What is a Liberal

Nosigar

53%
Forum Member
Jul 5, 2000
2,487
9
0
Florida
Author: Dennis Prager

If you want to understand the Left, most of what you need to know can be summarized thus: The Left hates inequality, not evil.

As one raised as a New York Jew (who, moreover, attended an Ivy League university) and therefore liberal -- it took me a while to recognize this fatal moral characteristic of the Left. But the moment I realized it, it became immoral not to oppose leftist values.

It is neither possible nor virtuous to be devoid of hatred. Even those who think it is always wrong to hate must hate hatred. The question therefore is not whether one hates but what (or whom) one hates.

For example, on the basis of the value system that I hold -- the Judeo-Christian -- I try to confine my hating to evil. By evil I mean the deliberate infliction of unjust suffering on the undeserving; cruelty is the best example of such evil.


Those who hate evil hated the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union, after all, was a made-up country, created by a band of gangsters called Bolsheviks and Communists. They murdered between 20 million and 40 million innocent people, spread their totalitarianism around the world, and thereby rendered hundreds of millions of people slaves and automatons.

From the 1930s to the 1950s, liberals and social democrats vigorously opposed communism. But the rest of the world's Left, especially its intellectuals and artists, not only did not oppose communist governments, they were the greatest defenders of communism.

By the end of the Vietnam War (begun and prosecuted by liberals), however, most liberals abandoned anti-tyranny, anti-evil liberalism and joined the rest of the Left. Since the late 1960s, with almost very few exceptions (one is Sen. Joseph Lieberman), "liberal" and "Left" have become synonyms. (That is why The New York Times characterizes the Nation, a far-left journal, as "liberal.")

Thus, when President Ronald Reagan called the Soviet Union an "evil empire," the liberal world condemned him. The Cold War, once regarded as an epochal battle between freedom and tyranny, came to be regarded by liberals as an amoral battle between "two superpowers."

Likewise liberals almost universally mocked President George W. Bush when he labeled Saddam Hussein's Iraq, North Korea and Iran an "axis of evil." It takes a mind that either has little comprehension of evil or little desire to confront it to object to characterizing three of the worst regimes in modern history as "evil."

How else can one explain the Left's enchantment with Fidel Castro, the totalitarian ruler of Cuba? Clearly his evil is of little consequence. What matters to people on the Left is that there is free health care and almost universal literacy in Cuba. Whereas non-leftists believe that it is far better to be illiterate but free, leftists believe that it is better to be a literate slave.

Today, this inability to either recognize or to hate evil is manifested in the liberal opposition to the war in Iraq. As I pointed out in a previous column, opponents of the war should be asked to at least acknowledge that America is fighting evil people and an evil doctrine in Iraq. But even that is difficult, if not impossible, for most people on the Left.

As noted above, everyone hates someone, and that includes people on the Left. The problem is that because they don't hate evil, they hate those who oppose evil. That is how liberals went from anti-communist to anti-anti-communist. To paraphrase one of the greatest moral insights of the Talmud, those who show mercy to the cruel will be cruel to the merciful. So, George W. Bush, not the Islamic terror world, is the Left's villain; life-embracing Israel is the Left's villain, not their death-loving enemies; and religious Christians who note moral weaknesses within the Islamic world are the real danger, not the moral weaknesses within the Islamic world.

To be fair, it should be noted that confusion over evil and insufficiently hating it are not confined to the Left. There are religious people who conflate sexual sin with evil and/or advocate automatic forgiveness of all evildoers, even when no repentance has taken place.

But the inability to acknowledge the greatest evils, let alone to join in fighting them, is the defining characteristic of the Left. That is why former Vice President Al Gore just announced that global warming was a worse threat to humanity than terrorism. He really believes that. As do the great many people on the Left whose moral passion focuses more on gasoline prices, drug prices, health care prices, and other expressions of material inequality than on people and movements dedicated to murder. That is why Robert Redford and friends from Hollywood can celebrate Fidel Castro. Castro may imprison political opponents, and most Cubans may have no right of dissent, but they are economically equal.
 

Nosigar

53%
Forum Member
Jul 5, 2000
2,487
9
0
Florida
Understanding the left (why?)

Understanding the left (why?)

A little more, from the same author

If you want to understand the Left, the best place to start is with an understanding of hysteria. Leading leftists either use hysteria as a political tactic or are actually hysterics.

Take almost any subject the Left discusses and you will find hysteria.

The Patriot Act: According to leftist spokesmen and groups, the Patriot Act is a grave threat to liberty and democracy. It is frequently likened to the tactics of a fascist state. This is pure hysteria. The Los Angeles Times recently published statistics concerning the use of the Act. Through 2004, of the 7,136 complaints to the Justice Department's inspector general, one was related to the Patriot Act. The number of "sneak and peek" warrants, allowing searches without telling a subject, totaled 155. The number of roving wiretaps was 49, and the number of personal records seizures under Section 215 of the Act was 35.

The war in Iraq: It is not enough for leftist opponents of the war to argue that the war is a mistake, was initiated due to faulty intelligence, or is being poorly prosecuted. Rather they charge that President Bush lied, that the war was waged for Halliburton, and that America is engaged in a criminal and imperialist enterprise. Each charge is a form of hysteria.


Risks to health: Not everyone who believes the hysterical claims of danger made about secondhand smoke, baby formula, dodgeball or Bextra is on the Left. But the Left leads the country in hysteria over dangers to health. That is why leftist organizations are generally incapable of merely saying that something is unhealthy. The danger must be described as the killer of hundreds of thousands and often be ascribed to some murderous corporate conspiracy.

Environment: More people may be attacked by aardvarks in any given year than visit the remote and frozen region of Alaska known as the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). It is the home, however, of vast oil reserves and many caribou. Good people can differ on whether or not to drill for oil there. But the rhetoric of the Left is hysterical. Listening to leftist organizations one would think that drilling would bring no benefit to America and would render the caribou virtually extinct. None of this is true. It is all drama.

Likewise there is largely hysteria over global warming and the charge that man -- especially Homo Americanus -- is the cause of it. The great number of scientists who claim that we are in a normal warming period or in no major weather change at all are ignored. Only the most hysterical scenarios are offered by the Left. Witness the reasons given for Hurricane Katrina. Yet even The New York Times reported that scientists are virtually unanimous in denying that the hurricane has anything to do with global warming.

Animal rights: People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) is the living embodiment of hysteria. Take their program "Holocaust on your plate," which equates barbecuing chickens with the cremating of the Jews in the Holocaust. It is one thing to be concerned about chickens' welfare, but only hysterics compare eating them with the slaughter of a people.

Racism: There is no worse charge than racism. Acting hatefully toward people because of their skin color is among the most vile acts a person can engage in. Yet the Left throws that charge around as if it were the essence of the American people (which, come to think of it, is what many on the Left believe). Most of the time, however, the charge of racism -- such as when it is directed at opponents of race-based affirmative action -- is just another example of hysteria.

Christianity: Most on the Left really believe that this country is on the verge of a theocracy because George W. Bush is an evangelical Christian, because the words "under God" are still in the Pledge of Allegiance, and because most Americans don't think marriage ought to be redefined.

Other examples abound. America neglects its poor, beats up its gays, oppresses its women, fouls its environment, ignores its children's educations, denies blacks their votes, and invades other countries for corporate profits: These are common accusations of the Left.

No event is free of leftist hysteria. On the third day after Katrina, civil rights activist Randall Robinson reported that blacks in New Orleans were resorting to cannibalism. Indeed, most of the news media coverage bordered on the hysterical. Not to mention the hysterical predictions of 10,000-plus dead in New Orleans.

None of this is to deny that the Right also gets hysterical. Some right-wing reactions to immigration and Terry Schiavo provide such examples.

But the irony in all of this is that the Left sees itself as the side that thinks intellectually and non-emotionally. And that is hysterical.
 

ImFeklhr

Raconteur
Forum Member
Oct 3, 2005
4,585
129
0
San Francisco
That first article is pretty good. The second one is often true but a bit harder for me to "buy" top to bottom.

For instance I think a lot of people are scared of the Patriot Act because down the road it could be used improperly. So far it hasn't been, but why even leave the ability there? Power will eventually be abused. At least we can continually re-visit the laws and no approve it for a 10 year span.

And really hysteria works both ways. For both parties. Republicans, and most democrats hysterically support the (failed) war on drugs, citing drugs as a possible cause of the complete breakdown of civilization.
 

spibble spab

NEOCON
Forum Member
Apr 16, 2004
657
0
0
47
Concord, Michigan
war on drugs is a losing war.....

how bout the f4cking parents in this country teach their children right

i remember my drug education class on how evil drugs are and how they will kill your ass soon as your lips hit a joint. and when I did i realized that I didnt die and freak out when i did it i thought " maybe they were lying". when my kids ask me why people take drugs i say "because it makes them feel good" something drug education teachers will never admit. I say to my kids. "that's the lure of it though, it makes you feel good but most people sink deeper and deeper into it and it eventually fvcks up your life. I was never told why people take drugs; because it actually feels good. but its a trap!
 

ImFeklhr

Raconteur
Forum Member
Oct 3, 2005
4,585
129
0
San Francisco
It's amazing how much money this country spends on the drug war. I understand how little good can come from hard-core narcotics, but pot and some less extreme drugs are ridiculous as a crime.

It would be a more interesting debate if the war on drugs actually prevented people from doing drugs, but as it is, it simply crowds the prisons and makes non violent people into prison hardened criminals.

Might be worth a shot trying another strategy.
 

MrChristo

The Zapper
Forum Member
Nov 11, 2001
4,414
5
0
Sexlexia...
What an absolutely rediculous article.

Let's take every extreme view we can think of and write a little extreme, semi-sarcastic line or two on it. Marvellous!

We could all sit here and write an exact opposite...What it's like to be a Conservative...and take the same 'topics' to the other extreme....
It actually could be mildly entertaining to do...but ultimately just as pointless as this pile of tripe.
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,485
161
63
Bowling Green Ky
Mr C Would put some merit to what you say--however don't think one side is near as extreme as other--sad point is the extremes get all the press ala aclu--moveon-dean-kerry-kennedy-peloski ect.
Make is tough on dems in general--vote on withdrawal reflected same across board--however with high profile libs pushing withdrawal saga daily believe it will come back to them at election time--and if terrorist hit between now and election it will be very tough on dems in general.How many votes do you think dean cost dems with his "we can't win' episode. You need to either put muzzle on him or get rid of him. They even got their own group "pink code" dogging hiliary at all her stops now.
 

MrChristo

The Zapper
Forum Member
Nov 11, 2001
4,414
5
0
Sexlexia...
They even got their own group "pink code" dogging hiliary at all her stops now.

I don't know what that means, but if anyone is 'dogging' Hiliary, best of luck to 'em! :D
(And what's it take to dog Chelsea these days?)

sad point is the extremes get all the press

Totally agree, DTB. We can sit here and argue for hours about the left/right media...but let's be fair, not many on either 'side' are journalists...just, as you say, pumpin' out the extreme, contraversial stuff to boost the ratings.
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,485
161
63
Bowling Green Ky
Will update you on the code pink Mr C. In her last speech at campus they had small group in audience who referred to themselves as code pink that were doing some serious disruptive heckling to the point that hilliary had to address them. They were dogging her for not backing immediate withdrawal.
However as much as they tried to tarnish her I am of opinion it actually helped her.I must say she handled situation well.
 
Bet on MyBookie
Top