Skip to comments.
Liberal Rage
FrontPageMagazine.com ^
| 4/28/04
| Keith Burgess-Jackson
Posted on 04/28/2004 2:22:25 AM PDT by kattracks
Why are liberals such as Paul Krugman, Michael Moore, and Howard Dean so angry and aggressive? I like to think that I have insight into this matter, since I was a liberal for a long time. If you haven't been a liberal, you may be puzzled by what you hear and read from them. They may seem -- dare I say it? -- insane, or at least discombobulated.The first thing you must realize is that liberals have a program. They are visionaries. They envision a world in which everyone controls the same amount of resources. Nobody is born to privilege or disadvantage; or, if anyone is, it is swiftly neutralized by the state. To allow disadvantage, they believe, is to become a participant in it. Society, to the liberal mind, is a massive engineering project. Most of us distinguish misfortune and injustice. Not the liberal. No misfortune goes unaddressed by the social engineers. It is presumed -- conclusively, without evidence or argument -- that disparities in wealth are the result of morally arbitrary factors (accidents of birth or circumstance) rather than individual character, effort, discipline, work, or merit.
As the philosopher John Kekes has pointed out so eloquently (see here), liberals disregard or discount concepts that loom large in the thinking of most of us, such as personal responsibility and desert. Most of us believe that responsibility and desert should play a role in the distribution of benefits and burdens. Liberals disagree. Deep down, liberals deny that anyone is responsible for anything. What we are, in terms of personal character, is a function of circumstances beyond our control. How we behave depends solely on our environment. Our very choices are determined, not free. Liberalism dissolves the person. To the liberal, we are loci of movement rather than initiators of action, patients rather than agents, heteronomous rather than autonomous beings. Liberals will deny this, of course, but look at their beliefs and policy prescriptions.
Liberals, unlike conservatives, are zealous. Like all zealots (true believers), they are eager to implement their program, but when they attempt to do so, they meet resistance. This resistance frustrates them immensely and eventually leads to anger toward and aggression against those who stand in their way (or are perceived as standing in their way). Ideally, liberals would rationally persuade those who resist in the hope of bringing them around. But this doesn't work. Belief in personal responsibility and desert is widespread and entrenched. Time and again, liberals run up against it. Since it seems obvious to them that the belief is baseless, they tell themselves a story about why it's pervasive.
It's a multifaceted story. First, the liberal imagines that the belief in question is rooted in ignorance. Opponents of the liberal program simply don't know the facts about responsibility and desert. But when liberals try to convey these "facts," they get no uptake. Indeed, they get denial. This leads to the stupidity hypothesis. Opponents of the liberal program aren't so much ignorant of facts as incapable of reasoning from and about them. In other words, they're stupid or unintelligent. They're incapable of thinking clearly or carefully, even about important matters such as equality, justice, and fairness. This explains the liberal mantra that conservatives, such as Presidents Reagan and Bush, are stupid. (See here for an explanation of this false liberal belief.) Note that if conservatives are stupid, liberals, by contrast, are intelligent. It's all very self-serving.
Deep down, liberals know that conservatives are no less intelligent than they are. It just makes them feel good to say as much. So they attribute the pervasive belief in responsibility and desert to greed. Opponents of the liberal program are greedy. They won't admit the truth because they don't want to share the wealth. They take the positions they do, on matters such as affirmative action and welfare, to solidify their social position. Greed is bad, of course, so if you reject the liberal program, you're evil. You put self-interest ahead of justice.
Here, in one neat package, we have all the liberal platitudes. Conservatives are ignorant, stupid, and evil, or some combination of the three. Either they don't grasp the obvious truth or they're incapable of thinking clearly or they don't give a damn about anyone but themselves. Liberals, of course, are the opposite of all these. They're knowledgeable, intelligent, and good. Note that if you believe your opponents to be stupid or evil, you don't try to reason with them. Stupid people, like animals and children, need guidance by their superiors. Evil people need suppression. It's often been remarked that liberals are less adept than conservatives at arguing for their views. Now you see why. They don't practice.
That, in a nutshell, is the liberal mentality. It explains why liberals are so angry, hateful, and spiteful and why they resort to courts rather than to legislatures to implement their vision of the just society. They have given up hope of engaging their adversaries on rational ground. They know that they can't muster a majority for their causes. To liberals, only the outcome matters, not the process. Without power, their egalitarianism is mere fantasy. But conservatives should be careful not to dismiss it as such, for liberals have demonstrated that they will do whatever it takes to secure and retain power. We saw it in the case of Robert Bork. We saw it in the case of Bill Clinton. We see it in the case of war in Iraq.
To the liberal, the end justifies the means.
Take it from me, a former liberal.
Keith Burgess-Jackson, J.D., Ph.D., is a frequent contributor to Tech Central Station. He is Associate Professor of Philosophy at The University of Texas at Arlington, where he teaches courses in Logic, Ethics, Philosophy of Religion, and Philosophy of Law. He has two stinkers, Sophie and Shelbie, and two hyperactive blogs: AnalPhilosopher and Animal Ethics.
TOPICS: Editorial; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: angryleft; liberals
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-49 next last
To: Just mythoughts
I thought it was semantics wrapped inside a riddle, inside an enigma,blah,blah,blah. Sounds like a Jesse Jackson speech with proper grammer. Oliver Stone combined with Michael Moore on crack,maybe.
To: wai-ming
So this "desert" is pronounced "dessert," not "desert" as in the Sahara, but "desert" as in "abandon." And it has the same root as "deserve."
![](http://www.pickeringcreek.com/newcig.gif) |
|
I had a response to that but I forgot what it was. |
22
posted on
04/28/2004 4:27:24 AM PDT
by
Fintan
(© 1950)
To: badmrbunny
"I thought it was semantics wrapped inside a riddle, inside an enigma,blah,blah,blah. Sounds like a Jesse Jackson speech with proper grammer. Oliver Stone combined with Michael Moore on crack,maybe."
These that rage remind me of that Psalms 46:6
The heathen raged, the kingdoms were moved: He uttered His voice, the earth melted.
To: kattracks
Liberals, unlike conservatives, are zealous. Like all zealots (true believers), they are eager to implement their program, but when they attempt to do so, they meet resistance. This resistance frustrates them immensely and eventually leads to anger toward and aggression against those who stand in their way. And when humans don't fit their silly Utopian ideas about the way they SHOULD act and believe - they attempt to CHANGE man himself...by executing millions of people, like Uncle's Joe and Mao. It's like....the progressive way, man.
To: kattracks
Opponents of the liberal program aren't so much ignorant of facts as incapable of reasoning from and about them. In other words, they're stupid or unintelligent. They're incapable of thinking clearly or carefully, even about important matters such as equality, justice, and fairness. This explains the liberal mantra that conservatives, such as Presidents Reagan and Bush, are stupid. (See here for an explanation of this false liberal belief.) Note that if conservatives are stupid, liberals, by contrast, are intelligent. It's all very self-serving.This has been Rush's claim for years and years.
25
posted on
04/28/2004 4:57:24 AM PDT
by
randita
To: kattracks
Almost makes me feel a little sorry for the average liberal.
26
posted on
04/28/2004 5:03:39 AM PDT
by
Tom Bombadil
(There are givers and takers. Be a giver and marry one.)
To: Just mythoughts
"The first thing you must realize is that liberals have a program. They are visionaries. They envision a world in which everyone controls the same amount of resources. Nobody is born to privilege or disadvantage; or, if anyone is, it is swiftly neutralized by the state."
Then how come the ones with the shrillest voices are the richest conartists? I'm sure Kerry, Hill, Bill, Barbara Striesand and all of the Hollywood libs really can't wait for the rest of the world to be equally wealthy..... NOT! They are hipocritical elites who crave and adore their perceived superiority over the masses.
Their true agenda is to make everyone in the world poor except their cronies while they maintain their wealth and superiority because they are afterall liberal, and know what's best for everyone.
To: kattracks
"It's a multifaceted story. First, the liberal imagines that the belief in question is rooted in ignorance. Opponents of the liberal program simply don't know the facts about responsibility and desert. But when liberals try to convey these "facts," they get no uptake. Indeed, they get denial. This leads to the stupidity hypothesis. Opponents of the liberal program aren't so much ignorant of facts as incapable of reasoning from and about them. In other words, they're stupid or unintelligent. They're incapable of thinking clearly or carefully, even about important matters such as equality, justice, and fairness. This explains the liberal mantra that conservatives, such as Presidents Reagan and Bush, are stupid"
Conservatives are the rational thinking people who use facts and history as a basis for their positions in all issues. That is why Liberals scream 'racist' or 'Hitler' and other illogical terms when confronted with facts in disproving their positions. Is intelligence measured by honest logical debate and defending our postions or by name calling? I equate Liberalism as the epitomy of stupidity.
28
posted on
04/28/2004 5:05:42 AM PDT
by
moonman
To: kattracks
>>Nobody is born to privilege or disadvantage; or, if anyone is, it is swiftly neutralized by the state. Society, ... is a massive engineering project. The key word is neutralized....as in starved, imprisioned, or shot.
29
posted on
04/28/2004 5:18:39 AM PDT
by
The Raven
(<<----Click Screen name to see why I vote the way I do.)
To: kattracks
>>Nobody is born to privilege or disadvantage; or, if anyone is, it is swiftly neutralized by the state. Society, ... is a massive engineering project.
The key word is neutralized....as in starved, imprisioned, or shot.
[click "The Raven" Screenname below for more]
30
posted on
04/28/2004 5:19:22 AM PDT
by
The Raven
(<<----Click Screen name to see why I vote the way I do.)
To: kattracks
The liberals are a bunch of phonies. I'm not buying into their claims that they envision a world in which "everyone is equal" and that resources are distributed evenly. Their very lifestyles make them frauds. You don't see Al Franken redistributing his wealth to those less fortunate. Michael Moore continues to stuff his face and fatten his body at the most expensive restaurants in Hollywood instead of using his wealth to feed those who go hungry.
It is the same way with every other high profile "liberal." Barbara Streisand hides in her gated mansion. Hillary Clinton rides around in her limousines and hobknobs with only the "beautiful people." They are frauds, all of them.
31
posted on
04/28/2004 5:20:39 AM PDT
by
SamAdams76
(I don't own this gas-guzzling SUV - my wife does!)
To: SamAdams76
We have all known people who advance themselves in an organization not by excelling but by tearing everyone else down. That is what liberals do. Look at how they are running their campaign for Kerry. Look at how Clinton governed...not by calling out our excellence but by denigrating all insitutions until they were at his level.
How else to explain Terry McAuliffe?
To: kattracks
Excellent !
33
posted on
04/28/2004 5:26:45 AM PDT
by
jimt
To: kattracks
It is presumed -- conclusively, without evidence or argument -- that disparities in wealth are the result of morally arbitrary factors (accidents of birth or circumstance) rather than individual character, effort, discipline, work, or merit. Of course, most of the productive human beings in the world know this from experience.
We defeated the uglu face of Communism and Socialism directly, so now we are left with the ugly hidden form:
Progressives.
If they don't receive massive amounts of therapy, there will be a shooting war. And increasingly I am more and more inclined to regret that I may not live long enough to be a part of it, but alas, my children and their children might.
Were it not for the sandmaggots, this would be our more immediate crisis to confront.
To: wai-ming
Why did they have to make English so confusing?? Mostly to separate the "progressives" from the normal people. Remember "niggardly"?
To: demkicker
"Their true agenda is to make everyone in the world poor except their cronies while they maintain their wealth and superiority because they are afterall liberal, and know what's best for everyone."
This might be their agenda, I think it is about an agenda of what the stated Clintons foreign policy was "EQUALIZE ALL NATIONS".
One does have to wonder what assurances the Clintons required to maintain their status as leaders of the world while they set in motion, allowed and ignored the "EQUALIZATION" of the nations with "nukes". The Clintons take a back seat to no one nationally or internationally.
Just like Stalin who "feared" his own country more than any international foe, the Clintons hated and feared their own citizenry more than any nation or terrorist nations.
To: wai-ming
"Why did they have to make English so confusing??"Because "they" had the extremely poor judgement to borrow this word from the French!
'Nuff said.
37
posted on
04/28/2004 6:54:12 AM PDT
by
Redbob
To: kattracks
I think the fundamental difference is that Liberals believe in centralized responsibility and morality, focused in the government, like socialists believe in centralized planning and control of all the means of production.
Conservatives, Libertarians and such all seem to believe in the very opposite: distributed morality, or personal responsibility, where each person is responsible for his own ethical behavior, often based on societal norms or "pressure," just like capitalism, where individual businesses are responsible for their own activities based on the market pressures.
Like socialism, the central planning of the Liberal cannot operate successfully.
BTW, is this guy Keith Burgess the same fellow who ran for Congress 4 years ago?
38
posted on
04/28/2004 6:58:47 AM PDT
by
Redbob
To: kattracks
The first thing you must realize is that liberals have a program. They are visionaries.
They are immature
39
posted on
04/28/2004 7:03:46 AM PDT
by
Vision
(Always Faithful)
To: kattracks
marking.
40
posted on
04/28/2004 7:26:35 AM PDT
by
gaijin
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-49 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson