I Need Help Understanding Liberals

Watcher, I've come to believe this is the key to understanding liberals. It's all about me and I'm so smart that everyone should follow me and people who think like me, and since the rest are all too damn dumb to get it, we'll force you to follow us by the laws we pass. After watching episodes of Azimov's World, he would easily fit into that mindset....

It's Christmas season, so try this analogy. I think liberals view the world like this: Conservatives are Scrooge before his conversion. Liberals are Scrooge after his conversion. Since there are no ghosts of past, present and future around to do the necessary conversions, the power of government is necessary to convert the conservatives. If conservatives aren't willing to help the Tiny Tim's of the world, then the government should step in and help them (or force them) to see the light.

Azimov was a friend of a friend of my folks, my dad met him once, and said the guy was completely self-absorbed, and only wanted to talk about himself. Not surprised he's a liberal.

I love his books and his magazine though. One of my "guilty pleasures" is buying up old copies of Azimov's and savoring the short stories.

What all of you have said is true, but I've come to believe that peer pressure serves a role not often mentioned. Liberals are very sensitive about what other people think of them. So if the circle of aquaintances think it is "cool" to have liberal beliefs and show everyone that they are smart and compassionate, then well, they have to do that too. They might not get invited to the summer barbecues or get talked to at the kids' basketball games if they were caught watching Bill O'Reilly. We were all subjected to peer pressure when we were growing up. Liberals never outgrew it though. You need to agree with them and admire them as superior human beings, or you are branded an evil person.

Well, no. I think liberals are Scrooge before his conversion. When asked for chairty, what is his reponse? In short, my taxes pay for the welfare programs of the day. Charity statistics from 7 years ago had strongly shown that chairty among liberal elites is the lowest in the nation measured as a percentage of personal wealth....

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_lib...

Liberals like to take my money and constrain me with more laws. They're not liberal with me.

Conservatives like to take my money and wage stupid wars. They're not conservative with mine.

Word games. I'm not a vegetarian, I'm a humanitarian.

The question presumes that there is ONE defining characteristic of liberals. By my reckoning - and speaking as a recovering liberal - I believe there are at least three distinct subsets amongst the liberally-minded in the United States.

There is an old saw, attributed to various public figures: "Show me a man who isn't a [liberal] at age 20, and I'll show you a man with no heart; show me a man who's still a [liberal] at age 40 and I'll show you a man with no brain." Certainly, among the young, there tends to be an innate compassionate tendency to help others. Part of this is messaging by our parents; part, no doubt, is conditioning by the public education system. Regardless, the help-my-brother concept is fairly deeply ingrained upon the young, and that's not necessarily a bad thing. For one thing, it informs personal acts of charity and volunteerism, both of which are desirable characteristics in any responsible society.

In theory, at least, as one becomes older and more experienced, one begins to see that simply giving to others is not a solution to all problems - and, indeed, can exacerbate the problem. In my college days I was pretty far left and it wasn't until I saw first hand, through work, how public generosity actually enslaves people, and how the resentment of that enslavement led to a host of social ills. Yes, these guys had big-screen TVs. They also had the feeling that they were OWED that big-screen TV, even though they were drinking, snorting and smoking the money my tax dollars provided for them. This experience was certainly the nucleus of my own conversion to conservatism.

In other words, it's fair to assume that most of us start out with a fairly liberal mindset, and then age and wisdom alter that mindset over time.

There are those, however, who never do figure that part out, and this constitutes our first major subset. Much of this has to do with the surroundings in which they find themselves from that point forward. Academia, for example, is a notoriously liberal environment; it should be no surprise that if living in a comfy liberal echo chamber it's harder to gain the real-world experience that might foster a more mature view. The arts community is another in which self-reinforcing liberalism is prevalent - and in both of these examples, the well is further poisoned by dependence upon public largesse to one degree or another. In essence, this group is well meaning; they just haven't been forced to mature. They're pretty easy to spot; they're the ones with all the bumper stickers.

The second major grouping are the elitists - those who believe that by dint of superior education or (presumed) intellect they have a moral responsibility to set the ground rules for everyone else. Personally, I find this group notable chiefly for its hypocrisy; I know a number of individuals in this group who fully see themselves as kind and egalitarian and are incapable of recognizing themselves as the dreadful snobs they tend to be. They might hobnob with the riffraff on occasion, but primarily to reinforce their own superiority to themselves (and generate tongue-clucking stories for the next social event).

The third major category consists of opportunists. This group, IMO, is highly cynical, amoral and selfish. Positions are taken based upon simple expediency; the goal is personal enrichment, power or both. This group is expert at leveraging the other two major groups for its own ends. Shouldn't be a surprise that we see a large number of politicos, lawyers and finance types in this group; it's all about THEM, not all about society as a larger construct.

I suppose we could add a fourth group - the bat$#!+ crazy. But the liberal world doesn't have an exclusive lock on that group - some of them gravitate to the right as well.

I have a hardbound book titled "How to Talk to Liberals (If you Really Must)" by Ann Coulter. It's a big help when talking with national park proponents and such people.

-break-

We lost a great patriot a year ago. Hard to believe, but it has been a year since we lost Aaron Zelman.
"If every Jewish and anti-Nazi family in Germany had possessed a Mauser rifle, twenty rounds AND THE WILL TO USE IT, Adolf Hitler would have been an obscure footnote to the history of the Weimar Republic." -- Aaron Zelman.

The founder of Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, Aaron Zelman, died a year ago and is sorely missed by all who knew him.

I proudly acknowledge being both a liberal (in most matters) and confused by this post. It was George W. Bush who instituted the Patriot Act - thereby making government all-seeing and all-knowing. It was Ronald Reagan who raised the US debt by the highest percentage.

All I want is a government that cares about all its citizens, not just about those with access to the lawmakers.

Ronald Reagan bemoaned the fact that our nation reached a trillion dollars of national debt. A month ago we reached $15 trillion and Barack Hussein Obama is back looking for another $1.5 trillion on top of that.

Read the book,"Unintended Consequences". It is an excellent tome regarding the attitudes of the liberal class who think they are immune to consequences. The book sells for up to $750 at gun shows. It's $656 at ValoreBooks.com.

Don't want to spend the big bucks for the book? Take six minutes to listen to Thomas Payne.

http://themaineteaparty.com/video/video/show?id=2731571%3AVideo%3A99074&...

All I want is a federal government that understands the restrictions of their enumerated powers and a state government that will remind them when they over reach. I also want to win megabucks and power ball.....I wont hold my breath waiting on any of the above.

Why am I not surprised NancyEH does not understand this post, she must have been a teacher. Almost all liberals I know depend on taxpayer dollars for their existence, do not see individuals as being individuals a feel superior to most. Also they are some of the cheapest people when it comes to charity.

One other defining characteristic of liberalism is that it's cheap -- not in resources but in effort. If conservatives want to help someone, they know they actually have to do something -- buy some food and give it away, give a carless neighbor a ride, teach someone how to do something that makes them more capable and independent, there are a thousand examples. A liberal thinks he has helped someone by voting for Chellie Pingree or wearing a pink (purple, green, chartreuse, whatever) ribbon to show he cares. Deeply.

People who wear ribbons just care more than people who don't wear ribbons. I wear a ribbon to public events. It is a dollar bill folded into the size and shape of a ribbon. I wear it to show that I care about excessive government spending. I care about it a whole lot. In fact, I sold those ribbons for a dollar, complete with pin. In 2012 I'm going to sell them for $2 to allow for inflation.

"It was George W. Bush who instituted the Patriot Act - thereby making government all-seeing and all-knowing"

And the Democrats, when they had the chance to save us from this alleged all-seeing intrusion into our lives, have kept it alive and even made it more powerful. You might want to compare
Candidate Obama's lofty promises with President Obama's actions about the Patriot Act, and all his other actions, right down to keeping the timetable that Bush set for withdrawing troops from Iraq--oh, and keeping Gitmo open, too. And then there are those military tribunals...

But I have another question I'd REALLY like NancyH or anyone else who opposes the Patriot Act to answer: you claim to be upset about how intrusive it is--have you ever once opposed the infinitely greater intrusiveness of the IRS, or how they can act by fiat? Ever complain about how the government demands to know every detail of your economic activities?

Eagleisland-

Great post. I would only add that many liberals are fueled by guilt. When people are taught that everyone is equal, it becomes difficult for them to accept that they possess skills that cannot be duplicated by others. Liberals fight the reality that we are all amazingly different individuals and some are born with genes that will always make them more capable than others.

So far not one response to the question. If I have categorized the Liberal correctly (a question in itself) how can a rational human being think it is the way to go? Ignore Hollywood types as most of them seem to be as shallow as is humanely possible. Ignore the lawyers and unions inasmuch as they earn their livings by promoting socialism. What about the very wealthy industrial barons who vote for stricter government control of them and their business and profits AND beg for higher personal taxes? What about scientists such as Azimov? What about philosophers such as Hitchins?

It makes no sense.

Watcher, it makes no sense to you because you believe that everyone acts in their own self interest, (which is true)but you define "self interest" in your own terms. If someoneI gets pleasure or gratification out of self sacrifice, that is, worsening his own situation in order to enhance the interests of others, then he's selfishly giving up "stuff" to help others, even if he hurts his own interests in the process.

Huh--NancyH isn't answering my question about the IRS? "I'm shocked--you know, shocked."

Well I don't understand or agree with a lot of liberal thinking and rhetoric..... but if there weren't any liberals what would we have to complain about? ...Everything has it's purpose.

David Allen - I am very familiar with the concept of Psychological Hedonism which is what you are describing. I agree with that concept that all human actions are to gain physical or psychological pleasure or avoid physical or psychological pain. None of that addresses my central quandary, however.

Watcher, it is hard to understand liberals because it is like hitting a moving target. If you present them with facts, they will change their argument to fit their agenda, which is based on feelings more than reality.

Well....how about this?....

I don't know a liberal who is very self conscience about their image in front of their own. Drive the greenest car...drink the most fair trade coffee....wear GENUINE Birkenstocks.....et. al.

LOL

This needs to be played at each and every caucus followed by playing it at the appropriate moment at the convention.

Try this talk by The Duke about liberals. About as good as anything I've heard!

J. L. Austin, an English common language philosopher, said one should start by looking at the lexical definition of the term. I have at my elbow the THORNDIKE BARNHART COMPREHENSIVE DESK DICTIONARY. It defines “socialism” in this way “Theory or system by which the means of production and distribution are owned collectively and controlled by the government” This is a rather thin definition, in my opinion.

Do not take this as an essential definition that states the essence of the term. It is a lexical definition, that means that it states how the term is used in language. The essential as apposed to a lexical definition is, usually, harder to come up with.

Personally, I am in favor of the Witgensteinian view that the word is best understood as a family resemblance definition.

There are many characteristics that we associate with “socialism.” here are a few: wealth shifting; government control; regard of the average citizen as stupid and in need of control ; price controls: minimum wages; equality of outcome; false philanthropy; etc. There are many other features.

David Allen: "It's Christmas season, so try this analogy. I think liberals view the world like this: Conservatives are Scrooge before his conversion. Liberals are Scrooge after his conversion. Since there are no ghosts of past, present and future around to do the necessary conversions, the power of government is necessary to convert the conservatives. If conservatives aren't willing to help the Tiny Tim's of the world, then the government should step in and help them (or force them) to see the light."
That works very well!

One noteworthy thing about liberals is how absolutely impervious they tend to be. In most of human life, somebody says or does something, and it has the potential to impact another. I have found that most liberals ain't changing.........no matter what. They remind me of The Invasion of the Body Snatchers.......you can talk to them, and try to interact. But it's moot. They absolutely are not going to be impacted by the external world, as far as their beliefs go.
I find this an amazing quality.

This is the best I have seen:

For more than 35 years Dr. Lyle H. Rossiter, Jr. has diagnosed and treated more than 1,500 patients as a board-certified clinical psychiatrist and examined more than 2,700 civil and criminal cases as a board-certified forensic psychiatrist. He received his medical and psychiatric training at the University of Chicago.

"Based on strikingly irrational beliefs and emotions, modern liberals relentlessly undermine the most important principles on which our freedoms were founded," says Dr. Lyle Rossiter, author of the new book, "The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness." "Like spoiled, angry children, they rebel against the normal responsibilities of adulthood and demand that a parental government meet their needs from cradle to grave."

A social scientist who understands human nature will not dismiss the vital roles of free choice, voluntary cooperation and moral integrity – as liberals do," he says. "A political leader who understands human nature will not ignore individual differences in talent, drive, personal appeal and work ethic, and then try to impose economic and social equality on the population – as liberals do. And a legislator who understands human nature will not create an environment of rules which over-regulates and over-taxes the nation's citizens, corrupts their character and reduces them to wards of the state – as liberals do."

Dr. Rossiter says the liberal agenda preys on weakness and feelings of inferiority in the population by:

1. creating and reinforcing perceptions of victimization;
2. satisfying infantile claims to entitlement, indulgence and compensation;
3. augmenting primitive feelings of envy;
4. rejecting the sovereignty of the individual, subordinating him to the will of the government.

"The roots of liberalism – and its associated madness – can be clearly identified by understanding how children develop from infancy to adulthood and how distorted development produces the irrational beliefs of the liberal mind," he says. "When the modern liberal mind whines about imaginary victims, rages against imaginary villains and seeks above all else to run the lives of persons competent to run their own lives, the neurosis of the liberal mind becomes painfully obvious."

Do you have a link?

Here's your link. You can purchase this paperback for $63.79 on Amazon. It was a best seller and has not been reprinted. I'm not loaning my copy. I mentioned the book many posts above in this thread.

http://www.amazon.com/Liberal-Mind-Psychological-Political-Madness/dp/B0...

This book was purchased by liberals in large numbers and burned or shredded. Like "Unintended Consequences", the price today for a used book is far higher than it was when new.