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

reply to post by daskakik


The article could or is complete crap.



Whats worth more then the article is the discussion of how we all view Misanthropy or even if there is a basis for it.

I love ATS because we can have serious discussion about it.

That being said, I applaud Charles for even bringing it up. Disturbing Indeed............

reply to post by sonnny1

True, but he keeps asking people to prove the article wrong as if its a golden nugget of truth.

I offered the idea, based on the definition of misanthropy being a distrust of human nature, that we are all misanthropes.

As bluesma pointed out, and charles agreed, humans need laws. Why? Simple, distrust of human nature.

Conservatives don't trust government. Why? Distrust of human nature.

And, honestly, there is good reason for it.

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by Bluesma

 

One is that the article is self contradictory,

More like the arguments invalidate each other, making holes in the logic presented.

that humans need some restraints on them.

To clarify- that humans who intend to live in a society do. Not ones which choose to live outside the benefits and protection of a group. It is an element of social behavior.

1) Liberals believe in (or their policies result in), strict controls on personal choice, because people are too stupid, evil, or both, to make the "approved" choice.

This is not a reliable evidence. For many liberals, they believe that some limits to personal choice are necessary because people can be weak, they can have differing perceptions, they can have varying levels of competivity and aggressivity or self control.

(I don't believe in evil, and find "stupid" to be a rather non-specific term)

Designating a framework of acceptable and unacceptable behaviors provides a general guide for the members, which protect the individual rights.

2) They also believe in reducing the living standard of people and encouraging more to become dependent on government programs. In effect becoming government "slaves."

I am really trying to remain respectful and serious, but this is another one of those statements that not only sounds as childish as "evil and stupid", but is completely without any foundation to argue with.
Social behavior includes things like altruism and reciprocity as behaviors which increase the chances of survival of the members. (www.nature.com... )

3) Liberals believe that people cause more trouble than their worth, and an individual human isn't of much use. Having vast numbers killed or die off, can be justified on various grounds.

What is the explanation for such a conclusion????

to address the charge of self contradiction, I would look primarily at claim 3) above. Isn't it fairly clear that abortion helps people die off?

Okay, that is where the statement came from. I cannot say if a fetus can be called a person.
But most pro-abortion people do not think they are, so the above assumption doesn't make sense in their case.

But you are distracting from my point- if limiting peoples freedom is necessarily evidence of misanthropy,
Then to limit their freedom to abort is motivated by misanthropy.
The author denies anti-abortionists being misanthropes, therefore invalidating his own earlier claim.

The author's point (see point 1, above) is that liberals seem to prefer regulations and conservatives seem to prefer freedom. Conservatives know that some laws are needed, just as liberals know (I hope they do) that some freedom is needed. But, just because neither side is wedded to the exaggerated implementation of their policies, it doesn't mean that there isn't a sharp difference.

I have not seen an effective argument to support that claim. Regulations that protect the freedom of humans serve both concerns.

I will concede, on a very personal level, that liberals are more likely to be concerned about protecting the members of society that are vulnerable or weak- the young, the elderly, the handicapped, the sick or injured, those with difficulty in areas of education, mental capacity, self discipline, impulse control, addictive tendancies.

They do tend to feel that a society, in order to survive, has a duty to stear those members away from destructive behaviors. In social groupings of animals, this is what happens. The well being of your fellow herd member is intimately aligned with your own well being.

One thing I'd like to point out is that predators benefit from scattering and fragmenting the herd. So if the wolf can get them to buy into individualism as more valuable than social solidarity, then each individual member suddenly has his chances of survival plummet.

reply to post by daskakik

Dear daskakik,

I hope I'm wrong, but I'm beginning to sense that you have a personal animosity towards me. I'm sorry that's happened.

You have done it to more than one poster on this thread so it wasn't just a slip.

Please tell me what it was that I did. It is truly not my intention to attack or offend anyone personally.

You want proof of how slanted the article is?

Actually, I'd like evidence of how wrong it is, but I'll settle for anything.

Liberals support the right to bare arms. The liberal gun club

I'm glad to hear it. People who responsibly exercise their rights is a good thing. Most people do not agree 100% with every issue their party or philosophy supports. I'm not surprised that there are some liberals who take a pro-gun position, I suppose there are some conservatives who take the liberal view on one or more issues. May I ask, from where are the gun control proposals coming from, conservatives or liberals? The cities with strict gun control laws, like D.C. and Chicago, are they run by liberal or conservative mayors?

Liberals own and enjoy gas driven vehicles. Liberal Motorcycle Riders of Raleigh Durham

My comments here would be similar to those concerning the liberal gun club. Who is proposing less reliance on cars and more on government transportation? Who is proposing smaller, lighter, less crash resistant cars? What about gas prices and exploitation of American fuel supplies? Who is proposing mileage taxes, etc.?

I'm sure there are many more examples which would prove how untrue the claims in that article are.

The truth is that the author of that article didn't offer any solid proof for their claims.

I find I'm not able to agree with you. What he has presented is a collection of liberal policies and policy goals which support his assertion. I'm sure there are individual exceptions to everything, but it's less important to consider those, and more important to consider what the liberal philosophy towards the individual is, and how that philosophy produces laws and regulations binding on all of us.

I don't see how you can come on here and ask us to prove him wrong when it should be obvious to everyone how shoddy the article really is.

Actually, I was looking for a good discussion helping us to find the truth, but yes, deep inside, I'd like him to be shown to be wrong. If the weakness of the article is so obvious to everyone, I wish "everyone" would step forward and demolish the article.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by charles1952

No animosity here. Just pointing out that despite asking that the article be demolished you keep dismissing those who have done just that.

You keep defending his shallow and baseless claims while dismissing solid examples that contradict those claims. It looks like deep down inside you want him to be right because you are fighting real hard for it.

reply to post by Bluesma

Dear Bluesma,

One of my many sins is excessive wordiness. I was called away while writing a reply to you, a reply which would require editing to fit the 5,000 character limit. Perhaps that's the wrong approach, may I try another?

We agree on many things. The most important may be that humans require some restraint on their behavior. I think the analysis comes down to two questions. What is the scope of the restraint? Who should impose the restraint?

Is a restraint is justified because it will reduce the risk of future health problems?

Is a restraint justified to prevent offering simple offense to someone?

Is the federal government justified in determining our permitted cars, toilets, lightbulbs, shower faucets, and office toys (Bucky Balls)?

The list of federal restraints and requirements is endless, incomprehensible, and impossible to comply with completely. It has been estimated that the average American commits several felonies each day because of violations of one regulation or another.

I agree on defending the persons, property, and rights, of each American from force and fraud. Those restraints are proper. What gets added to that, is what seperates liberals from conservatives.

The second question is who decides who will take away, or restrain, the people's liberty? The liberal's position seems to be that it should be left in the hands of those supermen who have the concern, knowledge, and wisdom to make those personal decisions for us. Is there a seperate breeding facility for these supermen, or are they as weak, jealous, greedy, and petty as anyone else? How do they become entitled to tell a farmer that his son cannot drive a tractor anywhere off his farm without a commercial driver's license, and other tests and licenses? Even if he's just driving across the gravel road to get to the farm across the way.

I'd rather entrust the government of the United States to the first 400 people listed in the Boston telephone directory than to the faculty of Harvard University.

--- William F. Buckley, Jr.

Mankind is so fallen that no man can be trusted with unchecked power over his fellows. Aristotle said that some people were only fit to be slaves. I do not contradict him. But I reject slavery because I see no men fit to be masters.

--- C.S. Lewis in "Equality" from Present Concerns

I don't know whether this approach is more fruitful. Choose whichever you'd like, I'd be happy to keep exploring with you.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by daskakik

Dear daskakik,

Sorry, I read through the thread again and the article just isn't demolished. The examples you've provided have been discussed and dealt with.

The discussion with Bluesma has been lengthy and informative, it may find a real weakness in the article, I don't know. We'll keep looking for that weakness, but until then the article stands, despite your unsupported assertion that it doesn't.

With respect,
Charles1952

I don't know, I've studied liberals, asked them questions and received answers that lead me to believe they are far too trusting of people. They tend to implicitly and naively trust government to a tee, they don't seem to question high taxes and where those funds end up, often, they somehow believe that government entities are fighting for the little guy, etc. All of that seems to be the exact opposite of the conclusions of this paper.

reply to post by bigrex


Dear bigrex,

Interesting stuff. I wonder if your observations contradict the author, or support him.

They tend to implicitly and naively trust government to a tee, they don't seem to question high taxes and where those funds end up, often, they somehow believe that government entities are fighting for the little guy, etc. All of that seems to be the exact opposite of the conclusions of this paper.

The excessive trust they have for government, is that because they trust government to make decisions more than they trust themelves?

I wonder if they're saying, in effect, "The government knows what is best for me. I will do what the government wants. I'm sure the government's intentions are good. The government is filled with wiser and more noble people than we are, it is only right that they should decide for us."

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by charles1952


If you don't see it, it is because you choose not to. The truth is that you shouldn't need someone to point out where that article fails but here we are.

Hate to turn the tables on you but, that is just your opinion.

I think many posters have made some excellent comments, particularly those having to do with mysanthropic tendencies in BOTH of our primary political schools of thought, this being liberal and conservative thinking.

I find it frightening we must always be putting the one against the other in an attempt at explaining the woes of our society. Liberals blame conservative, conservatives blame liberals. Muslims blame Christians, vice versa, and so on and so forth... As another pointed out, the generalization in and of itself is disturbing as this line of thinking is at the basis of all fascist ideologies. It really is as simple as scapegoating, developing a boogeyman, if you will, in which to place all your fears and anger, and both sides have their boogeyman.

I, as a self identifying libertarian conservative, who really came to my current political understanding after discovering Dr. Ron Paul in 2006 at the end of high school and beginning my journey of education, have come to the defense of liberalism time after time throughout the years and found myseld at odds with many other "conservatives" because I find the vilification of the word and ideology to be extremely dangerous. Even as a conservative, I appreciate the great liberal thinking of our time and understand the true meaning of the word, not how it is used today, in a derogatory sense to describe people that true liberals would and do abhor. The real deception is that these ideologies must be kept seperate and at continual odds with each other, despite the fact people like me are living proof that they can coexist naturally and peacefully. Someone such as me, whose "conservative" side believes in limited, efficient government and whose "liberal" side despises war, respects human rights, and believes in welfare for the less fortunate, not multi billion dollar corporations.

I look at my family as a microcosm of our world. My grandparents are teachers and they and their friends are the most liberal people I know. I certainly don't agree with everything they believe but they are the most caring, intelligent people I've ever met. My mother, their daughter, in recent years after heavy ingestion of right wing propaganda blames all the countries ills on liberalism and progressivism and sees them as soulless demons. Something doesn't add up. Liberalism, in the true Jeffersonian sense, is about respecting human nature, human rights, and human decency. In this regard, it is the opposite of mysanthropic.

Take a look at Barack Obama. There are plenty of people out there who blame him for as much as the total destruction of our country. One single man. And they see this as a natural progression of his extreme "liberal" upbringing and beliefs. Problem with that is, Obama is no liberal, and any real liberal would despise his policies. He plays liberal well, his rhetoric suggests it, but his actions - continuing the unconstitutional bombings of Muslim countries all over the globe, the complete support for big business and the destruction of small business - he's a business as usual fascist. And the liberal cover works well in disguising this.

I recommend to all in this thread the book Death of the Liberal Class by Chris Hedges. One of my all time favorites. In this exhaustively well researched piece of art, Hedges describes in detail the necessity of liberal thought and liberal institutions - universities, unions, art, news media, the Democratic Party, etc - especially in fighting displaced power and protection of the people, and how that has all been undermined and corrupted by the corporate class in order to serve it.

A selection from the book:
"Classical liberalism was formulated largely as a response to the dissolution of feudalism and church authoritarianism. It argued for non-interference or independence under the rule of law. It incorporates a few aspects of ancient Athenian philosophy as expressed by Pericles and the Sophists, but was a philosophical system that marked a radical rupture with both Aristotelian thought and medieval theology. Classical liberalism has, the philosopher John Gray writes, 'four principle features, or perspectives, which give it a recognizable identity: it is individualist, in that it asserts the moral primacy of the person against any collectivity; egalitarian, in that it confers on all human beings the same basic moral status; universalist, affirming the moral unity of the species; and meliorist, in that it asserts the openended improvability, by use of critical reason, of human life.'"

Does anyone see how liberalism, one of the last true lines of thinking RESPECTING human life and individuality, has been corrupted and turned on its head and made to be evil so as to discredit it? Anyone else see this? Any fellow conservatives?

We better see it quick, it's probably already too late. Is that not what our rulers would do? Get us to give up our own humanity, our ways of protection?

reply to post by Patriotgames2

Dear Patriotgames2,

Wonderful, outstanding post! Thank you. Is that the average level of quality thought possessed by Texans? If it is I'll have to move down there, when I'm rich enough to do it, and spend time learning. Comments like yours are what I was hoping for in order to broaden our thinking.

You've pointed out a significant problem, the correct meaning and usage of crucial words. I'm very tempted to say that they should be used in the way the people use them today, and the way that the author uses them in his essay. Unfortunately, that closes the door to the true meaning of the words, and to a rich legacy of political thought. I don't see an easy solution, but I truly sympathize with your problem.

A friend of mine had been a fan of rainbows for a long time and had several attached to her car. She was approached by a lesbian one day who attempted to pick her up and explained what the rainbow meant. She had always thought they represented God's promise to Noah, but ended up taking them all down because the meaning had been destroyed.

'four principle features, or perspectives, which give it a recognizable identity: it is individualist, in that it asserts the moral primacy of the person against any collectivity; egalitarian, in that it confers on all human beings the same basic moral status; universalist, affirming the moral unity of the species; and meliorist, in that it asserts the openended improvability, by use of critical reason, of human life.'"

Does anyone see how liberalism, one of the last true lines of thinking RESPECTING human life and individuality, has been corrupted and turned on its head and made to be evil so as to discredit it? Anyone else see this? Any fellow conservatives?

Classical liberalism is a wonderful philosophy and I would hope that few conservatives would reject any of the principles mentioned. I agree that it has been corrupted to a new form. That new form doesn't seem to have a name yet, democratic socialism and liberalism both having fallen out of favor. I believe the new "hot" name is "progressivism," but how the philosophy will eventually be branded is beyond me. If you want to describe Obama as a "business as usual fascist," I would say that you are quite accurate in placing his philosophy solidly in the Mussolini camp. I dread the reaction of ATSers, however correct the label may be.

And even your "liberal" side is not foreign to me. Sane people must despise war, while allowing for it's tragic necessity in extreme cases. True human rights must be respected to preserve the dignity of the person. Corporate welfare has been condemned by the Tea Party, the Occupy movement, and many conservatives. Welfare for the less fortunate is a moral necessity. The difference is how the money is collected and who distributes it.

I am not willing to say that all "modern" liberals are misanthropes. I'm not sure the author quite means that either. But I do think that "modern" liberal policies have resulted in harm to the people they claim to care about, and those policies stem from a very wrong philosophy based on the lack of trust in the ability of the people to decide for themselves.

I'm much more concerned with the philosophy and policies, and less concerned with individuals.

Thank you again, and please share more of your thoughts.

With respect,
Charles1952

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by Bluesma

 

One of my many sins is excessive wordiness. I was called away while writing a reply to you, a reply which would require editing to fit the 5,000 character limit. Perhaps that's the wrong approach, may I try another?

Well, I don't consider it a sin, but I obviously do the same. The questions we are examining here have many parts.

We agree on many things. The most important may be that humans require some restraint on their behavior. I think the analysis comes down to two questions. What is the scope of the restraint? Who should impose the restraint?

That is why, my personal opinion is that liberals and conservatives both intend to lay down common restrictions and perimeters for the collective- they just simply have differing ideas on which ones those should be.
They are both made up of people with good intents but different world views and values.

In the USA, at this time, I feel that the laws are "going overboard", yes. When it comes to making laws about political correct speech, for example.
If a law can ban low quality fast food in a high school, but not ban the use of GMO's, and intensive hormone and antibiotic use in consumed animals, I find it somewhat irrational.
But it is evidence of the split in values at this time.

The value of individual rights as more important than the that of the collective rights (and belief that they are not intertwined) has lead to various problems that we are experiencing now. That giant corporations are considered individuals means they win over blood and bone individuals.

To add to that, this extreme swing of the pendalum into masculine and paternal values has swung very far away from the feminine and maternal values, such as cultural solidarity- the non-official enforcement of common rules, traditions, beliefs, and behaviors. This is traditionally spead through females in a group- mainly in early childhood education.

In animal training circles, we call it the "social education" and when an animal did not have a youth surrounded by a herd of females to condition these things they are considered almost handicapped as adults. In other words, there is a kind of stupidity that results from missing that.
In France it is called the "maternal" education, and the first public school is called "the Maternal" which is really our pre-school. (ages 2 - 5).

Because we devalued stay at home mothers, traditional female activities such gossiping together (which in most cultures is how the females come to common agreement in a community on what is acceptable moral behavior and what isn't, which they will instill in their young), have been repressed.

As well as the devaluation of vulnerability, weakness, fragility, interdependance have all but destroyed the kind of education which would normally make the members of our society subconsciously respectful of each other with common shared behaviors, as well as repulsed from self destructive behaviors as an instilled conditioned reflex. If we still had more maternal or social conditioning, no laws would be needed for protecting people from each other and from themselves- at least not to this extent!

So we're seeing a swing of the pendalum in the other direction as a result of this extreme paternalization and the damage it has inflicted. This was predicted many years ago by some sociologists, I remember reading.

Liberalism still means value of the individual, except neo-liberalism perceives that the well being of the individual is directly effected by the well being of the collective it is part of. They are intertwined.


If it is less wordiness you would prefer, I am not the best person to achieve that. But in making some effort, I can try to sum it up as- over-paternalism emerges when there has been a lack of maternalism.

Since I wrote this post, I can't stop thinking about the example of my father in law- a philosopher and psychoanalyst, self proclaimed individualist, ex-hippy, existentialist, all for the freedom of individual choice.....
One of his ideas has always been that humans do not need a moral direction or control- a certain ethical response to each other is part of our inherent nature. We don't need to be forced into cultural traditions and ethical restraints.

So his child (my half brother) recieved none of that. He was allowed to express his individuality, without it being forced into any "molds".

He is now a meth and oxy addict, in and out of jail, homeless..... but even as a child, he was missing that ability to be respectful of those around him, or refrain from self destructive behaviors.
My stepdad has come to the conclusion that he had some sort of mental handicap (it ranges from forms of autism to ADD, chemical disbalances, etc.) which is the reason this "inherent" repulsion to behaviors which are destructive for self or other seem to be missing.

My answer is that he had a typical maternal education in the 50's (before feminism came in to abolish that).
His mother, through subtle conditionign and manipulation, set in him a framework of repulsion to self destructive acts, and an attraction to ones which nurture cooperation with others. So they emerge later almost "as if by magic" or as automatic reflexes, and he assumed he was born with them.
He didn't give his mother enough credit for who he is, and for the creation of the individuals that shall be exercising their free will as an adult!

reply to post by charles1952


@Charles1952,

Thanks for the reply to my post. And I have to say you are doing a very commendable job of replying to many others too.

First off, if my question regarding why conservatives -- more than liberals -- tend to write screeds like this essay that you cite in your OP is off-topic, so be it. I, however, find it very germane because it goes to the heart of these general attacks on liberals by conservatives like the one you quote.

But hey, let me address the essay directly.

First off, he/she claims liberals hate people because they hate freedom. How exactly do liberals hate freedom? It tends to be conservatives who create laws that take away freedoms. Conservatives are against reproductive freedom for women, and they want to curtail women's reproductive rights. In Texas, where a special session was held twice for a new stringent anti-abortion law, the Republican-controlled capitol security were confiscating women's hygiene products in an attempt to harass and intimidate women from going to see the session. The excuse was made that bottles of urine and feces were found, so the storm troopers had to confiscate tampons and maxipads in case they were used the same way. Well no evidence has ever been provided that these supposed jars of bodily waste were found. And indeed, if any were, you would be sure that the people bringing them in would be arrested or fined, but no such cases have occurred. Here was a case of conservatives enacting a freedom-curtailing law against women, and they were doing there best to intimidate women and keep them from going to the legislative session. This law was not being pushed by liberals, and liberals weren't confiscating women's personal hygiene products.

It is Republicans/conservatives who are now, with the recent SCOTUS decision overturning portions of the voting rights act, enacting legislation to curtail/inhibit the voting of minorities. Voting is supposed to be a right -- not just a freedom -- yet conservatives are trying to take it away from groups that disagree with them. They are trying to take it away from college students who vote in the district that their school is. It is not liberals trying to curtail voting rights and political freedom.

When George W Bush, a Republican, was president, people were kept from going to public places where he spoke on account of the t-shirts they were wearing, which said things against him. This again was more than just a curtailment of these persons' freedoms, it was an abridgment of their rights of free speech.

RIchard Nixon, a conservative Republican, started the War of Drugs. He and his political cronies chose to curtail the freedom of people to choose the intoxicants and psychoactives of their choice. Yes, most mainstream Democrats have gone along with the war on drugs, but it has been Democratic administrations, including Obama's now, that have lightened up on this War.

It is conservatives who have been against allowing gay people to have the freedom/right to marry who they choose; it has not been liberals. Who's taking away a person's freedom here? It is not liberals.

As for the claim in the essay that liberals are for mass transportation and wanting to take away people's cars, I have yet to hear of any liberals or Democrats trying to take away anybody's car. Yes, Dems and libs are generally for mass transit: what is wrong with that? Some people can afford cars, and cars are an inefficient transportation system that creates a lot of pollution and uses up a lot of natural resources. What is wrong with trying to give people an alternative to cars -- particularly if they can't afford a car? So liberals are misanthropes because they want to limit air pollution and economize on the use of non-renewable resources? We are fighting wars and killing thousands of people in the middle east because of petroleum. It was liberals who protested Bush II's march to war against Iraq, which was in large part an attempt to control the oil of the middle east. How were protests against this illegal, falsely justified war in any way a case of liberals hating people?

These are just a few examples of refutations of this ridiculous essay you cite. It is such an outlandish hypothesis that it really doesn't warrant a response in the first place, but because you asked me to stay on topic I respected your wish. This essay is full of twisted, incoherent pseudo logic and sophistry, and there are people in this thread actually supporting the thesis of it, and throwing in their extra two-cents of how misanthropic liberals are. It's really incredible that people think and act this way.

I would never attempt writing a anti-conservative screed essay trying to stereotype all conservative as such and such. I know enough to know that there are all shades/flavors of conservatives, and they all have their own reasons -- good or not -- for their beliefs. Why are conservatives so hung up on painting all liberals negatively and with one brush? It's like there belief system requires one big, continuous ad hominem attack against their political opposition. I know that isn't the topic of the thread, but it sure is related to this essay and the rhetoric of the liberal-bashing conservatives commenting in this thread.

reply to post by Bluesma

Dear Bluesma,

Thank you for a very rewarding discussion. I'm sorry that it's taken me this long to change my focus to match yours, but you know what they say about "Old dogs."

That is why, my personal opinion is that liberals and conservatives both intend to lay down common restrictions and perimeters for the collective- they just simply have differing ideas on which ones those should be. They are both made up of people with good intents but different world views and values.

I operate from the same position as yours. I am not willing to believe that liberals are intending on destroying society, simply remaking it into something "better."

In the USA, at this time, I feel that the laws are "going overboard", yes.

As do I, and I believe the majority of Americans do as well. What this tells me is that we have an almost instinctive sense of where the line should be drawn, and that our current government has swung far past the "Golden mean." Perhaps the author's message is more properly taken as "We are in a position of having too many laws and restrictions. This has occurred primarily because of the efforts of those grouped under the banner of "Modern liberalism" or "progressivism," with results damaging to individuals and society.

Individual rights and group rights are both important, but I may not be clear on your meaning. I don't see them as competing rights, except in the case of an individual having a right because they are a member of a group, which other Americans don't have.

But I do like your focus on maternal v. paternal values. What a broad discussion that could engender!. One sub-topic that comes to mind is the passing of both sets of values to a child in a "same-sex" household. But never mind that for now.

I have a different view of where the pendulum is at the moment. It seems to me that it is well on the maternal side of the maternal v paternal scale. You may agree, but I had the opposite impression from your post. I see the excessive laws as part of what is widely described as a "Nanny state." Perhaps it is worth noting that Mayor Bloomberg is often referred to as "Nanny Bloomberg."

I wonder if the increase in families headed by unmarried women, and the nearly totally female makeup of children for their first several years of school, have helped create our feminization and acceptance of maternal values. Boys being suspended from school for nibbling a pop-tart into a pistol shape, and elimination of contact activities at recess, have also put weight on one side of the maternal-paternal scale.

I agree that by not having stay at home mothers, the female influence is weakened, but in far too many homes there is absolutely no paternal influence. One thing that urban children need more than anything else, according to many, is a positive male role model.

I find it difficult to identify laws or policies that have come from government in the past 5-7 years that have favored male independence over female dependence. I think of bailouts, Obamacare, Gay marriage, foreign policy decisions, NSA snooping, as all being influenced by maternal values.

Reagan was seen as more individualistic, and the second Bush had a reputation (Only partially accurate. After all he had agreement from 40 nations.) for paternal values for a few years, but that's been about it. True, there are groups crying for more individualism, but that's because they feel threatened.

Your point about corporations is interesting, but I think you take the idea of "corporations are people" and extend it further than was intended. Mind a side trip?

People have certain rights. Corporations were devised, and could only exist, with some of the rights that humans have, such as the right to own property and the right to enter into contracts. Those rights have been in existence, for our purposes, forever. The only thing that Citizens United did was to declare that corporations also had the right of free speech. Political donations have been considered free speech for, what, half a century? So, corporations had the right to make political donations. They still can't vote, get married, get a driver's license, or any of many other things reserved for actual humans.

You're right, this topic deserves serious discussion, and I'm grateful that you're supplying it. So with your kind permission, I'll keep using words in abundance and encourage you to do the same.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by Bluesma

REPLY PART 2

The story of your father-in-law is fascinating, and I suspect, not unique.

I agree with him in that I think we do have ethical instructions available to us innately, if we are attempting to behave ethically. As for the rest of it, I disagree. We all need to be made aware of those ethical requirements which are common to nearly all civilizations throughout history. Some of those are "feminine" in your structure and some are "masculine."

Besides these very fundamental ethical basics, we should be given examples of how men and women should behave in society. Because your half-brother had none of this, he was free to follow his own desires without restraint or guidance except that which was provide by police.

But I am confused by some of your comments. On one side, I get the impression that he did not have the ability to respect others or stop from hurting himself. On the other, you seem to say his mother gave him the framework to show respect and avoid hurting himself. I don't completely understand.

Those are both noble goals, respect and self preservation, but I don't see them as necessarily maternal or paternal. Respect for others was taught in John Wayne movies as well as in church Sunday school led by an old lady.

I would like to repeat my fundamental agreement with you. Laws, restraints, rules, and ethical standards are all required for a properly functioning human being and society. An excess of those laws leads to a dull, mindless, immature, dependent, and frightened human and society. I think we have an excess now, and do not see that the situation will change soon.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by MrInquisitive

Dear MrInquisitive,

Thank you for bringing up good points, and I'll do my best to try to explain why I think they don't "demolish" the essay's thesis.

Conservatives are against reproductive freedom for women, and they want to curtail women's reproductive rights.

By that you mean that conservatives disapprove of nearly all abortions. As I mentioned, had those abortions not been performed, we would have 55 million more people than we do now. By subtracting them we lose about 17% of our potential population. That ties in well with the author's view that some liberal policies and philosophies are based on the idea that people are net negatives and should be eliminated.

I believe you've misunderstood the facts in the jars of urine matter, and portions of your argument in that case are based on a misunderstanding. But the pertinent fact was that this was a one-time event, conducted by a local unit of government for security reasons, not political ones. You can't get into an Obama speech with that stuff either, or now, even in some NFL football stadiums. And claiming that it was a conservative attempt to keep women from attending is not supported by evidence or reason.

Bringing up Nixon and the "War on Drugs" tends to prove the author's point and not yours.

Although Nixon declared the War on Drugs in 1971, the policies that his administration implemented as part of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 were a continuation of drug prohibition policies in the U.S., which started in 1914. Less well-known today is that the Nixon Administration also repealed the federal 2–10-year mandatory minimum sentences for possession of marijuana and started federal demand reduction programs and drug-treatment programs. Robert DuPont, the "Drug czar" in the Nixon Administration, stated it would be more accurate to say that Nixon ended, rather than launched, the "war on drugs".

In 1935 the president Franklin D. Roosevelt, publicly supported the adoption of the Uniform State Narcotic Drug Act. The New York Times used the headline "ROOSEVELT ASKS NARCOTIC WAR AID." (emphasis added)

en.wikipedia.org...

Your comments on the Voting Rights Act by the US Supreme Court and certain governors do not accurately reflect the intent or effect of the proposed legislation. No voting rights are being taken away.

I agree that there is not a wholesale confiscation of cars. But isn't the issue how free people are to use them? In the case of current mass transit projects, taxpayers' money is taken to build and operate a system which would never survive on it's own. The multi-billion California high-speed rail into the desert project is one such.

Car prices are higher than people can afford, gas prices are much higher now than in under the last administration. The result is that the age of cars on the road is going up, requiring increasing expenditures on repairs and making replacement more likely, but as we've seen, less possible.

At the end of last year the average vehicle sold for a record $31,228, Kiplinger's Money Power said.

In its 2013 Car Affordability Study, Interest.com, a financial website, suggests a "20/4/10" rule to calculate how much you can afford to spend for a new ride. That's a downpayment of at least 20 percent, financing for no more than 4 years, and principal, interest and insurance not more than 10 percent of a household's gross income.

Based on that formula residents of only one city in the United States -- Washington -- could afford to buy a vehicle with an average price of $31,940, the sticker price of a well-optioned family sedan or crossover sport-utility.

www.upi.com...

Under a new 893-page proposal unveiled last week, automakers must hit a fleet-wide fuel economy average of 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025–double today’s 27.3 standard. The government says it would cost automakers $8.5 billion per year to comply, which means a spike in sticker prices of at least $2,000 to $2,800, according to official projections. Other estimates peg the added costs at $3,100, and that could go even higher. As The Wall Street Journal writes, “Vehicles that currently cost $15,000 or less will effectively be regulated out of existence.”

www.askheritage.org...
The problem, which many do not see, is that in environmental matters the government is willing to impose gigantic costs and restristictions for infinitesimal benefits. That is evidence of the low standing that people have in the liberal philosophy.

Anyway, out of room.

With respect,
Charles1952

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by Bluesma


I have a different view of where the pendulum is at the moment. It seems to me that it is well on the maternal side of the maternal v paternal scale. You may agree, but I had the opposite impression from your post. I see the excessive laws as part of what is widely described as a "Nanny state." Perhaps it is worth noting that Mayor Bloomberg is often referred to as "Nanny Bloomberg."

I cannot respond to all of what you wrote (on my way to work) I haven't even read it all yet. I just got to this part and thought I could offer a quick explanation to clear this up!

What I was meant was that we are seeing what is sometimes considered the "paternal" force of the society- (that which is legal, official, governing) having to take over the "maternal" job.

I have seen this termed a swing into ultra-maternistic culture, but also as "over-paternalism" (like in an article that was in that same journal you took this from). Those are both interchangeable, I think, as what we mean is that the paternal force is overeaching, and heading into making official laws out of ethic and moral- instead of that being handled in less "official" and more subtle manipulation ways (like religion...)

To make a sort of analogy, consider the government is the father, the main religion is the mother.
If the religion (mother) is passive, repressed or missing, then the father eventually has to take over the kind of job she would have done. Instead of nurturing a sense of equality an cooperation with others, as a mother would do,
the father has to enforce repression of competative and aggressive instincts that have gone wild.

You don't condition your kid to be polite and respectful when little, someone will pound it in to him later!

Originally posted by charles1952


The story of your father-in-law is fascinating, and I suspect, not unique.

Besides these very fundamental ethical basics, we should be given examples of how men and women should behave in society. Because your half-brother had none of this, he was free to follow his own desires without restraint or guidance except that which was provide by police.

But I am confused by some of your comments. On one side, I get the impression that he did not have the ability to respect others or stop from hurting himself. On the other, you seem to say his mother gave him the framework to show respect and avoid hurting himself. I don't completely understand

I am sorry if I was not clear- I meant that my stepfather had a good maternal education, not my half brother.
It is because my stepfather had this education that he is a very ethical and moral person, who is very good at social interactions with others. He "instinctually" restrains himself when it is appropriate and respectful to do so.


This comes so automatically from him, he thought it was something he was born with. This is what early conditioned behaviors feel like. "Maternal" education conditions the body, "paternal" teaches the mind.
(this is perhaps a subject for another thread, but for those who wish to explore it, one place to start is with Winnicot's theory of "good enough mothering". Impulse control is increased through this maternal education)


My brother, therefore, had an excellent example to watch. My stepfather does not drugs, nor is he self destructive or irresponsible. An example to observe was not enough to set early conditioning and impulse control. Without that "automatic setting", the stage of "mind learning" is more difficult. The impulses, drives and appetites interfere.

This seems to be going way off the topic, but I want to remind that what we're getting at is the downside of extreme individualism... and what it leads to (attracting it's opposite).

Even as a conservative, you can relate to this need to curb the irresponsible free-willing, no?
-Like all that sexual freedom gone haywire and abortions?

You conservatives are just focused on different "misbehaviors" in your terms.
......So they worry about the people killing people with guns, you're worried about the people killing people with abortions..... both of you feel it is time to enforce some proper behavior and curtail a bit of that freedom!
Is it because you ALL hate humans??? Now we're back to how ridiculous the assertion is.

I think I am done with this.

reply to post by beezzer

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.

Really?

The anti-science right wing is the pragmatic group?

The religious right that condemn people to hell daily don't think liberals are evil?


How about delusional, I think that description fits Conservatives of today pretty well.