Posted on 01/01/2012 11:49:29 PM PST by Crucial
I've often pondered what makes a liberal, a liberal. They tend to do so much damage throughout history and are incredibly difficult to defeat. Figuring out what makes them tick would seem to be priority number one. As I thought about it recently I came to a revelation that others have discovered but never fleshed out to my satisfaction. That revelation is that liberals fear and loathe their own humanity. Liberals loathe their own humanity because well, being human means being naturally flawed or seemingly so. I personally think that if we weren't flawed there wouldn't be any real challenges in life in exceling beyond our limitations.
Liberals apparently can't handle these innate flaws that come with being human and deep down that hurts their pride. They are mortified when they look inward, when they feel racially insecure, or think a sexist thought or feel a need to be greedy. They loathe themselves because of these all too human feelings and because of their shame they feel they must stamp them out and control them in others. They have to feel like they are above their human emotions so they can feel worthy of praise. Liberals fear being judged on their natural feelings.
Liberals don't understand that regardless of the past, that they are no better than their ancestors deep down, that controlling ones negative tendencies gives one character and strength. Ignoring that we are flawed and taking away others' choice to control their own bad behavior leads to a society that lacks self-control and builds resentment and actually encourages bad behavior.
This bad behavior originates because of this lack of self-control and because the aura of "holy purpose" liberals give to their crusades. One need only accuse someone of not being a convert the the liberals' "religion" of political correctness and you risk ostricism in various spheres of life. And so the free-thinking man or woman, where all innovation springs is handcuffed and gagged. Scientific and economic advancement stagnate as a result.
This need to control and regulate, however, leads to a type of totalitarianism that more cynical people would harness to enrich themselves in both wealth and power just for that purpose. Totalitarianism is begun by the well-meaning liberal and then they, being unsophisticated in human nature because they won't look inward, are then manipulated by the more cynical and ambitious among us. This is how freedom ends. I think it's happening now.
I like the way you think.
The differences in the way liberals and conservatives reach conclusions comes down to far more than simply differing opinions - - it actually comes down to entirely different thought processes. Conservatives tend to think linearly: “If this, then this”; “Here is what was attempted, here are the results”; “Based on experience, this works and this does not work”. Etc.
Liberals do not think that way. Liberals are easily conned, easily manipulated, and utterly unwilling to admit when they are wrong. (Their obsession with constantly attempting to elicit “apologies” from Republicans is an offshoot of these strained thought processes.) Liberals, when confronted with bare-bones truth that contradicts their irrational world view, will scrunch their eyes shut, shake their heads, and chant “nah-nah-nah-nah-nah-nah” until whatever truth it is they find offensive “goes away”, rather than revise their thoughts and beliefs to conform to a truth that is slapping them in the face. They simply do not have the capacity to revise their thoughts and beliefs to conform to the truth before their very eyes if that truth contradicts the foundation of the beliefs they irrationally hold onto as a weapon in the constant struggle against their own insecurity.
Certainly, there are notable exceptions such as David Horowitz, PJ O’Rourke, Bernie Goldberg, Michael Medved and others who were smart enough to lift themselves out of the mire of self-loathing liberal stupidity but these folks are, unfortunately, rare exceptions.
Being an unabashed liberal is a matter of character (or more accurately, lack of character). Liberals are generally humorless and bitter because, you see, everybody else is (richer, happier, luckier, prettier, fill-in-the-blank) than they deserve to be and that is just not “fair”. (Words like "fair", and phrases such as "social justice", are common favorites used by liberals.) Liberals are social duds who are either chronic malcontents or simply that guilt-ridden subset of white liberals who feel that their own good fortune (and by extension the good fortune of others) is somehow undeserved. In any event, liberals usually see themselves as "victims". They always see anybody beneath their station as "victims".
In this world, there are people (most people, in fact) who look at all other people as their equals in every way, as people who are capable of realizing their personal aspirations and doing the right things, as people who should be treated as equals. Alternatively, there are people who look up adoringly at people they view as somehow better than themselves. These are the same people who look loathingly down on other people they view as their lessers. Guess which kind of people liberals tend to be?
Interestingly, true liberals are often physically slow and unathletic. They were picked last for playground basketball games. They have no interest in competetive sports, especially team sports. “Competetive sports” is, in fact, very much an alien concept to them. To be blunt, true liberals (genuine socialists) are almost always clumsy oafs.
Additionally, true liberals are humorless. Seething, deep seated anger causes an entrenched bitterness that ends up defining them. The evidence of this abounds and can be seen on certain TV stations every day. The liberals have no Rush Limbaugh, or Ann Coulter or Mark Steyn or Howie Carr or Dennis Miller or Ronald Reagan. They have Keith Olbemann and Helen Thomas and Ed Shultz and Lawrence O'Donnell and Barack Ubama.... there is simply not a lot of laughter there. Liberals, in fact, despise laughter. (What's there to laugh about? Look at all the suffering people in this horrible, unjust world.) True liberals don’t “get” jokes, even if they chuckle as if they do. (Test this for yourself - - try to tell a true liberal a joke. For additonal laughs, ask the liberal if he/she/it has a good joke.)
Liberals can appear to be normal people and are often able to handle their jobs and academic endeavors competently. They can usually fake normal socialization with other people, even if their self-centeredness prevents them from ever establishing true friendships. Liberals do not have true friends, merely acquaintances who can be used in some way, especially to affirm their own crazy political notions.
It is their sociopathic selfishness that is the most troubling thing about liberals. They see absolutely no problem with walking into the polling place on election day and voting for big government to confiscate more money - - from their neighbors! Normal people would view this behavior as boorish and rude, but liberals apparently convince themselves that they are somehow accomplishing something; perhaps the exercise soothes their irrational guilt under the tragic misbelief that they are somehow “helping” others (using other people’s money, of course), notably, “the poor”.
So, by voting for thuggish big government to take more money from their neighbors in order to enable their Democrat politicians to buy the votes of society’s losers, bums, and parasites, liberals feel better about themselves. (Don’t ask me about this mindset - - figuring out liberals would best be left to a team of very good psychiatrists.)
Anyway, I believe that the percentage of true liberals in this country is actually very low - - far less than a typical Democrat election-day turnout would indicate. The rats run a good con and there is no shortage of fools littering the countryside (not to mention the concentrated Democrat parasite nests known as "cities") who will continue to buy into the con.
Think about this - - how gullible did you have to be in 2008 to fall for a campaign that could have been formulated by a boardwalk psychic; a campaign based primarily on two essentially meaningless words, “hope” and “change”, words that sound so... positive... and that allow the smiling, naval-gazing listener’s imagination to turn them into whatever he or she wants? Unfortunately, in today’s soundbite world such a campaign can be (and was!) successful. And so we ended up with “community organizer” Barack Hussein Obama as President of the United States and Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces.
Pray for America. In less than one year we shall see if Americans are insistent on committing national suicide.
You make some good points here. I would add that many liberals recognize (on some level) that the utopian perfectibility they crave so much is not possible by human effort alone, yet at the same time their ideology prevents them from (a) accepting that weakness and working with it or (b) acknowledging that moral standards come from outside human reason. So, they turn to institutions and causes, sometimes embodied in individuals (e.g. Obama) but more often existing as vagaries like “society” or “the global village” that they can ostensibly use to supersede flawed human effort. Perpetually larger and more powerful governments are a natural outgrowth of this tendency: if God is out of the equation, in other words, then Uncle Sam is the next best thing.
Michael Savage articulated the elusive reason some years ago as a psychological pathology, or in the vernacular, a mental disorder.
That struck a chord with me. It has been my experience with liberals that they have this (unfounded) sense of superiority. They seem to think they are smarter than their predecessors and contemporaries. This in spite of absolutely no supporting evidence. (other than self-agrandising and mutual admiration societies)
In fact, a case can be easily made that liberals are in fact not as smart as other people, past or present. For you liberal lurkers out there I'll spell it out: don't confuse education and technological advancement with basic intelligence.
In general, liberals tend to have several fundamental failings. They ignore the lessons of the past. Probably due to that self-serving attitude "Things will be different now, we're so much smarter/evolved than they were..." They fail to recognize their own limitations. This is particularly dangerous when they start thinking they should make decisions for the rest of us. They fail to acknowledge human nature. Their ideas and ideals, while stunningly beautiful in theory, fail just as stunningly in the real world, and always will. Finally, they have a remarkable capacity for self-delusion. Everything I've just written is obvious, yet they refuse to see it. Amazing.
I’ve had thoughts on this subject which, while not conforming to your analysis, are still more or less consonant with it.
My idea is that today’s liberal generation is to a large degree solipsistic. I think this is a result of television, whereby all events are subsumed into ones own psyche. Thus each person sees the world as a realm under his or her own control, and stands ready to pronounce judgement and prescription for it. I came to this idea from contemplation of the language habitually employed, which always has a cosmic cast. “We should” or “It should” do or be thus and such, as though the speaker had, as I say, a cosmic perspective. One rarely hears anyone speak in terms of their own interest, presumably because these interests are felt to be largely satisfied. I’ve come to think that it will be quite a shock when this ceases to be the case.
Liberals are the greediest, most class conscience people I know.
“This need to control and regulate, however, leads to a type of totalitarianism that more cynical people would harness to enrich themselves in both wealth and power just for that purpose. Totalitarianism is begun by the well-meaning liberal and then they, being unsophisticated in human nature because they won’t look inward, are then manipulated by the more cynical and ambitious among us.”
That is so true. Just look at the history of most revolutionary movements. At the start, you have these supposed erudites who outwardly look and act like standard middle-class, but inwardly are psychopathic utopians who feel that society has to be re-made in into their chosen image of it. When the Revolution either gets going or is accomplished, these people suddenly disappear and are replaced by power-mongers often identical to the people that they overthrew. China, Russia, Cuba-you name it: there is always a contrast between the people who start things and those who finish them.
In a word; Cowardice.
Most liberals I know have an exagerated superiority complex. And I don’t mean individuals assuming superior attitudes to conceal their feelings of inferiority.
BTW - please never call them liberals.
Yes socialist absolutely do. Look at the Global warming argument it assumes we are gods that we can unwillingly and willingly control the earths environment.
If you try and explain to them that we are not gods they look at you like you're crazy.
Later
I think what goes along with this is imbalance in their childhood. Parents have two basic tools to guide children: the carrot (rewards/praise/etc.), and the stick (punishment). When parents don’t balance those two tools they can easily wind up with kids who grow into liberals.
If you only use the carrot approach, you wind up with a selfish, self centered, egotistical brat. If you only use the stick approach you get basically the same thing only with more of a rebelious approach to life.
I know in my own life, my older brother got too much punishment from my Dad (who, because of always working, was rarely home) and then got too much carrot from my Mom to make up for the punishment from my Dad. As a consequence he rebelled at everything that my Dad stood for.
One of the things that has kept him in the liberal camp is that he never became a Dad himself. (That and going to college and now teaching college.)
So I guess one of the causes for liberals being unbalanced is because they were raised that way.
Some great discussion here!
I like to break things down to the simplest explanations;
The liberal mind has rejected God, rejected the fact that we all have a sinful nature (original sin). The liberal has set himself up as God (or the state or whatever he uses as a moral equivalent to God) so he can decide for himself what is moral or what is not (or the state or whatever “lawgiver”). To the liberal man is perfectible through education and mental discipline. And usually they think of themselves as “born-again” or perfected when they come to believe the religion of liberalism.
The liberal (commie/marxist/nazi/statist, etc) is unsaved!
Granted there are so called liberal Christians, however I’ve found that usually they have fallen away from the whole idea of “sin”. That can be a topic for another day.
To put it another way, lib’s have a God complex.
1. Liberals all have the idea that government is like a toolkit. Their incessant meddling with the economy and society through government, they see as tinkering to "improve" the nation or to right claimed wrongs. They're not only inclined to be that way, they train themselves to be that way. What keeps some of them from going power-crazy is the notion that "we" are doing the tinkering. It's not really the royal "we," it's a way of assuring themselves that they've secured consent from the people they're imposing the restrictions upon. In the cases where they obviously haven't, they fall back on a litany of government successes (inevitably, civil rights is one of them) in an effort to assure themselves that opposition to their policies is either due to ignorance or malice.
1a) They have a deep belief in the efficacy of government. For the moralists among them, the deep belief pertains to righting wrongs. For the technicians, the deep belief pertains to improving the nation. Yes, it's a faith...and the libertarians are something akin to a devil's cult to many of them. The same thing goes for minimal-government conservatives. As a result, it's not hard to find a liberal who reacts to a simple statement of libertarian principle as if it were blasphemy.
2. Liberals are bookish, but - more to the point - they're also textbookish. If you've had a steady diet of textbooks, you're habituated to seeing the textbooks as right. You disagree with the textbook, you've made a mistake somewhere. There's no other way to learn a skill, of course, but it carries the risk of getting stuck there. The textbookish never really develop the ability to think outside the box. Textbookishness also reinforces point #1. The "ideal" policy arrives with the inevitability of the right answer in the solution manual. This textbookishness also induces a certain lack of imagination. People who don't agree with the "right" answer aren't doing so because they bring up extraneous but relevant factors, they balk because they're the bad (perhaps pitiable) students. That's why liberals have so much difficulty seeing the unintended and indirect consequences of their own policies. It would mean that the "bad students" were right.
2a) As a result of that textbookishness, it's easy to find liberals who are intellectuals - but it's very hard to find liberals who are truly erudite. To the extent that they read widely at all, they read popular books for entertainment.
2b) Consequently, the typical liberal is middlebrow at heart.
3. Here's my take on the famous liberal guilt complex. The modern-day liberal takes to relativism, unconditional guilt, etc. because there are certain secrets in the liberal heart that were out in the open a century ago. The fact is, liberals are middle class at heart. Where they differ from conservatives is: they're class-conscious middle class. With respect to the upper strata, there's an almost existential resentment that isn't allayed unless those uppers jump on board the liberal express. Limo-libs are often propitiating class resentment - not of the lowers, but of the liberal middles. The more inclined an upper is to be liberal, the more (s)he has to propitiate that resentment. Some limo-liberals, of course, do so not out of fear of being envied but for reasons of socio-political glory - noblesse oblige.
3a) That resentment of the uppers, though, isn't the heart of the liberal darkness. Here's the hidden secret: liberals secretly despise the lower classes. Their relativism, non-judgmentalism and eternal "concern" are defense mechanisms to cover up that disdain. Since liberals look down on conservatives, looking at their insults of conservatives is a good way of picking up that hidden disdain. A lot of the putdowns you guys have had to endure from them are displaced disdain of the lowers.
3b) Reinforcing their guilt-riddenness, and their conception of "progress," is shame over their own ancestry. A century ago, the ancestors of today's liberals were more forthright about the middle-class-centeredness of their policy ideas. Yes, that includes eugenics. What keeps the current crop guilt-ridden is the fact that, had a candor drug been put in the water supply, a lot of them would agree with the harsher policies of their ancestors vis-a-vis the lowers.
3c) That's why so many liberals are Hobbesian with respect to laissez-faire. It wasn't that their ancestors were harsh - everyone was! It's their textbooky approach to history that allows them to conflate laissez-faire with fascist Progressivism, which grew in the laissez-faire age. Never really getting beyond the standard textbook, they easily conflate unrelated but contemporaneous trends.
3d) Needless to say, their mostly baseless accusations of racism flow from the same source. A lot of racism is disguised class disdain, disguised loathing of the lower classes.
Conclusion: if you want to get the number of a liberal, think of a class-conscious middle-class textbook worm who thinks of social science as a set of governmental repair manuals. The reason why some of them are less hostile to the market than their predecessors were, is because the economics textbooks have been written to conform more to the liberal worldview. As tinkerers, as a general rule, they can't stand to read "you can't do this without making things worse."
In their mind, anyone who is not a liberal is stupid. Those who are stupid or unenlightened to the liberal ideology needs to be made to submit. Making them fascists.
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.