Political Rhetoric

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

Why do so many people (not saying everyone) always hate leftists and liberals? They treat them with such disdain and only hurl invectives at them. I can't figure it out. What would someone hate SO much about a leftist, given that they are not crazy commies or marxists. Is the RIGHT wing so much preferable to them? I can't really see anything good or nice about being a right wing conservative.

They don't seem to make any distinction between weirdos, wackos, and radicals and normal left-wingers.

I can understand some people being disliked: Howard Zinn (for historical inaccuracy, lies, and deceit, but why do they condem them all?



ANyway, I just wanted to direct you to a fairly nice dicussion board for history, research, and other history relate things if you are interested. It seemed cool.


Visit history research history society if you wish!

[Joe]

The short answer is that conservatism, at least in America, is far more prone to black-and-white thinking than liberalism is.

[The Cleric]

That goes both ways B-T. The left is no nicer to the right.

[Perinquus]

The short answer is that conservatism, at least in America, is far more prone to black-and-white thinking than liberalism is.

No they aren't. The extremes of both left and right are equally bad. The left characterizes the right as hard hearted, and the right characterizes the left as soft headed. They are equally capable of black and white thinking in this regard.

[Darth Wong]

The short answer is that conservatism, at least in America, is far more prone to black-and-white thinking than liberalism is.

No they aren't. The extremes of both left and right are equally bad. The left characterizes the right as hard hearted, and the right characterizes the left as soft headed. They are equally capable of black and white thinking in this regard.

The difference, however, is that radical extreme Leftists are found in the social studies faculty at a local university, while radical rightists run FOXNews: a much higher-profile soapbox.

[Marksist]

That goes both ways B-T. The left is no nicer to the right.

I disagree.. especially with this year's presidential campaign. I mean just watch TV for awhile with some conservative pundits or politicians. They keep throwing around this "John Kerry is the most liberal member of the Senate," etc. They just keep reciting this "he is Liberal" shit ad nauseum as if it were some kind of attack. Whereas I don't think I ever (or very rarely) hear liberals "attacking" their opponents by calling them conservative. I just don't know why it seems in the US it's a-ok to be conservative, and it's an insult to be liberal.

[Perinquus]

The short answer is that conservatism, at least in America, is far more prone to black-and-white thinking than liberalism is.

No they aren't. The extremes of both left and right are equally bad. The left characterizes the right as hard hearted, and the right characterizes the left as soft headed. They are equally capable of black and white thinking in this regard.

The difference, however, is that radical extreme Leftists are found in the social studies faculty at a local university, while radical rightists run FOXNews: a much higher-profile soapbox.

In some ways it balances out. Joe Sixpack the plumber may watch Fox News, and never get exposed to the left leaning professors at most unis. But on the other hand, Joe Sixpack will rarely ever himself go into politics and become a legislator. While the graduates of the unis who have had their impressionable young minds influenced to a certain degree by the leftist ideology of their professors are the ones who go to be lawyers and politicians, reporters and so on. In other words, the left leaning professors may have a smaller audience, but that smaller audience goes on to become a generally more influential segment of society.

[Perinquus]

That goes both ways B-T. The left is no nicer to the right.

I disagree.. especially with this year's presidential campaign. I mean just watch TV for awhile with some conservative pundits or politicians. They keep throwing around this "John Kerry is the most liberal member of the Senate," etc. They just keep reciting this "he is Liberal" shit ad nauseum as if it were some kind of attack. Whereas I don't think I ever (or very rarely) hear liberals "attacking" their opponents by calling them conservative. I just don't know why it seems in the US it's a-ok to be conservative, and it's an insult to be liberal.

They attack John Kerry's liberal record because most Americans do not lean that far to the left. They point out that John Kerry is very liberal because they are attempting to show that he is something most of the voters in this country are not, and does not represent the values and ideals of most Americans.

And this idea that conservatives are never attacked by calling them conservative is simply false. You hear it done all the time. Robert Bork is identified as a conservative judge, while Laurence Tribe, a frequent guest on CBS Evening news in the 80s, and who is a fervent democrat (he was also part of Gore's team in 2000, and argued for Gore before the Supreme Court) was always identified as just a "Harvard Law Professor". Tom Selleck and Bruce Willis are identified as conservative actors, whereas Barbra Streisand and Rob Reiner, are just Barbra Streisand and Rob Reiner. Rush Limbaugh is always identified as a conservative talk show host, while Rosie O'Donnell, can host a fund raiser for Hillary Clinton and refer to Rudy Giuliani as New York's "village idiot" and not ever be identified as the liberal talk show host. Conservatives are labelled as such all the time in the media, but their exact counterparts on the other side of the aisle are very seldom labelled as liberal. It subtly implies that one side is off to one side while the other is middle of the road.

It's not okay to be a conservative while its an insult to be a liberal. It's at least as frequent to see conservativism portrayed insultingly as backward, hidebound, bigoted and overly dominated by society's more religious members.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

I just don't know why it seems in the US it's a-ok to be conservative, and it's an insult to be liberal.

I know everyone does not hold the same view, but these people become disgusting after a while, just as much as the radical leftists do. Right after I posted this, I watched the National Conservative Youth conference, and I never EVER EVER heard the implied phrase "evil liberal agenda" repeated so drone-like by all the students. They clapped at almost anything the professor said.

"how do we stop this liberal bias from penetrating our schools, textbooks, and government."

That was the basic line of thought for them all. It seemed true that they were using anything Liberal as an insult. THey didn't even make one distinction (that I saw) separating Liberals from Radical liberals. They were all lobbed into the same cateagory. It would be like calling all Islamics fundamentalists.

It's not okay to be a conservative while its an insult to be a liberal. It's at least as frequent to see conservativism portrayed insultingly as backward, hidebound, bigoted and overly dominated by society's more religious members.

I wish both sides would quit the bullshit. It is very insulting when they lump everyone together. They actually tried to sell a book at the meeting that would serve to "convert" those misguided heathen liberals.


It seems as if they are trying to insult people with opposing views and force their conservative ideas down peoples' throats. They are saying they want an open forum, but they really don't want the liberals to have their liberal ideas. If someone has a liberal idea, they stamp it out as lunacy of the left. The professor was saying about bad they are. I think he wants to just replace the liberal biase with a conservative bias.


Do they have a national liberal student conference All I see is Lib-Bashing on C-span when I watch it. I don't know if I just have really bad timing, or if that's all they do.

I would also love to know what definition of liberal these people were using. They said they don't really mind "classical Liberalism."

[Perinquus]

Do they have a national liberal student conference All I see is Lib-Bashing on C-span when I watch it. I don't know if I just have really bad timing, or if that's all they do.

Maybe they don't have a national liberal student conference. It doesn't matter. There are other places where rabid, foaming at the mouth liberals are just as dominant as the rabid, foaming at the mouth conservatives you saw on the television. Take a look at the Democratic Underground where you can find threads on their forum with titles like: "Rethuglican Dictionary: 'Stalking Points'", "Judge Likens Election of Bush to Rise of Il Duce", "So WHY haven't I ever heard about Bush being accused of rape?", "Pope fears Bush is antichrist", "Republicans ruining the definitions of words", "Stupid Conservative Websites"

This last thread is particularly interesting. Here are some highlights from the opening post:

I caught my daughter reading one of these ridiculous conservative websites. I'm not sure if this guy is a blogger or just a dumb kid who writes about stuff he know jack nothing about. Listen to this...

snip

Are all Conservative sites like this? If they are than the internet is a scary place. I may have to use my AOL parental controls for my 16 year old impressionable daughter. What a shame.

Stupid Conservative Websites

Now I grant you, the website of which he complains has a post by one of those ultra-religious right wingers that are so often a source of embarassment to me, being the conservative that I am. But what is this guy's reaction? Is it to sit down and explain to his daughter why he thinks this guy is wrong, and to inculcate in her the facility for critical thinking and analysis, and let her be exposed to differing viewpoints? No. It is to stifle opposing voices, and make sure she only gets the liberal viewpoint. Heaven forbid she be allowed to make up her own mind or think for herself.

So you see, this sort of close-minded, silence-the-opposition ethic is alive and well on the extremes of both left and right.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

I think they should gain access to all points of view, but I just think the liberal viewpoint sounds the most logical and the most safe as long as it isn't extreme and radical.

What is your definition of Conservative? Maybe you use a different one, but the way I was taught was : a measure of keeping the status quo, no real change, traditional values.


Now maybe my view is distorted. Can you equate liberals with socialism? I always saw them as different, and it seems like it is taught that way in many courses, but these TV people were equating the two.

And I am all for not forcing a belief down anyone's throat, but how do you prevent the masses from supporting a flawed, dangerous type of conservatism? Would it be ok to "force" someone to support a better, more civil system?

[Perinquus]

I think they should gain access to all points of view, but I just think the liberal viewpoint sounds the most logical and the most safe as long as it isn't extreme and radical.

What is your definition of Conservative? Maybe you use a different one, but the way I was taught was : a measure of keeping the status quo, no real change, traditional values.


Now maybe my view is distorted. Can you equate liberals with socialism? I always saw them as different, and it seems like it is taught that way in many courses, but these TV people were equating the two.

And I am all for not forcing a belief down anyone's throat, but how do you prevent the masses from supporting a flawed, dangerous type of conservatism? Would it be ok to "force" someone to support a better, more civil system?

Well, I must disagree with you. The liberal point of view does not look more logical to me. For one thing, people with the liberal point of view tend, as a rule, to be much more in favor of social programs, and what some people call "big government". For example, liberals are more for socialized medecine than conservatives, many liberals seriously promote the idea that it is government's responsibility to help people find jobs, whereas conservatives think it's no one's responsisbility but yours to find you a job. Liberals tend to favor affirmative action where conservatives tend to oppose it. Liberals tend to be more dovish in their foreign policy stance, and they tend to favor rehabilitation over punishment when it comes to fighting crime. Liberals tend to be more in favor of gun control whereas conservatives tend to oppose it more.

None of these assertions is true for every liberal and every conservative, of course, but they are general trends.

The area of social spending is one of the main reasons that liberalism does not look more logical to me. Liberals tend to favor higher taxes and more social spending, but the social programs into which we have poured so much money since the 1960s and Johnson's "Great Society" simply do not have a good track record of success.

Likewise, the liberal track record on crime is less than impressive. I can cite well researched studies on this one. I've posted on it before. The rehabilitation approach gained serious ground in the 1950s, and once it began to be enacted, it started to reverse a trend which had seen crime rates steadily falling since the 1920s. In fact crime rates then began to soar, and it became a real problem by the 1970s.

Gun control is another issue where the liberal posistion does not look logical. The biggest problem is fundamental. How will enacting more laws keep weapons out of the hands of people who, by definition, are law breakers? And the record shows that it doesn't reduce crime in practice. Quel surprise. Criminals will still obtain guns when they are illegal, just as they will break so many other laws, while the honest citizens who obey the law will not. This has the effect of disarming the honest people, and making the criminals more confident in their ability to prey upon them.

One of the biggest differences is the way in which liberals and conservatives tend to look at the world around them. I think Thomas Sowell was on to something when he said liberals are likely to see traditions as the dead hand of the past, relics of a less enlightened age, rather than as the distilled experience of millions who faced similar human problems and trials before, which is how conservatives tend to see them. And because of this, I think it is no surpise to find that people with visions of a more enlightened, more utopian society tend to be found more often among liberals than conservatives. Liberals seems to have a greater belief in the perfectibility of man and his institutions. But I think history shows us otherwise, which is why I am not liberal. I am less eager to throw over ideas and institutions that have stood the test of time, for ideas devised by men, who predictably, can never foresee all the consequences of their actions - and many of whose grand schemes have been tried unsuccessfully before in any case.

This is not to say I am opposed to all change. Only a fool would be. Much as I find myself differing with liberals so often, I think we need them. Society must have some change or it will stagnate, nor can it afford to have all its members thinking the same way all the time. And I tend to differ with most of my fellow conservatives on a number of issues. I am an atheist, where the majority of conservatives are religious. I favor things like physician assisted suicide for the terminally ill, where most conservatives do not. I favor stem cell research where many conservatives do not. I think homosexuality is a hard-wired sexual orientation over which gays have no choice, whereas most conservatives seem to think it's a lifestyle choice. These are just some examples of where I differ. But on the whole, I think while some traditions are relics of a less enlightened age, I also think that many of our policies, traditions, laws, customs, etc. have stood the time well enough that they are worth conserving, so I'm a conservative.

[Durandal]

So the thread has the word "Political" in its title, and you put it in OT?

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

Well, it was more of an offish kinda topic at the time. I was more thinking about mentality of TV people, but then it changed. Sorry then.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

The area of social spending is one of the main reasons that liberalism does not look more logical to me. Liberals tend to favor higher taxes and more social spending, but the social programs into which we have poured so much money since the 1960s and Johnson's "Great Society" simply do not have a good track record of success.

Don't conservatives just waste money somewhere else? Wars, big business? What is better?

Higher taxes are better in some ways, since taxes are what pay for most of the beneficial programs and things. As long as the taxes are reasonable, of course. I don't really care for Bush's conservative tax cuts while spending huge sums elsewhere.

THe Great society was a good idea, but it came at a very shitty time. One major reason, according to the American Pagent, that the Great society was not so good was they tried to use war at the same time. I guess you can't really expend money for war and domestic issues on equally massive scales. One has to give.

What we probably need are better programs with better leaders, and more fiscal responsibility elsewhere at the same time. No one is perfect, but I have to say I am more for big government aid, and less for government control, which is how conservatives seem to me.

Of course, social programs do work, as long as the government isn't loaded with them, right? You don't want a welfare state. That would be extreme.

In general, liberals seem, at least on the outside, more for the people. I know this is most definitly a ploy, however, since no politicians today really care.


I am assuming there is a difference between modern liberals and "classical liberals?" Are modern Liberals more socialistic?

[Perinquus]

Don't conservatives just waste money somewhere else? Wars, big business? What is better?

They do. Pork is something members of both sides are quite prone to pack bills with. Nevertheless, I think the fiscally conservative policy of reducing taxes and reducing spending is better. And I am in wholehearted agreement with Thos. Jefferson's saying that: "That government is best which governs least."

I do not want big government and more social programs. I do not want a nanny state. I think it tends to foster a mindset of dependency and make people less self reliant.

Higher taxes are better in some ways, since taxes are what pay for most of the beneficial programs and things. As long as the taxes are reasonable, of course. I don't really care for Bush's conservative tax cuts while spending huge sums elsewhere.

Oh I agree with you there. I am all for cutting taxes. But spending has to be cut as well or you just run up huge deficits. Both Kennedy and Reagan cut taxes, and both times it resulted in a huge increase in government revenues because it stimulated considerable economic growth. We spent a lot during the Reagan years, but at least we had the reason that we were deliberately trying to spend the Soviets into the poorhouse, because we knew they'd try to keep up with us and they couldn't. Bush doesn't have that excuse, and I am disgusted with his lack of fiscal restraint.

THe Great society was a good idea, but it came at a very shitty time. One major reason, according to the American Pagent, that the Great society was not so good was they tried to use war at the same time. I guess you can't really expend money for war and domestic issues on equally massive scales. One has to give.

I disagree that the Great Society was a good idea. The Welfare system it created was reformed later in a bipartisan effort - since it was so obvious a failure that even liberal democrats were left with no choice but to admit it. The way we poured money into education didn't work. We spend more per pupil than any other country, and our students consistently door very poorly compared with those of other nations. The housing developments that the Great Society created quickly turned into burned out looking, crime ridden hellholes where no one would want to live.

The Great Society was an attempt to prove the federal government could eliminate poverty and transform the nation with a little social engineering. It couldn’t. The programs were (not surprisingly, given the nature of government bureaucracies), inefficient and top-heavy, benefiting staff more than the poor they were intended to assist. Top-heaviness grew until the federal government became the nation’s top employer.

Just ten years later, Richard Nixon observed that the whole program had been a dismal failure. Crime got worse not better. Illiteracy rates got worse not better. Poverty got worse not better. And so on.

The Great Society was laudable in its intentions. But effectiveness is not measured by intentions. It is measured by results.

What we probably need are better programs with better leaders, and more fiscal responsibility elsewhere at the same time. No one is perfect, but I have to say I am more for big government aid, and less for government control, which is how conservatives seem to me.

I do not think we need more government programs. As I said, I think it fosters a basically unhealthy mindset - a mindset of dependence on government as a kind of super problem solver. And a lot of people now act as though not supporting a government solution to our problems means you must be opposed to that problem being solved.

A fundamental reason for the failure of the Great Society was that its underlying assumptions are flawed. It takes a deterministic view of human nature and human problems. Basically, it assumes that if you can eliminate poverty and want, all will be well. People won't commit crimes if they are not impoverished, because all their needs are met and they don't want for anything. People will be more productive if they are not impoverished, for they won't suffer the devastation to their spirit that results from crushing poverty. People will study better in school if they and the school are not impovershed because the students will be less distracted by want and the schools will be better equipped. People will live better in affordable, rent controlled housing because they will be free of the specter of eviction and homelessness, etc. etc.

The problem is that none of these assumptions is supported by reality. Poverty is not the sole cause of crime. If it were, there would be no greedy robber barons always grabbing for more. People on welfare are not more productive. Some really do try to get work and get off the dole, but a lot of others will milk the system for all it's worth, and take a free ride as long as they possibly can. Schools do not necessarily do better when more is spent there, as our current schools prove well enough. People do not live better in rent controlled housing, because the reality is that people don't have nearly as much respect for property they don't own or for which they may not be held financially responsible.

The fundamental assumptions underlying the whole effort of the Great Society programs was flawed, and meant that it never could have worked.

Of course, social programs do work, as long as the government isn't loaded with them, right? You don't want a welfare state. That would be extreme.

I will agree that some, limited social programs are good. A limited welfare asssistance to help people who have fallen on hard times get back on their feet, for instance. But I think we spend far too much on social programs, with very little to show for it.

In general, liberals seem, at least on the outside, more for the people. I know this is most definitly a ploy, however, since no politicians today really care.

They certainly don't. I have no doubt that there are sincere ideological liberals who sincerely believe in the programs they espouse. I don't question their motives, only their grip on reality. There are others, I am equally sure, who are cynical opportunists. They know full well these programs don't work, but it fosters that mindset of dependency, which means they can always count on these people's votes, because they can convince these people that they will always be there to make sure they get their government money.

I am assuming there is a difference between modern liberals and "classical liberals?" Are modern Liberals more socialistic?

I'm not sure that there is much difference between liberalism today and that from the mid 20th century onward. New Deal liberals were of much the same stamp as liberals today.

In the 19th century, I think it's a bit different. I would probably espouse many ideas that would be considered very liberal by the standards of that time period.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

Yea. I would have to say I am more a classical liberal, but I like some social programs, if they are used in reason.

Like you said. Welfare is a good idea, and many people need it. Without it, and progams like the FDIC and other helpful fallback methods, I think the people would be screwed.

A little bit of socialism goes a long way. I think some is needed, because I doubt the charity and goodwill of thy neighbor. People seem more cut-throat than altruistic. Not all, but many. I am not sure how it works particularly in germany, but how is their Public education and social programs? ]Aren't it funded by the Government?

Personally, I think college level education should have more government assistance. There are many families who can't get financial aid because they make too much money, but it really isn't that much realisticially. Colleges are too damn expensive, and you need to go to one if you want any realistic job opportunities.

I am not for affirmative action, a complete welfare-state, or an overabundance of programs, but I think the government should definitly do something to improve education. I can't think of anything other than programs and money that would do that. Perhaps better paid, better educated teaching staff would help. Better school equipment might be a good thing to fund instead of giving aid to other nations. Several of my highschool classes had no books, but paper fascimilies of books. That's very pathetic considering the area in which I live.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

Edit: I don't think we need MORE programs, just better, reformed versions and more money spent in better areas. It is impossible for government to completely defeat poverty, but I think it has a responsibility to help those who try to help themselves.

[frigidmagi]

I could agree with that. However I have to point out that on the defense side that we need that cash, have you looked at all the nations that have us has their primary means of security?

The money does need to be spent more intellgencely however.

Also I honestly doubt that any program is going to work.


I think alot of our education problems could be fixed if our teachers were required to know what the hell they were teaching.

For example, only one of my teachers had a basic degree in her subject (history). The others had a degree in 'education.' The fucking football coach taught geometery for crying out loud.

Also, the salaries for supervisors and admin staff are wayyyy to large. I got a county supervisior in my home state who makes over 12 times what a princpal makes. Why? Because supervisors are allowed to set their salaries...

This kinda of bloated buercratic idiotcy is the problem, not idealogy. Both sides have been caught with their hands in the cookie jar.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

Setting your own salary seems like it's setting up a problem.

ANd gym teachers should not be teaching math.

[frigidmagi]

Those were the end products of liberal control over our education system...

However the defense glut (the fact that the money is being spent in a foolish manner) is the fault of the conservetives. So you can see how I'm sick of both of them?

[Talon Karrde]

The short answer is that conservatism, at least in America, is far more prone to black-and-white thinking than liberalism is.

No they aren't. The extremes of both left and right are equally bad. The left characterizes the right as hard hearted, and the right characterizes the left as soft headed. They are equally capable of black and white thinking in this regard.

The difference, however, is that radical extreme Leftists are found in the social studies faculty at a local university, while radical rightists run FOXNews: a much higher-profile soapbox.

Only problem with that: when students go through college they become liberal because of what the teachers engrain into them, when they actually take the time to watch FOXNews, their political opinions are probably already made up.