Replies

Although my kneejerk reaction was "Yes!" I think this writer is way off. He gets it SO wrong here:

Liberals want to forget this. Through idealism, they want to believe that people are naturally cooperative, that a peaceful world will arise spontaneously, and that if certain people remain violent or unsatisfied with the system then there must be some vast injustice or mistake.

Liberals don't believe this at all. They believe that adults are basically children and need to be guided by a core group of elite, "intelligent" people who "just know" what's right and wrong.

"Liberals want to forget this. Through idealism, they want to believe that people are naturally cooperative, that a peaceful world will arise spontaneously, and that if certain people remain violent or unsatisfied with the system then there must be some vast injustice or mistake."

Liberals don't believe this at all. They believe that adults are basically children and need to be guided by a core group of elite, "intelligent" people who "just know" what's right and wrong.

You are partially correct, as is the author. What is missing is the dichotomy between the 2 types of liberals. The first type, mentioned by the author and representing probably 99% of liberals, are the useful (or useless, depending on your POV) idiots. These are your family, neighbors, acquaintances, co-workers, etc. who believe that Chimpy McBushitler and Halliburton are responsible for all the ills of the world, and that a tax increase (on "The Rich" of course) and a few more renditions of "Kumbaya" will straighten out everything.

The second type, representing a small percentage (under 1%, IMHO), are the leaders, the Vanguard of the Proletariat (and, yes, I use that term deliberately) who are not really liberals, they only play one on TV. They are the cynical, power-hungry, despotic, freedom-hating, prejudiced SOBs that direct the cause of "liberalism" or "progressivism" or whatever they call it on any particular day. They are the ones that deliberately set racial, ethnic & religious groups against each other, who denude our defenses, who let anyone in the country in the hope of future votes, who have secret meetings to take away our rights, etc. These are the Kennedys, the Feinsteins, the Schumers, George Soros, the NY Times/LA Times/Wash. Post, ABCCBSNBCMSNBC bosses, etc.

When you look at liberals this way, you are able to understand things much better. Just my $0.02.

"Liberals don't believe this at all. They believe that adults are basically children and need to be guided by a core group of elite, "intelligent" people who "just know" what's right and wrong."

I thik you are right when it comes to public social policy, but I think the author is right when it comes to foreign policy and confronting evil. If there is one trait that I have observed as common to virtually all liberals, it is cowardice.

Those two are not mutually exclusive, imo.

They believe that if the right people were in charge there would BE no injustice in the world and therefore no violence. They are the good and honest brokers of a perfect world.

In addition, if you've ever watched liberal parents try to discipline their toddlers you know that they honestly believe the sheer force of their logical discourse will overwhelm a two-year old's instant gratification obsession. The entire concept that it make take more than that is a complete anathema. They think the same thing about anyone who is "makes poor choices."

"they want to believe that people are naturally cooperative, that a peaceful world will arise spontaneously, and that if certain people remain violent or unsatisfied with the system then there must be some vast injustice or mistake."

"Liberals don't believe this at all. They believe that adults are basically children and need to be guided by a core group of elite, "intelligent" people who "just know" what's right and wrong."

I think liberals believe both of the above, contradictory though they are. Additionally, their "understanding" and compassion are not directed at all humanity, but reserved for certain preferred groups. Businessmen and white male Americans, for instance, are specifically excluded from all that compassion. There is a complete liberal hierarchy of politically correct rankings for those who are to receive "liberal" compassion.

It probably goes something like this, starting with the most preferred receivers and going on to the lowest ranking: Native American females, black females, hispanic females, white European females, white American females, native American males, black males, hispanic males, everyone else in the world including terrorists, lastly, the lowest ranking of all, white American males, with the most productive ones receiving the bottom rankings. Our founding fathers would often find themselves in the bottom rank.

The idea of looking at people for their individual worth destroys the need for such silly things as having to rank people by groups, but individuality, while supposedly championed by liberals, is not valued by the Left and thus not supported by "liberals" either, another contradiction.

Man, just thinking about liberals ticks me off, even though I have close friends among their number.