Why am I not a liberal?

Okay, this thread will probably be a trainwreck, but I paid my $4.95 like everyone else, so I think that entitles me to ask a reasonable question.

Whenever I try to participate in a political debate with a liberal, either here or in real life, there is an immediate assumption that I am a party-line following Republican. I’m not any kind of Republican, but once I’ve expressed any disagreement with liberal philosophy, the debate is basically over. The liberal is only willing to debate against a person who holds the stereotypical right-wing conservative position. Of course, I’ve known many conservatives and never met anyone who came close to meeting that stereotype, but that’s another debate.

The point I’d like to debate is this: Why do liberals react with such hostility to an educated, enlightened person with progressive views that happen to be slightly different than their own?

Here is the definition of liberalism from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary:

That pretty much describes me perfectly. It particular, I believe the following:
[ul]
[li]Representative Democracy, while flawed, is still the best political system available[/li][li]Government should not be any larger than necessary to carry out its essential functions[/li][li]A well trained, professional military with lots of high-tech weaponry is essential to protect a nation’s interests[/li][li]The government should not endorse or support any religious beliefs at all, ever[/li][li]Pacifism and egalitarianism are hopelessly naïve beliefs[/li][li]Drugs (including tobacco and alcohol), gambling, and prostitution should all be legal and regulated[/li][li]Persons or corporations who engage in the business of providing dangerous or deadly goods or services should not be held responsible for any negative effects of the same, as long as they make a full disclosure of the dangers involved[/li][li]The government should subsidize a basic health care plan for all citizens[/li][li]People living today should not be punished or receive compensation because people in the past did things that were acceptable at the time but are now considered wrong[/li][li]People should be allowed to express themselves in any way they see fit, as long as they don’t create a public safety hazard or encourage others to commit illegal acts[/li][li]The government should not entangle itself into its citizen’s personal relationships, except to enforce a valid contract[/li][li]Any competent, law-abiding adult should be allowed to own a firearm, as long as they pass a safety course and register the weapon with the local authorities[/li][li]It is a scientific fact that life begins at conception, and as such, abortion is wrong, but it should be legal and regulated as a matter of public health[/li][li]People should make an effort to understand different cultures and belief systems[/li][li]There should be reasonable safety standards for all workplaces[/li][li]There should be reasonable standards to protect the natural environment[/li][li]There should be reasonable rules concerning the amount of hours a person can be required to work, and what additional compensation a person should receive if asked to exceed them[/li][li]The government should not protect corporations or industries that unprofitable or unable to compete in a fair market[/li][li]No person or corporation should be allowed to hold a monopoly in any business area[/li][li]There should be reasonable rules governing the conduct of officers and equity holders of corporations[/li][li]The vast majority of the news media is biased towards the policies and politicians of the Democratic Party, and anyone who denies this is being disingenuous[/li][li]The most intelligent candidate for a political office is not necessarily the most qualified[/li][li]Hatred of anyone who holds a different viewpoint is not constructive and is a first step towards fascism[/li][/ul]
So there is some intersection between my beliefs and Democratic policy, some with Republican policy, some with both, but mostly neither. But what is it about these beliefs that incites such hatred from liberals? Is there something threatening about them? Do you consider them ignorant? If so, why? Even if you disagree, why can’t you acknowledge that they are valid viewpoints? Why do you think that a person who holds these views should not be allowed a voice in public debate? Why has liberalism evolved into an ideological straightjacket that mostly attracts dangerously fanatical demagogues?

Also, liberals, when did you stop beating your wives? :rolleyes:

Perhaps everyone who debates with you finds your conversation peppered with ludicrous stereotypes. :smack:

We are jealous of your incredible intelligence, widespread knowledge and copmletely fair starting position. (Not).
Did I mention your lack of cites?

If I were to debate with you, I would comment on some of your positions here as follows:

‘Government should not be any larger than necessary to carry out its essential functions’

Err, who is disagreeing with you? How about ‘Government should do its best?’
Oh wait! I see you have spotted that us liberals believe in large Government for its own sake, no matter how wasteful it gets. Damn - you’re good.

‘A well trained, professional military with lots of high-tech weaponry is essential to protect a nation’s interests’

Yes! Give every country weapons of mass destruction!!! The planet is now much safer. :eek: :confused:

‘Pacifism and egalitarianism are hopelessly naïve beliefs’

Gandi.
Martin Luther King.
Nelson Mandela.

Many of your beliefs are stated at the level of generality. The devil is in the detail that people have actually experienced.

For example what does it mean by “There should be reasonable standards to protect the natural environment”?

Secondly, the beliefs as you espouse them are often used as rhetoric for policies and actions that bear no rational relationship to the actual content of the sentences. So people are hearing: When he says X of course he means the well established and understood Y

However:

This is complete and unabridged, leather bound and hermetically stored bullshit. I remember 18 months ago railing against the claimed threat to the US from Iraq. Not on this board mind you, Liberal knows where. And you know what was most striking, nay mortifying at that time? I’ll tell you. The unbelievably soft ride the NY Times & the Washington Post were giving the administration. Marched in line as propaganda organs of the GOP administration. And all this without even starting on the various regular organs of RW propaganda, which are sufficiently notorious to resist naming.

Biased towards the Democratic Party? Helloo, Earth calling.

The news media as a whole is not biased toward any particular point of view. It is biased by the rush to get stories out and the desire to make people feel compelled to watch them.

And sevastopol is right. I was also vocally against the Iraq thing 18 months ago, and the media was ignoring all of the questions people were asking. The lack of weapons, the truth about the Powell presentation and the ‘mobile chemical labs,’ the metal tubes and the lack of a nuclear program, the questionable ties to Al Qaeda, Chalabi being a scumbag… these are all things people were using to argue against the war in late 2002 and early 2003. The media, by and large, was ignoring them entirely and treated them as if they were new stories this year. Most of this crap was no surprise to us when it ‘broke.’

In short it is a hatelful belief:

  • because it is false

  • it functions as a whisk to dismiss the mounting acres of considerate and necessary and correct criticism of this administration that has latterly appeared in the media.

How stupid do you think people are?

I only call it like I see it. I’m sure there are plenty of reasonable liberals out there, but they aren’t the ones who get involved in political debates. Just like there are plenty of reasonable conservatives, and there is even a group of people called “moderates” who can’t really be categorized as being either liberal or conservative. I know, a strange concept, some one who is not blindly loyal to one of two nearly-indistinguishable parties.

That’s irrelevant. My point is that you stated you’re worried the thread will turn into a train wreck, and then immediately started out on the attack:

“Even if you disagree, why can’t you acknowledge that they are valid viewpoints? Why do you think that a person who holds these views should not be allowed a voice in public debate? Why has liberalism evolved into an ideological straightjacket that mostly attracts dangerously fanatical demagogues?”

This is not only absurdly false, you’re clearly insulting the people whose opinion you claim to be asking for. Which is why I asked that question.

Such as?

When did I claim to have “incredible intelligence, widespread knowledge and copmletely fair starting position?” I didn’t.

What cites do I need? I’m speaking from personal experience. If you really want to make a big deal about cites, how about providing one for this post.

Did I say someone was disagreeing with me? I’m just trying to express my beliefs in a reasonably consise way.

Again, did I say that, or are you making assumptions about me based on no real knowledge except the fact that I’m not a party-line following liberal?

When did I mention WMDs? What are you even talking about?

and your point is?

Of course they are general. I was just trying to give you a feel for what I do believe, so that we could move on to the heart of the dbate, which is why are liberals so threatened by someone who holds beliefs similar to theirs but not identical?

That is true of pretty much any belief. As you say, the devil is in the details.

And at the time, the Democrats were supporting the war in Iraq. What is your point exactly?

Max, in case you honestly don’t understand this instead of starting a thinly-veiled Pit thread in GD:

The questions you are asking are not questions. They are totally biased and read much more like flames. If you think about it, it shouldn’t be surprising that people won’t give you a straight answer when you ask them “why are liberals so threatened by someone who holds beliefs similar to theirs but not identical?” You’re overgeneralizing (which you acknowledge), and it’s very hard to ask people to explain why ‘they’ behave in a certain manner when they actually don’t act that way. It’s that much harder when youre questions are asked in such an insulting tone.

I can remember hearing stories of that nature in late 2002 and early 2003. I can remember reading stories taking the Powell presentation apart piece by piece within a few days. I remember editorials decrying the Al Qaeda/Iraq link from when it was first suggested. The suggestion that the media ignored these stories en masse is just false.

Obviously they weren’t ignored entirely or I wouldn’t know about them either. They were not given the same kind of critical coverage they have received since then. I believe you can find the NY Times saying in a recent editorial that they failed by not providing more evenhanded analysis at the time.

I’m not sure who or what you are responding to here, but this post doesn’t seem to relate to anything I’ve said. What is hateful? What is false? Who is trying to whisk away criticism of the Bush administration?

How is that an attack? Aren’t liberals are proud of their views? I thought that they would leap at the chance to defend them. What is absurdly false or insulting about what I’ve said? They seem like reasonable questions.

Once again, I’m left wondering what is liberalism? If my liberals react with such hostility to my views then what do they believe? What is liberalism all about, anyways? I’ve asked the question a million times and never gotten an answer. I don’t know why I thought it would be any different this time.

I really didn’t mean to be insulting, and I don’t see how I have been. You are in fact one of the people I’m talking about. You have attacked people in various threads for expressing non-liberal opinions, and then characterised the poster as a right-wing conservative without a shread of evidence besides their expression of a single non-liberal viewpoint. You have done it to me, and I have seen you do it to others. So why is the question “why are liberals so threatened by someone who holds beliefs similar to theirs but not identical” not valid? Why are you unwilling to answer it? If I come across as insulting it’s because I’m frustrated by not being able to participate in debates without having totally unwarranted characterizations made about me.

Am I really being that unclear?

Normally, sure. When it’s obvious that the person asking the questions is more interested in attacking and tearing down the answers than in listening to what they say, most people (liberal or not) choose not to bother. It’s not worth the trouble starting an argument with someone who’s just in it to call you names.

This just goes to show you what a quixotic dope I am. Here’s your OP:

You’re assuming off the bat that the people you are talking to hate your beliefs. You don’t know that, and it’s likely false, knowing the crowd here. A question like this immediately puts people on the defensive because you’ve started off by saying something is wrong with them.

And you’re making it clear you think there is something wrong with them because they hate your beliefs. The sarcastic response you didn’t understand about “we’re all jealous of how smart you are” is based on this, since this question appears to carry the subtext that liberals are afraid of you because your views are too complex or intelligent or some such thing.

Nobody here has actually called you ignorant, but you’re asking they might (and implying they probably do).

Again, it’s only your assumption that the people you’re talking to, who haven’t even answered you yet, so you don’t know how they feel about anything, can’t acknowledge that your views are valid. You’ve already made it clear you think they feel threatened by your opinions.

You’re assuming this as well. Your entire first post is built on this chain of assumptions about liberals. If you think liberals are all these things, why bother asking them these questions? You’re not asking them to defend their views. This isn’t about their views. It’s about how you feel liberals are persecuting you because they are afraid of you.

PLEASE tell me I don’t have to explain why this is insulting.

And I said false because your entire post is built on the caricatures of liberals that you’ve created. Are we clear now? If you want to make a sincere attempt to debate, ask a question. “Why are liberals afraid of me?” and “Why are liberals mostly dangerously fanatical demagogues who don’t tolerate people with differing opinions?” don’t count.

I hope we’ve put that to bed now.

Cite please. Your interpretation of the things I’ve supposedly said is ridiculous. I don’t attack people for ‘expressing non-liberal opinions.’ If I attack people, it’s because they post something I disagree with. That’s the same thing everybody else does, so I fail to see how I’m different.

Among the things you’re assuming here is 1) just because a poster only expresses one particular view in one thread, I don’t know what his or her views on other topics are, 2) I’m attacking them for being conservative (whatever the fuck that means) instead of just disagreeing, 3) people are either liberal or conservative, and can’t be liberal on certain issues and conservative on others. When the hell have I characterized anyone in that way?

Don’t take it personally, but I don’t even remember talking to you before.

Because I think it’s a b.s. excuse for an attack.

If I’ve said it’s false, which I did, doesn’t that count as an answer? I don’t think what you have said is true, so I’m not going to pretend I do in order to come up with some explanation that will satisfy what appears to be your inferiority complex.

Then don’t do it yourself.

I await another post asking me why I haven’t answered your question.

You know what? The more I think about this question, the more absurd it gets. Nobody here has identical views. I don’t know what stock set of opinions you have decided all liberals have, but odds are they don’t all have them. Aside from your comments on abortion and the ‘liberal media,’ I agree with just about everything you wrote in your first post. I might differ from your typical liberal, for example, in that I absolutely loathe animal rights activists and am extremely wary of hate crime laws and on any kind of restrictions on the First Amendment.

Dunno, never noticed it from them myself.

Too cute.

  • “vast majority of the news media is biased towards the policies and politicians of the Democratic Party, and anyone who denies this is being disingenuous”
  • “The vast majority of the news media is biased towards the policies and politicians of the Democratic Party, and anyone who denies this is being disingenuous”
  • You.