# "If liberals are so tolerant, they should tolerate the hatred of liberals" **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 6, 2008, 1:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-liberals-are-so-tolerant-they-should-tolerate-the-hatred-of-liberals/436465 "2008-02-06T01:38:07Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2008, 2:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-liberals-are-so-tolerant-they-should-tolerate-the-hatred-of-liberals/436465/121 "2008-02-07T02:04:52Z")
[QUOTE=Sarahfeena] So you are saying that conservativism is inherently racist? :dubious: [/QUOTE] Myself, I’d say that racism is inherently conservative. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2008, 2:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-liberals-are-so-tolerant-they-should-tolerate-the-hatred-of-liberals/436465/122 "2008-02-07T02:32:11Z")
[QUOTE=sqweels] First of all, liberalism is not defined as whatever Democrats were up to during a given political era. The Dixiecrats were about as un-liberal as you can get on matters of race. I maintain that the commitment to civil rights is the very cornerstone of liberalism. [/QUOTE] I don’t think you get to define liberalism all by your lonesome. Sorry. [QUOTE=sqweels] But to cite a mere handful of controversial extremists as exemplars of liberalism is ridiculous. These are the exceptions that prove the rule. Do you really expect us to see a few remarks by the likes of Al Sharpton as balancing out the monstrous history of racism and anti-semitism on the right? [/QUOTE] Oh please, educate me - since you wish to define liberalism all by your lonesome, it seems you wish to define conservatism as well - and in terms that most suit your argument. I said above that contemporary liberalism defined itself in terms of racial nondiscrimination - but it is clear that this isn’t the sole definition of liberalism, and is a relatively recent political development. So yeah, you have to account for the fact that Fulbright, and Faubus, and the biggie, Woodrow Wilson, were liberals - and that their racism wasn’t an anomolous part of their progressive politics. Indeed, it fit into their worldview quite well. [QUOTE=sqweels] And anyway, liberalism is about constant re-evaluation and independent thinking. It is not subject to being defined by history and/or charismatic leadership to the extent that conservatism is. [/QUOTE] There’s a difference between avoiding being defined by history and conveniently forgetting it - and I think you’re pretty close to the latter. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2008, 2:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-liberals-are-so-tolerant-they-should-tolerate-the-hatred-of-liberals/436465/123 "2008-02-07T02:35:43Z")
[QUOTE=Voyager] No, even Nancy Drew was racist if you go back far enough. But liberals seemed to wake up faster. No doubt JFK sent the National Guard in because Faubus amd that other well know liberal George Wallace had to be shown the lesson of their liberal ways. :rolleyes: [/QUOTE] That was Eisenhower and the 101st Airborne. What I said above about forgetting history - well, that certainly was inconvenient for you. ---
**Author:** ![Indistinguishable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/90ced4/32.png) [@Indistinguishable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Indistinguishable)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2008, 2:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-liberals-are-so-tolerant-they-should-tolerate-the-hatred-of-liberals/436465/124 "2008-02-07T02:41:26Z")
[QUOTE=Mr. Moto] That was Eisenhower and the 101st Airborne. What I said above about forgetting history - well, that certainly was inconvenient for you. [/QUOTE] Eisenhower sent the 101st Airborne in for the Little Rock Nine in opposition to Faubus. JFK was involved when the National Guard had to help Vivian Malone and James Hood enroll at the University of Alabama, in opposition to Wallace. ---
**Author:** ![Sophistry\_and\_Illusion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b3f665/32.png) [@Sophistry\_and\_Illusion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sophistry_and_Illusion)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2008, 2:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-liberals-are-so-tolerant-they-should-tolerate-the-hatred-of-liberals/436465/125 "2008-02-07T02:41:52Z")
[QUOTE=Mr. Moto] I don’t think you get to define liberalism all by your lonesome. Sorry. [/QUOTE] Well, in fairness, maximum liberty for all is basically the cornerstone of liberalism. You don’t have to take our word for it; read Mill’s _On Liberty_, the classic statement of classical liberalism. And restricting people’s opportunities and rights on the basis of their race is prima facie incompatible with that. Now of course, people’s prejudices will affect how they apply a principle–Mill, for example, said some pretty imperialistic things in _On Liberty_–but civil rights does seem to be a basic liberal principle, even if not all liberals abided by it. ETA–I’m wondering (and I’m really wondering; I’m not just being bitchy) if there is a similar civil rights or liberty principle which is fundamental to conservatism. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2008, 2:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-liberals-are-so-tolerant-they-should-tolerate-the-hatred-of-liberals/436465/126 "2008-02-07T02:42:08Z")
Both conservatives and liberals recognize the malignant nature of racial injustice. We differ primarily in what we are willing to do about it. Take Barry Goldwater as example, a man I respected enormously. When he says he voted and worked against the Voting Rights Act because of a principled, states-rights and constitutional objectiion, I believe him. It is a measure of my respect for him that I do, I doubt would afford any such credibility to any of the others. But civil rights _needed_ doing, it was not just a serious issue, it was a mortal issue, it was urgent. In the words of Dick Gregory “Get your foot off my grandmother’s neck! Now, goddamit, not one toe at a time!” Now the principle of state’s rights may have a lot to say for it, and, Lord knows, its been said. But Goldwater, conservative, would not bend that principle for the sake of an urgent social cause. Perhaps that’s admirable, for some, for me it exalts abstract principle above human need, its idealism’s ugly sister. A liberal is willing, nay, even eager to take the risk, to move ahead, the conservative distrusts the future, the liberal accepts it and the radical demands it. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2008, 2:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-liberals-are-so-tolerant-they-should-tolerate-the-hatred-of-liberals/436465/127 "2008-02-07T02:57:00Z")
[QUOTE=Sophistry and Illusion] Well, in fairness, maximum liberty for all is basically the cornerstone of liberalism. You don’t have to take our word for it; read Mill’s _On Liberty_, the classic statement of classical liberalism. And restricting people’s opportunities and rights on the basis of their race is prima facie incompatible with that. Now of course, people’s prejudices will affect how they apply a principle–Mill, for example, said some pretty imperialistic things in _On Liberty_–but civil rights does seem to be a basic liberal principle, even if not all liberals abided by it. ETA–I’m wondering (and I’m really wondering; I’m not just being bitchy) if there is a similar civil rights or liberty principle which is fundamental to conservatism. [/QUOTE] Um - Mill is considered a father of classical liberalism, as you noted. But this tradition is represented in the United States by conservatives, especially where the economy is concerned. American liberals these days are influenced more by the progressive tradition. ---
**Author:** ![JR\_Brown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d6d6ee/32.png) [@JR\_Brown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JR_Brown)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2008, 2:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-liberals-are-so-tolerant-they-should-tolerate-the-hatred-of-liberals/436465/128 "2008-02-07T02:58:09Z")
[QUOTE=Shodan] “Conservatives think liberals have bad ideas. Liberals think conservatives are bad people.” [/QUOTE] Really? I always thought it was the other way around. 😃 (Seriously, when was the last time a pro-life activist was shot by an abortion doctor?) As to tolerant behavior among liberals, I’ve spent most of my adult life in very liberal areas of the country (see [People’s Republic of Cambridge](http://www.boston-online.com/glossary/peoples_republic_the.html)) and I haven’t noticed any general antipathy towards the free expression of conservative views. The views _themselves_ may be disliked, and individuals holding those views may not be all that popular, but most liberals I’ve run into are willing to at least listen (up to a point - see **RTFirefly** ’s post). Socially conservative arguments do tend to get pretty short shrift around here, partly because a lot of us disagree with them, but partly because the most _visible_ argumentors for socially conservative positions in our neck of the woods tend to fall into a couple of camps (I’ll use the human embryonic stem cell [hES, for brevity] research debate as a source of examples, since I’ve been close to the issue): 1. The “There Can Be No Argument” position. Often backed up by a reference to the Bible or other Incontrovertible Truth ™. Example: the guy who got up at a university-sponsored “town hall” meeting and declared firmly that hES research was _wrong_, full stop, and that even suggesting that there was anything to debate **proved** that we scientists were all moral cripples. 2. Framing the debate solely in terms that have no traction with the other side. Example: A very nice but very determined lady at a (different) public forum on hES research who insisted that the key point that would make or break the debate was _when_ in development the embryo acquired its soul (if that happened after the blastocyst stage, we were fine, but if it happened before, we were evil evil evil). Discussions of the potential for public benefit versus degrading the value of human life and so forth were all fine and good, but not until we could say definitively that the embryo being destroyed was soul-less (how she expected anyone to determine this I don’t know). 3. Being either F\*\*\*ing Nuts or Just Plain Dumb. Example: The not-so-nice but equally determined lady at the same forum who buttonholed the biologist contingent after the event and demanded to know how we could look those “little babies” in the eyes as they screamed and writhed as we tore off their arms and legs, and _refused utterly_ to be persuaded (despite photographic evidence to the contrary) that [blastocyst-stage embryos](http://www.dartmouth.edu/~cbbc/courses/bio4/bio4-1999/papers/molinoff-fig01.gif) are pin-sized clumps of cells that have no eyes, arms or legs and are incapable of screaming or writhing… (I’m assuming she saw the “Silent Scream” video at an impressionable age and didn’t grasp the abortion/hES difference). (I would like to point out that these three people, although representative of identifiable minority camps, are by-and-large exceptions: most of the people who spoke or asked questions in the forums mentioned were perfectly reasonable and focused on the issues on their own merit, regardless of their overall pro or con or just-looking-for-information position.) Now I’m sure there are people arguing for socially liberal positions that are just as bad, but around here, at least, the social conservatives that get the soundbite on the evening news tend to be frothing-at-the-mouth extremists rather than reasoned, logical debaters. Which is just as much an indictment of the media as it is of conservatives, but it doesn’t give us a very good impression of their side. JRB ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2008, 2:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-liberals-are-so-tolerant-they-should-tolerate-the-hatred-of-liberals/436465/129 "2008-02-07T02:58:34Z")
[QUOTE=elucidator] But Goldwater, conservative, would not bend that principle for the sake of an urgent social cause. Perhaps that’s admirable, for some, for me it exalts abstract principle above human need, its idealism’s ugly sister. A liberal is willing, nay, even eager to take the risk, to move ahead, the conservative distrusts the future, the liberal accepts it and the radical demands it. [/QUOTE] “The ends justify the means?” :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![Sophistry\_and\_Illusion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b3f665/32.png) [@Sophistry\_and\_Illusion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sophistry_and_Illusion)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2008, 3:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-liberals-are-so-tolerant-they-should-tolerate-the-hatred-of-liberals/436465/130 "2008-02-07T03:18:59Z")
[QUOTE=Mr. Moto] Um - Mill is considered a father of classical liberalism, as you noted. But this tradition is represented in the United States by conservatives, especially where the economy is concerned. American liberals these days are influenced more by the progressive tradition. [/QUOTE] I would say rather that modern liberalism is a legitimate intellectual successor to classical liberty in that the primary focus is on liberty. But whereas classical liberalism focused on negative liberty (freedom from coercion), modern liberalism recognized that without positive liberty (the means to act to achieve one’s ends), negative liberty is basically without value. (I think even Mill was coming to this realization later in his life; I can probably dig up a quote tomorrow.) So I would argue that modern liberalism is still very much centered on the promotion of liberty–but the promotion of positive and negative liberty, not just negative liberty as was/is the case with classical liberalism. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2008, 3:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-liberals-are-so-tolerant-they-should-tolerate-the-hatred-of-liberals/436465/131 "2008-02-07T03:19:01Z")
> [@](#): > > “The ends justify the means?” :dubious: In this instance? Most assuredly. Set aside a polite fiction of political science in order to advance the human cause? In one second flat. ---
**Author:** ![Sophistry\_and\_Illusion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b3f665/32.png) [@Sophistry\_and\_Illusion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sophistry_and_Illusion)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2008, 3:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-liberals-are-so-tolerant-they-should-tolerate-the-hatred-of-liberals/436465/132 "2008-02-07T03:38:42Z")
[QUOTE=Mr. Moto] “The ends justify the means?” :dubious: [/QUOTE] It’s the motto of consequentialism. In the words of the great **non** -consequentialist John Rawls, “All ethical doctrines worth our attention take consequences into account in judging rightness. One which did not would simply be irrational, crazy.” (_A Theory of Justice_, p. 30) ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2008, 3:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-liberals-are-so-tolerant-they-should-tolerate-the-hatred-of-liberals/436465/133 "2008-02-07T03:38:58Z")
So if we were to use federal power to, say, force Berkeley to keep a Marine recruiting office downtown, would you have many objections to that? I mean, you favored intrusions in local affairs for other matters. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2008, 3:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-liberals-are-so-tolerant-they-should-tolerate-the-hatred-of-liberals/436465/134 "2008-02-07T03:43:53Z")
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton] [It works like this.](http://www.salon.com/comics/tomo/2007/10/01/tomo/) [/QUOTE] The only seems to work if you have an account at Salon (a paid account, it seems) ---
**Author:** ![Sophistry\_and\_Illusion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b3f665/32.png) [@Sophistry\_and\_Illusion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sophistry_and_Illusion)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2008, 3:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-liberals-are-so-tolerant-they-should-tolerate-the-hatred-of-liberals/436465/135 "2008-02-07T03:45:56Z")
[QUOTE=Mr. Moto] So if we were to use federal power to, say, force Berkeley to keep a Marine recruiting office downtown, would you have many objections to that? I mean, you favored intrusions in local affairs for other matters. 😃 [/QUOTE] Not to presume to answer for **elucidator** , but it would depend on the importance you placed on having a Marine recruiting office located in Berkeley (compared to, say, the importance of allowing blacks to attend public schools and universities, a case in which the end was important enough to justify federal intervention). Just because the end sometimes justifies the means doesn’t mean that the end always justifies the means. I don’t have an opinion on how important it is to have a Marine recruiting office in Berkeley; I would have to hear the arguments on both sides. ---
**Author:** ![Indistinguishable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/90ced4/32.png) [@Indistinguishable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Indistinguishable)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2008, 3:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-liberals-are-so-tolerant-they-should-tolerate-the-hatred-of-liberals/436465/136 "2008-02-07T03:46:14Z")
[QUOTE=Mr. Moto] So if we were to use federal power to, say, force Berkeley to keep a Marine recruiting office downtown, would you have many objections to that? I mean, you favored intrusions in local affairs for other matters. [/QUOTE] Well, the whole point was that intrusions were permissible when they achieved an overarching good. If one feels that keeping the Marine recruiting office downtown is such a good, then the federal intrusion would be justified; otherwise not. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2008, 3:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-liberals-are-so-tolerant-they-should-tolerate-the-hatred-of-liberals/436465/137 "2008-02-07T03:46:56Z")
{deleted, thunder stolen} ---
**Author:** ![F.U.Shakespeare](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/aca169/32.png) [@F.U.Shakespeare](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/F.U.Shakespeare)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2008, 4:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-liberals-are-so-tolerant-they-should-tolerate-the-hatred-of-liberals/436465/138 "2008-02-07T04:46:40Z")
[QUOTE=cricetus] Yeah, right. You suggest liberals are “intolerent” because they disagree with you on some things, and here comes one to prove it by disagreeing with you! You have set the goal posts low and close to yourself. Anything short of Jesus-like universal love for all mankind and a complete refusal to express any moral judgment of any kind, and the liberal fails your little test. [/QUOTE] However, any evidence of this \*Jebus-like love in a liberal is a sign of weakness. Otherwise, it’s unfair, dammit, like kicking a bully in the balls when he’s choking you. \*Can I say ‘Jebus’? ---
**Author:** ![Zoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a4c791/32.png) [@Zoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoe)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2008, 4:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-liberals-are-so-tolerant-they-should-tolerate-the-hatred-of-liberals/436465/139 "2008-02-07T04:59:22Z")
**Mr. Moto** , I would like to clarify some of your points please. You are not saying that _tolerance_ is always the appropriate approach are you? And you are not claiming that all liberals claim to be _tolerant_ all of the time, right? Do you think that in general Marines get everything the recruiters promise? Thanks. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2008, 7:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-liberals-are-so-tolerant-they-should-tolerate-the-hatred-of-liberals/436465/140 "2008-02-07T07:24:16Z")
[QUOTE=Mr. Moto] That was Eisenhower and the 101st Airborne. What I said above about forgetting history - well, that certainly was inconvenient for you. [/QUOTE] By today’s standards Ike was a liberal. When I was just a wee lad, there were such things as liberal Republicans, odd as it seems today. Wallace, btw, was in JFKs time. Or did Ike get James Meredith into Ole Miss? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-liberals-are-so-tolerant-they-should-tolerate-the-hatred-of-liberals/436465.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-liberals-are-so-tolerant-they-should-tolerate-the-hatred-of-liberals/436465.md?page=8)