Liberal attitudes

[fintstone]

After I posted a news story regarding a liberal college professor....one of the more reasonable liberals that posts here responded by asking (on another thread) why I demonized demoncrats. I feel I do nothing but report their actions...which serve to portay them badly...but honestly. I think this well written article pretty well sizes up my feelings on the topic:

Liberal attitudes
Thomas Sowell

April 5, 2005

Liberals may think of themselves as people who believe in certain principles but, if you observe their actual behavior, you are likely to discover that most liberals have a certain set of attitudes, rather than principles.

Liberals may denounce "greed," for example, but in practice it all depends on whose greed. Nothing the government does is ever likely to be called "greed" by liberals.

Even when the government confiscated more than half the income of some people in taxes, that was not greed, as far as the left was concerned. Nor is it greed in their eyes when local politicians across the country bulldoze whole working class neighborhoods, destroying homes that people spent a lifetime sacrificing to buy, and paying them less than the market value of those homes through legal chicanery.

Even when the land seized under "eminent domain" laws are turned over to casinos, hotels, or shopping malls -- places that will pay more taxes than working class homeowners -- liberals can never seem to work up the outrage that they display when denouncing "greed" on the part of businesses whose prices are higher than liberals think they should be.

It is not the principle of sacrificing other people's economic interests to your own that causes liberals to denounce greed. It is a question of who does it and what the liberals' attitudes are to those segments of the population.

Politicians who ruin local homeowners, in order to get hold of more tax money to finance programs that will increase the politicians' chances of being re-elected, are just meeting the "needs" of the community, as far as many liberals are concerned.

Whatever the issue, it is usually not the principle but the attitude which determines where liberals stand. Just rattle off a list of social groups -- the police, blacks, environmentalists, multinational corporations -- and you will have a pretty good idea of which way liberals are likely to lean, even if you have no idea what particular issue may arise.

Recent liberal denunciations of federal intervention to over-ride Florida law in the Terri Schiavo case were made by the same people who supported recent federal intervention to over-ride the laws of more than a dozen states when the Supreme Court banned the execution of murderers who were not yet 18 years old.

You can count on the same liberals to cheer if the federal courts over-ride both state laws and referenda opposing gay marriage. It is not the principle. It is the attitude.

"Diversity" has become one of the crusades of liberals, especially academic liberals. But, in a country that is pretty closely divided politically, it is not at all uncommon to find a whole academic department -- sociology, for example -- without a single Republican today or for the past three decades.

Academia is virtually a liberal monopoly but they show no misgivings about the lack of diversity of ideas on campus. It is only physical diversity that arouses the passions of liberals because that engages their attitudes toward particular social groups.

Liberals have often been critical of college fraternities for being exclusive but have seldom been critical of all-black student organizations or even all-black dormitories. Liberals have succeeded in virtually eliminating all-male colleges but applaud the role of women's colleges.

Again, it is not principles but attitudes.

Among liberals' most cherished views of themselves is that they are in favor of promoting the well-being of minorities in general and blacks in particular. But here again, it all depends on which segments of the minority community are involved.

Black welfare recipients or even black criminals have received great amounts of liberal political and journalistic support over the years. However, the great majority of blacks, who are neither criminals nor welfare recipients but are in fact their main victims, have their interests subordinated to the interests of their unsavory neighbors who are more in vogue in liberal circles.

Whatever the merits or demerits of liberal principles, those principles are often far less important than the attitudes which have become the hallmarks of contemporary liberalism.

[nostatic]

I'm afraid that I don't agree with a lot of the examples given. I just don't see "liberals" doing many of those things. Are there any specific examples (for instance on the emminant domain issue)? And are there multiple examples of a "liberal" doing all these things? Or is it a case of generalization from n=1? Or take the extreme single example and hold it out as "typical"?

Both sides does this kind of BS. Either make things up, or generalize from extreme or limited examples. It gets kind of tiring. For instance I listened to some of the local mayoral debates...I can't believe the idiotic things that the candidates say. We seem to have lost the ability to offer reasoned and cogent arguments and ideas...instead hyperbole rules the day, and extreme black/white portrayals are the only thing that gain traction. Sad really...

[Joeaksa]

I was liberal when in college, then I grew up. Kinda reminds me of a joke I heard recently.

Young girl was selling kittens on the curb. Tom Daschle drove up and stopped. He admired the kittens for a bit and the girl offered "these are Democratic kittens."

He returned the next day with Teddy Kennedy, who wanted a kitten. They stopped and looked at the kittens. The girl said "these are Republican kittens" to the two Democrats.

Daschle asked her about them being Democrat yesterday and Republican today. She told him "thats because their eyes were closed yesterday. Today they are open so they must be Republican!"

Nuff said...

JoeA

[skipdup]

You know, I was never politically liberal. Maybe mom is to blame... tricked me into reading Atlas Shrugged when I was 14.

I found that article to be very interesting. Attitude vs. principles... I see that all the time.

- Skip

[Hugh R]

What I find interesting is that during the 60's and the Viet Nam war, the liberals were against the government in terms of the war, drugs, authority, etc. Now the same liberals want a stronger central government and more government support. Quite the opposite of what they were 30 years ago.

[widebody911]

Originally posted by Hugh R
What I find interesting is that during the 60's and the Viet Nam war, the liberals were against the government in terms of the war, drugs, authority, etc. Now the same liberals want a stronger central government and more government support. Quite the opposite of what they were 30 years ago.

I don't know that 'wanting more government' is a liberal trait. Seems to be a conservative trait.

Conservatives used to be about fiscal responsibilty and less government. Wow, that sure has changed, hasn't it?

Liberals want to reign in corporations and let individuals run free; conservatives want to rein in individuals and let corporations run free. Conservativism taken to it's extreme would be a fascist theocracy; liberalism taken to it's extreme would be socialist anarchy.

[stevepaa]

I think the article is just plain hogwash.

[Jamie79SC]

The 'Liberal / Conservative' labels have 'jumped the shark'.

I thought being conservative meant limiting the control of government in our lives, and fostering personal responsibility for one's actions.

I see nothing truly conservative about the government telling people who to marry, what drugs to put into their bodies, what to watch on TV, or listen to on the radio. I don’t see anything too conservative about the extensive foreign adventures upon which we’ve embarked over the last few years. Massive government intrusion into our private lives through mechanisms like the PATRIOT act don’t seem too conservative to me either.

My friends who call themselves ‘conservative’ call me a liberal, but as far as I can tell, I'm far more conservative then many of them...

[BlueSkyJaunte]

Originally posted by widebody911
I don't know that 'wanting more government' is a liberal trait. Seems to be a conservative trait.

Conservatives used to be about fiscal responsibilty and less government. Wow, that sure has changed, hasn't it?

Liberals want to reign in corporations and let individuals run free; conservatives want to rein in individuals and let corporations run free. Conservativism taken to it's extreme would be a fascist theocracy; liberalism taken to it's extreme would be socialist anarchy.

Conservative != today's Republican party.
Liberal != today's Democratic party.

Let's not use the actions and philosophies of our office-holding corporate whores to define the gen-you-wine principles abstracted by the terms "conservative" and "liberal". Before you ask, neither term describes my philosophy, BTW.

Oh, and please explain what the hell socialist anarchy is. Sounds a little paradoxical to me.

[wludavid]

It's very easy to write an editorial that is detrimental (or demonizing) to the label that you don't subscribe to. I find myself reading 3-4 per day without really looking for them. Spouting off 2-300 words on why The Other Side is ruining the world is pretty much the laziest form of journalism or satire.

Here's a brief how to:
1. pick your side
2. decide how to label the opposing view (Liberal, fundie, anti-life are all good)
3. find one news article from somewhere in the country where some political figure did something stupid
4.generalize that everyone who doesn't agree with you must think that way, and write 300 or so words that "support" your argument
4a. Be sure not to back up your words with facts or attempts at objectivity.
5. ??
6. Profit

Come on people! Politics is a wonderfully complex thing! We are far too smart to dumb it down to this level.

[widebody911]

Originally posted by BlueSkyJaunte
Oh, and please explain what the hell socialist anarchy is. Sounds a little paradoxical to me.

I was trying to find an antonym for 'corporate' and the best I came up with was 'socialist'

[BlueSkyJaunte]

I prefer "anti-corporate". Straight and to the point. I'll even use it in a sentence:

I am extremely anti-corporate.

[wludavid]

Originally posted by BlueSkyJaunte
...Oh, and please explain what the hell socialist anarchy is. Sounds a little paradoxical to me.

A social anarchy would be a society where there are no laws because everyone voluntarily puts in what they create and takes what they need. It's the step after communism that marx predicted, IIRC. Ideally, communism would morph peacefully into that kind of socialism once the evils of capitalism were done away with.

[Drago]

Lib. vs. Con. has so jumped the shark. (thanks for making the call Jamie!)

Fuch it.

I'm a Realist.

[BlueSkyJaunte]

Originally posted by wludavid
A social anarchy would be a society where there are no laws because everyone voluntarily puts in what they create and takes what they need. It's the step after communism that marx predicted, IIRC. Ideally, communism would morph peacefully into that kind of socialism once the evils of capitalism were done away with.

BZZZZT! Try again.

Main Entry: so·cial·ism
Pronunciation: 'sO-sh&-"li-z&m
Function: noun
1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

[wludavid]

Originally posted by BlueSkyJaunte
BZZZZT! Try again.

Main Entry: so·cial·ism
Pronunciation: 'sO-sh&-"li-z&m
Function: noun
1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

Oh well, it was several years ago that I took civics class.

To be fair then, we should correct Widebody's statement to say, "liberalism taken to it's extreme would be communist anarchy."

[BlueSkyJaunte]

Why not just say "pinko"?

[CamB]

I agree with Todd - both sides do it.

Besides, the whole first half of the article is predicated on Sowell defining "greed" differently than the (demonized) liberal.

The second half bemoans the fact that there are no Republicans in academia. Is this because of bias? Or because of some other factor (eg pay rates? personality suited to academia is inclined to be liberal? more study = more likely to see the light (j/k)).

FWIW, I was strongly conservative (wrt taxes/govt/etc if not really moral issues) at university and have become fairly liberal (again, wrt to taxes/govt/etc, if not moral issues).

The key was seeing more of the world and placing myself into other peoples shoes, seeing the world through their eyes (not the same as walking a mile in their shoes and thinking like me). I have led, and continue to lead, a privileged lifestyle by comparison to many people. Tax me and make my country a nice place to live. I'm happy with that.

[Moneyguy1]

Gee, fint..seems like you must be best buddies with Hannity.

Seriously''Where does labelling people ever lead to accomodation and understanding? There is an old adage "You can catch more files with honey than with vinegar". If I were a liberal, I would consider articles like the one you quoted as proving my point; not converting me. As for the conservative side. the minds there are just as closed. I will stay somewhere in the saner middle and take pot-shots when required, but for the most part try (in vain, I'm afraid) to point out that both sides could learn omething if they wouls just shut up and listen for a change.

You are only preaching to the choir, old friend..Like I said, the minds you wish to convert are as closed as...you get the point..

[fintstone]

Originally posted by CamB
I agree with Todd - both sides do it.
.....
The second half bemoans the fact that there are no Republicans in academia. Is this because of bias? Or because of some other factor (eg pay rates? personality suited to academia is inclined to be liberal? more study = more likely to see the light (j/k)).
....

Yes, I certainly believe that to be the case due to our tenure system. It is like a club where you only let those in that think the way you do. Conservatives are treated poorly on most campuses and they pay the price with harassment and poor grades for their views. If they are not academically disqualified for their views, they are certainly discouraged against academia as a career move. Even if they still wanted to teach, they would have to be realistic about ever getting tenure if their politics were ever recealed. They would be silly to waste years on such a career knowing that in the end...they would be kept from tenure.

The last study I read on the subject indicated that those students that chose the teaching profession in the US were from the lowest scoring group both test and grade wise at college entrance....so I imagine that most would not see "the light" you speak of.......that is why the indoctrination is so successful.