# Why are liberals referred to as "bedwetters"? **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [July 21, 2007, 6:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-liberals-referred-to-as-bedwetters/412640 "2007-07-21T06:24:10Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2007, 1:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-liberals-referred-to-as-bedwetters/412640/61 "2007-07-22T01:13:22Z")
[QUOTE=bob\_co] Um NAZI means national socialist political party of the WWII era germany. They were the Democratic party of their time. > **[Nazism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi)** > > Final Solution Pre-Machtergreifung Post-Machtergreifung [/QUOTE] :dubious: We all **know** who they were, but in what sense were they “the Democratic party of their time”? ---
**Author:** ![Larry\_Borgia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/larry_borgia/32/156_2.png) [@Larry\_Borgia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Larry_Borgia)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2007, 1:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-liberals-referred-to-as-bedwetters/412640/62 "2007-07-22T01:14:36Z")
[QUOTE=bob\_co] GDR was not a democracy. Niether is what the Democrats propose. They must both rely on the rhetoric about keeping the man down. I think that we have pretty much figured out that a bedwetter is some sort of an isolationist person. Probably someone against nuclear proliferation but doesn’t know how to accomplish that. [/QUOTE] Dude, your posts keep getting loopier and loopier. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2007, 1:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-liberals-referred-to-as-bedwetters/412640/63 "2007-07-22T01:15:52Z")
[QUOTE=Frank] Good heavens! I’m glad you told me that. I shall, in the near future, join the New Democratic Party. [/QUOTE] [You’ll have to move to Canada.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_democratic_party) ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2007, 1:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-liberals-referred-to-as-bedwetters/412640/64 "2007-07-22T01:18:35Z")
[QUOTE=Larry Borgia] Dude, your posts keep getting loopier and loopier. [/QUOTE] I have to say that when I stopped reading his posts with any sense of seriousness, the threads have become very enjoyable reading. Amusing, even. I’m fearful though that the ward attendant will find a new crayon soon, and he’ll forget about the computer. ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2007, 1:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-liberals-referred-to-as-bedwetters/412640/65 "2007-07-22T01:18:56Z")
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton] [You’ll have to move to Canada.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_democratic_party) [/QUOTE] Whoosh. I am. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2007, 1:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-liberals-referred-to-as-bedwetters/412640/66 "2007-07-22T01:19:19Z")
[QUOTE=bob\_co] I think that we have pretty much figured out that a bedwetter is some sort of an isolationist person. Probably someone against nuclear proliferation but doesn’t know how to accomplish that. [/QUOTE] No, all we have established is that “bedwetter,” like “wingnut” and “moonbat,” is what semanticist and Senator [S.I. Hayakawa](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S._I._Hayakawa) classified as a [“snarl word.”](http://english.unitecnology.ac.nz/resources/resources/exp_lang/words_meanings.html) ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2007, 5:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-liberals-referred-to-as-bedwetters/412640/67 "2007-07-22T05:57:01Z")
[QUOTE=bob\_co] Um NAZI means national socialist political party of the WWII era germany. They were the Democratic party of their time. > **[Nazism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi)** > > Final Solution Pre-Machtergreifung Post-Machtergreifung Get over it already. It does not mean that they were racists or war mongers. It’s just a name for a party. It is just so ironic that people keep calling this administration WWII German Democrats. Get it? [/QUOTE] [http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/GERnazi.htm](http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/GERnazi.htm) > [@](#): > > **In April, 1920, Hitler advocated that the party should change its name to the National Socialist German Workers Party (NSDAP). Hitler had always been hostile to socialist ideas, especially those that involved racial or sexual equality. However, socialism was a popular political philosophy in Germany after the First World War.** This was reflected in the growth in the **German Social Democrat Party (SDP), the largest political party in Germany.**\* > > **Hitler, therefore redefined socialism by placing the word ‘National’ before it. He claimed he was only in favour of equality for those who had “German blood”. Jews and other “aliens” would lose their rights of citizenship, and immigration of non-Germans should be brought to an end.** > > In February 1920, the NSDAP published its first programme which became known as the “Twenty-Five Points”. In the programme the party refused to accept the terms of the Versailles Treaty and called for the reunification of all German people. To reinforce their ideas on nationalism, equal rights were only to be given to German citizens. “Foreigners” and “aliens” would be denied these rights. > > To appeal to the working class and socialists, the programme included several measures that would redistribute income and war profits, profit-sharing in large industries, nationalization of trusts, increases in old-age pensions and free education. > > On 24th February, 1920, the NSDAP (later nicknamed the Nazi Party) held a mass rally where it announced its new programme. The rally was attended by over 2,000 people, a great improvement on the 25 people who were at Hitler’s first party meeting. In Europe there are no more discussions on this subject, Nazis were the extreme right. An extension of Fasism. > **[Mises U 2006 | Mises Institute](https://mises.org/podcasts/mises-u-2006?d7_alias_migrate=1&control=75)** > > Recordings of the lectures presented at Mises University: 30 July–5 August 2006. > [@](#): > > Whenever the fascists came to power in Europe, they banned the work of the Austrian economists. The reason: the Austrians wrote as vehemently against “right-wing” central planning as against old-fashioned left-wing socialism. While many are alert to the dangers of socialism,\*\* far fewer know of the danger of fascism, which might be defined as economic regimentation toward monopolized state capitalism.\*\* The Big German industrialists gave the power to Hitler and in exchange they survived the war, the so-called nationalization was a sham. The previous Wiemar Republic nationalized the banks, Hitler gave the banks back to the former owners. (as long as they had rid of any Jewish board members) Virtually everything what the Nazis said that they were going to do for the German workers was a sham. The reality was that they where the extreme right wing and they defeated the German communist party on the way to power. You are just swallowing propaganda, and out of date propaganda to boot. \*Yeah, funny thing, the German Social Democrat Party (SDP) were the socialists and they did not use the word socialist on their name, I tell you, if a “great mind” like billy **bob\_co** had been there he would have missed it, unfortunately Hitler did not: > **[Social Democratic Party of Germany](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Democratic_Party_of_Germany)** > > The Social Democratic Party of Germany\[a\] is a social democratic political party in Germany. It is one of the major parties of contemporary Germany. Lars Klingbeil has been the party's leader since the 2021 SPD federal Party convention together with Bärbel Bas, who joined him in June 2025. After losing the 2025 federal election, the party is part of the Merz government as the junior coalition partner. The SPD is a member of 12 of the 16 German state governments and is a leading partner in seven ... > [@](#): > > Being the only party in the Reichstag to have voted against the Enabling Act (with the Communist Party prevented from voting), the SPD was banned in the Summer of 1933 by the new Nazi government. Many of its members were jailed or sent to Nazi concentration camps. ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2007, 2:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-liberals-referred-to-as-bedwetters/412640/68 "2007-07-22T14:32:06Z")
[QUOTE=elucidator] No, no, no. The man is who you stick it to, he keeps _you_ down. Unless he’s you, of course. [/QUOTE] I’m the man, and you’re the man, and he’s the fucking man as well so he can point that fucking finger up his ass. [/tool] ---
**Author:** ![scotandrsn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a4c791/32.png) [@scotandrsn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scotandrsn)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2007, 3:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-liberals-referred-to-as-bedwetters/412640/69 "2007-07-22T15:10:19Z")
[QUOTE=smiling bandit] Thus far I am the sole person here to attempt to actually answer the question. … [/QUOTE] That’s as may be, but it wasn’t much of an answer, was it? You say it represents a notion that, from a conservative point of view, liberals are fearful, and as an example, you offer that some liberals are so fearful of violence, they want to ban video games. However, as **Fear Itself** pointed out (despite the always useful commentary of **Sarahfeena** ), there is a strain of conservative thought that wishes to ban Harry Potter for promoting Satan. (For the record, I think it’s stupid and pointless to ban either video games or Harry Potter). So on one side, we have people who are so fearful of something that doesn’t exist, and whose harmfulness therefore can not be demonstrated, that they want to ban something that doesn’t depict it (Satan is never mentioned in HP to my knowledge), characterizing as “fearful” people on the other side who are so fearful of something that does exist, and whose harmfulness can be demonstrated, that they want to ban something that does depict it. I don’t get how those on the first side can justify such a notion, unless they can be characterized as “bottomlessly hypocritical”. ---
**Author:** ![Sarahfeena](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sarahfeena/32/519_2.png) [@Sarahfeena](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sarahfeena)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2007, 3:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-liberals-referred-to-as-bedwetters/412640/70 "2007-07-22T15:16:58Z")
[QUOTE=scotandrsn] That’s as may be, but it wasn’t much of an answer, was it? You say it represents a notion that, from a conservative point of view, liberals are fearful, and as an example, you offer that some liberals are so fearful of violence, they want to ban video games. However, as **Fear Itself** pointed out (despite the always useful commentary of **Sarahfeena** ), there is a strain of conservative thought that wishes to ban Harry Potter for promoting Satan. (For the record, I think it’s stupid and pointless to ban either video games or Harry Potter). So on one side, we have people who are so fearful of something that doesn’t exist, and whose harmfulness therefore can not be demonstrated, that they want to ban something that doesn’t depict it (Satan is never mentioned in HP to my knowledge), characterizing as “fearful” people on the other side who are so fearful of something that does exist, and whose harmfulness can be demonstrated, that they want to ban something that does depict it. I don’t get how those on the first side can justify such a notion, unless they can be characterized as “bottomlessly hypocritical”. [/QUOTE] I think it was a perfectly fine answer to the OP’s question. Maybe you need some “useful commentary,” because you are once again missing the fact that **smiling bandit** wasn’t necessarily defending or justifying the phrase, but merely trying to explain the conservative thinking behind it. The OP merely asked WHY the phrase is used. And **smiling bandit** is right…his is the only post so far that has actually answered that question. ---
**Author:** ![scotandrsn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a4c791/32.png) [@scotandrsn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scotandrsn)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2007, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-liberals-referred-to-as-bedwetters/412640/71 "2007-07-22T16:03:05Z")
[QUOTE=Sarahfeena] I think it was a perfectly fine answer to the OP’s question. Maybe you need some “useful commentary,” because you are once again missing the fact that **smiling bandit** wasn’t necessarily defending or justifying the phrase, but merely trying to explain the conservative thinking behind it. The OP merely asked WHY the phrase is used. And **smiling bandit** is right…his is the only post so far that has actually answered that question. [/QUOTE] Except that it’s an answer that begs the question, so it’s not particularly explanatory. “Because liberals are such fearful people some of them want to ban video games for their depicted violence” isn’t an explanation a reasonable person can accept if that is what is proferred by people who share a political philosophy with those so fearful they wish to ban children’s books because of their undepicted Satanism. Are the Harry-Potter-haters also referred to as “bedwetters” by the same people who use the term to refer to the Left? Some evidence of that might go toward making it all make sense. I’ve already acknowledged that **smiling bandit** tried to answer the question. Doesn’t stop it from being a shitty answer. ---
**Author:** ![Larry\_Borgia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/larry_borgia/32/156_2.png) [@Larry\_Borgia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Larry_Borgia)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2007, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-liberals-referred-to-as-bedwetters/412640/72 "2007-07-22T16:08:11Z")
Also, what’s this about liberals wanting to ban video games? Since when is [Jack Thompson](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Thompson_%28attorney%29) a liberal? Most of the censorious people out there seem pretty conservative to me. ---
**Author:** ![Sarahfeena](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sarahfeena/32/519_2.png) [@Sarahfeena](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sarahfeena)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2007, 4:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-liberals-referred-to-as-bedwetters/412640/73 "2007-07-22T16:10:05Z")
[QUOTE=scotandrsn] Except that it’s an answer that begs the question, so it’s not particularly explanatory. “Because liberals are such fearful people some of them want to ban video games for their depicted violence” isn’t an explanation a reasonable person can accept if that is what is proferred by people who share a political philosophy with those so fearful they wish to ban children’s books because of their undepicted Satanism. Are the Harry-Potter-haters also referred to as “bedwetters” by the same people who use the term to refer to the Left? Some evidence of that might go toward making it all make sense. I’ve already acknowledged that **smiling bandit** tried to answer the question. Doesn’t stop it from being a shitty answer. [/QUOTE] You are confusing the messenger with the message. If you don’t agree with the thinking, that’s one thing. But that doesn’t mean that smiling bandit didn’t give an accurate description of the thinking, however flawed that thinking may be. ---
**Author:** ![athelas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/5e9695/32.png) [@athelas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/athelas)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2007, 4:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-liberals-referred-to-as-bedwetters/412640/74 "2007-07-22T16:10:25Z")
Probably an effect of Hillary’s infamous [campaign](http://www.senate.gov/~clinton/news/statements/details.cfm?id=240603). ---
**Author:** ![scotandrsn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a4c791/32.png) [@scotandrsn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scotandrsn)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2007, 4:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-liberals-referred-to-as-bedwetters/412640/75 "2007-07-22T16:17:38Z")
[QUOTE=Sarahfeena] You are confusing the messenger with the message. If you don’t agree with the thinking, that’s one thing. But that doesn’t mean that smiling bandit didn’t give an accurate description of the thinking, however flawed that thinking may be. [/QUOTE] I disagree. If “bedwetters” is a term applicable to “people so fearful of something that some of them want to ban anything suggesting it”, then both groups I mentioned would have the epithet applied to them. If that isn’t the case, then either there’s nothing going on that could be described as “thinking”, flawed or otherwise, or there’s some other reason for the term. [QUOTE=athelas] Probably an effect of Hillary’s infamous campaign. [/QUOTE] That only works if you mistake Hillary Clinton for a Liberal. ---
**Author:** ![Sarahfeena](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sarahfeena/32/519_2.png) [@Sarahfeena](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sarahfeena)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2007, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-liberals-referred-to-as-bedwetters/412640/76 "2007-07-22T16:21:58Z")
[QUOTE=scotandrsn] I disagree. If “bedwetters” is a term applicable to “people so fearful of something that some of them want to ban anything suggesting it”, then both groups I mentioned would have the epithet applied to them. If that isn’t the case, then either there’s nothing going on that could be described as “thinking”, flawed or otherwise, or there’s some other reason for the term. [/QUOTE] I have no idea what you are disagreeing with. **smiling bandit** gave an explanation for what the term “liberal bedwetters” is supposed to mean. He never mentioned anything about conservative bedwetters, or whether the term should apply to them, too…since that wasn’t the subject of the OP. > [@](#): > > That only works if you mistake Hillary Clinton for a Liberal. Oh, sure, now Hillary is part of the far right. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2007, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-liberals-referred-to-as-bedwetters/412640/77 "2007-07-22T16:49:03Z")
[QUOTE=Sarahfeena] **smiling bandit** gave an explanation for what the term “liberal bedwetters” is supposed to mean. [/QUOTE] Which is quite different from the actual question posed in the OP: \*\*Why are liberals referred to as “bedwetters”? \*\* **smiling bandit** gave an answer that presupposes (as does the OP) that “bedwetter” refers to liberals, implying that only liberals exhibit the fear that merits such an appellation. The reality, of course, is that there are such people in all political philosophies, so it is indeed a [“Begging the Question”](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question) fallacy. ---
**Author:** ![Sarahfeena](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sarahfeena/32/519_2.png) [@Sarahfeena](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sarahfeena)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2007, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-liberals-referred-to-as-bedwetters/412640/78 "2007-07-22T16:53:07Z")
[QUOTE=Fear Itself] Which is quite different from the actual question posed in the OP: \*\*Why are liberals referred to as “bedwetters”? \*\* **smiling bandit** gave an answer that presupposes (as does the OP) that “bedwetter” refers to liberals, implying that only liberals exhibit the fear that merits such an appellation. The reality, of course, is that there are such people in all political philosophies, so it is indeed a [“Begging the Question”](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question) fallacy. [/QUOTE] My assumption was that it was a poorly constructed OP (which, you have to grant me, is not a rash assumption, considering the source). ---
**Author:** ![VinylTurnip](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/b2d939/32.png) [@VinylTurnip](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VinylTurnip)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2007, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-liberals-referred-to-as-bedwetters/412640/79 "2007-07-22T17:27:44Z")
[QUOTE=scotandrsn] That only works if you mistake Hillary Clinton for a Liberal. [/QUOTE] Yes, a poster in another thread taught me that she’s much too far to the left to be considered a liberal. Also that Hitler was a rampant socialist and George W. Bush a leftist “appeaser.” But Ollie North? Great guy. A criminal, sure, but yet somehow a hero to be admired, for some reason. I’m learning so much lately it’s becoming hard to keep up. ---
**Author:** ![Zoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a4c791/32.png) [@Zoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoe)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2007, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-liberals-referred-to-as-bedwetters/412640/80 "2007-07-22T19:57:10Z")
Hillary is such a liberal. That’s why she has expressed so much regret for her vote to back the president if he decided to go to war in Iraq, right? Oh pul-lease! She is a centrist, unfortunately. > [@](#): > > **smiling bandit** : I’ve seen some who can’t even stand the idea of conflict of any kind, down to the point where they ban most all video games (by definition, virtually all games include competition and often violence). Don’t believe I know of any liberals who object to video games that merely include competition without violence. Can you back that claim up? > [@](#): > > **AtomicDog** : I believe that conservative radio host Neal Boortz coined the phrase when he was mocking a female caller on his talk show who related her childhood experiences during the Cuban Missile Crisis. With all of the doomsday headlines at the time, she honestly thought that the world was coming to an end, and Neal thought that this was really funny. Boortz was still in high school in October of 1962 and does not have the benefit of an adult’s perspective on that period. They didn’t call it a “missile crisis” without good cause. Those of us who lived within range of the missiles saw it a little differently. So did those who realized what such a strike would cause to happen. _None_ of the adults that I knew took their lives for granted then. > [@](#): > > **bob\_co** : Does this mean timid? Similar to peacenik? Do you mean _timid peacenik_ like Mohammed Ali? > [@](#): > > **BrainGlutton** : …S.I. Hayakawa… Politics aside, I genuflect. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-liberals-referred-to-as-bedwetters/412640.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-liberals-referred-to-as-bedwetters/412640.md?page=5)