# The Problems With Liberalism **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 19, 2009, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-problems-with-liberalism/514341 "2009-10-19T15:49:41Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2009, 3:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-problems-with-liberalism/514341/61 "2009-10-20T15:19:53Z")
> [@Orbifold](#): > > I think Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. understood quite well that sometimes civility has to go by the wayside. The man who wrote the letter from the Birmingham Jail understood quite well that in the face of indecency, civility for its own sake is no virtue. > > I distrust the word “civility”, quite frankly. It should be a means to an end, but these days it’s treated as an end in and of itself, and as a result we get a world full of smiling bastards who are shocked, shocked I tell you, when anyone is so uncivil as to actually call them on their indecent behaviour. Fuck civility. Treat people _decently_, and all else follows. MLK was non -violent. He ran into people that sicced dogs on them, beat them and murdered them. Who was being un-civil. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2009, 3:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-problems-with-liberalism/514341/62 "2009-10-20T15:31:16Z")
> [@Gyrate](#): > > Ascribing welfare as primarily responsible for “the breakdown of the black family” suggests that black families were doing just fine before then. I suspect this was not the case. Factors such as poverty, lack of education, limited employment opportunities and general societal discrimination are far more likely to be key components in this matter… Then one would expect that with [a decline in poverty among blacks,](http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/histpov/hstpov2.html) [greatly increased educational opportuniities](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_outcomes_in_the_United_States_by_race_and_other_classifications), the end of Jim Crow laws and significant decline in “general societal discrimination”, that black families would improve. Which, unfortunately, [is not the case](http://americanpowerblog.blogspot.com/2008/03/culture-of-black-out-of-wedlock-births.html) - > [@](#): > > In 1963, according to the famous Department of Labor report issued by Daniel Patrick Moynihan two years later, the out-of-wedlock birth rate among blacks was 23.6 percent while the rate among whites was only 3.07 percent. By 2005, according to the National Center for Health Statistics, the out-of-wedlock birth rate among non-Hispanic whites had jumped to 25.3 percent and the rate among non-Hispanic blacks stood at nearly 70 percent. > [@](#): > > The most severe “erosion of black families” in the 20th century occurred in the years after the civil rights movement reached its apotheosis, when black economic opportunities were expanding rapidly. So all the possible key factors you mention got better, but the result got worse. Which suggests that the factors are not as key as you mention. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2009, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-problems-with-liberalism/514341/63 "2009-10-20T16:27:32Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Then one would expect that with [a decline in poverty among blacks,](http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/histpov/hstpov2.html) [greatly increased educational opportuniities](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_outcomes_in_the_United_States_by_race_and_other_classifications), the end of Jim Crow laws and significant decline in “general societal discrimination”, that black families would improve. Which, unfortunately, [is not the case](http://americanpowerblog.blogspot.com/2008/03/culture-of-black-out-of-wedlock-births.html) - > > So all the possible key factors you mention got better, but the result got worse. Which suggests that the factors are not as key as you mention. > > Regards, > Shodan By and large, I’ve “kept my mouth shut” in this thread, intending to use it as outlined in the OP: hear what **Starving Artist** ’s issues with “liberalism” (either as it really exists in what liberals truly think, or what **SA** ’s perceptions of it are) may be, and respond to them. O think he and others, particularly **Shodan** , have had some valid points to make, both in the past and here – though I disagree that, in general, it is the fault of liberal policies (there may be some exceptions to that). What **Shodan** has to say here is a legitimate issue to address. Suppose for the sake of argument we assume **Shodan** ’s figures to be accurate, and accurately applied – if anyone sees an issue with them, either statistically or in application, they may riaise it, but I have no interest in doing so. I have a serious question here for **SHodan** : are you suggesting the out-of-wedlock rate simply shows a decline in the meaningfulness of marriage to people, particularly black couples, or do you infer from this a decline in the number of two-parent households, particularly among blacks. Take three families: the Andersons are married with children, the Browns are living together and raising children, the Collinses have children together but live separately, hving broken up (maybe divorced or legally separated, maybe a shack-up that didn’t last; it’s immaterial to their present existence). The statistics you advance contrast the Andersons with the Browns+Collinses; the ‘decline in family’ meme you appear to be advancing would contrast the Andersons+Browns with the Collinses. There’s also the issue of whether such comparisons are covertly racist. Please note that I’m not making accusations in this: if the inference is that black men are abandoning women and children at a rate several times that of white people, either there’s an explanation for why this might be so that takes impacts of racial issues into account, or the claim is racist in comparing people on racial grounds without a sound reason to do so. It’s much like advancing the statistic that Baptist men are five times as likely to cheat on their wives as Prsbyterians – unless there’s a darn good reason for comparing people by their religious affiliation in terms of infidelity, all you’re doing is poisoning the well. And my answer here is one most conservatives would find amenable – black men have no heroes with functional families. In general, what society these days has held up as role models for black youths and young men are: sports stars, young athletes living large on high incomes and not particularly interested in wife or family yet; a handful of black actors, none of whom are shown as heads of families; and musicians, predominantly rappers, who epitomize a hedonistic lifestyle contemptuous of others. The same is true for white celebrities, but to a far lower degree – there are couples held up to celebrity as couples among them, while in general there is not for blacks. One finds role models among one’s older family and acquaintances, 6to be sure, but also among those society holds up as famous. And if marital fidelity is in decline among the first group, and not in evidence among the second group, where do they find positive role models? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2009, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-problems-with-liberalism/514341/64 "2009-10-20T16:33:16Z")
What about those of us who are impossible to live with? Am I to be denied the myriad indignities of fatherhood simply because nobody in their right mind would marry me? ---
**Author:** ![Michael\_Ellis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/977dab/32.png) [@Michael\_Ellis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Michael_Ellis)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2009, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-problems-with-liberalism/514341/65 "2009-10-20T17:59:29Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > If you just want problems that liberalism has caused, how about the breakdown of the black family, which is exacerbated by welfare. Citation please. Peer-reviewed publication preferred. Blogs with ads for “Chebama” shirts don’t count. > [@](#): > > Of course, on reflection, it is hard to believe you really want any kind of discussion, or you would have started this in GD instead of the Pit. So apparently you are merely calling for a Two Minute Hate. > > Regards, > Shodan You’d be lucky to get in on the Two Minute Hate. You’re not even worth a Twenty Seconds Slight Disdain. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2009, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-problems-with-liberalism/514341/66 "2009-10-20T18:16:19Z")
> [@Polycarp](#): > > B > I have a serious question here for **SHodan** : are you suggesting the out-of-wedlock rate simply shows a decline in the meaningfulness of marriage to people, particularly black couples, or do you infer from this a decline in the number of two-parent households, particularly among blacks. Both. I don’t see what difference the distinction makes. Overall, children do better by pretty much any sociological measurement when they grow up in a household with the long-term presence of their fathers. (There is no need for a cite for this, so don’t bother.) > [@](#): > > Take three families: the Andersons are married with children, the Browns are living together and raising children, the Collinses have children together but live separately, hving broken up (maybe divorced or legally separated, maybe a shack-up that didn’t last; it’s immaterial to their present existence). The statistics you advance contrast the Andersons with the Browns+Collinses; the ‘decline in family’ meme you appear to be advancing would contrast the Andersons+Browns with the Collinses. It doesn’t make that much difference. We are talking long-term presence of a father in the home. [Only about ten percent of cohabitors are together for as long as five years](http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/1/8/5/2/1/p185217_index.html), which is less than the median length even of a marriage ending in divorce. So there aren’t nearly enough people in the Brown’s boat to affect the statistics. There is, in other words, no reason to assume that long-term cohabitation has replaced marriage in the black community. > [@](#): > > There’s also the issue of whether such comparisons are covertly racist. _:shrugs:_ It’s not really an issue. I’ve been debating race for years, and (I realize this isn’t what you’re doing but) when once the discussion happens across an issue that can’t get resolved by blaming whitey and calling for more government spending, there’s a charge of racism coming sooner or later. Which may point up yet another problem with liberalism, at least since 1970 or so. If it is racist to point out an uncomfortable truth, then it becomes a temptation to shrug one’s shoulders at other accusations of racism, even if they are real examples of it. Which is unfortunate. The old line is “a racist is someone winning an argument about race with a liberal”. There is an element of truth therein. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2009, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-problems-with-liberalism/514341/67 "2009-10-20T18:31:10Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > The old line is “a racist is someone winning an argument about race with a liberal”. There is an element of truth therein. > > Regards, > Shodan The old line about “Shodan is a fucking moron.” also carries an element of truth. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2009, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-problems-with-liberalism/514341/68 "2009-10-20T18:44:59Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > The old line about “Shodan is a fucking moron.” also carries an element of truth. Man, how you type with the sequoia in your eye really is something! Don’t you think it’s about time you learned another trick, pony-boy? ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2009, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-problems-with-liberalism/514341/69 "2009-10-20T18:48:52Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Man, how you type with the sequoia in your eye really is something! > > Don’t you think it’s about time you learned another trick, pony-boy? Why? Your unthinking asshole schtick seems to be running strong. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2009, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-problems-with-liberalism/514341/70 "2009-10-20T19:29:06Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > Why? Your unthinking asshole schtick seems to be running strong. Well, “unthinking” is somewhat of a deviation from “moron” so that’s something. But you really need a new trick, pony-boy. “Oooooo, the mighty **Lobohan** called someone stupid, a **moron** ”, etc. just doesn’t have any oomph to it any more. It didn’t have much to begin with, and you exhausted those reserves rather quickly. Have you no imagination at all? No creativity? Nor the realization that someone like **Shodan** can disagree with your position and that doesn’t make him a moron? There are plenty of posters I disagree with vehemently. But I know that doesn’t make them stupid. Even you. I’d say you’re probably not stupid. Limited? Yes. Unimaginative? Yes. Kneejerk? Yes. Stupid? Well, I must admit, that with your continued ride to one trickdom, you’re beginning to convince me of that, as well. Serious question: do you really think **Shodan** is a moron? Politics aside, do you think he is even unintelligent? Answer that. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2009, 7:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-problems-with-liberalism/514341/71 "2009-10-20T19:39:49Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Well, “unthinking” is somewhat of a deviation from “moron” so that’s something. But you really need a new trick, pony-boy. > > “Oooooo, the mighty **Lobohan** called someone stupid, a **moron** ”, etc. just doesn’t have any oomph to it any more. It didn’t have much to begin with, and you exhausted those reserves rather quickly. Have you no imagination at all? No creativity? Nor the realization that someone like **Shodan** can disagree with your position and that doesn’t make him a moron? There are plenty of posters I disagree with vehemently. But I know that doesn’t make them stupid. Even you. I’d say you’re probably not stupid. Limited? Yes. Unimaginative? Yes. Kneejerk? Yes. Stupid? Well, I must admit, that with your continued ride to one trickdom, you’re beginning to convince me of that, as well. > > Serious question: do you really think **Shodan** is a moron? Politics aside, do you think he is even unintelligent? > > Answer that. He doesn’t think about his positions and answers and posts as reflexively as an ant walking around an obstruction. He’s a robot. His programming states: Liberal bad, Conservative good. He searches and sifts for snippits that support his programming without weighing them at all. You however think too much. Which would generally be a good thing. Except you appear to be very very bad at it. Take your opinion on same sex marriage for instance. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2009, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-problems-with-liberalism/514341/72 "2009-10-20T20:01:54Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > He doesn’t think about his positions and answers and posts as reflexively as an ant walking around an obstruction. He’s a robot. His programming states: Liberal bad, Conservative good. He searches and sifts for snippits that support his programming without weighing them at all. > > You however think too much. Which would generally be a good thing. Except you appear to be very very bad at it. Take your opinion on same sex marriage for instance. Thanks for demonstrating my point. ---
**Author:** ![Knorf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/58956e/32.png) [@Knorf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Knorf)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2009, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-problems-with-liberalism/514341/73 "2009-10-20T20:06:20Z")
Shodan, you can’t point to the current state of black families and economic development and say this is proof that “liberalism” doesn’t work. For all you know, without welfare and such those same families might have ended up _far_ worse off. Lack of control group, etc. But sure, keep pining for the days of Jim Crow laws and trying to pretend you’re not racist. As for SA, all that fucking in the mud and wearing cruddy clothes destroyed his brain. Don’t expect anything but a rose-colored glasses view of the past, a litany of absurd complaints that are not remotely a direct consequence of any particular policy (liberal or otherwise), and SA shoving his pointy head into the sand when anybody presents an example of anything contrary to his unexamined assumptions. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2009, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-problems-with-liberalism/514341/74 "2009-10-20T20:10:06Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Thanks for demonstrating my point. You’re very welcome. But I think you’ll find that impartial observers may quibble about your notions of what constitutes evidence. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2009, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-problems-with-liberalism/514341/75 "2009-10-20T20:21:51Z")
The dreaded PBS and CNN are actually pretty polite. Compare to Rush, Scarborough and Back, and the difference is huge. The aggressive and nasty talk is one sided. Fox has made being completely nasty a technique to be used over and over. You would have to have a very tenuous grasp on reality to think the rough talk comes from the lefties. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2009, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-problems-with-liberalism/514341/76 "2009-10-20T20:25:33Z")
> [@Knorf](#): > > Shodan, you can’t point to the current state of black families and economic development and say this is proof that “liberalism” doesn’t work. For all you know, without welfare and such those same families might have ended up _far_ worse off. Lack of control group, etc. Which points out the major problem with liberalism, as well as with creationism and other faith systems - they are unfalsifiable. > [@](#): > > But sure, keep pining for the days of Jim Crow laws and trying to pretend you’re not racist. In the sense of “racist” I mentioned earlier, it is very hard to pretend that. 😃 Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![descamisado](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e480ec/32.png) [@descamisado](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/descamisado)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2009, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-problems-with-liberalism/514341/77 "2009-10-20T20:28:15Z")
Don’t they always say, “But Rush, Scarborough and Beck are N_R_OK\*”? ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2009, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-problems-with-liberalism/514341/78 "2009-10-20T20:29:33Z")
The “welfare = destruction of family” motif is interesting in that it ignores some of the realities of how welfare was implemented. During the welfare debates of the 1960s, much was made–from the Right side of the political spectrum–of the idea that while the “liberal” notion of not letting mothers and children starve was noble in a naive sort of way, “everyone knew” that the reality was that lazy fathers were simply going to live off their wives, so a lot of the welfare legislation was written to deny benefits to families where both parents were present, providing an impetus for destitute fathers to abandon their families so that the rest of the family could get some sort of aid. Now, of course, we just use the shorthand that “liberal” welfare policies destroyed the family while ignoring the ways in which “conservative” factors shaped that policy. There were a lot of mistakes made on the left side of the aisles of Congress and the legislatures, but the notion that all the problems arose from “liberal” changes, like the silly claim that civility was destroyed in Harvard Yard, in September, 1968, is merely silly posturing outside factual reality. ---
**Author:** ![Orbifold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/779978/32.png) [@Orbifold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Orbifold)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2009, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-problems-with-liberalism/514341/79 "2009-10-20T20:52:11Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > MLK was non -violent. He ran into people that sicced dogs on them, beat them and murdered them. Who was being un-civil. MLK also refused to sit quietly back and politely wait for people to stop denying him his rights. “Uncivil” does not mean “violent”, and “non-violent” does not necessarily mean “civil”. ---
**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:** [October 20, 2009, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-problems-with-liberalism/514341/80 "2009-10-20T21:15:15Z")
> [@lissener](#): > > Riiiiiight. That explains the whole current state of "Obama is a terrorist/the Antichrist/whatever tone of dialog from the right. At first, I read this as O **S** ama, and couldn’t understand the problem. 😛 What’s REALLY funny is I’ve actually seen that statement posted at _FREE REPUBLIC_, of all places!!! Probably the biggest “Liberals are TEH EEEVIL!!!” place around. :rolleyes: [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-problems-with-liberalism/514341.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-problems-with-liberalism/514341.md?page=5)