Explaining Liberal Anger

Tech Central Station ^ | April 27, 2004 | Keith Burgess-Jackson

[quidnunc]

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, 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.

-snip-

[GWB00]

I read this article earlier this morning. A wonderful analysis that truly makes sense.

[pghkevin]

The phrase "it is swiftly neutralized by the state" says it all.

[sheik yerbouty]

Seething, fulminating, mental illness. Those are the components of liberal anger.

[Go Gordon]

A wonderful analysis that truly makes sense.

The article misses the most important part. These Liberals want to be in charge, and rich. They want everyone else to be equal; some might even say equally poor. Name one loudmouth liberal that isn't rich, and hasn't made money off of the shmoes. Hollywood is the closest thing to capitalism. Other than than that, its politicians, race pimps, professional gay activitists, professional environmentalists, professional abortionist rights spokespersons, all of which get their money from donations and tax dollars. They contribute absolutely nothing to society. In essence, they're whores.

[highlander_UW]

And here I just figured the reason the left is so angry is because their "tighty whities" were...well...too tighty.

[dg62]

Could'nt agree more. That is the same conclusion I have come to after years of watching the liberals in my family wreak havoc. And in the end all it comes down to this....liberalism is a great cover for mental illnes/personality disorders.

[spodefly]

BTTT

[Qwinn]

It's quite a good article, the only thing that kept bugging me was what -seemed- to me to be a repeated and incorrect use of the word "desert", in the context of "personal responsibility and desert".

All I could think of was Inigo Montoya's "You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means".

Is this some alternative definition of the word that's appropriate in England that I am unaware of, or something like that?

Qwinn

[spodefly]

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.

Yep.

[Congressman Billybob]

You put your finger on the center of the liberals' intent. As George Orwell wrote in Animal Farm, "All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others." The liberals want to be like the pigs in that book, who took power for all the animals, but who claimed the leadership and the spoils for themselves.

Why did they do this? For two reasons. First, they believed they were better than all the others. Second, because they could do it, they could seize power.

Congressman Billybob

Click here, then click the blue CFR button, to join the anti-CFR effort (or visit the "Hugh & Series, Critical & Pulled by JimRob" thread). Please do it now.

[spodefly]

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 <got their just deserts>
3 : EXCELLENCE, WORTH

[Qwinn]

One thing that does needed to be added to the article, though, isn't -disagreement- with anything he said, but rather just calling a spade a spade, something the author tries hard not to do.

The mental disease in question is Communism, plain and simple. The entire notion of equality of outcome as opposed to opportunity is Marxist in origins. The mental disease that grips these people is the same mental disease that gripped Russia in the time of Lenin and Stalin. And if we let them, it will happen here as well, kulaks and all. As an American of Cuban descent, let me tell you from experience - don't EVER think it could never happen here.

Qwinn

[Qwinn]

Odd. You would think in that definition they would have, -somewhere-, included "geographic area consisting primarily of sand". ;) Not to mention "the act of abandoning one's post during a military conflict" (which would better explain the French etymology).

But okay, fair enough, it's a legit usage, it's just one I've never seen before.

Qwinn

[Spotsy]

Translation of Progressives' agenda for Social Justice & Equality:

equal impoverishment and oppression of the masses, governed by a select set of not-to-be-equalized equalizers. (they need their material comforts to think the big thoughts)

[Spotsy]

Liberals are pigs, some more than others. *chuckle*

See my #15

[Rocketman]

These are their prophets

And what are their prophets prophesying?

Remove the name of God from all the land --throw out of any position of authority any one that believes in God because it clouds their thinking.

Remove all laws that are based on God the bible or morality

Why they hate Republicans -- their alignment with God and Country

Why they hate George Bush -- He prays and reads the Bible before making decisions -- and the most damning thing he does is talk about it. why because it may cause people to do likewise

What is their agenda to make the United States a living hell of immorality with no one to say this is wrong based on Christianity, the Bible or the mention of God.

People of FR Judge these words for yourself, You have seen the rote and Decay that these people have spread since the 1970's in on generation they have turned this country upside down they took over Churches (Liberation-Theology) Took over the Democratic Party, Took over the US Educational System, took over the us Judicial System.

Do you imagine that this all was some accident?

You have seen how stupid Michael Moore is and we have discussed time after time on this website how unbelievably stupid all theses individuals are. The same will hold true to their predecessors.

Why then, Why have they had such an effect on our society? This is the key question everyone should ponder here.

They are a religious movement they worship the flesh, they worship the earth, They worship (celebrate) homosexuality, They worship (celebrate) all that is opposed to God

This is not some secret society conspiracy they are being empowered to make war on Christians and the church by the rulers of darkness, the powers and principalities of this world and the God of this world. -- exactly as the Bible says it would happen.

If we do not rise up against this, and raise a standard for the Lord, you shall live to see the day that this country shall be completely overthrown and all Christians here shall be persecuted for the crime of faith.

As I write this in Canada they are trying to move through Parliament banning the bible as hate literature -- is that far behind here?

I have a scripture-packed study on salvation that I created Just a few weeks ago. I am distributing it to all FReepers free of charge --all you have to do is ask and include your e-mail address

[antaresequity]

This sheds light on why Hollywood is so far left.

All of these mega-millionaire stars subconscienciously realize they would fail miserably in the real world. Witness how fleeting their success really is, and how many of them who go broke once their fame has expired.

Hence, they must look upon their fortune and circumstances as being a product of luck, or the environment; out of their control. After all, when is the last time you saw a Hollywood elitist take credit for their own success? More oft the case is their recognition of their fans...their support base.

The Hollywood elitist existential reliance on success naturally fits with a liberal ideology and mindset.

Hollywood is the largest collection of stupid millionaires on the planet [next to the middle east].

[DeFault User]

desert NOUN: 1. Something that is deserved or merited, especially a punishment. Often used in the plural: They got their just deserts when the scheme was finally uncovered. 2. The state or fact of deserving reward or punishment.

I've usually heard it in the plural too, such as the example above, not normally in the singular.

[litany_of_lies]

I also learned a new word today. And all along I thought "just deserts" had two s's! (oops)