My friends and I have debated this one for years with little progress as to the answer:
Are anti-automobile Liberals (those who hate cars) that way because …
a) they despise the single-occupancy nature of the vehicles, and the miserable built environment (suburbs, etc.) created as a result of such?
–or–
b) they despise the fact that automobiles are (today) largely dependant upon foreign oil, and in turn the nature of oil production (both political and environmental) and after effects of such?
Now there are Liberals who would cite both reasons as being anti-automobile, I know, but which is MORE important to most Liberals in their argument against cars?
Because here is my counterargument for both:
a) humans have been building miserable environments for centuries, long before cars were invented. The slums of 19th Century London, anyone? the slums of most third world countries today? We didn’t need cars to build miserable environments, and long after cars are rendered obsolete we will find new ways of building miserable environments we haven’t even thought of yet.
–and–
b) what if we built a car today that used 0% oil, foreign or otherwise? Let’s say it ran on osmosis and had zero emissions. Would that remove the environmental reasons Liberals hate cars?
Are there really a large number of liberals who hate cars? I know plenty who think it’s stupid for a soccer mom to use an H1 as their main vehicle for shopping, but that hate cars as a whole?
The main visceral reason is that most liberals are city-dwellers, and have little use for cars, except for renting for vacations. Cars are associated with suburbanites, who are a different tribe with different cultural values, and liberals would prefer if those suburbanites were to fall in relative status, raising the status of city-dwellers.
I’m also curious how large a cohort the OP thinks “anti-automobile Liberals” are. I daresay they’re significantly outnumbered by groups that are potentially far more dangerous, like tobacco executives or serial killers.
That’s strange. I’d consider myself liberal (non-American “left-wing”) and wouldn’t include either of those reasons in any anti-car sentiment I might harbour. My complaint is mostly the environmental cost, especially when it comes to lone drivers going long distances.
I recall an argument with someone, I think it was on Fark, who seemed to not understand the need for cars.
When I said that the nearest grocery store is 5 miles away, my job was 20 miles away, and there was no public transpo between any of them, his solution was “move to a city.”
Uh… thanks, I hadn’t thought of that before.
If you were born and raised in NYC you might not understand the need for a car any more than someone born and raised in the desert would understand the need for a portable heater.
I think there are liberals who think America is currently too dependent on cars. I share that view, and my reasons are:
[ul]
[li]It’s an excessive use of natural resources (oil, land used by roads and parking, etc), and results in an excessive amount of pollution (most notably CO2). [/li][li]It’s the most significant factor driving urban sprawl, with numerous negative consequences.[/li][/ul]
I don’t specifically object to use of foreign oil - it doesn’t make much difference where the oil comes from.
By the way, I don’t “hate” cars. I own two cars myself, and I love my cars. I just try to use them as little as possible, and wish I didn’t need to use one if I didn’t want to.
Where do you get this? Is this just something you made up? Or do you just believe it is “common knowledge”? In any case, it is just a silly generalization.
The Amish, highly religious folk, for one. They don’t use cars at all. Now the question becomes, why do religious people hate cars? I had that discussion with a friend of mine and we decided that they:
a) Think if God wanted us not to walk, he’d have created us with wheels.
I’m guessing you should think straw hats and beards on the men and bonnets on the women. A group that may still reject most of the fooferaw of the English, but which has taken solar-powered lights in the milking barn to its bosom.
I consider myself liberal, and I don’t see any reason I shouldn’t have a car to drive to Colorado or Ohio when I want to, as opposed to taking the aggravating airplane, out of the way train, or disgusting bus.
Plus then I don’t have to rent a car when I get there.
Have to agree with the general sentiment. Can you provide some evidence of the liberal hatred of cars?
I have to consider you a conservative, since you’re inventing what ‘liberals’ really think and opening it up to rebuke. (I consider myself neither. I’m a pragmatist, sort of) Mind if I ask you a question? We’re about $11 trillion in debt as a nation. We spend about $500 billion per year to import oil- I know the figure varies, but it is sure to increase. Even if it stays the same, in 22 years we could save $11 trillion by not sending it overseas for oil if, say, everyone switched to electric cars. Yah, I know that’s a pipe dream, and it doesn’t necessarily amount to $11 trillion tax dollars, but I hope you see the point.
Is that so bad? Where else you you see us coming up with $11 trillion?
I’m pretty sure the $500 billion in oil isn’t just used for automobiles. I can’t offhand find a breakdown, but large quantities of oil are used for the production of electricity in power plants and in the manufacturing of plastic, plus whatever the airlines and the military uses.
Anyway, I still don’t know what the OP has in mind when he/she says “Liberal”. In addition to hating cars, I’ll bet the OP’s liberal likes using recreational drugs, is unshaven, has multiple children out of wedlock, blames the white man for everything…