Calor Calor

Misconceptions about Liberals

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.

30,048 views 77 replies
Reply #26 Top
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.


So, you know it's true, but you have absolutely no evidence to support it, and because conservatives don't take your words at face value, they're taking the piss out of the fact?

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.


What does that have to do with McDonald's being in Greece? If the Greeks didn't want a McDonald's there, it wouldn't be there. Do you think there'd be a McDonald's if nobody was going there? Why would McDonald's keep the franchise in Greece if it was making absolutely no money?

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.


Forcing people off land they own is much different than international trade. Don't blame the US for what you like failing. Blame the Australians for having different preferences. Believe me, I know how you feel. If I could, I'd force shows I don't like, such as The Sopranos, off the air.
Do you think that Australia would do so well if it had absolutely no exports? After all, it shouldn't be raping other nations with its corporations and culture.

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.


Your response is quite long. Therefore, it must be the most hateful response on here?
Reply #27 Top

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.

Let's accept your premise that my article "bashed" liberals. That's hate speech? That's "hateful"? 

Ironically, you illustrate another pet peeve conservatives have with liberals - melodrama.  Everything's hateful except actual hate. And everything's a "war" except actual wars. And of course, everything is a "crisis".

What conservatives see are liberals who attempt to snuff out any criticisms of their policies and ideology by accusing conservatives of engaging in "hate" or "racism" or "fascism" or "bigotry".  Rather than trying to debate or discuss an issue, liberals are the ones who "throw up their hands" and trivialize it with some bomb throwing language like "hatred".

I don't hate liberals or even their ideology. I do have a number of criticisms of it. Criticism isn't hate. It would be nice if liberals could learn the difference.

People who hijack planes to murder as many innocents as possible are hateful. That's hate.  Criticizing liberal tax policies is not.

Reply #28 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.


A partial definition. A start.

That is speech intended to seriously frighten someone is a verbal assault that may be punished.
The function of hate speech is to create a “symbolic code for violence” which inflames the emotions of followers, denigrates the out-class and inflicts harm on the victims. Many victims of hate speech have very real fears that the speech will escalate into physical violence. (Draginol himself expressed these very fears in another thread)

Those who favor penalizing hate speech tend to take a more expansive definition of “hate crimes” than those who strongly support free speech. That is, they do not conceive of hate speech or hate crimes as a series of discrete acts, but instead view them as part of a continuum of bigotry and prejudice.




Please feel free to add to the definition.


Reply #29 Top
Draginol you've now resorted to a simple argument about semantics: What does hate mean? I've spent hours debating what it means to 'hate' a person, what it means to 'despise' them etc. So what? You come across as angry. Calor comes across as angry. It's probably partly to do with the fact that this is a written medium, but that's the perception.

"because conservatives don't take your words at face value, they're taking the piss out of the fact?"

Sorry, I didn't write that very well. What I meant was that conservatives have often made jokes to me about upper middle class brats who engage in champagne socialism. (My user name plays on the same joke, because I have a self-deprecatory style). I tend to agree with their joke. They are taking the piss outt of me.

"Believe me, I know how you feel. If I could, I'd force shows I don't like, such as The Sopranos, off the air."

See, I don't want to force Friends or anything off the air. I think the Simpsons is one of the wittiest programs ever. But I don't want less Australian content simply because it is cheaper to buy an American show that is a proven rater than it is to set up a new Australian TV show that may or may not work. But this is what happens under neo-con regimes (sorry, am I being melodramatic with that word? I'll say Government). Similarly, current economic policies make it harder for local fish n chip shops to survive. Maccas does not face such a problem. Maccas can afford to advertise, my local can't. You're right, Maccas is more financially viable than local fish n chips. But many of us want to eat chips, not fries. But we aren't getting the choice anymore.

"Ironically, you illustrate another pet peeve conservatives have with liberals - melodrama. Everything's hateful except actual hate. And everything's a "war" except actual wars. And of course, everything is a "crisis"."

Ironically, I've a similar pet peeve about conservatives. I call it sensationalism. (Poor people are "losers" for example, addicted people are 'junkies', aboriginal communities are 'rife with alcoholism', gay people are 'causing immorality', the Greens 'have no morals', pro-choicers 'have no morals', the list goes on). I guess this just means we bug each other because we don't agree with each other.

"Your response is quite long. Therefore, it must be the most hateful response on here?"

Probably. And?
Reply #30 Top

I tend to rely on common sense.

I am willing to put forth that a normal person with a basic level of common sense will agree that a discussion, even a "heated" discussion about tax policy or foreign policy does not rise to the level of "hatred".

Now, if you and other left leaning people consider hate to be a mere "semantics" issue then that really does explain a lot and why your foreign policy advice tends to lead to disaster.

Reply #31 Top
I tend to rely on common sense.


I also tend to rely on common sense. Obviously, your common sense and my common sense are polar opposites. But, you continually denigrate liberals by this holier-than-though crap about how you rely on common sense. Your continual insults and yes bashing targeted against liberals are tantamount to hate speech. This is not a game of semantics.
Reply #32 Top

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.


Thus spake Zarathustra.

Reply #33 Top

I also tend to rely on common sense. Obviously, your common sense and my common sense are polar opposites. But, you continually denigrate liberals by this holier-than-though crap about how you rely on common sense. Your continual insults and yes bashing targeted against liberals are tantamount to hate speech. This is not a game of semantics.


And then she spake again.  DO you have a point?

Reply #34 Top

This is not a game of semantics.


But I love this!  "If you agree with me, you are valid.  If you dont, you are just commiting sophistry!".


Great Arguement!  When do you turn of legal age?

Reply #35 Top
When do you turn of legal age?


Oh I get it........ a trick question.
Reply #36 Top
Reply By: dabePosted: Sunday, January 02, 2005I tend to rely on common sense.I also tend to rely on common sense.


bwahahahahahahahaaaaaaaaa good one dabsey wabsy man o man thats the best laugh I have had this whole year and its only 2 days old . wheww just keep them wonderfull fantasies commin kid,
Reply #37 Top

Oh I get it........ a trick question.


Glad you liked it!  Did you answer the question?

Reply #38 Top
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?


Sorry, Champas, but this is idiotic. You have to be kidding me. None of you Aussies will get off your butts and open a frickin' successful restaurant? You realize that's what you're saying? You won't pay a quarter more for fish n' chips? If the demand for fish & chips was bigger than the demand for McDonald's, you'd have F&C's everywhere. You don't like American culture, don't feed it. The Aussie franchisee's will get the message and open a Wallabee's or something. Apologies in advance for the tone, but this is completely infantile, way over the top and a grade A whine. Take responsibility for your own economy's decisions & stop blaming others.

And anger does not equal hate. I still love you.

Cheers,
Daiwa
Reply #39 Top
Glad you liked it! Did you answer the question?


Yes, I did.
Reply #40 Top
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.


Tell it to every Kennedy who ever lived, Bill and Hillary "Whitewater" & "cattle futures scheme" Clinton, and of course Mr. John "have some ketchup on those fries?" Kerry-Heinz.
I hate it when liberals drape themselves in this argument. Franklin Roosevelt and John Kennedy were two of the richest presidents we've had, while still being two of the most liberal of their time.

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.


You are. Why do you think so many of you still support socialism or socialistic ideals, when it's been plainly shown that they don't work? People are not going to change (that includes Islamic Fundamentalists, by the way); sorry if that attitude seems cynical to you. You can change the world, but not if people will continue to be shallow and petty, which they are, and will.

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.


I don't see you as "traitors"...this is an assumption many of you make when we tell you how un-American, or rather, detrimental to American ideals, some of your attitudes are.

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.


And did McDonald's Corporation send a team of special forces restaurant managers to Greece to forcibly assemble that McDonald's right across the street? No; some smart Greek NATIONAL bought a franchise and, knowing that many Americans would be visiting the Parthenon and might perhaps be homesick for American food, he put it there. Good for him.

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?


I understand your point here. Even as a Bush-supporting conservative, I have to admit to reservations about the war in Iraq, now that enough time has passed that it seems we went in for nothing, really. But many things are done in haste, and seemed a good idea at the time. Maybe it really did seem as though he was a threat at the time we went in. Or maybe Bush just wanted to finish the job the UN wouldn't let his father finish, and drummed something up. if it's the latter instead of the former, I'll tell you the same thing I said on another thread: Johnson, a liberal Democrat) got Congress to let him get us fully into Vietnam on the flimsy pretense of a North Vietnamese gunboat attacking and American warship. The Japanese airforce attacked and sank the USS Panay in China in the mid-thirties, and nothing was done, yet a tiny gunboat attacks a huge destroyer, and all of sudden it's grounds for war? Please.
So stop pretending that Bush is the first president to do something underhanded to get us into a foreign war.

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.


We don't live in racial harmony. Blacks in America continue to whine and complain no matter what or how much is done on their behalf. So many changes have been made for them in the last four decades, but so many of them refuse to see it.
Know who I respect? I respect older blacks.....the ones who remember what it was like before 1964, when Jim Crow was still in effect. When they had to pee in segregated bathrooms, drink from segregated water fountains, were turned away from "whites-only" restaurants, and had to stand up to give whitey their seat on the bus. They know what it was like, and they're glad to have it the way it is now, because they can appreciate the differences. Racial Harmony? Not til The Rev'runts Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton have run their course and finally shut up. Then the worst of the shit-stirrers will be gone.
Reply #41 Top
I really find both arguments to be very uninformed and biased from people who wish to malign those who are different or choose to have different philosphies, the reality is that none of the arguments were very correct or well reasearced, except to prove their argument with some facts on who did and did not do what.
The reality is that many from the left are very aware of history as are those from the consertative ilk, try learning the true menaing of the terms first, before the lableing starts, then think about how you fit politics into the argument. The real truth is that there are people on both side who care and have strong opions on how bets to carry out their beliefs, however this does not make either any worse or better than the other, I would say I am a liberal, and so are my brother and sisters and most of my friends, yet we all have different alligencies to Political parties, partly because of how we percieve them and partly because of our upbringing, My Mother and Father are both consertative in their views, so are my inlaws, yet they vate ALP - Australian LAbour Party, and My Parents vote Liberal, the consertative party in Australia, both believing the party they vote for has the best interests of people in mind, so to say that all republicans are consertative and all democrates are Liberal is a Myth, as is the perception that a consertative cannot be Liberal, which sound strange but the fact is most people will embrace something new and forward thinking if they believe it will benefit them or others. Also to say that one side is less aware socially is incorrect, I know plenety on both sides of politics who have various views on this subject, I know people from the so called left that are so conservative and racist its not even funny, and the same on the right,.
I am more than aware that in our fair country Australia we have many factions within our political parties, these represent varying degrees of consertativism, liberalism left and right wing politics and philosphies, in The Australian Labour Party there is the right , centre and the left, the Unions occupying all three, in the Liberal Party you have wets and drys, or Tories and Whigs, or Left and right, so it is quite unrealistic to say that any side of politics can be in either category, In most cases I find the real area of distinction come from supporters more that the parties themselves, as can be seen in the comments for both blogs. You all need to remember that humans are complex being and in many cases very private about their ideas, others like all to know, like us, but to say that I am a commie pinko liberal, with no idea of history or reality and is just as bad as accusing say Brad of being a right wing nut who is as racist as they come, when if you read or thoughts you would find we come from very different view points but also share many similar views, and so do most people, as I keep saying Ploitical Parties are not Football teams, and by virtue of this there are good bad and indfferent in both.
Reply #42 Top
"None of you Aussies will get off your butts and open a frickin' successful restaurant? You realize that's what you're saying? You won't pay a quarter more for fish n' chips? If the demand for fish & chips was bigger than the demand for McDonald's, you'd have F&C's everywhere."

I have never denied that the demand for Maccas is higher. Australia had many successful F & Cs for a very very long time. I used to eat at them until they started closing down. Even so I still sometimes make the trek across town just because I like the fat chips so much. But come on, that's a bit extreme of me. Now under the pressure of current economics, it is much harder for these businesses to survive and compete with Maccas. Maccas after all can advertise, can afford to charge less, is a status symbol, can serve up the food quicker, can afford higher rent.
Reply #43 Top
"Now, if you and other left leaning people consider hate to be a mere "semantics" issue then that really does explain a lot and why your foreign policy advice tends to lead to disaster"

Yes, all us lefties are sheep, so they all think like me, Draginol. Your attitude to this, I would say, equally explains why your foreign policy always ends up in disaster in my eyes. Your attitude to what constitues hate speech may also explain how some people got banned last year. Obviously you get upset about things that I think are fairly tame and vice versa.
Reply #44 Top

Reply #43 By: Champas Socialist - 1/3/2005 2:51:37 AM
"Now, if you and other left leaning people consider hate to be a mere "semantics" issue then that really does explain a lot and why your foreign policy advice tends to lead to disaster"

Yes, all us lefties are sheep, so they all think like me, Draginol. Your attitude to this, I would say, equally explains why your foreign policy always ends up in disaster in my eyes.


How our foreign policy looks to you is immaterial. It's "our" policy not yours.
Reply #45 Top

Reply #39 By: dabe - 1/2/2005 10:59:23 PM
Glad you liked it! Did you answer the question?


Yes, I did.


Then were is the answer?
Reply #46 Top

Reply #39 By: dabe - 1/2/2005 10:59:23 PM
Glad you liked it! Did you answer the question?


Yes, I did.


Then where is the answer?
Reply #47 Top
drmiler, what you need to understand is that forign policy is a countries way of dealing with its neibhours, thus whilist it may be YOUR forign policy it is the rest of us that get affected by it, that makes it our business, whether you like it or not, so we do have the right to object, what non US citizens don't have the right to do is dictate domestic policy to you, which I might remind you is exactly what the US administration seems to think forign policy means, like it or not the perception of the US and to some extent its allies, and yes this includes Australia, is that we have an agorant attitude to other countries domectic policy, and I agree we do, which is why we all have to some extent become maligned in many parts of the world, whether well intentioned or not.
Reply #48 Top
By your I meant conservatives. Draginol criticised liberal foreign policy and I criticised conservative foreign policy. I know it's difficult, but try to keep up drmiller.
Reply #49 Top
Reply #47 By: zergimmi - 1/3/2005 4:21:42 AM
drmiler, what you need to understand is that forign policy is a countries way of dealing with its neibhours, thus whilist it may be YOUR forign policy it is the rest of us that get affected by it, that makes it our business, whether you like it or not, so we do have the right to objec


Your right, you do have the right to object. Just like we have the right to ignore your ojections. You seem to forget something. Foreign policy is in place because *we* want to deal with you. If it ever comes to the point where we no longer wish to deal with you or becomes more trouble than it's worth, then the policy goes by the wayside. And BTW how we arrive at a particular policy would *stiil* be none of your business. The only thing that would be your business is the effects such policy might have on your particular nation.
Reply #50 Top

Reply #48 By: Champas Socialist - 1/3/2005 5:04:23 AM
By your I meant conservatives. Draginol criticised liberal foreign policy and I criticised conservative foreign policy. I know it's difficult, but try to keep up drmiller.


Read reply #49. BTW do not compare your liberals or your conservatives to the US versions. Apples and oranges And Draginol was critizing US liberal policy. How would you know how they think? What you call a liberal and what we refer to as a liberal are 2 different things.