A cite for conservative hatred of the automobile:
Now, let’s see the OP come up with an equally vehement anti-automobile statement from someone who as significant to liberalism as Kirk is to conservatism…
(I won’t be holding my breath waiting on that.)
Howard Roark rode a bicycle. Does that count?
That’s because the fringe elements of the left are not out in front. Conservatives can dismiss Fred Phelps as an outlying loon, but you can’t do that with, say, Glenn Beck.
It is by no means a mainstream view among the left to “hate cars”. My take on it is a lot more common–I own a car and enjoy the convenience of it, but I wish I didn’t have to depend on it for my daily needs.
There are a lot of reasons why I feel that way. The environment is a big one. It’s really expensive and time-consuming for everybody to own and maintain a car, and it’s a barrier to gainful employment for a lot of people. Walkable areas foster a sense of community more than car-dependent areas. I feel better when I walk more, and I don’t walk very much unless I have a reason to. It’s hard to go out drinking without a designated driver or an expensive cab. Parking takes up a lot of valuable space.
It isn’t nearly as simple as you’d like it to be.
Let me add a little human perspective to this, imo, non-issue.
I’ve owned many cars thru the years, I’m 68. I was early on to buying small cars to save money. That meant saving gas. I’ve spent much of my life hitch-hiking and lived in an old van on a beach on the Big Isle back in '03. I’m now living in an apartment in a small town in in CO with only a bicycle. On my occasional trips to a surgery clinic 25 mi away, I employ the local shuttle service for a $10 donation. My kid is a (still) successful GM dealer 
Politically, I’m probably a little to the left of a certain redshirted fellow we all know and love.
People need cars because of the way our Interstate infrastructure was set up in the '50’s at the behest of GM and the oil industry using national defense as the public rationale. In addition, it conveniently provided employment for a growing workforce for decades.
Had Eisenhower chosen to focus on efficient mass transit with a limited interstate trucking system, we’d be much better off and would have wasted half as much gas getting here.
But here we are and what do we do?
Each of us can can piss on the forest fire as best he can. Arguments about who’s doing enough and who’s being hypocritical about it are dust in the wind.
But there is a lesson to be learned here and that is that transparency is the only way to insure good government. It is the only way that the electorate can be included in policy making. Who was on Cheney’s energy task force, anyway? What’s Obama’s deal with the big (legal) drug dealers? Why has govt oversight of Wall Street been so accommodating in its regulation?
There is no other issue.
Not to get all up into a thing, but this doesn’t really compute. Car-hating liberals is about as obscure a thing as I can think of. It’s not an element of the liberal movement that gets a lot of face time with the American public.
However, and this may just be my experience, but the fringe element of the conservative movement, the people who think taxes are evil, mexicans should go back to africa, government-run healthcare is socialist, and don’t touch my medicare, are a very, very public entity.
Some of the most vocal representatives in conservatism are Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, and Sean Hannity. All of those people cater to and foster the fringe base represented in the above paragraph, and they practically have their own cable news network.
Who’s the biggest representative of liberalism? Jon Stewart? Rachel Maddow? I really cant think of any, but any candidate I could think of don’t cater to any fringe element and they certainly don’t talk about hating cars. Unless someone nominated Ed Beggly Jr a major liberal spokesperson.
Yes, there is an asymmetry in the public perception of fringe loonies on the right vs the left, but it seems like that’s all the work of the right.
I think it is a part of the right-wing meme that liberals are all sandal-wearing hippies who smoke dope and fuck in the mud.
In that case, this thread is as rational as “Black people; Why do they love watermelon so much?” or “How do Jews hide their horns so well in public?”
Disdain for cars is more commonly heard coming from the Left than the Right, in large part for environmental reasons.
Another aspect involves the self-righteous types who are appalled that not everyone can afford a car, and who think we should be pushed to use mass transit instead, as it is supposedly more democratic.
That’ll be vastly diminished as soon as this goddamned Woodstock nostalgia fades.
This sums up my position perfectly.
Why not? There are conservatives who think Beck and his ilk are totally full of shit. Really. I’ve even met some.
Because the number of conservative fans of Beck, Limbaugh, Coulter et al. number in the tens of millions. Conservative admirers of Fred Phelps are a trivial proportion of conservatives; admirers of the right wing talking heads are a significant portion. That’s why it’s disingenuous to disown “dittoheads” as the conservative fringe.
Take public transit for a week in Chicago you’ll see how fast car hating people change their minds
Can you get 'em to speak out a little?
Liberals hate cars?
Then who is buying all of the damn Volvos?
I will say that the Volt is hardly positioned for mass-market appeal.
… AND speak English when they’re there for god’s sake! 
As to the OP (sort of):
So, I found this:
German Baptists against Cars!
Right. Liberals who live in LA really hate cars. :rolleyes:
Where I live there are a lot of Prius’s, and they all had Obama stickers. And they are also well loved. I think I read about a person who put a McCain sticker on hers - not because she supported McCain, but because it made her car easy to find in the parking lot.
I’m from New York, and I sure wish I could ride public transportation to work the way I could when I lived there. But I never hated cars.
I think this whole question is fabricated BS. I’m a ‘liberal’, and while I can agree with all of the points leveled against them so far, I would say it’s a far step from there to true “hatred” of cars. I own one, so does my wife; I don’t see any near term viable solution for getting me from where I am to where I want to be, so I anticipate owning one for the rest of my life. That doesn’t mean I’m not happy to ride my bike most places I need to go, and only take my car when it’s neccesary. Where exactly are all of these car-hatin’ libs?
I am also a realist, and I don’t forsee owning a gas-burning car for the rest of my life (60+ years), so I would support most any changes to be made to our current solution for getting me from ‘here’ to ‘there’. Initially it was a great idea, but like many things, further research has shown that it could be improved upon. Still not hatin’ though…
I guess after all the feedback let me clarify a little more:
If you are a liberal who hates the idea of cars, do you hate the car more because most cars currently run on oil/gas, or do you instead hate the car more because (regardless of how it runs) how it affects the built environment we live in?
And no, they do not necessarily go hand-in-hand.
If all cars ran on solar power only (not a drop of fossil fuel ever used) and its only byproduct was water vapor, well cars would still create the same kind of built environment we have now.
And even if cars always will run on fossil fuels, you can still have millions of cars being used in a place that was never, and isn’t really designed for them (Manhattan, Tokyo, etc.)
So which is worse? The fact that most cars operate on fossil fuel now, or the way cars create the current built environment? That was my original point.
What about all the conservatives who hate cars?
Your fallacy still exists, in assuming that those who hate cars are liberals.