Posted on 08/12/2010 3:38:25 AM PDT by Scanian
Liberals are not insane, as many conservatives believe. Most liberals (I am not speaking here of the political or intellectual class) are ordinary human beings pursuing everyday human lives -- just like the rest of us. Here is a brief summary of why most liberals are liberal and what we can do to help at least some of them understand conservative thought: Enter text here.
1) Indoctrination, not education
Polls consistently find that over 70% of college professors identify themselves as liberal. The percentage of liberal faculty members is even higher if one removes responses from those teaching the "hard" sciences. In our prestigious universities, the figure approaches 90%. Both of these reported percentages are probably lower than the real figures [i].
The fact is that America's universities and colleges are no longer institutions that offer their students various political, social, and economic perspectives. There is no exploration of competing concepts, no real debate. Students are not taught how to think, but what to think. Our universities are indoctrination camps (and our public primary and secondary education systems are not much better) -- not campuses for learning and critical discussion.
Almost all of the students who emerge from these indoctrination camps have attended, for years, classes based upon moral, scientific, and epistemological relativism [ii]. Many of those students have never seriously considered, or even been exposed to, alternatives to the propaganda they receive during school. A person cannot change from position L to position C if that person doesn't know that position C is an alternative -- or if the student has been brainwashed into thinking that "C" stands for greed, racism, homophobia, etc.
Yet the hard truth is that conservatives far outnumber liberals in America. It is our fault that we have allowed our educational systems to become indoctrination camps run by the left.
2) Imagination, not intelligence (or possibility, not probability)
One of the most egregious errors that our educational systems dish out, and that the students ingest, is that the imagination is more important than the intellect (or, from a slightly different angle, that possibility is more important than probability). In The Passions of the Soul, Descartes contended that the passion of imagination should be used to employ newly discovered mathematical principles (essentially what is now the calculus) and the scientific method to rule the intellect [iii].
Today's intellectual elites agree with Descartes that the imagination (and, thus, the possible) is more important than reason (and the probable). For instance, a favorite philosopher of intellectual left, Friedrich Nietzsche, claimed, "Art is worth more than truth" [iv].
Here is an extreme (but typical) example of how far out of hand this thinking has gotten in our culture: Many programs that deal with absurd legends on the Discovery, History, and various "science" channels will close the episode by playing spooky music while the narrator says something like this:
"Even though we still lack hard evidence, the search for Bigfoot goes on. [Narrator's sonorous voice becomes deadly serious.] Too many questions remain unanswered. And no one can deny that the existence of Sasquatch is ... [momentary pause during musical crescendo] ... possible. [End scary music. Roll credits.]"
This approach is banal, but it keeps the viewers coming back to see the next production on Bigfoot that, once again, proves nothing. These programs demonstrate that in our popular culture, imagination is more important than rational thought and possibility is held higher than probability.
Al Gore's movie An Inconvenient Truth is the prime example of (bad) art masquerading as the truth. The movie is filled with factual errors and outright lies. But these distortions count for little in a society where "art is worth more than truth." (Commence creepy music. Roll credits. Stay tuned [v]!)
In making real-life decisions, probability is much more important than possibility. It is possible that I might win the lottery if I buy a ticket. It is more than 99.999% probable that I will not. Life tutors us in this truth -- this is one of the reasons why people tend to become more conservative as they grow older.
Because of our educational system, most liberals are never taught this basic fact of life. It is part of our job to help our liberal friends understand the simple and crucial truth: Just because something is possible does not make it probable.
3) Sympathy, not empathy
Liberals tend to be sympathetic. But sympathy is not empathy. Sympathy is a product of the imagination. Empathy is a result of knowledge acquired through personal experience. Because liberals tend to be sympathetic rather than empathetic, they see other people from two distorted (and imaginary) points of view:
First, liberals tend to see those for whom they have sympathy as victims. This is a natural (though irrational) way of perceiving those who are less fortunate -- or have an unconventional lifestyle. If I have not had the experience of being poor, then I cannot understand the causes of any particular poor person's poverty. I can imagine some causes, pity those who are destitute, desire to act to end my imaginary causes, and quell my sympathetic feelings of guilt. Since sympathy comes from what I imagine to be true (not from what I know to be true), I could be wrong. My "cure" for poverty could be worse than the disease.
Second, liberals tend to view people as groups or causes -- not as individuals. Because sympathy is based in the imagination instead of on experience, the poor are not seen as distinctive human beings -- rather the poor are viewed as a class. The same is true of other categories like homosexuals, women, illegal immigrants, etc. Imaginative sympathy distracts us from seeing the other (any other) person as a unique human being.
Empathy develops as a person matures. It is a visceral and legitimate emotion. We empathize with the individual (not with a make-believe category of people). Empathy drives us to specifically address a problem in the life of someone who needs our help. And we address the problem knowing something about it.
Many liberals are empathetic. But most of them do not or, because of their education and ideology, cannot differentiate between sympathy and empathy. A man who was born in poverty and later becomes successful has some idea of when a particular needy individual requires practical advice or a loan -- rather than a gift of money. The successful man is able to use his accumulated knowledge and/or wealth to specifically address a poor person's problems. The empathetic person knows the difference between a handout and a hand up.
If liberals were consistent in their ideology, they would voluntarily give their extra income to the government. Liberals, who really believe government can eliminate poverty, manage health care, save peoples' houses, etc., should be putting their money where their sympathy is.
But overwhelmingly they don't. Deep down, some liberals get it. The extra ten bucks in a liberal's wallet is better-spent on a friend who needs gasoline to get to work than donated to the DOE's green energy programs. Another of our tasks as conservatives is to explain to our liberal acquaintances what some of them already understand: Sympathy is not empathy.
4) Control, not freedom
As I have discussed at length in a couple of other articles, liberals generally prefer an outside power (the government) to fix those difficulties in life that they cannot personally control. I have used the desire of liberals to establish universal health care -- but not universal lawn care -- as an example.
When we put these four principles together, we begin to see a familiar pattern. The mindset of ordinary liberals begins with indoctrination. The world is primarily viewed through the imagination. Liberals favor sympathy over empathy and embrace possibility rather than probability. Liberals long for a utopia, or perfect world, and believe that some greater power (the government) can solve problems outside of their personal control.
Notice how similar the liberal mindset is to the belief systems of the pious -- with a crucial difference: Members of the various religions accept the fact that many of their theological principles are based upon belief. Knowledgeable practitioners of most religious sects willingly admit that the acceptance of a particular dogma is, in the final analysis, a matter of faith. This is why the catechism and the various professions of many denominations feature the words "We [or "I"] believe ..."
Liberal thought parallels religious belief -- except liberals do not understand (or are loath to admit) that their thought processes are, in effect, grounded in faith.
Let's reconsider an example given above. Instead of offering a friend ten dollars for gasoline, the liberal gives his "friend" a lecture on the evils of carbon dioxide, tells his associate to walk or ride a bike the thirty miles to work, and (being consistent in approach) donates the ten dollars to the Department of Energy. The danger for liberals, and for the rest of us, should be obvious: by avoiding close scrutiny of their Weltanschauung, liberals are is getting perilously close to sliding past liberalism's religious orientation and into the nightmare of...the cult.
They also have a ‘fairness’ problem.
1) Don’t let your possessions rule you.
2) Accept that the concept of ‘risk’ is a daily occurrence.
3) Life is rough and often unfair.
4) Envy and coveting accomplish NOTHING.
5) Trust is to be earned...especially from politicians.
6) Leisure is a luxury
7) Self reliance is a virtue
8) We all are not equal...and will never be
9) Personal talent,innovation and ambition are NOT spread evenly among the human race.
Some have it some don’t.
10) You will be fighting for individual liberty from birth till death and if you fail
or give up then you will ‘governed’ by those who have little interest in your wants,needs or desires.
libs are nuts
(fewer words, means the same)
Don't they call themselves progressives these days?
Thus academics, journolists, politicians, movie stars, singers and big company CEOS tend to be Liberal because they don't actually have to work to pay the bills for their socialist utopia ideology.
Equality is not fairness. It is in fact the epitome of unfairness
I would add that those who can govern themselves capably have a much reduced urge to govern others. Those who want to rule others do so because they know they cannot control themselves.
This is the part of all philosophical conservative 'think' pieces that doesn't make any sense. It's a thought generated in 'sympathy' not 'empathy.' It can only be true if a large majority of Americans are also hopelessly stupid.
If that many Americans, that large majority, are hopelessly stupid, then the liberals are right. They do need controls set by liberals so the government can take care of them.
The fact is for most of my life the vast majority of Americans have been liberal. Even when the only philosophical conservative to be president in my life was elected in 1980, the American people gave him a radical liberal Congress as a foil.
As far as I know they still are liberal. When they prove otherwise at the ballot box themes such as this may be worth repeating. Otherwise, it's just wishful thinking.
The same is true with every subgroup that continues to vote the liberal agenda. They do so because they are liberal. The worst part of liberalism is it's a philosophy that attracts slave masters.
Another drawback is the closer the electorate gets to electing the perfect liberal, and today's electorate finally found a fascist i.e. the prefect liberal, to make President, the closer the electorate gets to self destruction.
Liberals fail to realize Utopia is only a dream.
You noticed too. I have a good friend who appears normal. But he has Bush Derangement syndrome. He thinks Olbermann is intellegent and he is unable to relate to opposite wiews based in logic and truth. He shuts down when confronted by reality. He makes statements such as ‘I do not mind paying taxes cause we need good roads’ and ‘Those rich people are too greedy’. STRANGE.
You’re neglecting altogether the possibility that there might be an occasional issue which the suckers might be right on. That’s inherently dangerous.
The reality thing is key. Whenever you come up with facts that provde them wrong, or their policies fail spectacularly, liberals ignore it or change the subject. They can’t be reasoned with.
Absolutely. They shut down all mental functions in the brain. They blank out. They become extremely agitated and nervous. I think it is some sort of hypnotic suggestion at play. They are unable to process any possibility that is contray to Liberalism. Amazing. They are like a Horse with blinkers on.
Not a bad analysis of liberal logic.
Yep. Freedom and responsibility go hand in hand. A decadent society is asking to be (and will be) ruled.
Universal suffrage guarantees a bad outcome. I don't see a positive resolution for the country as a whole.
Don't they call themselves progressives these days?
Professors are so isolated by groupthink they probably don't know 'liberal' is an offensive term. Not to worry - as time goes by, 'progressive' will become an offensive term too... Too bad liberals can't wipe out the meanings behind words - then they could stay with one brand name...
Odd...my college experience left me more actively conservative..
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.