Tuesday, January 11, 2005

The Liberal Mind

In my previous post on Iraq, I mentioned that liberals hate America.

The liberal sympathizes with the weak and hates the strong. If a libertarian/objectivist like myself sees a man who has become rich because of his hard labor and intelligence, we think that there is someone to be admired. But the liberal sees such a person and hates him, and desires to equalize society by stealing his justly earned wealth and giving it to the poor.

Nearly all liberal policies are about equalizing society. Liberals support high taxes to take from the rich, with huge welfare programs to redistribute that money to the poor. Liberals support trial lawyers because they see the tort suit as a way to take money from the rich and give it to the undeserving but poor plaintiff. Liberals support any program to take from whites, who they see as the strong race, and give to who they see as the weaker races. Liberals support animals because they are seen as weak compared to humans. Liberals hate testing in schools because it exposes that some of the students have superior skills; liberals prefer the illusion that all students are equal.

Liberals base their foreign policy beliefs on these same values. The United States is the strongest country in the world, which is why Liberals hate our country. Liberals favor the underdog nations of the third world. Liberals desire open immigration because they see that as a way of equalizing the world, by making the United States more like a third world nation. And they support generous foreign aid to redistribute money from the rich nations to the poor nations. They don't care if the poor nations are poor because of their corrupt governments and lack of free markets. Liberals hate free markets because free markets allow the intelligent and industrious to prosper at the expense of the unintelligent and lazy.

Liberals are always opposed to war because war tends to make the people patriotic, and patriotism is anethema to the liberal. Furthermore, liberals like the fact that weapons of mass destruction are spreading throughout the world, because it equalizes the power of the nations.

Of course not all liberals are so extreme in their views, but in all cases, the core of liberalism is based on the desire to hurt the strong and help the weak.


johnny law said...

Dear Ann Coulter Lite,

While driving to school in DC, I stopped at the intersection of Mass Ave and Wisconsin. A squeegee man ambled up to my car and began washing my windows, despite my protests that my windows were already clean. He asked me for change in return for his services. I didn't have any on me, because earlier I tried to equalize society and bought a few bottles of good Australian Merlot for a pack of incoherently rambling bums. I had an idea, though - a brilliant one (though it's not quite so brilliant, because I hate standardized testing, which means I'm equal to all other like twenty-four year olds and thus am not brilliant) - because you are so strong and white, I offered to take your blog from you and redistribute it to him as payment. If you could please email me the username and password to your blog so I can pass it onto the Mass Ave/Wisconsin squeegee man, I would be most appreciative.

Yours in liberty!

Jacqueline Mackie Paisley Passey said...

Wow, overgeneralize much?

I think you're totally off base on this post. Liberals don't "hate the strong". If anything they just believe that everyone should be equal, and would be equal if it weren't for discrimination, fraud, force, etc. So when they see someone who is "strong" they think the only way they could have gotten there is either at the expense of other people or through luck -- that they didn't really earn/deserve it. They think "the weak" are only weak because "society" made them that way and if they had the same opportunities, upbringing, etc. that "the strong" did they would be strong too. This belief justifies taking from "the strong" (because anything they have, they didn't really earn) and giving to "the weak" (to try to equalize opportunities, which they believe will equalize results). So liberals mean well -- they're just totally disconnected from reality, that's all. Egalitarianism is like a religion to them, and just like other religious fanatics, they believe a lot of loony stuff on faith that the evidence just doesn't support.

Jeremy said...

You should rename the blog "Objectivist Girl".

Seriously. This stuff may pass at the Ayn Rand Book Club for Girls, but it certainly has nothing to do with libertarianism.

Man, and to think I stuck up for you...

Charles said...

Actually, I thought this was a succinct, to the point entry. Interesting the other comments were about it as being generalized, not about how it was inaccurate. LG, thought this was a good one, made me chuckle all the way through with the pointed honesty. Guess there is a need for specific instances of liberal hate-America agenda, like Hillary visiting the troops, being hours late, forcing the soldiers to wait in line for their food, then she barges in with her 50+ person entourage/ego-feeders and goes to the head of the line. Yeah, that shows the love and concern for the little people who "volunteered to die, so we should send them to."

Go for the jugular, LG, git some!

Jack W. Orf said...

I am not sure where all of these ridiculous stereotypes about "liberals" are coming from, but they are not accurate historically or in reality.

You say "Liberals are always opposed to war because war tends to make the people patriotic, and patriotism is anethema to the liberal."

It was conservative Republicans who did NOT want to enter World War II. They believed that Hitler was a good little anti-communist who would keep those nasty Russkies under control. Henry Luce of Time magazine (a noted conservative of the now "liberal" media) even called him "handsome Adolph" (1932).

It was that pesky "weakling" FDR who managed to get us entagled in World War II and who took America from being a second-rate cowtown to being the number one superpower.

Note that Roosevelt was indeed a "weakling" cripple who led America to its greatest and most profound victory. Note also that it was a "weakling" socialist Jew named Einstein who cemented America's glory and who saved miliions of American soldier's lives.

Many liberals are rich and some are even billionaires, like George Soros. Read the Old Testament. You let the crumbs fall from the table and leave the corners of the field for the poor and the fatherless, so that it will be well with you.

America turned to liberalism in the 30's. Other countries turned to Nazism and Communism. Do you think that those are preferrable?

You are part of a spoiled and bratty generation that has never had to endure a great depression or even a great war. Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.

Also, in your industrious construction of straw men, you never bothered to define what "liberalism" is. This seems to be a common occurrence lately. I don't think that "liberalism" at this point in time is very well defined except in the imaginations of Rush Limbaugh lovers.

You say "The liberal sympathizes with the weak and hates the strong." You really flatter the right-wingers. I don't think that a bunch of KKK faggots parading in their bedsheets are especially strong. Liberals are not necessarily weak, and conservatives are not necessarily strong. Large number of conservatives are nothing more than church-going lemmings who just barf back whatever political ideologies they are force-fed.

In the following paragraph, you describe policies more favored by George W. Bush then by "liberals":
"Liberals favor the underdog nations of the third world. Liberals desire open immigration because they see that as a way of equalizing the world, by making the United States more like a third world nation. And they support generous foreign aid to redistribute money from the rich nations to the poor nations. They don't care if the poor nations are poor because of their corrupt governments and lack of free markets. Liberals hate free markets because free markets allow the intelligent and industrious to prosper at the expense of the unintelligent and lazy."

Liberals do not "hate" America. That is the dumbest, most outrageous statement that anyone could possibly make. Liberalism in the past 50 years has played a large part in making America the greatest country in the world. Unfortunately, Bush and the conservatives might change all that.

You say "Furthermore, liberals like the fact that weapons of mass destruction are spreading throughout the world, because it equalizes the power of the nations." Where did you get this idiotic idea? Do you have an sources to cite?

Adam said...

You guys want to know where these stereotypes come from? Look at the protests against the War on Terror, where liberals (trust me, they're not Republicans) hold up signs that say "Fuck America." Look at some of the RIDICULOUS things said at DemocraticUnderground. Look at some of the stupid things said by Democrats, such as Ted Kennedy.

Hell, listen to Michael Moore, a man who said "Americans are the dumbest people on earth," talk, and tell me it doesn't sound like he hates this country. I don't mean his movies. I mean the quotes, things he's said to crowds of people.

Every single chance they get, liberals side against this nation. Every. Single. Time. Liberal assholes like Noam Chomsky who thought we deserved 9/11, that idiot Bill Maher who said the hijackers were brave (sorry, dying to get 72 virgins and paradise = not brave, not if you really think it'll happen).

When conservatives bitch, it's usually about specific liberals or policies. You don't see pro-lifers with signs that say "Fuck America." (Or, "AmeriKKKa")

Jack W. Orf said...

On Adam's comment, I think it illustrates that you need to define what a "liberal" is. There is a broad spectrum on both the left and the right in America. On the left, it goes from moderate to liberal to radical/socialist to communist revolutionary.

When a radical or communist says "Fuck America", that is NOT a liberal sentiment, nor is it the opinion of liberals in general.

Similarly on the right, the spectrum might go (approximately) from moderates to conservatives to Neo-whatevers to KKK to Nazis. I don't know where libertarians fit in, so I won't speculate.

If a KKK guy says he wants to exterminate all black men, it would not be accurate for me to say that "conservatives want to exterminate all black men".

Liberals are not that radical, and although I'm sure you would call me a "liberal", because I'm a Democrat, I certain don't fall into most of the stereotypes presented in Libertariangirl's post. I really don't think that I fit into a neat little pigeonhole, and I don't think that most other Americans do either (including righties). This past election has done an enormous amount of mindless stereotyping that is inaccurate. For example, I agree 100% with Pat Buchanon that the borders of America are too porous. Does that make me a "Pat Buchanon liberal"?

I think that the Bushies have gone overboard on stereotyping all Democrats as "liberals" and all liberals as wild-eyed radicals, simply in order to win the election. It was a good strategy, but not very accurate.

An interesting question for Libertariangirl, does she think that the black race is "weaker" than the white race? That certainly is not indicated by athletics. While blacks were at one time banned from professional athletics, they now rule. This is based on pure competitiveness, not on "equal opportunity".

In track and field, blacks dominate. Black women particularly dominate in track and field. Interestingly, it is only Russian/Ukranian women who come close to competing with black women in the Olympics. Commie weaklings. Come on, LibertarianGirl, strap on your track shoes and show those inferior races your stuff!

Jack W. Orf said...

One other thing, on the right, Jerry Fallwell also blamed America for 9/11. He said that this was punishment for allowing abortions. Most of the rest of the righties put a gag on him after that. I doubt that most conservatives agree with him, so I would not accuse all conservatives of this.

And what about the extent of the hatred of America exhibited by many evangelists? The "secular humanists" of the big cities are "the enemy". All non-evangelists are going to burn in hell forever.

America has lost all of its moral values, and most Americans are now steeped in evil. It seems to me that these evangelists hate "America" at least as much as the far left does.

In fairness, I think the operative word is "part of America". A lot of righties hate the lefties and a lot of lefties hate the righties.

However, it is logically invalid to say that someone "hates America" because they hate Jerry Fallwell or they hate Ann Coulter or they hate Micheal Moore. These people are not representative of the entirety of America (although they would have us believe so).

I only bother replying to LibertarianGirl since Atlas Shrugged and the Fountainhead were my favorite books 30 years ago. When I was a sophomore in college, I was a strong member of the Ayn Rand fan club. Unfortunately, some life-lessons over the past 30 years taught me otherwise.

mikeca said...

And seeing the multitudes, He went up on a mountain, and when He was seated His disciples came to Him. Then He opened His mouth and taught them, saying:

"Blessed are the poor in spirit, For theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are those who mourn, For they shall be comforted.
Blessed are the meek,For they shall inherit the earth.
Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, For they shall be filled.
Blessed are the merciful, For they shall obtain mercy.
Blessed are the pure in heart, For they shall see God.
Blessed are the peacemakers, For they shall be called sons of God.
Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness' sake, For theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

"Blessed are you when they revile and persecute you, and say all kinds of evil against you falsely for My sake. Rejoice and be exceedingly glad, for great is your reward in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you.

Gospel Of Matthew 6:1-12

Adam said...

Conservatives have BEEN blamed for racist elements for YEARS, though. I judge liberals by the ones I SEE all the time; either the protestors who are nuts or the politicians elected by "liberals." Try being a white male conservative -- there is a stereotype that we're racist, sexist, homophobes.

Steph said...

Do you get your opinions on liberals from Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity? I mean, seriously, no one *really* believes this crap about liberals unless they're super-conservative. I would know, I was there a few years ago...

Since it's obvious that someone's going to have to rebutt this rant, as some people have already accepted this stuff blindly (and yes, I *am* a libertarian), I suppose I will have to. After all, most strains of libertarianism have a large chunk in common with liberalism.

Sympathizing with the weak != hating the strong; I sympathize with the homeless because I know that I could end up like that if my life takes a wrong turn. However, I don't see that train of thought automatically lead to a hatred of Bill Gates.

Yes, most liberal policies *are* about equalizing society. But most liberals concern themselves mostly with the good effects that come with helping the poor, just as conservatives and libertarians don't think of a capitalist society as having more unemployment than a socialist society, and thus they should not be blamed for supporting unemployment. Trial lawyers made millions, so it's ironic that according to your logic, liberals support them. It's also a fact that a disproportionate number of minorities live in poorer areas where they do not have the same opportunities as in a rich neighborhood (I don't believe affirmative action is the answer, but the fact is there nonetheless). Liberals believe that testing is not the only way to evaluate students (it's hard to test subjects that are not purely academic, esp. the fine arts).

As for foreign policy... would you not agree that it's much harder to make the equivalent of, say, $20,000 a year in most third world countries? Liberals think that we should help them out, through education and money. They support open immigration because they want more people to benefit from American life - why would they want more people here if they thought it was so horrible here?

I know that liberals are against this war because it was unjustified - Saddam didn't attack us, nor did he intend to. They also don't feel that they need to flaunt their patriotism - perhaps because they don't feel as insecure about it.

No liberal I know - from those that are only liberals because they like welfare to those that are borderline libertarian - want to hurt the strong. Why? Because they want to be successful one day.

If people are going to use caricatures of Michael Moore and communism to define liberalism, does that mean liberals can use Jerry Falwell and fascism to define conservatism and Neal Boortz for libertarianism?

And is the next topic of discussion going to be "how conservatives are trying to force their brand of morality on America?" because libertarians are just as opposed to this as to the development of the welfare state.

Michael_L said...

Check this quote out:


The majority of pacifists either belong to obscure religious sects or are simply humanitarians who object to the taking of life and prefer not to follow their thoughts beyond that point. But there is a minority of intellectual pacifists whose real though unadmitted motive appears to be hatred of western democracy and admiration of totalitarianism. Pacifist propaganda usually boils down to saying that one side is as bad as the other, but if one looks closely at the writings of younger intellectual pacifists, one finds that they do not by any means express impartial disapproval but are directed almost entirely against Britain and the United States. Moreover they do not as a rule condemn violence as such, but only violence used in defense of western countries. The Russians, unlike the British, are not blamed for defending themselves by warlike means, and indeed all pacifist propaganda of this type avoids mention of Russia or China. It is not claimed, again, that the Indians should abjure violence in their struggle against the British. Pacifist literature abounds with equivocal remarks which, if they mean anything, appear to mean that statesmen of the type of Hitler are preferable to those of the type of Churchill, and that violence is perhaps excusable if it is violent enough. After the fall of France, the French pacifists, faced by a real choice which their English colleagues have not had to make, mostly went over to the Nazis, and in England there appears to have been some small overlap of membership between the Peace Pledge Union and the Blackshirts. Pacifist writers have written in praise of Carlyle, one of the intellectual fathers of Fascism. All in all it is difficult not to feel that pacifism, as it appears among a section of the intelligentsia, is secretly inspired by an admiration for power and successful cruelty. The mistake was made of pinning this emotion to Hitler, but it could easily be retransfered.

1. ANGLOPHOBIA. Within the intelligentsia, a derisive and mildly hostile attitude towards Britain is more or less compulsory, but it is an unfaked emotion in many cases. During the war it was manifested in the defeatism of the intelligentsia, which persisted long after it had become clear that the Axis powers could not win. Many people were undisguisedly pleased when Singapore fell ore when the British were driven out of Greece, and there was a remarkable unwillingness to believe in good news, e.g. el Alamein, or the number of German planes shot down in the Battle of Britain. English left-wing intellectuals did not, of course, actually want the Germans or Japanese to win the war, but many of them could not help getting a certain kick out of seeing their own country humiliated, and wanted to feel that the final victory would be due to Russia, or perhaps America, and not to Britain. In foreign politics many intellectuals follow the principle that any faction backed by Britain must be in the wrong. As a result, "enlightened" opinion is quite largely a mirror-image of Conservative policy. Anglophobia is always liable to reversal, hence that fairly common spectacle, the pacifist of one war who is a bellicist in the next.

George Orwell wrote is in 1945. This has been going on for a long time and "liberals" who do not feel this way should not deny that this is always there as an undercurrent to liberal thought. And yes feel free to point out that elements of racism are undercurrents of conservative thought as well. I don't think too many conservatives would deny that.

Jacqueline Mackie Paisley Passey said...

Using the logic displayed by the original post and some of the people in this thread:

Some conservatives beat gay people to death. That means all conservatives want to beat gay people to death. So all conservatives are, in their hearts, murderers.


I think I'm getting the hang of this overgeneralization thing.

Adam said...

The difference: The conservatives who beat gay people to death aren't elected, nor do they run as presidential candidates. And the Republicans shy away from the extremes in their party. Trent Lott got dumped on by conservatives and liberals. The Democratic party doesn't try to shy away from the nuts in the party. There's a very good chance Howard Dean will become the party chairman.

Maybe the statement would be more accurate if it were "Democrats" instead of "Liberals" but yeah, it is an overgeneralization; caused by the Common Moonbat.

And, as I said before, conservatives have been accused of all being homophobic, racist, etc, for years.

mikeca said...

I do not believe that Conservatives, Libertarians, or Liberals as a group “hate America”, although I do believe that they disagree about what principals should guide American policy.

I believe we have a Christian obligation to help the weak, the disadvantaged, and those less fortunate than ourselves. I suspect many people share this belief. The most fundamental disagreement might be whether this principal should be reflected in government policy or only in ones personal behavior.

Jesus told us “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax collectors do the same?”

The extremist rhetoric of both the left and the right is meant to divide us, make us distrust the motives of the other side. Very few people in America actually ‘hate America’. If they did they would leave. We as Americans need to get back to our Christian roots, and discuss the real policy differences that divide us, rather than these phony issues.

Michael_L said...

I think Adam hit it on the head. Conservatives will admit to the sins of some, such as gay bashing and racism. Those elements are considered outside the conservative mainstream but no conservative would ever deny that there are such people, in fact many such people, living on the conservative end of the spectrum. Politicians publicly revealed with those tendencies are generally ostracized and usually forced out of office. David Duke ran in Lousiana and got single digit % of the vote. I think that tells you what even conservatives think of him.

Liberals would deny that the individuals that not only hate America, but have a general disdain for Western culture even exist. Even though Orwell first noted them 50 years ago! What liberals don't seem to get is that it's ok to acknowledge that there are nuts on your side. That doesn't taint the whole left side of the political spectrum. What does taint the Democratic party is when those crazies are given a platform to spout their craziness and the mainstream liberals give them their tacit endorsement.

lawrence krubner said...

Actually, the word "liberal" refers to people who believe in the Western liberal tradition which grew out of the European Enlightenment. Liberal traditions in the West go back to several centuries before they were written about, but during the Enlightenment these traditions were advanced, examined, and put into written form. John Locke starts writing about the liberal tradition in the 1690s, and in the 1700s Hume, Jeremy Bentham, Adam Smith, Voltaire and many others add their insights to this body of political thought. America's Founding Fathers made important contributions to liberal theory, both in action and in words. John Stuart Mill is among the last of the greats to contribute to what we might call "classic liberalism." Friedrich Hayek notes in his book "The Road To Serfdom" that after 1850 there is a change in direction and mood, the ideas coming out of the Anglosphere lose their momentum, individual freedom is less prized, and instead the intellectual momentum in the West swings toward Germany, with new ideas that put a heavy emphasis on "organization".

Every society on earth today has both liberal and il-liberal factions. In those democracies with parlimentarian systems the liberal and il-liberal groups get their own parties. Because the American system has only two "big-tent" parties, both parties have within them both liberal and il-liberal factions. Any true friend of freedom looking around America today will see cleary that both parties contain factions that fight for individual freedom, and also factions that hate individual freedom. One can easily think of things that both parties have done over the last 50 years to advance the Western liberal tradtion.

JimHarvey said...

I disagree with your assertion that the behaviors you describe are "Liberal".

For instance, I think oppostion to standardized testing is not particularly liberal. I think of it an attempt by an entrenched interest group to defend a position of privilege. About as liberal as Louis XVI.

I see standardized testing as a necessarily imperfect attempt to optimize an expensive government function. And, with luck and over a period of decades, free a lot of people from constraints placed on them by antiquated social arrangements (i.e. lousy urban schools resting on laurels from the 1930s.) From this perspective, standardized testing is quite "liberal".

John Whiteside said...

Are you familiar with the concept of the straw man argument? That's what you'v written here. There's not a single example in your post of anything you attribute to the "liberal mind." Thus no meaningful discussion can take place.

It's a rant, and it would get you a deserved F in a high school debate class. Try rewriting with specific, factual examples. What you've written is a criticism of nobody who actually exists; it's as if I wrote a piece that went on for a while about how libertarians hate babies, libertarians kick puppies, libertarians want to kill everyone, etc. without bothering to source anything. It gives you the freedom to write anything you feel like, happily divorced from reality.

pilotte--a8abb4 said...

The Liberal Mind

Hey Libertarian Girl, you have a pretty good blog here! I'm definitely going to bookmark you!

I have a russian wife blog. It pretty much covers
russian wife related stuff.

Come and check out russian wife if you get time :-)

Goodman441 said...

I'll show you how to earn automatic money online in as little as 15 minutes of downloading this product!


NoTONoEagles said...

Help Mommy, there are Liberals! underneath my bed!!! (No, seriously, that's the name of the book...) Don't believe me? The dang thing's on Amazon, not some hippie-press bullcrap ;) Anyway, thought you might enjoy, pinko ;)

the business professional said...

Do I have good Blog news for you! Now that I have bookmarked you can go to
opportunities and see how I can help you to earn a lot more than average! It is rewarding;-)

youremysatellite said...

Wow, you've got to love an ignorant hypocrite! In almost half of your posts you complain about how statements about the views of the Libertarian Party are always generalized and inaccurate, yet in this post you have taken the views of Liberals and made inaccurate and generalized statements about them! Come on, I would use this post as an example of idiotic hypocrisy! That's all for now, I'm not going to waste my breath on you.

Anonymous said...