Liberal equivalent of idealogy over practicality

A recent study shows people with moderate or conservative leanings will avoid energy efficient products that are labelled as environmentally friendly. Those same products were almost universally favored when the environment label was left off.

In the interests of balancing my perspective, can somebody point to a similar behavior among liberals (unnecessarily violating one aspect of their ideology to support another)?

Here’s the relevant article and study (note: the news site has strong liberal leanings. I’m not aware of any innate bias in the original study)
Summary: http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/05/when-it-comes-to-the-environment-conservatives-dont-like-conserving/
Full article: http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/04/26/1218453110

P.S. this is more of a GQ-type post, but given the topic, I’m sure it will devolve into the sort political debate more appropriate here.

Electric vehicles are in some social circles almost a statement of environmental consciousness.

But depending upon how the car is going to get its batteries charged, an electric car may be worse for the environment than a diesel or gas powered vehicle.

Although I think that there’s an important secondary effect there… imagine that the entire first generation of electric cars is slightly worse for the environment than gas cars. If those cars sell out quickly, that just proves to the auto makers that consumers are willing to spend money on electric cars, and they will put additional money into R&D to make even better ones which will (hopefully) eventually be more successful. Think of it as voting with your wallet.

A lot of people avoided delicious chicken so as not to buy food labeled anti-gay.

How is buying chicken anti-gay?

He’s talking about the Chick-fil-A boycott.

I don’t think avoiding a particular restaurant is a win of ideology over practicality. I’d say that seeking a particular restaurant out, even if it was far away, just to make a statement about how much you think homosexuals don’t deserve the same rights you have would be a far better example.

Most liberals claim to be in favor of education, in favor of helping the poor, and in favor of greater equality for racial minorities. Vouchers that let poor students attend private schools have a proven record of improving educational results, especially for racial minorities. Most liberals relentlessly oppose vouchers.

(Bonus points should be awarded to anyone who claims to oppose vouchers because of how it will affect science education while steadfastly ignoring every bit of scientific evidence regarding the issue.)

Chik-fil-A same-sex marriage controversy.

Thank you, I forgot about Chick-fil-A

Vouchers take money away from already strapped school systems. You don’t have to mow any less of the school lawn if you lose the money that one student was allotted.

The reason that many on the right likes vouchers is that it gives money to religious groups. Wouldn’t you agree that the idea of religious institutions getting taxpayer money on some level appeals to you?

Creationism spreading in schools, thanks to vouchers. Not science, but pretty good journalism.

It appealed to the W Admin . . . until Muslim organizations started applying for “faith-based initiative” grants . . .

You can practice whatever religion you like, Christianity or Judaism!

This could be an interesting discussion, if it doesn’t get bogged down in “liberals do stuff I disagree with” which… it already has. :frowning:

Thanks, that’s exactly the sort of thing I was looking for, though a bit more, though a bit less cut-and-dried than the study I’d read.

@Frylock Good example, though denying yourself fried chicken from a certain company doesn’t go against anyone’s self interest (and might actually benefit you, though that applies to all fried chicken franchises, not just chick-fill-a’s product)

Nuclear power for many liberals. This is especially true for those liberals who wish to reduce our usage of fossil fuels.

Bullshit. You link to a partisan website to cite some controversial research over and over and pretend as though there’s nothing controversial about either the research or your claims about it. This is wholly unlike what the OP asks for. None of the examples so far count.

Qin’s mention of nuclear power might do. According to Gallup, most Americans favor nuclear power, but Democrats are less likely to favor it than Republicans and more like to oppose it. However, I wonder what proportion of Republicans favor nukes just to annoy hypothetical environmentalists.

The problem with this example is that there are reasons (however ill-founded) to oppose nuclear power. The OP’s example is different: it suggests opposing something for no reason whatsoever.

The closest I can think of would be if a liberal atheist refused to support a charity once she found out that the founder was motivated by his Christian beliefs.

There’s plenty of irrational behavior among liberals, no doubt. Most anti-vaccers I know are liberals. But the particular kind the OP describes–the cutting-off-one’s-nose-to-spite-one’s-face kind–is not something I’ve seen among liberals.

Might, but I did notice before that then push comes to shove, that is when time comes to approve a dumping ground or new nuclear power plant, it is not likely that all that opposition that comes forth is made out of liberals, in the end it is the old NIMBY party, made not only of liberals but also made up of many conservatives and independents.

It is true that one can find more democrats opposed to nuclear power, but I have noticed that many democrats in the leadership are in favor of it.

http://www.nei.org/resourcesandstats/Documentlibrary/Safety-and-Security/advertising/New-NEI-Ad-Democratic-Leadership-Supports-Nuclear