power of the people, and minimize (within limits) the power of the government. Who really opposes that?

The answer is, liberals oppose it. Whether it's Obama, with his position on "Bitter clingers," or Bloomberg with his food bans, or silly EPA regs, or nearly anything else, liberals feel comfortable and confident in their role as deciders of human behavior, leaving less and less for the actual humans to decide.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by amazing

Dear amazing,

It's always difficult to know what a writer's motivations are, but may I suggest an alternative?

Perhaps he is not calling for division, but for unity. We on ATS speak often about "Waking people up." I think it is possible he may be attempting the same thing. He may be saying that we should see that certain policies, which seem to be fundamental to modern liberalism, are diminishing people's rights and liberties.

We should "Wake up" and see that some policies, which sound emotionally attractive at the time, actually enforce our role as dependents and order takers instead of strengthing us as free and responsible individuals.

We should unify in attempting to regain our proper role as the basis of the government. We should remember that our founding documents were designed to ensure that the government would not take our freedoms and rights.

Lincoln's call for "government of the people, by the people, for the people" is silenced if we forget that the people are the beginning and the end of the government. The government is not the goal, the people are. People should mold the government, the government should not mold the people.

That is something I hope we could be unified behind.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by ForbiddenDesire

Dear ForbiddenDesire,

I really like your style, humor, and attitude. Out of curiosity I looked at your alternet piece. I found it interesting and worthy of discussion. It seemed to be a little more of a scattershot argument than the one in question here, but if it could be tightened up a little it would make a good thread. In fact, I'm considering it for Disturbing Essay, Episode #7.

If I had one wish for you, it would be that you apply your mind to the argument presented. It may appear trivial to you, but if you could demolish it, it would teach me a lot. That's why I'm here.

With respect,
Charles1952

Yes terribly disturbing .
Disturbing in its hypocrisy and its hopelessly
misguided author.

It reads like,
'These terms are the least likely *terms given to liberals,
But I say its the way they are. So it's the way they are.'

You know, Liberals actually hate humans and freedom etc.
*(actually attributes normally given to staunch conservatives, hence the hypocrisy)

Oh bravo, well done American Spectator,
A bigger load of BS I've never seen.

reply to post by MrInquisitive

Dear MrInquisitive,

I am very grateful to you (as well as some other posters) for taking the time to write such a serious response. My hope is that these Disturbing Essay threads spark intelligent discussion and I am rarely disappointed. (Although this one seems just a bit lighter than is normal.)

Charles1952, I'm not sure exactly what you think of this essay that you created this thread for, but by your last sentence or two in your OP, it would seem you agree with it. Generally you're a more sensible and critical-thinking person than that, from the posts/comments of yours I have read. Must say that I am terribly unimpressed with this one.

I seem to be making a habit of disappointing you, and for that I am sincerely sorry. May I honestly and openly explain my thinking?

As I said, these threads are designed to stimulate discussion concerning an essay which provided me with an "Outside the box" experience. It may be very simple and well known to others, in that case I display my naivete and no harm is done.

To ensure that the subject is treated seriously, I have found that our members want the OP to express an opinion. Since that is nearly a requirement, I expressed one with the following reminder. THIS IS A NEW THOUGHT BEING PRESENTED. I have an initial leaning towards the belief that the author is making a defensible point, but I am hoping that ATSers will either flesh it out or demolish it with rational thought.

As much as I'd like to be an all-knowing human, I'm not. I need vastly more understanding than I have available to share. (If I have any at all)

But let me ask all of you here in this thread piping in on how right this essay is: why is it that conservatives have to make threads about how evil/stupid/wrong-headed/immoral/etc liberals are? At least here at ATS, I don't see a lot of threads by liberals doing the same thing to conservatives. Yes, there are threads pointing out specific actions by conservative/GOP lawmakers or individuals, but liberals don't tend to rant about conservatives per se.

But is this the point of the discussion? Isn't the question whether this article is correct, and not why it was posted? If there are threads criticizing liberals on this wide open forum, does that have any bearing on whether the article posted in this thread is erroneous?

Why do conservatives feel obliged to attack liberals on the internet? If it really matters, there are several answers available. I'll offer some of the top of my head, if you'll remember that this is not part of the discussion. Indeed this entire paragraph could easily be labelled "off-topic." Perhaps there is freedom available on the internet not available anywhere else. Both true opinions and blind hatred are present. I'm not sure there is more from conservatives, but that is even more off the topic. Perhaps it is because that the government has been decidely liberal for the last five years. With peoples' growing dissatisfaction with the government, a dissatisfaction with liberals is not entirely far fetched. Perhaps the problems surfacing recently strike closer to home, the economy, NSA, IRS, increasing regulations on individuals, racial tensions, etc. This may increase the level of passion.

MrInquisitive, I see you as a valuable addition to ATS. Please stay on my tail, and others', and continue to demand high standards.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by ChaoticOrder

Dear ChaoticOrder,

As I just mentioned to MrInquisitive, I am extremely grateful for the effort you put into this discussion. If it wasn't for thoughtful posters like you two (and many others which I will shamefully neglect to mention), ATS would be worthless.

Despite the reverence I have for the OED, I don't believe their definitions really apply to the US political scene and it's current reality. To your credit, it seems that you don't really believe them either.

Based on these definitions, is it not fair to say that liberals value individual liberty and personal freedom? They also promote ideas such as free market economics instead of centralized banking and government interference with the market. They argue that the government should get out of healthcare for that reason, and point to places like Hong Kong as a prime example of what free market capitalism can achieve.

"Based on these definitions," yes, you're right. But as you point out, the definitions are wrong. Liberals "argue that the government should get out of health care?" They are opposed to "government interference with the market?" Obamacare is proof against the first assertion, and the bailouts, Solyndra and Tesla, and renewable energy subsidies are proof against the other. And please remember the run amok Mayor Bloomberg.

It seems, though I may be mistaken, that you are confusing libertarianism with liberal. When Paul or Johnson states:

We believe the best distribution and highest standard of living is done under a free market system. You have an obligation personally to help someone in need, but the government doesn't have the right to take something from you and deliver it out to someone on the streets

They are not presenting the liberal position as maintained in the US system.

According to our old bud beezzer here, liberals are actually like hippies or something who lean towards socialism or collectivism, where as the conservatives place a high importance on personal responsibility and individualism.

Whether you're accurately interpreting beezzer or not is up to him to declare, but I think here you're closer to the generally understood positions of the two groups than the OED definitions or your earlier comments.

And you are using words like "liberties" to define a conservative, and saying that conservatives place a high importance on a non-invasive government and few regulations... after telling us that you could be a liberal, but you're not sure.

And here, instead of using the OED definitions, I was using the hefficide definitions. The way he was defining the words blurred the distinction in my mind. I largely accepted his position, but between the two of us we were trying to find out which was the best word to use. I was not saying that I might be a liberal in the sense of Obama, Pelosi, or Harry Reid.

I think this is the best post of all actually. This poster is saying that liberals are smarter because they understand the benefit of socialist philosophies and working together to achieve common goals, and that the conservatives are leading us to destruction as they seek individual freedom.

I hope he was not saying that, but if he was, I disagree that this is the best post of all. It would be claiming that socialism is for smart people and capitalism is for stupid people. People who do not support socialism are stupid?

And do you think that capitalists are opposed to working together? People who don't work together are subsistence farmers. This is not a country built by subsistence farmers, or socialism.

Seeking individual freedom leads to destruction? Then by all means, you should raise the cry, "Surrendering your individual freedom is the way to survival!" I don't think many will follow that banner, either in the US, or on ATS, despite the efforts of fear-mongers in politics. (At least, I hope they won't.)

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by charles1952


I think liberals "care" about people in their own way. They want to take away the freedoms that can cause them to destroy themselves. Like destroying the earth, and population control(too many people not enough resources). which are a few you touched on.

It is kinda like the over protective mother who does sick heinous things to keep their child safe.. but the outcome is that the child ends up hating their mother.

How many kids say ... you hate me you don't let me do anything...I wish i were dead.. and then the mother is like I AM JUST TRYING TO PROTECT YOU .

Then there are those parents who just let you do whatever the eff you want and you end up dead at teh age of twelve because you thought it was a good idea to drink antifreeze cuz it looked like koolaide.


I don't understand why both conservatives and liberals think the other side hates people and they love people.


An extreme of either one is not good for anyone.

Click here for more information.

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

Um, "liberal" countries have a much higher life expectancy than conservative ones, and also more freedom and quality of life. If you don't believe it try living in Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan for a while.

reply to post by votan

Dear votan,

Excellent point.

I think there is a way to differentiate the positions of the liberals and conservatives, at least as I understand them. Allow me to exaggerate potential responses to the anti-freeze problem. The liberal might say something like:

"Anti-freeze is dangerous. It may only be sold by dealers with a federal anti-freeze dealers license, and installed by licensed mechanics who have registered with the state. Re-sale is prohibited, and purchases will be limited to two gallons a year. Purchases will be transmitted from the installing mechanic and transmitted to a central database containing the number of vehicles currently licensed to the household."

The conservative might say something like:

"Listen, son, it's time you learned something about cars. Let's go down to Joe's Auto Parts and start your education with the cooling system. . . . Hey Joe, give me a couple of gallons of anti-freeze, and a "Cold, dead fingers" bumper sticker, Ok? . . . All right son, this is how you tell if the car needs more fluid, and this is where you put it in. Before you pour it in read the label. See the skull and crossbones? Get it through your thick head that this stuff is dangerous. At first, if you drink any of it, you'll feel drunk, then your muscles will start spasming and you'll jerk around while your heart goes crazy. If you live through that, you'll get serious kidney damage. And if you get through that, when you get home from the hospital I will make absolutely sure that you will be occupied with when you'll be able to move normally again when I'm through with you. DO NOT DRINK THIS STUFF FOR ANY REASON, you hear me? Now, open it up and pour some in."

It seems liberals might say they love people by depriving them of any choice which makes them truly people.

It seems conservatives might say they love people by treating them as adults, and relying on good education, parents, teachers, and churches to provide the information they need to make good decisions.

With respect,
Charles1952

this is from the spectator....Dick Armey, Michele bachman are contributors....gee, no slant there right????....if a liberal sneezes, both of them would say the liberals started the black plaque...... maybe you can ask North Korea's leader Kim, about how he feels about democracy, he would also give you a balanced answer.

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by votan

 

It seems liberals might say they love people by depriving them of any choice which makes them truly people.

It seems conservatives might say they love people by treating them as adults, and relying on good education, parents, teachers, and churches to provide the information they need to make good decisions.

With respect,
Charles1952

Well what do you mean by "good" education??

Do parents, teachers and churches always provide information without bias to make good decisions??

Can a parent be wrong??

Can a teacher be wrong??

Can a church be wrong??

Can they all be wrong enough to lead to decisions that might end up being seen as hating humanity too??


Extreme right is fascism

Extreme left is socialism/communism

There needs to be balance but your bias is showing

stop listening to glenn beck and think for yourself.


I don't buy into either left or right. One is a hammer thinking every problem is a nail... one is a screw driver that thinks everything is a screw... The reality is that you need all these tools to build your project.

reply to post by CB328

Dear CB328,

You know, you may very well be right about life expectancies and other factors, I don't know.. But I'm not entirely sure that that's the point. Do we prefer to live 85 years under a beureaucracy with stringent limits on our behavior, or 75 years as more independent persons?

My other problem is that we may be having difficulties with what the word liberal means. It certainly means something different in Afghanistan, than in New Jersey. I think we'd better stay with the US, since that's what the author seems to be describing in his examples.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by jimmyx

Dear jimmyx,

The article may very well come from a slanted source. I'm not sure whether the author is. But, again, that's not the point.

If the article is wrong, please discuss it so I can set it aside as refuted. But attacking the publishers doesn't advance the discussion at all.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by votan

Dear votan,

Again, I'm grateful for your approach and effort. I think we're very close to agreeing with each other, no matter how strange that may sound.

You're absolutely right that I didn't define a good education. I further believe that many of our young people are not getting a good education, especially in politics, economics, American history, ethics, and logic. It's a pretty well established position here that too many Americans have been "brainwashed by the mainstream media." Those media, plus government educators, provide pretty much the sum total of what many, if not most, Americans know.

While it would be rewarding to devise a "good" education, may we simply agree that the present system is not sufficient to prepare people to be thoughtful, knowledgable, citizens, and could fairly easily be improved?

But the more important point in the author's mind is that, whatever type of education the individual has, liberals will tend to say, "You have to be prevented from doing many things because you are not as educated and wise as we in Washington are?"

Certainly it's possible that the wide variety of interests represented by church, family, school, and the community itself can all be wrong at the same time, but in the end, it's left up to the individual to make the best decision he can.

Isn't it far easier for the politically appointed bureaucrats in the EPA to be wrong? And when they make their decision, the individual no longer has any say in the matter.

Extreme right is fascism

Extreme left is socialism/communism

Actually, I disagree. But, whatever unpleasant labels we put on them only clouds the issue for me.

There needs to be balance but your bias is showing

Here, I completely agree with you. There does need to be a balance. Some problems can only be handled at the national level, most can be handled by the states, either individually or in concert. Many problems can be handled by city or county governments, and some problems don't need government at all.

My "bias" is to get decisions made as close to the individual or family as possible. A question should only be moved up the scale to higher governments if:
1.) It has to be solved at all. Can it be lived with?
2.) The problem affects people at that higher level of government.
3.) The costs in terms of dollars and lost freedom are calculated into the cost benefit analysis.
4.) The people affected by the problem have a powerful say in enacting the cure.
5.) When the problem is solved, the authority granted to the higher level of government is returned to the people.

There may be more considerations, or these may be faulty, but on the internet nearly everything is off the top of my head.

You may be surprised to know that I haven't seen or listened to an entire program of Limbaugh, Hannity, or Beck in at least half a dozen years. I would guess I hear about an hour a month combined.

I don't buy into either left or right. One is a hammer thinking every problem is a nail... one is a screw driver that thinks everything is a screw... The reality is that you need all these tools to build your project.

Forgive me for wondering if your analogy is apt. I think, rather, the question is who should make decisions the majority of the time, people or government officials. Liberals and conservatives, it seems to me, choose different sides.

With respect,
Charles1952

I think the main problem with most liberals is the same problem with most conservatives-their value systems are selective.

Liberals are compassionate, but only for certain groups of people/things that they have decided are the victims and worthy of their compassion.

Animals? Check. Fetuses? Nope. That's part of a woman's body and therefore private, and her right to choose what to do with it.

Suffering African-Americans? Check. Suffering White people? It's your own fault, you lazy redneck; you have "white privilege."

And so on.

reply to post by Snsoc

Dear Snsoc,

Thanks very much for that. I hope we can expand on that. You may have found a serious approach to the problem presented by the author. If the author is correct that liberals don't like people (a conclusion which is still up for grabs), perhaps there is a similar essay to be written entitled "Conservatives Don't Like ________."

The author believes, as do you, that the vale systems of liberals are selective. His position is that liberals don't care for people unless they are in agreement with or controlled by liberals. Let's see how your examples fit.

Liberals do like non-human animals, but have no problem with killing humans in the earliest stages of development. They support the "environment," even when such support causes damage to people. As a subset of the environment, global warming is claimed to be the fault of humans, and humans must give up time and money to deal with it, regardless of the efficiency of the solution or other purposes to which the effort might be put. We have heard of liberals calling humanity a cancer or a virus on the planet, which has to be shaken off or destroyed.

Your example of liberals being compassionate towards Black people is interesting. I have heard that, but I'm not sure what they have done to help Black people. Jobs, education, intact families, violence free streets, reduced drug use, getting off welfare and government benefits, would all be plusses for Blacks (or anyone else) but I haven't seen any serious effort to actually do anything about it.

Consider the ten cities (above 250,000) with the highest poverty rate: Detroit, Buffalo, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Miami, St. Louis, El Paso, Milwaukee, Philadelphia, Newark. (in order) They have all had Democrat Mayors for at least the last twenty years, in some cases, fifty years.
www.ijreview.com...
Are their policies working to make Blacks and the poor more powerful and free? And why not say they have compassion for the Blacks? For the last 50 years the Democrat presidential candidate has received at least 80% of the Black vote in every election, the number is, of course, much higher for our current president.

I'm not sure the case has been made that liberals are seriously interested in making Blacks proud and independent.

But now, I need your help on what conservatives don't like. One would be being told what to do. Another would be helping the poor who could make it on their own. But I don't think they object to making personal donations. My fallible memory tell me that they out-give liberals, but I'd have to check that.

With respect,
Charles1952