Misconceptions about Liberals

A counter point

Draginol wrote an essay outlining what he seems to think are misconceptions about conservatives. That's fine and good but there is no shortage of misconceptions about American liberals.

...let me count the ways...

Liberals like to spend other people's money. No, the difference is that liberals are just not nearly as money-conscious as conservatives. We make life choices that don't lead to material wealth. Just because we tend to choose careers that involve enriching our culture, teacher our children, and protecting the defenseless doesn't make us less valuable or have less of a say in society.

We simply believe that Americans are blessed to have had the good fortune of being born here. Ergo, we should express that appreciation by contributing to the society that provided us plenty.

Liberals are naive about the real world. No, the difference is that liberals aren't as cynical as conservatives about the world. Conservatives seem to be quick to throw up their hands and say "Well that's the way life is" and then proceed on the false assumption that you can't do anything to change the world. Liberals aren't naive, we just think that we should at least try to make the world a better place as our first resort rather than as a luxury item.

Liberals are "traitors". No, the difference is that we are less likely to make artificial distinctions between someone who was geographically born in the United States and someone who was born in another country. We are all human beings. That does mean we are usually less nationalistic but that doesn't mean we're traitors either. We don't judge people based on their race, sex, or nationality. As one famous liberal said, we should judge others by the content of their character.

War on Terror.  Yes, we "get it". But conservatives don't seem to want to understand or care why countries don't like us.  Go to Greece, visit the parthenon, and what do you see across the street? A McDonalds. Can you see how some people might feel like American culture is being shoved down their throats? Combine that with an almost giddy attitude about using military force around the world.

Iraq. Saddam didn't have WMDs. He wasn't any kind of imminent threat. Was it really necessary to invade? Saddam was a cruel and terrible man. There are lots of cruel and terrible men. 

In 1946, the United States had a monopoly on the atomic bomb and was quite well aware of what a monster Stalin was. Would today's Neocon hawks have insisted that we nuke the USSR for the sake of
"regime change"? Some problems time takes care of on their own.

We went into Afghanistan and disrupted Al Qaeda. If we had stayed focused on that, we would have been safer today. Saddam could have been kept in a box on an almost indefinite basis. The Oil for food scandal and other leaks in the sanctions were not significant in the bigger scheme of things. We always had the option to go in later if we needed to - with a lot more international support. What we liberals wanted to know was why the rush? Why not finish Afghanistan first and then deal with Saddam at our leisure?

Civil Rights.  Conservatives seem to prefer to turn a blind eye and assume we're all on an equal footing. That's not true at all. Conservatives say they deal with the world as it is - except on the issue of race where they seem to want to pretend we live in racial harmony.  Affirmative action programs aren't perfect. No solution is perfect. But conservatives response to Affirmative action is to close their eyes and wish away the fact that minorities have it a lot tougher in this country than whites.

Conservatives may be better in their knowledge of history on average but that is not always a strength. They are often so rooted to the past that they cannot think outside the box. They don't seem to be willing to at least accept the possibility that we can improve as a species. Just because bad men did bad things in the past doesn't mean we have to do the same bad things today. Maybe that's why liberals are more likely to believe in evolution and conservatives are more likely to believe in creationism. We believe man can improve.

30,047 views 77 replies
Reply #1 Top
Thanks for this responsive article. I read the other one, hoping for an honest and heart felt exploration and instead found your basic liberal bashing agenda. This article, while being fairly "anti-conservative" is much more thoughtful, and much less hateful.

Two notes--I'm unsure about your title "Sanity from the Left". This implies there's a shortage of sanity from the left, so you're the voice of reason among lunatics. Perhaps this is what you meant to imply, but if not, it's all in the framing and this frames liberals as negative from the get-go. (I'm a Progressive, btw, so I'm on your side. ) Secondly, if you haven't all ready read the book, "Don't think of an elephant." It's an engageing, interesting looks at how the conservative side has taken control of politics and the debate, and a pro-active look at how to make things better. (It's short too.)

Keep up the good blogging!
Reply #2 Top
Liberals like to spend other people's money. No, the difference is that liberals are just not nearly as money-conscious as conservatives. We make life choices that don't lead to material wealth. Just because we tend to choose careers that involve enriching our culture, teacher our children, and protecting the defenseless doesn't make us less valuable or have less of a say in society.


We simply believe that Americans are blessed to have had the good fortune of being born here. Ergo, we should express that appreciation by contributing to the society that provided us plenty.


How does that mean that liberals don't like spending other people's money? If they are purposely taking jobs that do not bring as much wealth as conservatives, and they are telling everybody to contribute back, knowing fully well that the wealthier conservatives will be the ones required to contribute the most, then yes, they do enjoy other people's money. Telling others to be generous because you have made decisions in life that keep you from being generous does not make you generous.

Liberals are naive about the real world. No, the difference is that liberals aren't as cynical as conservatives about the world. Conservatives seem to be quick to throw up their hands and say "Well that's the way life is" and then proceed on the false assumption that you can't do anything to change the world. Liberals aren't naive, we just think that we should at least try to make the world a better place as our first resort rather than as a luxury item.


Conservatives are cynical about the world and liberals are cynical about the US.

Liberals are "traitors". No, the difference is that we are less likely to make artificial distinctions between someone who was geographically born in the United States and someone who was born in another country. We are all human beings. That does mean we are usually less nationalistic but that doesn't mean we're traitors either. We don't judge people based on their race, sex, or nationality. As one famous liberal said, we should judge others by the content of their character.


Why do people quote past liberals as if those liberals would support the same ideas that liberals support today? You could use such logic to promote NAMBLA. After all, NAMBLA is more liberal than those against NAMBLA, and since Martin Luther King, Jr. was a liberal, he would support NAMBLA.
Besides, he believed in creation, which must mean he was a conservative.

War on Terror.  Yes, we "get it". But conservatives don't seem to want to understand or care why countries don't like us.  Go to Greece, visit the parthenon, and what do you see across the street? A McDonalds. Can you see how some people might feel like American culture is being shoved down their throats? Combine that with an almost giddy attitude about using military force around the world.


Could we use terror against France since some of its companies, such as Ubisoft, make money in the US and compete with US companies? Greece allowed McDonald's into Greece. So did the idea of international trade. If people are tired of US exporting its culture outside the US, then perhaps people should fight against international trade, the WTO, and the UN (since it promotes international cooperation).

We went into Afghanistan and disrupted Al Qaeda. If we had stayed focused on that, we would have been safer today. Saddam could have been kept in a box on an almost indefinite basis. The Oil for food scandal and other leaks in the sanctions were not significant in the bigger scheme of things. We always had the option to go in later if we needed to - with a lot more international support. What we liberals wanted to know was why the rush? Why not finish Afghanistan first and then deal with Saddam at our leisure?


Many would disagree that we'd be safer with a despot with ties to terrorism and a desire to build WMDs to attack the US with. Also, how long could sanctions and such last, when the rest of the world was yearning to end them? If we just kept on Saddam's ass, people would be complaining that Bush is looking for a fight.

Civil Rights.  Conservatives seem to prefer to turn a blind eye and assume we're all on an equal footing. That's not true at all. Conservatives say they deal with the world as it is - except on the issue of race where they seem to want to pretend we live in racial harmony.  Affirmative action programs aren't perfect. No solution is perfect. But conservatives response to Affirmative action is to close their eyes and wish away the fact that minorities have it a lot tougher in this country than whites.


Conservatives may be better in their knowledge of history on average but that is not always a strength. They are often so rooted to the past that they cannot think outside the box. They don't seem to be willing to at least accept the possibility that we can improve as a species. Just because bad men did bad things in the past doesn't mean we have to do the same bad things today. Maybe that's why liberals are more likely to believe in evolution and conservatives are more likely to believe in creationism. We believe man can improve.


I'd agree that conservatives were closing their eyes if there weren't laws against discrimination, but there are, so how are they ignoring discrimination in the workplace?
Also, evolution and creationism aren't mutually exclusive.
Reply #3 Top
Thanks for this responsive article. I read the other one, hoping for an honest and heart felt exploration and instead found your basic liberal bashing agenda. This article, while being fairly "anti-conservative" is much more thoughtful, and much less hateful.


And you don't think you find this anti-conservative article more thoughtful and less hateful because you're a liberal?
Reply #4 Top
Well done, messy. Especially:
Conservatives are cynical about the world and liberals are cynical about the US.

And the liberal notion that we are forcing our culture down the world's collective throat is hogwash - any country could ban McDonald's if they wanted to, for example. Problem is, the Ubisoft's of the world don't want us to retaliate so they allow US businesses to operate. And if the locals didn't eat at McDonald's they'd close up & go home. The notion that they have no other options is silly. There is no basis for their resentment other than their own choices, not ours. Business will follow their euros or (insert other currency here) wherever they spend them.

Happy New Year,
Daiwa
Reply #5 Top
I didn't say any such thing. I didn't say it was a perfect article. I just appreciated the response, and regardless of what "side" I'm on I do think this article was less hateful. And I must say, I'm finding it quite interesting all the hateful, nonsensical bashing that's going on, here at JU and beyond. Everyone is antagonistic, sarcastic, angry, even mean. What good is that doing your side, or anyone? Is anyone here capable of having a dialogue instead of a rant/attack fest? Why is everybody so damned threatened by anyone who disagrees with their way of thinking? Bloggers want to be the new voice of America and the world, the mouth of the people. At this juncture, I must say, I'm not so impressed with what most of the people have to say.
Reply #6 Top

Misconceptions about Liberals

By: Calor
Posted: Saturday, January 01, 2005 on Sanity from the Left
Message Board: Democrat
Iraq. Saddam didn't have WMDs. He wasn't any kind of imminent threat. Was it really necessary to invade? Saddam was a cruel and terrible man. There are lots of cruel and terrible men.


You obviously don't get this one. WMD's are only one of the reasons we went. It's well known that Saddam had ties to Al Qaeda.
Which by the way was proven by the 9/11 comitee Ties to 9/11? No. But the ties to Al Qaeda made him just as dangerous.

And BTW McDonald's is in Greece because they ASKED for it. NOT because we shoved it down their throat.
Reply #7 Top

Reply #5 By: Sarah Stoeckl - 1/1/2005 6:04:25 PM
I didn't say any such thing. I didn't say it was a perfect article. I just appreciated the response, and regardless of what "side" I'm on I do think this article was less hateful. And I must say, I'm finding it quite interesting all the hateful, nonsensical bashing that's going on, here at JU and beyond. Everyone is antagonistic, sarcastic, angry, even mean. What good is that doing your side, or anyone? Is anyone here capable of having a dialogue instead of a rant/attack fest? Why is everybody so damned threatened by anyone who disagrees with their way of thinking? Bloggers want to be the new voice of America and the world, the mouth of the people. At this juncture, I must say, I'm not so impressed with what most of the people have to say.


You are not required to be impressed. As to all the bashing? I think people are getting tired of all the venom being spewed against the US. So when something is percieved as being "america's bad" they are very quick to take offense.
Reply #8 Top

After all, NAMBLA is more liberal than those against NAMBLA, and since Martin Luther King, Jr. was a liberal, he would support NAMBLA.


after all, vlad the impaler is more conservative (since he was a monarch) than those against vlad the impaler and since condileeza rice is a conservative, she would support vlad the impaler.

 

Reply #9 Top
And the liberal notion that we are forcing our culture down the world's collective throat is hogwash - any country could ban McDonald's if they wanted to, for example. Problem is, the Ubisoft's of the world don't want us to retaliate so they allow US businesses to operate. And if the locals didn't eat at McDonald's they'd close up & go home. The notion that they have no other options is silly. There is no basis for their resentment other than their own choices, not ours. Business will follow their euros or (insert other currency here) wherever they spend them.


Exactly! Sure, the world could do away with international trade, but I'm sure nobody would enjoy that, even those who don't like having a McDonald's in their countries.

I just appreciated the response, and regardless of what "side" I'm on I do think this article was less hateful


So, you don't think that your opinion of these two articles is influenced by your own political beliefs in any way?

Why is everybody so damned threatened by anyone who disagrees with their way of thinking?


Nobody sounds threatened. What sounds hateful might just be disagreement. For example, you find this article less hateful and I find the other article less hateful, and I'm positive our political beliefs influenced our opinions.
Reply #10 Top
after all, vlad the impaler is more conservative (since he was a monarch) than those against vlad the impaler and since condileeza rice is a conservative, she would support vlad the impaler.


Exactly! What was considered liberal and conservative before is not what's considered liberal and conservative today, so using a historic man as an example of the modern archetype is ludicrous!
Reply #11 Top

x

No, the difference is that liberals are just not nearly as money-conscious as conservatives. We make life choices that don't lead to material wealth. Just because we tend to choose careers that involve enriching our culture, teacher our children, and protecting the defenseless doesn't make us less valuable or have less of a say in society.

No problem there, just dont raise my taxes to pay for your life. For a donation of money to be valid, it has to be willingly given, not extorted.

Conservatives seem to be quick to throw up their hands and say "Well that's the way life is" and then proceed on the false assumption that you can't do anything to change the world. Liberals aren't naive, we just think that we should at least try to make the world a better place as our first resort rather than as a luxury item.

Not true, but a good issue to debate.

Liberals are "traitors". No, the difference is that we are less likely to make artificial distinctions between someone who was geographically born in the United States and someone who was born in another country. We are all human beings. That does mean we are usually less nationalistic but that doesn't mean we're traitors either. We don't judge people based on their race, sex, or nationality. As one famous liberal said, we should judge others by the content of their character.

Actually, not true.  This is not a liberal or conservative issue as you seem to side with Bush, but many liberals, having worked hard to get here, are as anti illegal immigration as Jerry Falwell.  Politics does make strange bedfellows!

War on Terror.  Yes, we "get it". But conservatives don't seem to want to understand or care why countries don't like us.  Go to Greece, visit the parthenon, and what do you see across the street? A McDonalds. Can you see how some people might feel like American culture is being shoved down their throats? Combine that with an almost giddy attitude about using military force around the world.

This may be yoru best quote but is totally off base.  Mikey D does not force anyone down their throat!  They are a BUSINESS, and as such they go where they are WANTED.  If Greece does not want our greasy burgers, they dont have to patronize the place!  This really is a stupid point, but it is your article!

As for the second point there, no, no one wants to see soldiers die, but those who realize our freedom is only bought with constant vigilance, know it is the price we pay.  We do not get Giddy.  We honor those who sacrafice for us and our children.

Reply #12 Top
Iraq. Saddam didn't have WMDs. He wasn't any kind of imminent threat. Was it really necessary to invade? Saddam was a cruel and terrible man. There are lots of cruel and terrible men. 

In 1946, the United States had a monopoly on the atomic bomb and was quite well aware of what a monster Stalin was. Would today's Neocon hawks have insisted that we nuke the USSR for the sake of
"regime change"? Some problems time takes care of on their own.

We went into Afghanistan and disrupted Al Qaeda. If we had stayed focused on that, we would have been safer today. Saddam could have been kept in a box on an almost indefinite basis. The Oil for food scandal and other leaks in the sanctions were not significant in the bigger scheme of things. We always had the option to go in later if we needed to - with a lot more international support. What we liberals wanted to know was why the rush? Why not finish Afghanistan first and then deal with Saddam at our leisure?

Again you mistake liberals for conservatives.  It was after all Roosevelt and Truman back then.  By the time Eisenhower became president, it was too late.

But by your logic, should we have just kept hitler in a box?  Same man, different time.  And he was gleefully killing millions.  Just as Saddam was (latest estimate 4 million).  Now before you answer this, think about what else you have said.

You only care for people that you know?  Or all people?

Reply #13 Top

Civil Rights.  Conservatives seem to prefer to turn a blind eye and assume we're all on an equal footing. That's not true at all. Conservatives say they deal with the world as it is - except on the issue of race where they seem to want to pretend we live in racial harmony.  Affirmative action programs aren't perfect. No solution is perfect. But conservatives response to Affirmative action is to close their eyes and wish away the fact that minorities have it a lot tougher in this country than whites.

WOW!  I like you!  But you are wrong.  Stick to what Liberals beleive because you are wrong on what conservatives beleive.

Just to set the record straight, Conservatives beleive that all men are created equal.  And as such all should be given equal opportunity.  And that means slamming those who would deny that opportunity.

We do not beleive that any race is inferior, and thus they must be helped by their white overseers to oevercome.  We dont want to be the new 'massas', but unfortunately, Liberals have set themselves up as the new minority massas.

Dont beleive me?  State you opinion on Clarence Thomas, Colin Powel, Condeleesa Rice, and JC Watts.  And then back it up with reasonable discourse of why they are any different than other races.  Do not regurgitate the hatred of the left who call them all sorts of negative names because they are not liberal.

Give us facts.  Disagree with their policy.  Dont descent into the nastiness of some other liberals and just call them Aunt jemimas or Uncle Toms.

Now who is the party of race baiting?

Reply #14 Top

I didn't say any such thing. I didn't say it was a perfect article. I just appreciated the response, and regardless of what "side" I'm on I do think this article was less hateful.

I do have to agree with you there!  It was a very good article!  I would say maybe 20% wrong, but the rest was very informative!

Reply #15 Top

after all, vlad the impaler is more conservative (since he was a monarch) than those against vlad the impaler and since condileeza rice is a conservative, she would support vlad the impaler.

Classic Misconception!  Vlad was a Liberal!  He believed in taxing the rich, and providing for the poor!  After all, he did not suck corpses!

many Monarchs are liberal.  Faulty logic there!

Reply #16 Top
Come now, if I couldn't be an evil liberal, what sort of joy would I ever get out of life? Watching conservative blood pressures rise every time I open my mouth and speak makes me laugh long and hard.

We're evil. We're liberal. And, gosh, we're RIGHT. That's the worst.

Hehe. Y'all be sure to take your beta blockers before responding.
Reply #17 Top
think people are getting tired of all the venom being spewed against the US


I am sick and tired of all the venom being spewed against liberals
Reply #18 Top
I am sick and tired of all the venom being spewed against liberals


Where? In Blogs? Or in the mainstream media?
Reply #19 Top
Wow. I wasn't aware that conservative opinions now constituted "hate" speech


Damn! I missed that part too!
Reply #20 Top
Sarah -

Please take no offense and please don't shy away from participating. Those who may disagree with your positions or opinions don't have to feel threatened to respond. Having read Draginol's original article and Calor's riposte, I can't see hatred in either one of them. Making a point strongly isn't the same thing as hate. Whether you personally are willing to acknowledge it or not, there is a greater tendency to focus hatred upon those who disagree with them among liberals (listened to a Michael Moore interview lately, or an Al Gore speech?) than among conservatives. Some of a conservative point of view who post often here can be a little pointed & testy, but the most truly hateful stuff has been from a few liberals.

Cheers,
Daiwa
Reply #21 Top
Hey, Myrr -

Bit of wishful thinkin' goin' on there. I'll just assume it was tongue-in-cheek, like all your posts.

Cheers,
Daiwa
Reply #22 Top

This article, while being fairly "anti-conservative" is much more thoughtful, and much less hateful.

Wow. I wasn't aware that conservative opinions now constituted "hate" speech.

Reply #23 Top
Wow. I wasn't aware that conservative opinions now constituted "hate" speech.


You learn something new every day, draginol. Conservatives are the masters of "hate" speech. Just consider the Republican Convention. That was a hate fest extraordinaire, typical of the conservative hate rhetoric that even you continue to verbalize. Problem is, you don't even realize you're doing it.

Reply #24 Top
I think it'd be wise to get the definition of "hate speech" right: Any words spoken against the Enlightened Liberals who deserve to have complete control of the entire world at the expense of them conservative hicks.
Reply #25 Top
Firstly, great article, it's great to see you back.

"using a historic man as an example of the modern archetype is ludicrous!"

Yet it's okay for Draginol to cite things like Republicans were more against slavery than the Democrats in order to claim that Republicans of today aren't racist?

"the wealthier conservatives will be the ones required to contribute the most, then yes, they do enjoy other people's money"

Well written, but sorry I spotted your subtle distortion. As I've said before, the large portion of liberals are not the working class and the unemployed but the middle middle class and upper middle class. I have no stats on this but this has always been my impression of the world and conservatives often like to take the piss out of this fact.

"Greece allowed McDonald's into Greece."

Conservatives seem to be under many false impressions about democracy. They seem to think for a start that because someone votes for a Government that they therefore agree with everything the Government did. Secondly, they think that once one Party wins an election, that their opponents should unite with the rest of the country and support everything the Party they didn't vote for does.

"There is no basis for their resentment other than their own choices, not ours."

This is simplistic and you quite clearly don't understand how this resentment manifests itself. Plenty of Australians eat Maccas and enjoy it. Does this mean that there aren't plenty of us frustrated by the fact that we can't find anything else to eat? I like to eat chips (our word for fat fries) made in independent fish n chip shops, because I think they do it better. But the way our society and economy are developing it is becoming harder and harder for such businesses to survive and so I would now have to travel for an hour to get those sorts of chips. It is not my choices, but the choices of a certain portion of my fellow Australians, but by no means the majority of them.

The FTA with the USA is likely to increase the amount of US TV on my screens and decrease the amount of Aussie TV. I happen to watch mainly Australian TV because I can relate to it better. But Friends is still the highest rating show and it's cheaper for our TV stations to buy your programs so they are less inclined to put money into making quality Australian TV. As a result, I watch less and less TV, but not everyone makes this choice and it pisses me off. Back to Maccas....just because a Government may allow them to go into forest areas in Africa, cut down trees to clear land for cattle, this does not mean that an African tribe who uses that land for their own survival is happy about it. I imagine they're unhappy about US culture being rammed down their throats.

"So when something is percieved as being "america's bad" they are very quick to take offense."

Without wanting to regurgitate an argument drmiller previously had at my blog, I've never understood this over-defensiveness by Americans. Many Americans have a very different sense of patriotism to other countries, it is a much more unquestioning notion of patriotism. In that previous argument we had, I was accused of hating America, so I listed all the things from US culture that I love (like rock n roll and email). But I do not think America is perfect and I'm not going to list everything I love about America every time I want to criticise soimething the US does.

"hitler in a box? Same man, different time. And he was gleefully killing millions."

I'm sorry but this is a ridiculous comparison. Saddam was a bad man, but he had nothing on Hitler. The numbers do not in any way compare to Hitler's and liberals simply don't buy the idea that he was about to go trying to take over the world in the way the Nazis wanted to.

"And you don't think you find this anti-conservative article more thoughtful and less hateful because you're a liberal?"

True, but Draginol's article was longer and so he ended up spending a lot more time writing stuff where he'd forgotten what the original title was and just started liberal bashing instead.

"Just to set the record straight, Conservatives beleive that all men are created equal. And as such all should be given equal opportunity. "

This is not a contradiction, it is simply a differrnt way of saying the same thing. You believe all men are created equal. In the liberal's eyes, this is turning a blind eye to the inequality that minorities face from the start.

"just call them Aunt jemimas or Uncle Toms."

Using the label itself may not be very nice, but it doesn't take away the fact that liberals are quite often trying to stick up for some way to protect traditional black/Hispanic/whatever culture and the reason Powell and Rice succeed is because they simply don't care about that, they are happy to practise traditional Western culture.

"but the most truly hateful stuff has been from a few liberals."

And you don't think this perception is in any way swayed by your own political persuasion?

" I wasn't aware that conservative opinions now constituted "hate" speech."

Oh gimme a break Draginol. You spent half your article liberal-bashing, Calor spent a little less than half conservative-bashing, but your article was longer and thus contained more hate.