Explaining Liberal Thinking In A Single Column

By John Hawkins

Liberals love to think of themselves as intellectual and nuanced, but liberalism is incredibly simplistic. It's nothing more than "childlike emotionalism applied to adult issues." Very seldom does any issue that doesn't involve pandering to their supporters boil down at its core level to more than feeling "nice" or "mean" to liberals. This makes liberals ill equipped to deal with complex issues. Since liberals tend to support or oppose policies based on how those policies make them feel about themselves, they do very little intellectual examination of whether the policies they advocate work or not. That's because it doesn't matter to them whether the policy is effective or not; it matters whether advocating the policy makes them feel "good" or "bad," "compassionate" or "stingy," "nice" or "mean."

Because of this, liberalism has more in common with religion than it does with other political ideologies like conservatism or libertarianism. Moreover, liberal beliefs are more like religious doctrine than any sort of battle-tested policies that bear up under logic or examination. Although the interpretation of the doctrine that the Left supports may change a bit over time, just as religious doctrine does, it's essentially taken on faith, like scripture. That's why, for example, you may see ferocious debates on the right side of the blogosphere about the war, illegal immigration, or spending. But, with the netroots, the debates almost always revolve around the best strategy to get more liberals elected. The issues are not really up for debate, other than debate over how to get them enacted.

This same thinking leads to very little criticism of liberals by other liberals. Liberals will ferociously defend and even happily echo the lies of other liberals. Liberal feminists will defend Bill Clinton and Ted Kennedy. Liberals who pride themselves on being tolerant of other races will support Robert Byrd. Why? Because even if they're wrong, they're still fellow liberals -- which must mean they're nice people. What this leads to is an attitude that can be summed up like so: "The only things that a liberal can do wrong is to be insufficiently liberal, to question an important plank of the liberal agenda, or to do something politically that aids conservatives." ...

* Why are so many liberals hostile to religion? Because religion sets rules and tells people that if they break those rules, they're sinning! That keeps people from doing things that make them feel good and telling people that they're sinning makes them feel bad.

* Why are so many liberals hostile to the troops? Because the troops tend to be conservative (evil) and because they're out killing people and breaking things (which would make most liberals feel like bad people).

* Why are so many liberals unpatriotic? It makes liberals feel morally superior to rant about what's wrong with their own country. Plus, as an added bonus, people from other nations agree with them and that makes them feel good as well....

* Why are liberals so hostile to successful people who don't happen to be celebrities, trial lawyers, or big donors to the Democratic Party? Again, this is another great opportunity for them to feel morally superior. They can feel like good people because they want to give money to the poor -- granted, not their money, but rich people's money. The rich have so much and the poor have so little, so why shouldn't liberals take it from them and then pat themselves on the back for their compassion?

Once you understand the basics of how liberals think, you can understand everything that they do. Granted, there will be a few exceptions, but if the vast herd of liberals is doing something that doesn't seem to fit the template, it's either because there's money or sex involved, they're doing what they have to do to win politically, they're taking that position because they refuse to be on the same side as conservatives, or there's something going on you don't know about and it's not really an exception.

Source

*****************************

ELSEWHERE



The old gray lady has some explaining to do: "Officials at the New York Times have admitted a liberal activist group was permitted to pay half the rate it should have for a provocative ad condemning U.S. Iraq commander Gen. David Petraeus. The MoveOn ad, which cast Petraeus as "General Betray Us" and attacked his truthfulness, ran on the same day the commander made a highly anticipated appearance before Congress. But since the liberal group paid the standby rate of $64,575 for the full-page ad, it should not have been guaranteed to run on Sept. 10, the day Petraeus warned Congress against a rapid withdrawal of troops from Iraq, Times personnel said. "We made a mistake," Catherine Mathis, vice president of corporate communications for The Times, told the newspaper's public editor. Mathis said an advertising representative left the liberal group with the understanding that the ad would run that Monday even though they had been charged the standby rate. The group should have paid $142,083 to ensure placement that day".

Hillary has deserted the troops: "With her refusal to denounce the far-left MoveOn.org for its smear of our top commander in Iraq, Clinton has taken another big step away from the center of American politics. On the most important issue of our times - Iraq and the fight against Islamic terrorism - the Democratic presidential front-runner has thrown her lot in with the radicals, kooks and nuts that litter the wackadoo wing. And she has turned her back on our soldiers and their leaders during wartime. This is not the first time she has gone AWOL on the military. Back in May, Clinton voted to cut off all funds for the war. That she was in a small minority then was an alarming indication of how far she was willing to go to placate the anti-war base of the party. It was not, we know now, an aberration".

Horowitz on Columbia and the 'Persian Hitler': "David Horowitz can think of a lot of reasons why Columbia University shouldn't invite Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to speak there Monday: "Not to mention he's a Nazi. Not to mention he wants to kill all the Jews -- I take that personally." The Ahmadinejad speech -- which roiled the blogosphere this week -- is also personal for Horowitz because he's an alumnus of Columbia. The university's Web site listing of "notable alumni" describes him as a "neo-conservative movement founder." It would be more accurate to describe Horowitz as a "red diaper baby" (his parents were Communist Party members)... In a telephone interview Friday, Horowitz called Ahmadinejad "the Persian Hitler." It's not hard to see why, given this video of the Iranian president leading a crowd in chanting "Death to Israel".... Columbia President Lee Bollinger has defended the Ahmadinejad speech as "robust debate ... on global issues." Horowitz isn't buying that argument."

Swing districts not swinging to Dems: "Conventional wisdom dictates that Democratic voters are thrilled with their choices for president, bursting at the seams to rally behind Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.), Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) or whoever gets the party's nod next year. A recent survey by Democratic pollster Celinda Lake, however, showed Clinton and Obama trailing former New York mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani (R) in the 31 Democratic-held House districts regarded as most imperiled in 2008, and even potentially serving as a drag on those lawmakers' reelection chances. The poll was conducted in August but has not been previously reported. It paints a "sobering picture" for Democrats, according to a memo by Lake and Daniel Gotoff that accompanies the poll report".

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, GREENIE WATCH, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, GUN WATCH, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL and EYE ON BRITAIN.

List of backup or "mirror" sites here or here -- for readers in China or for everyone when blogspot is "down" or failing to update. Email me here (Hotmail address). My Home Pages are here or here or here

****************************

"Why should the German be interested in the liberation of the Jew, if the Jew is not interested in the liberation of the German?... We recognize in Judaism, therefore, a general anti-social element of the present time... In the final analysis, the emancipation of the Jews is the emancipation of mankind from Judaism.... Indeed, in North America, the practical domination of Judaism over the Christian world has achieved as its unambiguous and normal expression that the preaching of the Gospel itself and the Christian ministry have become articles of trade... Money is the jealous god of Israel, in face of which no other god may exist". Who said that? Hitler? No. It was Karl Marx. See also here and here and here.

The Big Lie of the late 20th century was that Nazism was Rightist. It was in fact typical of the Leftism of its day. It was only to the Right of Stalin's Communism. The very word "Nazi" is a German abbreviation for "National Socialist" (Nationalsozialistisch) and the full name of Hitler's political party (translated) was "The National Socialist German Workers' Party".

****************************