Liberals: not evil, not stupid…just 100% wrong!

For conservatives and libertarians, the movie icons might be High Noon or True Grit.  For Liberals, the defining anthem is John Lennon’s “Imagine“.

Why is there such a fundamental gulf between ourselves and Liberals, to the point where we find ourselves simply talking past each other? Can this gulf ever be bridged?

I came across this delightful essay at “1389 Counter-Jihad” that builds upon the thoughts of one of my favorite political and social commentators, Evan Sayet, to help define this gulf. It doesn’t necessarily say anything new, but it packages it so well.

http://1389blog.com/2010/11/17/why-modern-liberals-are-100-wrong-about-everything/

The central tenet of this posting is that, after years and years of indoctrination, Liberals see the world so fundamentally different than the rest of us that they can no longer recognize human fallibility and evil. If the core premise is correct, then I say there is no way to overcome this gulf and, perhaps, it would be best if we lived apart from one another. Why? Because I fear that the endgame of this Liberal world view can only be an epic global disaster. This Liberal view not only cannot survive (Darwin), but is the enabler of its/our own destruction.

Here’s a sterling outtake: “So the mindless foot soldier, which is what I call the non-elite, will support the elite’s blueprint for utopia, will side with evil over good, wrong over right, and the behaviors that lead to failure over those that lead to success, out of a sense of justice”

I know that we at Bookworm Room have explored this issue over and over. Does this help explain the divide? Can this gulf be overcome?

Be Sociable, Share!
  • http://zachriel.blogspot.com/2005/07/liberal-v-conservative.html Zachriel

    Leaving aside the many factual inaccuracies, at root it’s a strawman argument. The author raises up an exaggerated portrait of liberalism, in order to strike it down. Most liberals are quite aware of human fallibility, but still believe that the human condition can be improved through social reform.
     

  • suek

    The human condition may be able to be improved through social reform, but the human itself cannot be.  If the human cannot be improved, then the social reform will always be tenuous, dependent upon the virtue or greed for power of those who direct it.
     
    This reminds me of females (usually) I have known who will choose male after male who abuses them.  It’s almost if they _want_ the outcome of disaster that you would think they’d realize is inevitable – but they keep making the same choices, assuring friends that “this time” it’ll be different.  If society doesn’t preach and reinforce certain behaviors, and doesn’t punish those behaviors it finds destructive to it, then there _will_ be disaster.
     
    Unfortunately, there are no genes for virtuous behavior.

  • http://zachriel.blogspot.com/2005/07/liberal-v-conservative.html Zachriel

    suek: The human condition may be able to be improved through social reform, but the human itself cannot be. 

    Agreed. People today are largely the same creatures they were in the time of Abraham.
     
    suek: If the human cannot be improved, then the social reform will always be tenuous, dependent upon the virtue or greed for power of those who direct it.

    Tenuous, yes, but not dependent on virtue, but on the balance between the various institutions, traditional and republican. 
     
    Danny Lemieux: For Liberals, the defining anthem is John Lennon’s “Imagine“.

    Many conservatives like Lennon, too. Lennon’s thought is perhaps more subtle than you give him credit for.  
     
    You say you’ll change the constitution
    Well, you know
    We all want to change your head
    You tell me it’s the institution
    Well, you know
    You better free you mind instead
    But if you go carrying pictures of chairman Mao
    You ain’t going to make it with anyone anyhow
    Don’t you know it’s gonna be all right
    all right, all right
    all right, all right, all right
    all right, all right, all right 
     

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com Ymarsakar

    Social re-engineering, whether done through tyranny, benevolence dictatorship, government laws, militias, military force, or community rules, is only ever a means to an end. That end will be entirely dependent upon the good or evil of the user.
     
    The standard refrain is that regardless of the good intent of the user, unintended consequences can result, aka evil can result. I say that tools are tools, whether the outcome is good or evil is wholly dependent upon the user. Much of what we attribute to “good intentions” in the modern world is anything but. While there is such a thing as unintended consequences, it just doesn’t happen all that often. Evil takes work. If you have one well intentioned fool, you need 3 evil bastards to make that intention generate harm. So for every one good intention, you need 3 bad ones to create “unintended consequences” from good intentions.
     
    When you pair it down, most evil comes from evil intentions. Even unintended consequences happened because Somebody intended it to. Unless it is an act of nature or God, that is. But those are also extremely rare.
     
    In the hands of someone truly good, with all the virtues attendant upon a ruler of humans, social engineering can indeed be used to decrease class warfare, poverty, war, and injustice. There have been a couple of benevolent dictators in history that used their state authority to make people do better then they were, and they succeeded. Until they died, that is, and somebody else took the reins of power.
     
    So the only question that should matter is this: are the people you entrust with the powers of social engineering, good or evil people? Would you trust them with your life? Would you trust them with the life of a newborn? Would you trust them to stand strong in the face of evil or do you expect them to turn tail and use human shields to flee?
     
    Strength of character is the only determinator of success in the contest between good and evil. It goes back to the age old question. How can you guarantee that your leaders are the best of the best, rather than the worst of the worst.
     
    Of course the Left can no longer recognize evil. For they are evil. To recognize it, they would have to see themselves for what they truly are. Few humans are capable of honestly looking at their own flaws and sins. Since the Left consists of the bottom of the barrel in terms of human potential and excellence, the results are predictable.
     
    Using suek’s example, no matter what resources you have, so long as the problem is with you, trying to fix the problem by saying it is somebody else at fault, will go no where. Women keep shacking up with abusive boyfriends because there’s something wrong with the women. Some weakness, or seed of evil, that must be purged before they can truly do better.
     
    To get rid of America’s problems, we will need more than just “solutions” backed by government or community power. We must find the source of the rot, the evil, and purge it.

  • http://photoncourier.blogspot.com David Foster

    Liberals “can no longer recognize human fallibility and evil.” I don’t think this is correct. Many if not most of those on the Left are *very* eager to make assertions about the fallibility and evilness of other individuals such as “bitter clingers”, Tea Party members, etc etc.
     
    See my related post is liberal guilt a myth?

  • Charles Martel

    “Leaving aside the many factual inaccuracies, at root it’s a strawman argument.”

    Could you name two of the “many” inaccuracies?

  • suek

    >>but (are dependent) on the balance between the various institutions, traditional and republican. >>
     
    The quality of which will be dependent on …TA DA!!!! …. human beings!!!  (who are subject to unacceptable appetites for money and power, making those institutions equally subject to manipulation to achieve those evil ends)

  • suek

    >>I don’t think this is correct. >>
     
    I think it _is_ correct.  And the reason it is correct is because they don’t recognize an objective standard of “good” – or “evil”.
     
    >>Many if not most of those on the Left are *very* eager to make assertions about the fallibility and evilness of other individuals such as “bitter clingers”, Tea Party members, etc etc.>>
     
    Exactly.  Because they do not recognize an objective standard of good – which is necessary if you intend to define something as evil – they simply define anybody or anything which is not belonging to them as evil, and anything that _does_ belong to them is good – and if the standards change, it doesn’t matter.  If the hive wants it, it’s good, if the hive doesn’t want it, it’s evil.  At some point, the hive will be defined as the State, and we’ll have a system entirely analogous to the USSR.  And we know how well _that_ worked out.
     
    Those walls kept people _in_…not _out_ as a wall on our southern border would do.  There’s a reason for the difference!

  • jj

    Oh, plenty of ‘em are stupid.  I’m sorry – though it’s certainly not my fault – but Sheila Jackson-Lee is simply stupid.  (And what the hell is anybody who votes for her?)  John Conyers is beyond question stupid.  Nancy Pelosi is of a stupidity very nearly unique to herself on this planet.  Major Owens is stupid.  (Major Owens is very stupid.)  Barbara Boxer beautifully combines stupidity and snot.  Try having a brief conversation some time (I have) with Patty Murray – maybe she’s not exactly stupid, but if not then I don’t know what to call it.  Watched Couric and Curry – who are liberals – grow up.  All I can say is “wow.” yopu have no idea how stupid.  Taking your cues from Afghani tribal law – or whatever it is – and applying them to questions based on the constitution of this country, as David Souter does, well…. maybe he is in himself not stupid, but behaving thusly is decidedly stupid; there is no other word.  Henry Waxman is something other than stupid?  Try to follow Schumer’s reasoning processes some afternoon for as much as one minute.
     
    I have to disagree with you this time.  I knew too many of these people.

  • http://zachriel.blogspot.com/2005/07/liberal-v-conservative.html Zachriel

    Zachriel: Tenuous, yes, but not dependent on virtue, but on the balance between the various institutions, traditional and republican. 

    suek: The quality of which will be dependent on …TA DA!!!! …. human beings!!!  (who are subject to unacceptable appetites for money and power, making those institutions equally subject to manipulation to achieve those evil ends)

    “Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried.” — Winston Churchill.

    In fact, modern democracies do not depend on virtue, but on a balance of powers. In the U.S. system, for instance, you have a balance between the executive, legislative and judicial branches, between the powers of federal, state and local governments, a balance between government and non-governmental organizations, between church and state, majority powers and minority rights, and between public and private spheres. 
     

  • suek

    >>Nancy Pelosi is of a stupidity very nearly unique to herself on this planet.>>
     
    And yet she was elected Speaker of the House, and then Minority Leader for same.  _How_ in the name of heaven?  What does that say for the entire minority party?  How does she keep them in line??  I mean…._HOW_?

  • suek

    >>In the U.S. system, for instance, you have a balance between the executive, legislative and judicial branches, between the powers of federal, state and local governments,>>
     
    Any more…not so much.

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com Ymarsakar

    The balance is only for the government in question. So that one government branch does not take inordinate amounts of power.
     
    This does not prevent the people from voting themselves a dictatorship. It requires moral virtue on the part of the people to NOT elect an Obama. In the absence of such virtue, they get taken in and screwed. All the time. They will trade a functioning and prosperous economy, in Cuba and Iran, for a dip (tobacco) started chocolate crack cake.
     
     

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com Ymarsakar

    and then when they start getting the side effects, they’ll blame the economy that sold them what they wanted, and they’ll elect more dictators to solve the problem they created.
     
    How does she keep them in line??  I mean…._HOW_?

    The classic method is the simplest. She knows where all the bodies are buried. She knows which Democrats went to Eastern European countries, had sex with children or underaged girls, or engaged in violent snuff film sexual antics.

    That’s the classic method you see.

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com Ymarsakar

    Or did people actually think that Barnie Frank and the LIMITED number of Democrat sex and corruption scandals were the majority of what they were doing?
     
    All you see is what they do here. Guess what they are doing OVERSEAS where nobody is watching.

  • http://thoughtyoudneverask.blogspot.com/ zabrina

    The essay this blog post links to is the best concise restatement of Thomas Sowell’s “A Conflict of Visions” that I have ever read. I wish there were a place where conservatives could go to live free of the power grabs and interference of liberals. But unfortunately there is no other “New World” left.

  • Tonestaple

    I don’t believe liberals understand the fallen nature of humans.  If they did, their solutions to problems would not be so foolish.  Liberals fail to understand time and time again that if you attempt to control a situation with nothing but positive feedback, you’ll get more and more of the thing you are rewarding.  For example, if you reward people for making bad decisions like having children out of wedlock, you will get more children.  If you reward illegal aliens with driver licenses as we have been doing in Washington, you will get more illegal aliens.  If you reward street alcoholics with money, you will attract more street alcoholics.  You can’t reward bad behavior and expect it to improve, yet liberals do this all the damn time.

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com Ymarsakar

    For example, if you reward people for making bad decisions like having children out of wedlock, you will get more children.

    Some of them do understand (the leaders do). That’s why they do it. Because if they ever get rid of children out of wedlock, what excuse would they then use to claim that women need government help? And without government help, who will employ all these millions of bureaucrats?

    The Leftist cannon fodder, yes I would agree, have no conception of anything but what they are told.

  • excathedra

    The simplest description of how the liberal mind works is a line from James Burnham’s classic, The Suicide of the West. “The liberal finds himself morally disarmed when in the presence of anyone he deems less well off than himself.”
    It is a kind of narcissistic moral panic. And we know what great decisions panicked narcissists make.

  • Charles Martel

    “The liberal finds himself morally disarmed when in the presence of anyone he deems less well off than himself.”

    The only instance where that keen observation falls down is when it comes to liberals’ legendary high regard for poor white people.

  • Tonestaple

    Some of them do understand (the leaders do). That’s why they do it. Because if they ever get rid of children out of wedlock, what excuse would they then use to claim that women need government help? And without government help, who will employ all these millions of bureaucrats?

    I’m not so sure, Ymar.  That assumes that they think things through, and I really think that’s one thing they don’t do.  I think some of the really hard-core, long-term-thinking actual revolution-seeking commies might, but they’re way more cynical than most liberals, even the ones who reach positions of power.  I think liberals are primarily driven by their notion of compassion which never ever requires anything of the objects of their compassion.  I also think they get their usual notion of cheap grace from being “compassionate.”  All they have to do is give away someone else’s money and they become virtuous.

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com Ymarsakar

    Take the example of teacher’s unions. If they actually improved public education, there would be no need to keep increasing education funding. But the increases are continued to be demanded and the money goes into the union coffers. This is not a coincidence given the evidence in play.
     
    The Left has been operating in the US for decades. Their institutional knowledge has been passed on from one generation to the next. From Ayers, to Obama. From Alinsky to Ayers. There are plenty of other gateways, like through Sharpton/Jackson and the Black LIberation Church, as well as the New Black Panther groups.
     
    This is not just a feel good ideology. There are organizations behind it. Organizations that require money and leadership. That give out orders and expect those orders to be followed.
     
    Taking the example of environmentalism. Environmental laws have become more and more regimented, with an actual decrease in environmental safety. This goes back to the point of, if the Left ever solved the problem of pollution, where would they get excuses to increase the EPA powers or environmentalist influences.
     
    The people in charge of unions and the environmentalist wing, don’t need to be revolutionary minded to be using Leftist doctrine, that was created by revolutionaries.

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com Ymarsakar

    This is analogous to a cult. Most of the cult members want some kind of comfort or security, and that’s why they join the cult. The cult leader offers X in return for loyalty and power.
     
    So far, Democrat politicians know how the game is run. Individual LibProgs, depending on how close they are to the inner circle, will most likely not be aware of the full ramifications of the Leftist program.

  • binadaat

    There are two different views of the world.
     
    One is based on restriction, unforgiving boundaries, and limits.
    The other is based on expansion, abundance and growth.
     
    One is dying.
    One is alive and dynamic.
    One is pessimistic, and conservative and fearful.
    One is hopeful, and optimistic.
     
    One is logical only in the very short run of the here and now. All the evidence points to this conclusion of the world and its resources being limited. The same way that the logic of observation demands that we know that world is flat because that is evidence of every human eye.
     
    But observed from a vantage point farther away, we discover that the world is indeed round and that there is nothing to fear.
     
    So it is with the optimist who believes that the world is abundant and vital and expanding. Seen from the long view of human and world events, all evidence points to the hopeful and optimistic conclusion that the world will abide and all will be well with us in the long run.
     

  • suek

    >>That assumes that they think things through, and I really think that’s one thing they don’t do. >>
     
    Not necessarily.  You’ve almost certainly heard of the term “co-dependent” in connection with various addictive behaviors.  Have you ever wondered, for example about the guy who can’t be taken to the hospital because he weighs 900 lbs?  Then have you ever thought about the practical problems of getting to and staying that weight?  can he get out of bed?  get to the toilet?  how does he feed himself?  where does his food come from?  Start thinking about all those unpleasant practicalities of life and you begin to realize that _someone_ is enabling him.  Now that person probably thinks of him/herself as a self-sacrificing good person.   Mr.900pounder can’t do all these things for himself – it’s just Christian charity for me to care for him.  Well maybe.  Or maybe someone just needs to feel needed.  What would happen if this charitable person got a doctor’s advice and simply fed Mr.900pounder the diet required to lose weight?  Mr.900pounder would probably whine and cry and maybe _demand_ more food – but let’s fact it…what can he do?  He can’t get out of bed by himself, he can’t get through the door…you get the picture.  He is dependent as a baby.  _WHY_ is the caretaker taking care and enabling?  Somehow, deep down, the caretaker has an addictive need too.  S/he needs to be needed.  If Mr.900pounder becomes Mr.300pounder, s/he won’t be needed.  Maybe Caretaker thinks s/he won’t be loved…Mr.300pounder will go out and find some cute chick to love and marry…who knows!  But as Mr.900pounder, Caretaker has no competition.
     
    But is it conscious?  I doubt it.  Caretaker really feels like a good person, doing his/her Christian duty.  In fact, in lots of cases, you have to be really careful about the “Christian duty” thing – is it actually helping to address a need, or enabling a person in their bad behavior?  Fine line.  Same with parenting.  Children are demanding – sometimes into adulthood.  You need to come to a point where you encourage them to move out of the nest – and achieve adulthood.  At which point, they don’t need you any more – and that’s painful.  You have to continue to be the parent and _insist_ that they stand on their own feet, but there are many parents that simply don’t want to do this – they find it comforting to be needed.  I suspect it’s just a human thing…needing to be needed.  But it must be weighed against reducing the other person’s obligation to be responsible for themselves.  Not to do so is really diminishing the other person.
     
    I guess we could say that we all need to be “All that we can be”!!

  • Pingback: A Thought a Day… « Politics & Prosperity()

  • Pingback: The Left and Its Delusions « Politics & Prosperity()