# Why am I not a liberal? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 12, 2004, 9:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-am-i-not-a-liberal/264122 "2004-09-12T09:31:02Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2004, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-am-i-not-a-liberal/264122/41 "2004-09-12T18:11:08Z")
> [@](#): > > 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? You need to begin and end every post with the ritual denunciation of Bush. This will exorcise the demons from your thread, and prevent hijacks. Try something like this: “Given that Bush is a lying, scheming scumbag who deserves to be kicked out of office and thrown into prison where he will be repeatedly sodomized by German Shepherds, I would like to debate the pros and cons of the designated hitter rule in major-league baseball.” Give it a try. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2004, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-am-i-not-a-liberal/264122/42 "2004-09-12T18:45:27Z")
Now that you mention it, I’d pretty much forgotten about the Sammy Sosa debacle… ---
**Author:** ![pantom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/34f0e0/32.png) [@pantom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pantom)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2004, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-am-i-not-a-liberal/264122/43 "2004-09-12T18:52:49Z")
Huh? ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2004, 7:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-am-i-not-a-liberal/264122/44 "2004-09-12T19:18:20Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > “Given that Bush is a lying, scheming scumbag who deserves to be kicked out of office and thrown into prison where he will be repeatedly sodomized by German Shepherds, I would like to debate the pros and cons of the designated hitter rule in major-league baseball.” “I disagree, on the grounds that this would be a clear case of animal cruelty. I might, however, be persuaded to allow German Shepherds to act as designated hitters.” Whee, this is fun! Can I borrow some more of that straw, **Shodan**? It looks like you’ve got an endless supply. Back to the OP: I’m confused by one thing in particular. You ( **Max\_Castle** ) talk about debating with “liberals”. Then you (seem to) define liberals as those who follow > [@](#): > > a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties. Then you agree with that definition. So does that mean you consider yourself to be a “liberal”? Or are you using some other definition to describe the “liberals” with whom you’ve been debating, and if so could you tell us what it is? ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2004, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-am-i-not-a-liberal/264122/45 "2004-09-12T20:25:45Z")
Um, dude, I think you’re a liberal. Of course, on this many issues, you’re not going to find universal perfect agreement. The Left is not that monolithic. But you’d be right at home in the Democratic Party. Now, this says little about how “left” you are, but I notice I find many of your opinions unobjectionable, but I disagree with you on the following points:[ul] [li]A well trained, professional military with lots of high-tech weaponry is essential to protect a nation’s interests[/li]Well, OK, when you put it that way, but I’m unsure what you think our nation’s interests are, _if_ you think we need to have bigger bombs than anyone else. [li]The government should not endorse or support any religious beliefs at all, ever[/li]How do you define this? Is conscience a religious belief? Is humanism a religion? Conservationism? [li]Pacifism and egalitarianism are hopelessly naïve beliefs[/li]Well, pacifism, sure. But as an egalitarian I take exception. [li]Drugs (including tobacco and alcohol), gambling, and prostitution should all be legal and regulated[/li]I actually am opposed to professional gambling houses, also to legal prostitution. But disagreeing with me about that won’t kick you out of the “liberal” camp. [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]It depends on the service. The way you phrase this might protect conspirators to commit murder, like the middleman who provides the “service” of procuring a hitman. Rethink that principle. [li]The government should subsidize a basic health care plan for all citizens[/li]Debatable. Not that being liberal requires any given opinion on this. [li]The government should not protect corporations or industries that unprofitable or unable to compete in a fair market[/li]The supposed justice of free market is a convenient excuse for people who want to shaft their neighbors. [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]Well, maybe I’m just ingenuous. Funny thing though, on the left they say the mainstream media is biased toward conservatives & big business. Maybe they’re (gasp) moderate? [li]Hatred of anyone who holds a different viewpoint is not constructive and is a first step towards fascism[/li]OK, you’re mostly right there. But understand, it is not only our own hatred we must fight against, but the other’s hatred. And to abhor hatred is to hate the hater’s hating. [/ul]And then you said, > [@](#): > > Why has liberalism evolved into an ideological straightjacket that mostly attracts dangerously fanatical demagogues? which is funny, because the left is no more that way than the right. There are “cores” of rash adolescents & arrested adolescents in both. Don’t judge the entire side by our less thoughtful advocates. ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2004, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-am-i-not-a-liberal/264122/46 "2004-09-12T20:28:35Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > 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. [Indeed.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=237151) (Although [some](http://slate.msn.com/id/2101294/) argue that it was too little, too late.) > [@](#): > > 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 Right, as the demonstrated, for example, in 2000 when they immediately dismissed deceptive claims about Gore exaggerating but immediately took Cheney to task for making the ridiculous claim in his debate against Lieberman that “the government had nothing to do with” his enviable financial situation even though there is plenty of evidence that Cheney landed his job at Halliburton largely on the basis of the connections he had made while in government and did indeed preside over them markedly increasing the contracts they got from the government. Oh wait, sorry, that only happened in my dreams. And, as they demonstrated once again in 2003 when they were being very skeptical of Administration claims in the lead-up to the Iraq war and [they never misrepresented the circumstances under which the inspectors left Iraq back in 1998.](http://www.fair.org/activism/unscom-history.html) Oh wait, sorry, I was in dreamland again. > [@](#): > > And at the time, the Democrats were supporting the war in Iraq. What is your point exactly? Well, I agree that the Democrats abdicated their responsibility here to some degree. The fact is that the only ones among us who came close to the truth on Saddam’s WMD were those to the left of the Democrats. You pretty much got closest to the truth if you relied on what you read in _The Nation_ which is the real “liberal media”. But as a matter of fact, the Dems were quite split on the vote to give Bush the authority in Iraq. In fact, in the House, more Democrats voted against it than for it. And, it should be noted that some, if not most, of the Democrats (including Hillary Clinton and John Kerry to name just two prominent ones) who voted to give Bush that authority did so because he was saying it was necessary in order for him to be able to exert pressure on Iraq to let the inspectors in and come clean on the WMDs issue. The Liar-in-Chief also claimed that he would go to war only as a last resort. ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2004, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-am-i-not-a-liberal/264122/47 "2004-09-12T20:35:39Z")
[Here](http://www.rense.com/general30/grant.htm) and [here](http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/90778_cong11.shtml) are the actual numbers for the Democrats on the vote in October 2002 to grant Bush “war powers” in Iraq: > [@](#): > > [In the Senate,] Democrats were split, with 29 voting for the resolution and 21 against it. Also voting against it were Republican Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island and independent James Jeffords of Vermont. > [@](#): > > [In the House,] a majority of House Democrats – 126 of 208 – voted against the measure. My guess is that the number who voted for it was also inflated somewhat from what it would have been because of the proximity of the election. I’ll agree with those who argue that it was not very honorable (but not unsurprising) for some Democrats to vote against their conscience here for political reasons. But, it was even more shameful for the Bush Administration to play that whole election year ploy with the Iraq war. ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2004, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-am-i-not-a-liberal/264122/48 "2004-09-12T20:38:40Z")
My apologies in my first post here for not making it clear that the latter two quotes were from **Max Castle** , and not **Marley23** as the first one was. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2004, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-am-i-not-a-liberal/264122/49 "2004-09-12T20:42:30Z")
Glee, you can also add Jesus to the list of Gandi, Martin Luther King Jr, and Nelson Mandela. I think a turn-the-other-cheek ethic qualifies as pacifist. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2004, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-am-i-not-a-liberal/264122/50 "2004-09-12T20:51:44Z")
Regarding liberalism (modern American style) in journalism, the Pew Research Center and the Committee of Concerned Journalists conducted a survey of 547 “media professionals” and [reported findings](http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000517184) in May, 2004 that people identified themselves as follows: **The General Public** Liberal: 20% Conservative: 33% **National Media** Liberal: 34% Conservative: 7% **Local Media** Liberal: 23% Conservative: 12% **Internet Media** Liberal: 27% Conservative: 13% ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2004, 8:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-am-i-not-a-liberal/264122/51 "2004-09-12T20:59:38Z")
I should note that the General Public numbers were from a separate Pew poll. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2004, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-am-i-not-a-liberal/264122/52 "2004-09-12T21:10:36Z")
Given the utter lack of any dependable definition of the terms “liberal” and “conservative”, I’m hard pressed to divine your point. It would be like taking a survey of Jewish people, and operating on the presumption that hyper-observant Hasidic types are fundamentally similar to non-observant nominal Jews. The terms have no meaning, poll numbers based upon them have abstract insignificance. ---
**Author:** ![glee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b5a626/32.png) [@glee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/glee)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2004, 9:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-am-i-not-a-liberal/264122/53 "2004-09-12T21:26:57Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > Glee, you can also add Jesus to the list of Gandi, Martin Luther King Jr, and Nelson Mandela. I think a turn-the-other-cheek ethic qualifies as pacifist. I was a little nervous about bringing religion in - but of course you’re correct. And how about those UK suffragettes going pacifically for the vote after the 1st World War… ---
**Author:** ![mangeorge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d78d45/32.png) [@mangeorge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mangeorge)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2004, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-am-i-not-a-liberal/264122/54 "2004-09-12T21:35:25Z")
I read some your thoughts and philosophies. You can borrow my limo _anytime_. 😉 Peace, mangeorge ---
**Author:** ![PigArcher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/bcef8e/32.png) [@PigArcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PigArcher)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2004, 10:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-am-i-not-a-liberal/264122/55 "2004-09-12T22:33:31Z")
Jeez, way to many posts to respond to each one individually like I’d hoped to do. I’ll pick and choose some points to respond to: > [@](#): > > 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. Have I called anyone names or given any indication that that’s my intention? That you would think this seems to lend creadance to my point that liberals automatically take a negative view towards anyone who holds different views. I’m sorry if my OP came across as a little harsh; it was kind of late when I wrote it. But I’d really like to understand how liberals think. I’d like to think that I could call myself a liberal without signing my own death warrant. It seems blindingly obvious to me that there is a large subset of liberals who feel that anyone who doesn’t toe the party line shouldn’t be allowed a voice in public debate and the formation of public policy, and should probably be locked up to prevent the spread of their ignorant reactionary views. > [@](#): > > 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. But they have posted their opinions in other threads. It is not like I’m just making this up out of thin air. If you read any of the political threads in GD, you’ll see the attitudes I’m talking about on a regular basis. > [@](#): > > 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. Because I’d like to believe that people are basically good, which is another point that liberals seem to disagree with me on. I’d really like to believe that liberals aren’t intent on persecuting people because of their beliefs (not because they are afraid, I never said that). I have considerable evidence that they are. Please prove to me they are not. > [@](#): > > 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. Okay, how’s this question: “why is it that whenever someone posts in a thread expressing a non-liberal opinion, there is an immediate dogpile from liberal posters characterizing the first poster as a stereotypical right-wing conservative? Doesn’t this seem to indicate a high level of intolerance among liberals? And since liberals claim to be tolerant, doesn’t the lack of tolerance that they display on a regular basis seem to indicate a degree of hypocracy?” > [@](#): > > 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. Ugh, I’ve been trying to sort through your 7500+ posts but I don’t have all week. The thread where you attacked me about a year ago seems to have disappeared. [Here’s](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=5249703&postcount=83) one that seems to indicate what I’m talking about, but I’d have to read through **duffer** ’s post to really know if you were unfair or not. Just randomly throwing Reagan into the debate seems a little suspect to me, though. > [@](#): > > 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? Actually, I haven’t made any of those assumptions. In fact, I would be inclined to assume the opposite. > [@](#): > > 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. If that’s true, then why do you call yourself a liberal? Aren’t you at all bothered that if you expressed your true views you would most likely be decried as a reactionary? > [@](#): > > Dunno, never noticed it from them myself. Try reading some GD threads every now and then. > [@](#): > > Too cute. Ah, condensation, the greatest weapon in a master debater’s arsenal > [@](#): > > - Who is trying to whisk away criticism of the Bush administration? > - You. When and where? Or are you just assuming that I am because I don’t hold exactally the same views as you? I’m all for criticising both Bush and Kerry. There is certainly plenty to criticise both on. > [@](#): > > These criteria are meaningless. Liberals and conservatives of all stripes can claim these as their own, because the word reasonable is so subjective. Of course, and like I’ve said I was just trying to give a general impression of what I believe. I included points like “reasonable environment protection” to counter the common argument that anyone who’s not a liberal doesn’t care about the environment. And so forth with other points. > [@](#): > > Apparently you believe that liberals are, by definition, without reason. No, I don’t. if fact I said: > [@](#): > > I’m sure there are plenty of reasonable liberals out there > [@](#): > > Yeah, why didn’t we ever hear anything about that secret affair Bill Clinton had with Monica Lewinsky? The problem with conservatives and their view of the media is that they cannot abide balanced reporting. If the media reports anything negative about conservative politicians or causes, it is immediately branded as “liberal bias”, even though the same media drags liberal politicians and causes over the coals whenever the opportunity arises. Look how much play the Swiftboat Liars got; how is this evidence of a liberal bias? We must be reading different news. I seem to remeber a lot of downplaying of Clinton’s sexual scandals (not that I really care or want to know what he did with his penis). I agree that in the last couple of years the media has been pretty soft on Bush, but if we look at the last 30 years or so, there has been a noticable bias towards Democratic politicians and policies. If you want to talk about the Swift boat crowd, that’s another debate. > [@](#): > > I have question for you: In your opinion, which political viewpoint, liberal or conservative, practices critical thinking to a geater degree? Please show examples. Neither, really. The average conservative seems to be a little more open to different viewpoints than the average liberal, but that’s just my perception based on people I’ve known. > [@](#): > > (Liberal’s entire post) I’d have trouble disagreeing with anything you said, but as I’ve indicated, I was trying to give a general impression of my views, not write a manifesto. But this one leaped out at me: > [@](#): > > Doesn’t your advocacy for the legalization of drugs condemn you by your own standard of allowable expression? Advocating legalization of drugs is not the same as encouraging others to take drugs illegally. At least I think that’s what you’re getting at; I had to reread that about a half-dezen times before it made any sense at all. > [@](#): > > But to watch Chris Matthews this morning, you’d think the Fat Lady was already done with her bows and taking off her makeup. So much for bias towards the Democrats, eh? All the polls I have seen show Bush in the lead. In spite of their bias (which I agree has been lessened of late), the media aren’t going to be blatantly false. A bias is just that - a bias - a spin added to certain stories to guide their audience into agreeing with the viewpoint they consider correct. > [@](#): > > And yes, if you say that, you’re revealing yourself as right-wing. Live with it. Explain please. > [@](#): > > I think Marley23’s request for a citation is the best chance to resolve this issue. Can you provide 2 or three examples where she has, as you say, “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.” What about others? Can you do the same for another liberal poster or 2? Perhaps we can examine the posts and determine why our views differ. Ugh, you really want me to wade through all that dreck? Do you not read GD much? Here goes: In [this thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=261943), **Excalibre** was, to put it nicely, extremely critical of me for not being as big of a fan of Michael Moore as him. He proceeded to make all sorts of unwarrented and unreasonable characterizations about me. I gave him the opportunity to back down quietly, but instead he stepped up his attacks and then disappeared after I had countered them all. In [this thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=266711), **rjung** , **GaWd** and a few others decided that since I was of the opinion that liberals try to shut down disent, I must be a party-line hugging Republican. Hypocracy, anyone? Those are just the two most recent threads I have tried to participate in. I could come up with others, including lots that I never posted in, but I haven’t got all day. > [@](#): > > What I see as the fundamental difference between liberals and conservatives is that we take a more positive view of human nature. Explain please. I have always been under the impression that liberals believed people to be inherently evil. Hence the need for a large, oppressive government to keep people in line. > [@](#): > > From your initial post: > > ‘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’ > > ‘The liberal is only willing to debate against a person who holds the stereotypical right-wing conservative position.’ > > ‘Why do liberals react with such hostility to an educated, enlightened person with progressive views that happen to be slightly different than their own?’ > > ‘Why has liberalism evolved into an ideological straightjacket that mostly attracts dangerously fanatical demagogues?’ Stereotypes, yes, of course. Ludicrous? Apparantly not. > [@](#): > > And your initial post indeed showed no sign of any of the above. Ah, the ad hominum. Yet another tool in the arsenal of the master debator. > [@](#): > > If you had said “I’ve spoken to a few acquaintances, and they were all unwilling to debate”, that would be based on your personal experience. We could discuss e.g. whether your location, or the level of education of your acquaintances made a difference. I was speaking mostly about the SDMB. Sorry if that wasn’t clear. > [@](#): > > Please give examples of the ‘ideological straightjacket’ and the ‘dangerously fanatical demagogues’ in this liberal organisation. Michael Moore. Al Franken. > [@](#): > > Can’t you see the above is a meaningless platitude? Please cite any politician (preferably a liberal) who has said ‘Government should be any larger than necessary to carry out its essential functions’. Of course it’s a meaningless platitude. did I ever say it wasn’t? > [@](#): > > - you are male > - you are young > - you are from a rural area > - you don’t have a college education > - you have not travelled abroad - yes - impossible to answer, since “youth” is a relative term. I am in my early thirties - no, I live in one of the largest urban areas in the world - wrong, I am a full time graduate student - wrong, i have travelled extensively throughout Europe and Central America > [@](#): > > Well I assumed by ‘lots of high-tech weaponry’ that you meant nuclear weapons, intercontinental missiles with chemical warheads and so on. What exactly did you mean, and would you want North Korea, Iran etc to have it? No, I mean planes, helicopters, artillery, etc. You know, all the equipment used in convential warfare. And while every nation has a right to defend itself, North Korea and Iran are dictatorships, and therefore not legitimate nations. > [@](#): > > Um, do you know anything about these people? > > Gandhi persuaded the mighty British Empire to give India independence, through pacifism. > Martin Luther King achieved great reforms towards racial equality through non-violent means. > > I’ll leave you to find out about Mandela yourself. > (hint: He won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1993.) Tell it to the guy who got ran over by a tank in Tianamin Square. Tell it to all the millions of people who died under oppressive regimes such as the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany. Gahndi succedded because the British realized they couldn’t keep a nation of millions under their thumb for much longer. If they hadn’t granted India it’s independence, there most likely would have been a long, bloody war. MLK succedded because the general population was becoming more aware of the raw deal that minorities were receiving. Social change was coming soon, he just helped hurry it along. Ditto for Mandela. But anyways, that has nothing to do with my statement that “Pacifism and egalitarianism are hopelessly naïve beliefs.” Pacifism means rejecting war outright, under any circumstances. Egalitarianism means ignoring real differences between individuals and enforcing a completely nonsensical ideal of “equality” on a populace. I don’t see how any of your examples apply to either of these ideals. > [@](#): > > Back to the OP: I’m confused by one thing in particular. You (Max\_Castle) talk about debating with “liberals”. Then you (seem to) define liberals as those who follow > Quote: > a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties. > > Then you agree with that definition. > > So does that mean you consider yourself to be a “liberal”? Or are you using some other definition to describe the “liberals” with whom you’ve been debating, and if so could you tell us what it is? My point was that definition does not seem to describe liberals at all, but it does describe me. Ugh, I can’t keep this up much longer. I need a break… ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2004, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-am-i-not-a-liberal/264122/56 "2004-09-12T22:42:07Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Given the utter lack of any dependable definition of the terms “liberal” and “conservative”, I’m hard pressed to divine your point. It would be like taking a survey of Jewish people, and operating on the presumption that hyper-observant Hasidic types are fundamentally similar to non-observant nominal Jews. > > The terms have no meaning, poll numbers based upon them have abstract insignificance. […shrug…] Those polled apparently understood what was meant. And I’d wager that the people who are asking the questions and making the assertions here understand what is meant. And unless you do not use the terms yourself, you understand what they mean as well. ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2004, 11:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-am-i-not-a-liberal/264122/57 "2004-09-12T23:10:04Z")
> [@Max\_Castle](#): > > Michael Moore. Al Franken. Have you looked at anything by Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh? I’ll put our “fanatical ideologues” up against the right-wing’s any day! ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2004, 11:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-am-i-not-a-liberal/264122/58 "2004-09-12T23:17:35Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > Regarding liberalism (modern American style) in journalism, the Pew Research Center and the Committee of Concerned Journalists conducted a survey of 547 “media professionals” and [reported findings](http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000517184) in May, 2004 that people identified themselves as follows: From that article that you cite: > [@](#): > > In an essay accompanying the survey, the directors of the sponsoring groups – Bill Kovach, Tom Rosenstiel and Amy Mitchell --declare that broad conclusions about the political findings should be tempered by analyzing some of the details in the findings. For example, they identify strong “libertarian” leanings among journalists, including doubts about the role of “big government.” And, in fact, this is in rough agreement with what the liberal media watchdog group FAIR found in surveying journalists, namely that they tend to be left of the public on social issues but right of the public on economic ones. The left-of-center on social issues is not in fact that surprising since I think that views on such issues tend to correlate quite strongly with educational level and with urban vs. rural living and journalists probably tend to be fairly well educated and urban relative to the general public. And, it is not unlike this message board…The liberal and libertarian ends of the spectrum are well-represented but the religious right views are almost completely absent. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2004, 11:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-am-i-not-a-liberal/264122/59 "2004-09-12T23:24:15Z")
Yes, I noticed that from the article, and I’m glad you brought it up. It seems to be a common misconception that libertarians identify more with the right than with the left. But as I’ve said before, they both seem to be two hands on the same ogre — one can’t stay out of my pocket, and the other can’t stay off my zipper. ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2004, 11:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-am-i-not-a-liberal/264122/60 "2004-09-12T23:40:23Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > It seems to be a common misconception that libertarians identify more with the right than with the left. But as I’ve said before, they both seem to be two hands on the same ogre — one can’t stay out of my pocket, and the other can’t stay off my zipper. Well, that “misconception” has been spread by libertarians themselves since IMHO they seem more often to worry about their wallet than their zipper when push-comes-to-shove in the voting booth or in terms of their general influence on the political scene (although some of you have shown a growing disgust for Bush, finally). I know that Cato does, for example, get into issues of drug legalization and such but they seem to spend a lot more of their resources on the economic issues. I think part of the reason for this, by they way, is the funding from these various libertarian think-tanks like Cato comes largely from corporations or a few wealthy conservative oilmen who really care much more about the economics issues than the civil libertarian ones (to put it mildly…some probably don’t give a flying crap about civil liberties issues). If you want people to identify libertarianism more with the civil liberties issues, you might need to work harder to avoid libertarianism getting hijacked by these folks. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-am-i-not-a-liberal/264122.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-am-i-not-a-liberal/264122.md?page=4)