Modern Liberals And Hatred Of The Good

[Burke]

Ayn Rand wrote that the morality of selflessness and self-sacrifice has led to something she called "hatred of the good because it's good." I've written about it here before. I've also quoted American-Israeli journalist Caroline Glick, a Jew who writes for the Jerusalem Post, discussing something she calls "Jewish self-hatred."

I agree that the morality of altruism and these supposed virtues are widespread in the Western World and are, along with their phosophical underpinning, destroying it. But because these beliefs are so ingrained here, it's not easy to convince others.

But here and there, people are beginning to get it.

The link below is to an interview with a former Jewish liberal, Evan Sayat, who has written a book on the mind of the modern liberal. I haven't read the book, but his interview is very, very insightful. There are too many good quotes in it for me to give them all, but here is one:

"The bottom line is that the Modern Liberal is convinced that it is beliefs – not what those beliefs are but any belief at all – that are not only evil, but the font of all war, poverty, crime and injustice. They’re convinced that thinking is a hate crime – an act so heinous as to render one evil for simply engaging in it and an act that requires one to revile anyone who engages in it. The notion behind this hatred for thinking is that anything a person believes is going to have been so tainted by his personal bigotries – bigotries we all possess as simply part of the human experience, bigotries based on such things as the color of our skin, the nation of our ancestry, our height, weight, sex and so on – that the only way not to be an evil bigot is to never think at all."

http://frontpagemag.com/2013/jamie-glazov/kindergarden-of-eden-how-the-modern-liberal-thinks/#.UQb_4eD-YjU.email

Unfortunately, Sayat is apparently religious and doesn't seem to grasp that this liberal disease he sees is not confined to liberals, but is endemic to Western culture. I have long thought of modern liberals as just the children of religious conservatives rejecting their parents' hypocrisy, being even more selfless and self-sacrificial-and, therefore, even more self-destructive.

Rand wrote once that Sunday school is just elementary education for communism.

After all, would Jesus have opposed Obamacare, etc.?

Anyway, I highly recommend the interview linked above. You may even decide to get the book.

[g8orbill]

all you have to do is read too hot to see the envy

[wgbgator]

To call yourself a "liberal" is to be a skeptic of any firm belief, absolute, value judgment, ideology or orthodoxy (even the idea of progress itself). With that, I sort of agree. I don't agree with the idea that that is "not thinking." Indeed, that seems the height of reason to me. Nor does liberalism suppose an end to injustice or bigotry. It only supposes that there are democratic ways to mitigate such things.

[Burke]

Classical liberalism, the characteristic way of thinking here in the 19th century, was all about reason, tolerance, freedom, etc. But modern liberalism is just the opposite: mindlessness, destruction, and repression-occasionally pretending that it's still what it used to be.

Skepticism as an epistemology is also mindlessness, people claiming to know they can really know nothing.

A simple contradiction used to attack thinking others.

While the skeptics claim to know all sorts of stuff themselves.

Which they eagerly seek to impose by force.

[rivergator]

The modern liberal believes that all beliefs are evil? Is that from the Onion?

[wgbgator]

Classical liberalism, the characteristic way of thinking here in the 19th century, was all about reason, tolerance, freedom, etc. But modern liberalism is just the opposite: mindlessness, destruction, and repression-occasionally pretending that it's still what it used to be.

Skepticism as an epistemology is also mindlessness, people claiming to know they can really know nothing.

A simple contradiction used to attack thinking others.

While the skeptics claim to know all sorts of stuff themselves.

Which they eagerly seek to impose by force.

I don't think liberalism has changed much. What's changed is how people interact with each other in an industrial and post-industrial society, calling into question older notions of what freedom and tolerance mean. But really, your critique of liberalism is not much different from the Jacobin left's criticism of liberalism.

[Burke]

Classical liberalism = individual rights, very limited govt., and free enterprise.

Modern liberalism = collectivism, mostly of the Marxist variety, statism, and "positive" rights ( i.e. the "right" to force others to provide you with things).

Not much difference there, you say?

[wgbgator]

Classical liberalism = individual rights, very limited govt., and free enterprise.

Modern liberalism = collectivism, mostly of the Marxist variety, statism, and "positive" rights ( i.e. the "right" to force others to provide you with things).
Not much difference there, you say?

I don't think you have any understanding of the left or liberalism. In fact, that's my general critique of the right in this country. They seem to now believe the strawmen they have set up to attack liberals for the last several decades.

[fredsanford]

I don't think you have any understanding of the left or liberalism. In fact, that's my general critique of the right in this country. They seem to now believe the strawmen they have set up to attack liberals for the last several decades.

+1

This is all thanks to the Fox bubble. They are all very successfully programmed in their alternate reality Mstrix.

[Burke]

My views on this are essentially the same as they were 50 years ago.

As far as my understanding of liberalism, I understand it far better than you.

And the truth is that both leftists and rightists are essentially the same thing.

Socialists.

[wgbgator]

My views on this are essentially the same as they were 50 years ago.

As far as my understanding of liberalism, I understand it far better than you.

And the truth is that both leftists and rightists are essentially the same thing.

Socialists.

If you do, I havent seen any demonstration of that.

[WESGATORS]

The argument is (or should be) about more government control or less government control in various realms of our society. To make things absolute is to express a lack of interest in a genuine discussion of the topic. For instance, Burke, what if the paintbrushed liberals don't want a military? Are you a thief and good-hater for wanting them to help fund one? That is an areas where you may be in favor of "more government" where they might be in favor of "less government."

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

[108]

I don't think you have any understanding of the left or liberalism. In fact, that's my general critique of the right in this country. They seem to now believe the strawmen they have set up to attack liberals for the last several decades.

spot on

they are arguing against a concept put forth to them by those who benefit from it

[108]

even with the tiny bit of control that Gov has exerted to tax a very small percent of people who wont pay for health insurance, nothing much has changed in the 4 years that has caused an explosion of conservative vitriol towards all things collective

we went through a massive recession where Gov spending goes up to offset the decline...its happened during every recession

most of it is just in their heads and fed to them daily by those who benefit from division

they will shut up when the next Republican is in office and Democrats will begin bitching

[wgbgator]

The argument is (or should be) about more government control or less government control in various realms of our society. To make things absolute is to express a lack of interest in a genuine discussion of the topic. For instance, Burke, what if the paintbrushed liberals don't want a military? Are you a thief and good-hater for wanting them to help fund one? That is an areas where you may be in favor of "more government" where they might be in favor of "less government."

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

I sort of agree, but its not really more/less government. Essentially, we're arguing over where markets function best (and what degree of regulation/oversight is needed) and where they don't.

[Minister_of_Information]

Eschatological dualism, not thought itself, is the enemy. Of course that includes most anything that has a Utopian outcome, including the movement to eradicate eschatological dualism itself. In sum there is no cure for the human condition, other than realizing that there is no cure.

[HALLGATOR]

Eschatological dualism, not thought itself, is the enemy. Of course that includes most anything that has a Utopian outcome, including the movement to eradicate eschatological dualism itself. In sum there is no cure for the human condition, other than realizing that there is no cure.

Well, I guess there is total eradication. Kind of drastic though.

[ArtVandelay]

all you have to do is read too hot to see the envy

http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR0HYWEsLkgBXf6k0-IlVmhZUQZBkiQ3EYqutzclvhnXrR19xiO

[Minister_of_Information]

Well, I guess there is total eradication. Kind of drastic though.

That's what the Utopian movements become.

[gatorman_07732]

I don't think you have any understanding of the left or liberalism. In fact, that's my general critique of the right in this country. They seem to now believe the strawmen they have set up to attack liberals for the last several decades.

It is my belief that liberals want equality through radical egalitaranism and to promote equal social and economic outcomes.

[wgbgator]

It is my belief that liberals want equality through radical egalitaranism and to promote equal social and economic outcomes.

That may be your belief, but unfortunately, it couldn't be more wrong.

[gatorman_07732]

That may be your belief, but unfortunately, it couldn't be more wrong.

I do understand the reasoning in not wanting to admit to it

[wgbgator]

I do understand the reasoning in not wanting to admit to it

I don't understand why conservatives always think liberals have these secret radical beliefs despite all the public statements and policy proposals that seem to belie that. We're just trying to trick you, is that it? Say we support gun ownership, support policies that still do that, but secretly want to take all guns away. Say we want rich people to keep most of their money, support polices that do that, but secretly we want everyone to have the same amount of money and create equal outcomes for all. This is what "reasoning" passes for with conservatives?

[gatorman_07732]

I don't understand why conservatives always think liberals have these secret radical beliefs despite all the public statements and policy proposals that seem to belie that. We're just trying to trick you, is that it? Say we support gun ownership, support policies that still do that, but secretly want to take all guns away. Say we want rich people to keep most of their money, support polices that do that, but secretly we want everyone to have the same amount of money and create equal outcomes for all. This is what "reasoning" passes for with conservatives?

What I do see liberals doing (and some republicans for that matter) is slowly giving the centralized government more and more power. That is not fiction, it is absolute truth. The change they seek comes from the centralized government and if they can't get it there then they look to the courts to legislate from the bench.

[wgbgator]

What I do see liberals doing (and some republicans for that matter) is slowly giving the centralized government more and more power. That is not fiction, it is absolute truth. The change they seek comes from the centralized government and if they can't get it there then they look to the courts to legislate from the bench.

And this is in service of "radical egalitarianism" to produce "equal social and economic outcomes?" We'll all have the same stuff and abilities thanks to the government and courts? Is that what you're suggesting? Or are you just rehashing the plot of Harrison Bergeron and projecting it on liberals?

[gatorman_07732]

And this is in service of "radical egalitarianism" to produce "equal social and economic outcomes?" We'll all have the same stuff and abilities thanks to the government and courts? Is that what you're suggesting? Or are you just rehashing the plot of Harrison Bergeron and projecting it on liberals?

Not at all. like I said there are some republicans guilty of this as well. Why the need to give centralized government more and more power?

[WESGATORS]

I sort of agree, but its not really more/less government. Essentially, we're arguing over where markets function best (and what degree of regulation/oversight is needed) and where they don't.

That's in addition to, not instead of. First it takes an agreement that a government has a role (or should/could have a role) in a particular area. Once that's established, you sort out the details of what that role should be (including the prospects of lessening/increasing the role).

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

[wgbgator]

Not at all. like I said there are some republicans guilty of this as well. Why the need to give centralized government more and more power?

That's a vague and loaded question.

[gatorman_07732]

That's a vague and loaded question.

It's a question you don't want to answer. There is no other plausible explanation other than acquire power for the change you seek.

[wgbgator]

It's a question you don't want to answer. There is no other plausible explanation other than acquire power for the change you seek.

No, its kinda like asking someone why they want to keep beating their wife more and more. Why would I (and how could I) answer a question with which I completely dispute or disagree with the premise?

[gatorman_07732]

No, its kinda like asking someone why they want to keep beating their wife more and more. Why would I (and how could I) answer a question with which I completely dispute the premise?

You dispute the question because it would expose perhaps a little something. I don't see the problem with the question, after all I can answer the equal but opposite question of why I want less central government power.

[fredsanford]

I don't understand why conservatives always think liberals have these secret radical beliefs despite all the public statements and policy proposals that seem to belie that. We're just trying to trick you, is that it? Say we support gun ownership, support policies that still do that, but secretly want to take all guns away. Say we want rich people to keep most of their money, support polices that do that, but secretly we want everyone to have the same amount of money and create equal outcomes for all. This is what "reasoning" passes for with conservatives?

Conservative minds best understand dualities. Sliding scales and shades of grey have little use in their alternate reality.

[wgbgator]

That's in addition to, not instead of. First it takes an agreement that a government has a role (or should/could have a role) in a particular area. Once that's established, you sort out the details of what that role should be (including the prospects of lessening/increasing the role).

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

I think I understand what you mean, but the government techincally has a "role" in everything, even if its just a simple enforcement of contracts/laws or the discrete ongoing protection of private citizens individual & property rights. Just as you could say market forces have a "role" in everything - economic forces still drive the cost of services.

What I'm saying is that what is being determined in the democratic process is: will those interactions be primarily driven by market forces or by other forces, which I suppose you could call "government" or "public interest." Or something in between. In any case, there would be no complete absense of "government" or "market" forces.

[wgbgator]

You dispute the question because it would expose perhaps a little something. I don't see the problem with the question, after all I can answer the equal but opposite question of why I want less central government power.

You can? So, you want a smaller military, for instance. Or for the government to stay out of abortion and marriage? Or drugs? Or prostitution?

[gatorman_07732]

You can? So, you want a smaller military, for instance. Or for the government to stay out of abortion and marriage? Or drugs? Or prostitution?

I would refer you to Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution that lists the seventeen powers specifically enumerated to the Constitution.

[WESGATORS]

The government doesn't have a role in:

- mate selection
- what you name your children
- how many children you can have

Three seemingly obvious examples, yet three examples where governments elsewhere in the world do implement restrictions. That is why I believe it is important to identify where we want the government to intervene and where we don't. I don't agree that government technically has a role in everything.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

[wgbgator]

I would refer you to Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution that lists the seventeen powers specifically enumerated to the Constitution.

I don't recall much specification on the size or scope of gov't activities related to taxation, spending, regulation of national/international trade, common defense or "the general welfare." Maybe you can enlighten me as to what you think this proves.

[wgbgator]

The government doesn't have a role in:

- mate selection
- what you name your children
- how many children you can have

Three seemingly obvious examples, yet three examples where governments elsewhere in the world do implement restrictions. That is why I believe it is important to identify where we want the government to intervene and where we don't. I don't agree that government technically has a role in everything.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

I disagree with your reasoning. Yes, the government does not have a role in deciding those things, but those things are not independent of government or market forces. Those arent decisions made in a vacuum.

[WESGATORS]

What part of Section 8 implies that taxing, borrowing, and building armies cannot be increased?

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

[WESGATORS]

I disagree with your reasoning. Yes, the government does not have a role in deciding those things, but those things are not independent of government or market forces. Those arent decisions made in a vacuum.

They are not independent of market forces, but they are independent of government (in this country at least). But the bold part is to the point I was making. Don't tell me "you didn't name your child" :)

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

[gatorman_07732]

I don't recall much specification on the size or scope of gov't activities related to taxation, spending, regulation of national/international trade, common defense or "the general welfare." Maybe you can enlighten me as to what you think this proves.

Some of the things delegated to Congress include standard weights and measures, coining money, post offices and post roads, the protection of intellectual property, and a national defense. Beyond these and a few other very specific items, there was not much for which the federal government was responsible.

Those powers not enumerated to Congress were left to others, as seen in the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution. This is where we made a specific bad turn.

[wgbgator]

They are not independent of market forces, but they are independent of government (in this country at least). But the bold part is to the point I was making. Don't tell me "you didn't name your child" :)

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

I mean the government didnt decide whether I had coffee or tea this morning either. I assumed we were dealing with less mundane things, like complex interactions involving lots of people. Besides I'm pretty sure even the most totalitarian of governments don't micromanage everything. But as I said, no decision is made in a vacuum.

BTW, Havent there been cases of children being removed or names denied? I'm pretty sure you couldnt name your kid anything you want without getting child services involved.

[wgbgator]

Some of the things delegated to Congress include standard weights and measures, coining money, post offices and post roads, the protection of intellectual property, and a national defense. Beyond these and a few other very specific items, there was not much for which the federal government was responsible.

Those powers not enumerated to Congress were left to others, as seen in the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution. This is where we made a specific bad turn.

That's great, but all the things we are arguing over about the "size" of government are related to the enumerated powers. Taxes/spending, defense, general welfare, commerce, etc.

[gatorman_07732]

That's great, but all the things we are arguing over about the "size" of government are related to the enumerated powers. Taxes/spending, defense, general welfare, commerce, etc.

Well no, not really. So how did new medicines get regulated before it went federal? How would certain industries be licensed? What about the many other things done today by the federal government, who would do them? I haven't touched education yet which is another growth of central government.

[108]

There's a big difference between the collectivist aspects of America and the ones of Communist Authoritarian China or old Russia

I'm America they are decided representively via our elected officials based on what enough people want, in the latter they are forced upon

[WESGATORS]

I mean the government didnt decide whether I had coffee or tea this morning either. I assumed we were dealing with less mundane things, like complex interactions involving lots of people. Besides I'm pretty sure even the most totalitarian of governments don't micromanage everything. But as I said, no decision is made in a vacuum.

Anything less than "everything" means that a population needs to decide whether or not the government should get involved in a specific role. Whether we assume certain activities to require government does not change the fact that a decision had to be made at some point to include the government in that particular role.

BTW, Havent there been cases of children being removed or names denied? I'm pretty sure you couldnt name your kid anything you want without getting child services involved.

I don't care what you name your kid, it's not the business of child services. If I don't like it, I'll call him/her something else. I doubt that there is an instance of such a thing taking place in this country without other signs of abuse. I don't think a name can constitute abuse.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

[wargunfan]

Even liberals who've accomplished a lot in their lives and have high IQs often say things on a regular basis that are stunningly, profoundly stupid and at odds with the way the world works. Modern liberalism has become so bereft of common sense and instinctually suicidal that America can only survive over the long haul by thwarting the liberal agenda. In fact, liberalism has become such a toxic and poisonous philosophy that most liberals wouldn't behave differently if their goal were to deliberately destroy the country. So, how does liberalism cause well-meaning, intelligent liberals to get this way? Well, it starts with...
1) Liberalism creates a feedback loop. It is usually impossible for a non-liberal to change a liberal's mind about political issues because liberalism works like so: only liberals are credible sources of information. How do you know someone's liberal? He espouses liberal doctrine. So, no matter how plausible what you say may be, it will be ignored if you're not a liberal and if you are a liberal, of course, you probably agree with liberal views. This sort of close-mindedness makes liberals nearly impervious to any information that might undermine their beliefs.
2) Liberals sources of information are ever present. Conservatives are regularly exposed to the liberal viewpoint whether they want to be or not. That's not necessarily so for liberals. Imagine the average day for liberals. They get up and read their local newspaper. It has a liberal viewpoint. They take their kids to school, where the teachers are liberal. Then they go to work, listen to NPR which has a liberal viewpoint on the way home, and then turn on the nightly news which also skews leftward. From there, they turn on TV and watch shows created by liberals that lean to the left, if they have any political viewpoint at all. Unless liberals actively seek out conservative viewpoints, which is unlikely, the only conservative arguments they're probably going to hear are going to be through the heavily distorted, poorly translated, deeply skeptical lens of other liberals.
3) Liberals emphasize feeling superior, not superior results. Liberalism is all about appearances, not outcomes. What matters to liberals is how a program makes them FEEL about themselves, not whether it works or not. Thus a program like Headstart, which sounds good because it's designed to help children read, makes liberals feel good about themselves, even though the program doesn't work and wastes billions. A ban on DDT makes liberals feel good about themselves because they're "protecting the environment" even though millions of people have died as a result. For liberals, it's not what a program does in the real world; it's about whether they feel better about themselves for supporting it.
4) Liberals are big believers in moral relativism. This spins them round and round because if the only thing that's wrong is saying that there's an absolute moral code, then you lose your ability to tell cause from effect, good from bad, and right from wrong. Taking being non-judgmental to the level that liberals do leaves them paralyzed, pondering "why they hate us" because they feel incapable of saying, “That's wrong," and doing something about it. If you're against firm standards and condemning immoral behavior, then your moral compass won’t work and you’ll also be for immorality, as well as societal and cultural decay by default.
5) Liberals tend to view people as parts of groups, not individuals. One of the prejudices of liberalism is that they see everyone as part of a group, not as an individual. This can lead to rather bizarre disparities when say, a man from a group that they consider to be powerless, impoverished victims becomes the leader of the free world -- and he's challenged by a group of lower middle class white people who've banded together because individually they're powerless. If you listen to the liberal rhetoric, you might think Barack Obama was a black Republican being surrounded by a KKK lynching party 100 years ago -- as opposed to the single most powerful man in America abusing the authority of his office to attack ordinary Tea Partiers who have the audacity to speak the truth to power for the good of their country.
6) Liberals take a dim view of personal responsibility. Who's at fault if a criminal commits a crime? The criminal or society? If someone creates a business and becomes a millionaire, is that the result of hard work and talent or luck? If you're dirt poor, starving, and haven't worked in 5 years, is that a personal failing or a failure of the state? Conservatives would tend to say the former in each case, while liberals would tend to say the latter. But when you disconnect what an individual does from the results that happen in his life, it's very difficult to understand cause and effect in people's lives.
7) Liberals give themselves far too much credit just for being liberal. To many liberals, all one needs to do to be wise, intelligent, compassionate, open minded, and sensitive is to BE LIBERAL. In other words, many of the good things about a person spring not from his actions, but from the ideology he holds. This has an obvious appeal. You can be a diehard misogynist, but plausibly call yourself a feminist, hate blacks, but accuse others of racism, have a subpar IQ and be an intellectual, give nothing to charity and be compassionate, etc., etc., and all you have to do is call yourself a liberal. It's a shortcut to virtue much like the corrupt old idea of religious indulgences. Why live a life of virtue when you could live a sinful life and buy your way into heaven? If you're a liberal, why actually live a life of virtue when you can merely call yourself a liberal and get credit for being virtuous, even when you've done nothing to earn it?
Charles Krauthammer

[wgbgator]

Well no, not really. So how did new medicines get regulated before it went federal? How would certain industries be licensed? What about the many other things done today by the federal government, who would do them? I haven't touched education yet which is another growth of central government.

Again, what does this have to do with anything? The use, or non use of the enumerated powers is determined democratically. The government is empowered to regulate national and international commerce. There wasnt modern medicine when the Constitution was written, and it predated the Industrial Revolution. Now, medicine is a national and international commercial enterprise. Was that the big bad government "grabbing power" or just people responding to the growth and scale of interactions involving medicine and health care?

[gatorman_07732]

Again, what does this have to do with anything? The use, or non use of the enumerated powers is determined democratically. The government is empowered to regulate national and international commerce. There wasnt modern medicine when the Constitution was written, and it predated the Industrial Revolution. Now, medicine is a national and international commercial enterprise. Was that the big bad government "grabbing power" or just people responding to the growth and scale of interactions involving medicine and health care?

You couldn't be more wrong and shows a total disregard for the constitution which is not surprising. Those powers not enumerated to Congress were left to others, as seen in the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

So tell me why the need for the central government to get bigger and bigger and bigger and ........ welcome to fedzilla

[wgbgator]

You couldn't be more wrong and shows a total disregard for the constitution which is not surprising. Those powers not enumerated to Congress were left to others, as seen in the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

So tell me why the need for the central government to get bigger and bigger and bigger and ........ welcome to fedzilla

So, what in the examples mentioned don't fall under the powers enumerated to the Federal Government?

[gatorman_07732]

Perhaps you have not read Article I, Section 8, because it would be anything not explicitly spelled out. The rest go to the states and the people.

[wgbgator]

Perhaps you have not read Article I, Section 8, because it would be anything explicitly spelled out. The rest go to the states and the people.

No, I've read it. Moreover I understand it, which is why this conversation is baffling to me. Please don't tell me you're saying that if the Constitution doesnt explicitly mention medicine, industry or airplanes it has no business dealing with them, and that's the business of the states.

[gatorman_07732]

No, I've read it. Moreover I understand it, which is why this conversation is baffling to me. Please don't tell me you're saying that if the Constitution doesnt explicitly mention medicine, industry or airplanes it has no business dealing with them, and that's the business of the states.

You appearently don't understand it then fot starters (and I can keep going)

Personal Income Tax Division of the IRS
National Endowment for the Arts
Dept. of Education
Dept of Energy
FEMA
FDIC
Freddy Mac & Fannie Mae
Head Start Bureau
FHA
HUD

[108]

Even liberals who've accomplished a lot in their lives and have high IQs often say things on a regular basis that are stunningly, profoundly stupid and at odds with the way the world works. Modern liberalism has become so bereft of common sense and instinctually suicidal that America can only survive over the long haul by thwarting the liberal agenda. In fact, liberalism has become such a toxic and poisonous philosophy that most liberals wouldn't behave differently if their goal were to deliberately destroy the country. So, how does liberalism cause well-meaning, intelligent liberals to get this way? Well, it starts with...
1) Liberalism creates a feedback loop. It is usually impossible for a non-liberal to change a liberal's mind about political issues because liberalism works like so: only liberals are credible sources of information. How do you know someone's liberal? He espouses liberal doctrine. So, no matter how plausible what you say may be, it will be ignored if you're not a liberal and if you are a liberal, of course, you probably agree with liberal views. This sort of close-mindedness makes liberals nearly impervious to any information that might undermine their beliefs.
2) Liberals sources of information are ever present. Conservatives are regularly exposed to the liberal viewpoint whether they want to be or not. That's not necessarily so for liberals. Imagine the average day for liberals. They get up and read their local newspaper. It has a liberal viewpoint. They take their kids to school, where the teachers are liberal. Then they go to work, listen to NPR which has a liberal viewpoint on the way home, and then turn on the nightly news which also skews leftward. From there, they turn on TV and watch shows created by liberals that lean to the left, if they have any political viewpoint at all. Unless liberals actively seek out conservative viewpoints, which is unlikely, the only conservative arguments they're probably going to hear are going to be through the heavily distorted, poorly translated, deeply skeptical lens of other liberals.
3) Liberals emphasize feeling superior, not superior results. Liberalism is all about appearances, not outcomes. What matters to liberals is how a program makes them FEEL about themselves, not whether it works or not. Thus a program like Headstart, which sounds good because it's designed to help children read, makes liberals feel good about themselves, even though the program doesn't work and wastes billions. A ban on DDT makes liberals feel good about themselves because they're "protecting the environment" even though millions of people have died as a result. For liberals, it's not what a program does in the real world; it's about whether they feel better about themselves for supporting it.
4) Liberals are big believers in moral relativism. This spins them round and round because if the only thing that's wrong is saying that there's an absolute moral code, then you lose your ability to tell cause from effect, good from bad, and right from wrong. Taking being non-judgmental to the level that liberals do leaves them paralyzed, pondering "why they hate us" because they feel incapable of saying, “That's wrong," and doing something about it. If you're against firm standards and condemning immoral behavior, then your moral compass won’t work and you’ll also be for immorality, as well as societal and cultural decay by default.
5) Liberals tend to view people as parts of groups, not individuals. One of the prejudices of liberalism is that they see everyone as part of a group, not as an individual. This can lead to rather bizarre disparities when say, a man from a group that they consider to be powerless, impoverished victims becomes the leader of the free world -- and he's challenged by a group of lower middle class white people who've banded together because individually they're powerless. If you listen to the liberal rhetoric, you might think Barack Obama was a black Republican being surrounded by a KKK lynching party 100 years ago -- as opposed to the single most powerful man in America abusing the authority of his office to attack ordinary Tea Partiers who have the audacity to speak the truth to power for the good of their country.
6) Liberals take a dim view of personal responsibility. Who's at fault if a criminal commits a crime? The criminal or society? If someone creates a business and becomes a millionaire, is that the result of hard work and talent or luck? If you're dirt poor, starving, and haven't worked in 5 years, is that a personal failing or a failure of the state? Conservatives would tend to say the former in each case, while liberals would tend to say the latter. But when you disconnect what an individual does from the results that happen in his life, it's very difficult to understand cause and effect in people's lives.
7) Liberals give themselves far too much credit just for being liberal. To many liberals, all one needs to do to be wise, intelligent, compassionate, open minded, and sensitive is to BE LIBERAL. In other words, many of the good things about a person spring not from his actions, but from the ideology he holds. This has an obvious appeal. You can be a diehard misogynist, but plausibly call yourself a feminist, hate blacks, but accuse others of racism, have a subpar IQ and be an intellectual, give nothing to charity and be compassionate, etc., etc., and all you have to do is call yourself a liberal. It's a shortcut to virtue much like the corrupt old idea of religious indulgences. Why live a life of virtue when you could live a sinful life and buy your way into heaven? If you're a liberal, why actually live a life of virtue when you can merely call yourself a liberal and get credit for being virtuous, even when you've done nothing to earn it?
Charles Krauthammer

What are your own thoughts?

[wgbgator]

You appearently don't understand it then fot starters (and I can keep going)

Personal Income Tax Division of the IRS
National Endowment for the Arts
Dept. of Education
Dept of Energy
FEMA
FDIC
Freddy Mac & Fannie Mae
Head Start Bureau
FHA
HUD

I understand that those are Federal agencies. What you not have said or explained is how those agencies specifically clash with the enumerated powers of the Federal Government.

[gatorman_07732]

I understand that those are Federal agencies. What you not have said or explained is how those agencies specifically clash with the enumerated powers of the Federal Government.

Because they are not explicitly spelled out in Article I, Section 8 of the constitution. You asked me what what existed in the federal government that was no explicitly in the there and I told you. Are you playing dumb?

[wargunfan]

I think that liberals don't believe in the free enterprise system because it delivers diverse results. There are winners and losers but the playing field is, for the most part, level. Liberals want and need the force of government to take from the winners and give to the losers. Their tools are class envy and class warfare.
I too believe that liberalism needs to pit groups of Americans against each other in order to manipulate the disparate single interest groups that make up the liberal governing coalition. An example of this manipulation is the way in which liberal politicians must manage the black voting block by pandering to their expectations for wealth redistribution and racial set asides while at the same time tamping down the opposition that black Christians have to gay marriage. That is a classic liberal quid pro quo. The blacks stay on the liberal plantation and tone down their opposition to gay marriage and keep their government largess. This pandering to single interest groups is classic liberal group division. Another example is Latino immigration. There are four million people (mostly Latinos) waiting in line for legal immigration but they can't vote. Obama panders to the Latino vote by ignoring those waiting in line and granting defacto amnesty to illegals and inferring blanket amnesty to twelve million more illegals. Another single interest group pandered to without regard to those waiting in line or the impact on the country.
I too believe that liberals are free with other peoples money and niggardly with their own. The top of the Democrat ticket is a shining example of two men who have no problem borrowing money to fund grandiose government welfare programs while at the same time being niggardly with their personal giving. They get to "feel good " about giving without actually getting in their own pockets. They had to be shamed into giving. This is the liberal mindset.
To sum up, modern liberalism is about grabbing power by pitting Americans against each other. Their tools are class envy and class warfare. Once in power they use regulation and taxation to reward their cronies and punish their enemies. What liberals like to call populism is, in reality, no more than pandering to a bunch of single interest voting blocks and paying for votes with money and political favors.

[gatorman_07732]

I think that liberals don't believe in the free enterprise system because it delivers diverse results. There are winners and losers but the playing field is, for the most part, level. Liberals want and need the force of government to take from the winners and give to the losers. Their tools are class envy and class warfare.
I too believe that liberalism needs to pit groups of Americans against each other in order to manipulate the disparate single interest groups that make up the liberal governing coalition. An example of this manipulation is the way in which liberal politicians must manage the black voting block by pandering to their expectations for wealth redistribution and racial set asides while at the same time tamping down the opposition that black Christians have to gay marriage. That is a classic liberal quid pro quo. The blacks stay on the liberal plantation and tone down their opposition to gay marriage and keep their government largess. This pandering to single interest groups is classic liberal group division. Another example is Latino immigration. There are four million people (mostly Latinos) waiting in line for legal immigration but they can't vote. Obama panders to the Latino vote by ignoring those waiting in line and granting defacto amnesty to illegals and inferring blanket amnesty to twelve million more illegals. Another single interest group pandered to without regard to those waiting in line or the impact on the country.
I too believe that liberals are free with other peoples money and niggardly with their own. The top of the Democrat ticket is a shining example of two men who have no problem borrowing money to fund grandiose government welfare programs while at the same time being niggardly with their personal giving. They get to "feel good " about giving without actually getting in their own pockets. They had to be shamed into giving. This is the liberal mindset.
To sum up, modern liberalism is about grabbing power by pitting Americans against each other. Their tools are class envy and class warfare. Once in power they use regulation and taxation to reward their cronies and punish their enemies. What liberals like to call populism is, in reality, no more than pandering to a bunch of single interest voting blocks and paying for votes with money and political favors.

liberals believe in three things, central government, power and control

[wgbgator]

Because they are not explicitly spelled out in Article I, Section 8 of the constitution. You asked me what what existed in the federal government that was no explicitly in the there and I told you. Are you playing dumb?

I really don't understand your argument. Every federal agency or law has to be explicitly mentioned in Article I, Section 8 to be valid? Can you point to the part where it mentions the FBI? The Department of Justice? Or the CIA? Or the Air Force?

[gatorman_07732]

I really don't understand your argument. Every federal agency or law has to be explicitly mentioned in Article I, Section 8 to be valid? Can you point to the part where it mentions the FBI? The Department of Justice? Or the CIA? Or the Air Force?

Perhaps you do not comprehend or you are playing stupid. Maybe you should look to the part of the Article I Section 8 that refers to the saftey of the people.

[Burke]

The Constitution does not create a democracy. The Founders hated democracies.

It created a republic founded on the idea of individual rights.

Everything they put in it was for that purpose.

Enumerated powers to limit the govt's authority.

A Bill of Rights to further protect rights.

The 9th Amendment to guarantee all our rights and not just the ones enumerated.

And the 14th Amendment was added 80 yrs later to prohibit states from violating the rights of their citizens.

[ncgatr1]

Honestly, I think liberals have good intentions much like Repubs, but it is how they control and use their base, which is evil.

[Burke]

Old style liberals were mostly simple altruists, like old ladies who think govt should force others to help the poor. Largely misguided.

But outright leftists are different. They are life-hating, envy-driven losers. Precursors to the kind of murderous collectivists that communists have been.

And moving in that direction more rapidly than most realize.

Shrieking that the NRA president is a Nazi isn't just hyperbole. It's a rationalization for the wish to treat them the way Nazis deserved to be treated.

[wgbgator]

Perhaps you do not comprehend or you are playing stupid. Maybe you should look to the part of the Article I Section 8 that refers to the saftey of the people.

Yeah, the "safety of the people" isn't mentioned anywhere.