Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Liberal Rage
TechCentralStation,com via FrontPageMagazine.com | 28 April 2004 | Keith Burgess-Jackson

Posted on 04/28/2004 12:43:24 PM PDT by annyokie

Liberal Rage By Keith Burgess-Jackson TechCentralStation.com | April 28, 2004

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: Culture/Society; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: angryleft; angryliberals; michaelmoore; needsalobotomy
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-25 next last

1 posted on 04/28/2004 12:43:24 PM PDT by annyokie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: annyokie
This guy Keith Burgess-Jackson, J.D., Ph.D. acts as though Socialism is something new.
2 posted on 04/28/2004 12:47:26 PM PDT by BillyCrockett
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: annyokie
"Why are liberals such as Paul Krugman, Michael Moore, and Howard Dean so angry"

They need to talk to this guy

3 posted on 04/28/2004 12:51:06 PM PDT by Redcoat LI ("help to drive the left one into the insanity.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: annyokie
What does "responsibility and desert" mean? He mentions this phrase several times in the article.
4 posted on 04/28/2004 12:51:31 PM PDT by van_erwin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: van_erwin
It's a philosophy phrase, as in "I got my just deserts." An inverse of the Lib "thinking" (cough) that our ills are all societal and not the result of our own actions.
5 posted on 04/28/2004 12:53:37 PM PDT by annyokie (There are two sides to every argument, but I'm too busy to listen to yours.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: BillyCrockett
Not really. I posted another article of his that is much older. (Scroll down the new posts on FR's latest page.) He admits that he has throughout his years been a Socialist and has come full circle to be a Conservative.
6 posted on 04/28/2004 12:55:36 PM PDT by annyokie (There are two sides to every argument, but I'm too busy to listen to yours.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: van_erwin
His use of the word "desert" sent me to my Websters New Collegiate Dictonary. I think he means: 1: the quality or fact of being deserving of reward or punishment 2: deserved reward or punishment 3: EXCELLENCE, WORTH.
7 posted on 04/28/2004 1:11:04 PM PDT by Ditter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: BillyCrockett
Good article. The most chilling thing about it is how it describes liberals first trying to use persuasion, which almost always fails due to the horrible things they are trying to get people to do. Then they feel morally justified in resorting to whatever force it takes, as at Rudy Ridge and Waco. Ditto with Vince Foster.

That's just the way Communists think, a way of thinking which produced tens of millions of dead human beings. Most are really Communists, who don't want to say so.
8 posted on 04/28/2004 1:19:27 PM PDT by libstripper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: van_erwin
Main Entry: 3de·sert Pronunciation: di-'z&rt Function: noun Etymology: Middle English deserte, from Old French, from feminine of desert, past participle of deservir to deserve 1 : the quality or fact of deserving reward or punishment 2 : deserved reward or punishment -- usually used in plural 3 : EXCELLENCE, WORTH It has nothing to do with pie...
9 posted on 04/28/2004 1:21:46 PM PDT by flashbunny (Taxes are not levied for the benefit of the taxed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: annyokie
Wouldn't that be "I got my just desserts" instead of desert?
10 posted on 04/28/2004 2:14:09 PM PDT by Robert DeLong
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Robert DeLong
Nope. Oxford American Dictionary warns not to confuse desert with dessert.

I can't afford an OED.
11 posted on 04/28/2004 2:16:23 PM PDT by annyokie (There are two sides to every argument, but I'm too busy to listen to yours.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: annyokie
I'm not convinced that social justice is really the primary goal of most liberals. The primary goal is power. They don't really "visualize a world" where everybody is equal. The visualize a world in which they get to tell everybody what to do. And they get extremely angry if they are not allowed to tell everybody what to do.
12 posted on 04/28/2004 2:16:42 PM PDT by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: annyokie
It really is odd how people who are supposedly so caring & loving are actually so hateful & agressive.
13 posted on 04/28/2004 2:17:05 PM PDT by uncitizen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: annyokie
Most liberals are not liberals. We at Free Republic are true liberals, in the sense that we believe in free market economies, the rule of law, and the respect of the rights of individuals. The political left of today referred to as 'liberals' is composed of varying combinations of anti-Americans, fascists, traitors, and people who are simply too ignorant or too dishonest for civil and meaningful political discourse.
14 posted on 04/28/2004 2:28:20 PM PDT by HenryLeeII ("The war on terror is not a figure of speech, it is an inescapable calling of our generation." -GWB)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: flashbunny
Intereseting, when I look up the word I get the following:

Main Entry: 1des·ert
Pronunciation: 'de-z&rt
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old French, from Late
Latin desertum, from Latin, neuter of desertus, past
participle of deserere to desert, from de- + serere to join together -- more at SERIES
1 a : arid land with usually sparse vegetation; especially : such land having a very warm climate and receiving less than 25 centimeters (10 inches) of sporadic rainfall annually b : an area of water apparently devoid of life
2 archaic : a wild uninhabited and uncultivated tract
3 : a desolate or forbidding area

15 posted on 04/28/2004 2:34:53 PM PDT by Robert DeLong
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: annyokie
I had a friendly run-in with a liberal today, one of my black co-workers. He was passing my desk and noticed my picture of George and Laura Bush hanging on my cubicle wall.

He just kind of looked at it and then looked at me and smiled an uncertain smile, I could see his thought processes were honestly trying to decide if I had hung it there in sarcasm or if I might actually admire them. It was an awkward moment for him.

I broke the silence by saying "Yes, I like Bush and I'm voting for him." He continued to smile an uneasy smile but began a faint shaking of the head from side to side. He began "I mean, he's OK I guess, but you know, as President, you know..." I refused to complete the thought for him and awaited the certain conclusion. "...as President, no." He kept hoping that I really hated Bush and had been pulling his leg.

"Why do you say that?" I replied. "I think he's doing pretty good." Very uneasy smile now, as he carefully considered how to nicely say what he felt.

"You know, like with the economy and all." But wasn't the economy improving and unemployment about the same as Clinton at reelection time? "Well yeah, I guess it's getting better, you know, but it's not like, you know, as good as it was. Before." Tell me more, I implored.

"Well you know Bush, he looks out for the rich folks, the ones got all the money. You know, the ones that have all the money. He don't care about the have nots." He realized that he was sort of placing me into the 'rich folks' category. I reminded him that I am not rich, I have the same job he does and drive a 10-year-old truck.

"No, I know you're not rich," he went on, "I'm talking about folks like Bill Gates and CEOs and stuff. You know they didn't make a penny of that money. They got their money off the sweat of other peoples' backs. Working folks like us." I asked him if he had a problem with a few 'rich folks' having that much money.

"Well yeah, you know, someone got to even out the playing field. You know it's not fair they got so much and others got so little. We just need to even out the playing field." How should we do that, I asked?

"Well first you don't give all these tax breaks to Bill Gates and stuff. They can afford to pay LOTS more than they're paying now. Lots more." He really didn't have a specific plan, just basically that 'rich folks' should 'even out the playing field' and give most of their money to poor folks who 'don't have a chance'. I asked him wasn't that socialism?

"NO, man, not socialism, we just got to even out the playing field, it's not fair. Now Bush, he'd let Bill Gates just keep all that money. You know he didn't earn a penny of it."

I just had to quit.

16 posted on 04/28/2004 2:40:01 PM PDT by Sender (It is not always the same thing to be a good man and a good citizen. -Aristotle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Redcoat LI
They need to talk to this guy

Maybe that's what pushed them over the edge.

17 posted on 04/28/2004 2:45:26 PM PDT by Only1choice____Freedom (give me my .... PRECIOUS!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: annyokie

Howard Dean's Baby Picture

18 posted on 04/28/2004 2:45:31 PM PDT by Free ThinkerNY ((((Stand and Fight the Lying Left))))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sender
*sigh* Been there.
19 posted on 04/28/2004 2:53:47 PM PDT by annyokie (There are two sides to every argument, but I'm too busy to listen to yours.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: annyokie
Liberals are like children. They argue about who's the most mature instead of just being. They are self centered but want to appear otherwise. Most people grow up and out or their narcissism but the people we call liberals have never felt the pain that precedes growth or they deny it (with enablers perhaps) and never grow up.

To a Malignant Narcissist, self-esteem is more important than reality. They actually think they are warping reality or creating a new reality by believing a lie with such conviction in order to save themselves the pain of growth. They live in your benefit of a doubt. They assume that by sheer force of will they are molding the universe to their designs and when they hit an obstruction, they get very angry that, in their arrogance, the world does not conform to their will. They are like children throwing a tantrum when they don't get their way. They are hateful because they have their self-esteem so invested in being right that they cannot -in their minds- possibly be wrong. They are frustrated because we won't go away. We won't conform. We won't shut up. We challenge their very core beliefs. When they truly are wrong but refuse to face it even when all signs point to their failure, they lose the oppertunity to grow.

During your life you create a map of how the universe works. When you are wrong, you redraw the map to conform to the new information of your experience of reality. On the other hand the Malognant Narcissist refuses to redraw the map and demands that everybody around them who could expose their error accept their version.

As more and more people feel the pain of error and grow as a person, the numbers will reduce and their violence will increase as they hold tighter and tighter to their failed map that has their self-esteem tied to it in a death spiral.

I'm afraid it's going to get worse before it gets better. Some of these people would rather die than admit failure and face truth.
20 posted on 04/28/2004 3:18:59 PM PDT by Only1choice____Freedom (give me my .... PRECIOUS!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-25 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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson