An alternative view on life, politics, and computers
A counter point
Published on January 1, 2005 By Calor In Democrat

Draginol wrote an essay outlining what he seems to think are misconceptions about conservatives. That's fine and good but there is no shortage of misconceptions about American liberals.

...let me count the ways...

Liberals like to spend other people's money. No, the difference is that liberals are just not nearly as money-conscious as conservatives. We make life choices that don't lead to material wealth. Just because we tend to choose careers that involve enriching our culture, teacher our children, and protecting the defenseless doesn't make us less valuable or have less of a say in society.

We simply believe that Americans are blessed to have had the good fortune of being born here. Ergo, we should express that appreciation by contributing to the society that provided us plenty.

Liberals are naive about the real world. No, the difference is that liberals aren't as cynical as conservatives about the world. Conservatives seem to be quick to throw up their hands and say "Well that's the way life is" and then proceed on the false assumption that you can't do anything to change the world. Liberals aren't naive, we just think that we should at least try to make the world a better place as our first resort rather than as a luxury item.

Liberals are "traitors". No, the difference is that we are less likely to make artificial distinctions between someone who was geographically born in the United States and someone who was born in another country. We are all human beings. That does mean we are usually less nationalistic but that doesn't mean we're traitors either. We don't judge people based on their race, sex, or nationality. As one famous liberal said, we should judge others by the content of their character.

War on Terror.  Yes, we "get it". But conservatives don't seem to want to understand or care why countries don't like us.  Go to Greece, visit the parthenon, and what do you see across the street? A McDonalds. Can you see how some people might feel like American culture is being shoved down their throats? Combine that with an almost giddy attitude about using military force around the world.

Iraq. Saddam didn't have WMDs. He wasn't any kind of imminent threat. Was it really necessary to invade? Saddam was a cruel and terrible man. There are lots of cruel and terrible men. 

In 1946, the United States had a monopoly on the atomic bomb and was quite well aware of what a monster Stalin was. Would today's Neocon hawks have insisted that we nuke the USSR for the sake of
"regime change"? Some problems time takes care of on their own.

We went into Afghanistan and disrupted Al Qaeda. If we had stayed focused on that, we would have been safer today. Saddam could have been kept in a box on an almost indefinite basis. The Oil for food scandal and other leaks in the sanctions were not significant in the bigger scheme of things. We always had the option to go in later if we needed to - with a lot more international support. What we liberals wanted to know was why the rush? Why not finish Afghanistan first and then deal with Saddam at our leisure?

Civil Rights.  Conservatives seem to prefer to turn a blind eye and assume we're all on an equal footing. That's not true at all. Conservatives say they deal with the world as it is - except on the issue of race where they seem to want to pretend we live in racial harmony.  Affirmative action programs aren't perfect. No solution is perfect. But conservatives response to Affirmative action is to close their eyes and wish away the fact that minorities have it a lot tougher in this country than whites.

Conservatives may be better in their knowledge of history on average but that is not always a strength. They are often so rooted to the past that they cannot think outside the box. They don't seem to be willing to at least accept the possibility that we can improve as a species. Just because bad men did bad things in the past doesn't mean we have to do the same bad things today. Maybe that's why liberals are more likely to believe in evolution and conservatives are more likely to believe in creationism. We believe man can improve.


Comments (Page 1)
6 Pages1 2 3  Last
on Jan 01, 2005
Thanks for this responsive article. I read the other one, hoping for an honest and heart felt exploration and instead found your basic liberal bashing agenda. This article, while being fairly "anti-conservative" is much more thoughtful, and much less hateful.

Two notes--I'm unsure about your title "Sanity from the Left". This implies there's a shortage of sanity from the left, so you're the voice of reason among lunatics. Perhaps this is what you meant to imply, but if not, it's all in the framing and this frames liberals as negative from the get-go. (I'm a Progressive, btw, so I'm on your side. ) Secondly, if you haven't all ready read the book, "Don't think of an elephant." It's an engageing, interesting looks at how the conservative side has taken control of politics and the debate, and a pro-active look at how to make things better. (It's short too.)

Keep up the good blogging!
on Jan 01, 2005
Liberals like to spend other people's money. No, the difference is that liberals are just not nearly as money-conscious as conservatives. We make life choices that don't lead to material wealth. Just because we tend to choose careers that involve enriching our culture, teacher our children, and protecting the defenseless doesn't make us less valuable or have less of a say in society.


We simply believe that Americans are blessed to have had the good fortune of being born here. Ergo, we should express that appreciation by contributing to the society that provided us plenty.


How does that mean that liberals don't like spending other people's money? If they are purposely taking jobs that do not bring as much wealth as conservatives, and they are telling everybody to contribute back, knowing fully well that the wealthier conservatives will be the ones required to contribute the most, then yes, they do enjoy other people's money. Telling others to be generous because you have made decisions in life that keep you from being generous does not make you generous.

Liberals are naive about the real world. No, the difference is that liberals aren't as cynical as conservatives about the world. Conservatives seem to be quick to throw up their hands and say "Well that's the way life is" and then proceed on the false assumption that you can't do anything to change the world. Liberals aren't naive, we just think that we should at least try to make the world a better place as our first resort rather than as a luxury item.


Conservatives are cynical about the world and liberals are cynical about the US.

Liberals are "traitors". No, the difference is that we are less likely to make artificial distinctions between someone who was geographically born in the United States and someone who was born in another country. We are all human beings. That does mean we are usually less nationalistic but that doesn't mean we're traitors either. We don't judge people based on their race, sex, or nationality. As one famous liberal said, we should judge others by the content of their character.


Why do people quote past liberals as if those liberals would support the same ideas that liberals support today? You could use such logic to promote NAMBLA. After all, NAMBLA is more liberal than those against NAMBLA, and since Martin Luther King, Jr. was a liberal, he would support NAMBLA.
Besides, he believed in creation, which must mean he was a conservative.

War on Terror.  Yes, we "get it". But conservatives don't seem to want to understand or care why countries don't like us.  Go to Greece, visit the parthenon, and what do you see across the street? A McDonalds. Can you see how some people might feel like American culture is being shoved down their throats? Combine that with an almost giddy attitude about using military force around the world.


Could we use terror against France since some of its companies, such as Ubisoft, make money in the US and compete with US companies? Greece allowed McDonald's into Greece. So did the idea of international trade. If people are tired of US exporting its culture outside the US, then perhaps people should fight against international trade, the WTO, and the UN (since it promotes international cooperation).

We went into Afghanistan and disrupted Al Qaeda. If we had stayed focused on that, we would have been safer today. Saddam could have been kept in a box on an almost indefinite basis. The Oil for food scandal and other leaks in the sanctions were not significant in the bigger scheme of things. We always had the option to go in later if we needed to - with a lot more international support. What we liberals wanted to know was why the rush? Why not finish Afghanistan first and then deal with Saddam at our leisure?


Many would disagree that we'd be safer with a despot with ties to terrorism and a desire to build WMDs to attack the US with. Also, how long could sanctions and such last, when the rest of the world was yearning to end them? If we just kept on Saddam's ass, people would be complaining that Bush is looking for a fight.

Civil Rights.  Conservatives seem to prefer to turn a blind eye and assume we're all on an equal footing. That's not true at all. Conservatives say they deal with the world as it is - except on the issue of race where they seem to want to pretend we live in racial harmony.  Affirmative action programs aren't perfect. No solution is perfect. But conservatives response to Affirmative action is to close their eyes and wish away the fact that minorities have it a lot tougher in this country than whites.


Conservatives may be better in their knowledge of history on average but that is not always a strength. They are often so rooted to the past that they cannot think outside the box. They don't seem to be willing to at least accept the possibility that we can improve as a species. Just because bad men did bad things in the past doesn't mean we have to do the same bad things today. Maybe that's why liberals are more likely to believe in evolution and conservatives are more likely to believe in creationism. We believe man can improve.


I'd agree that conservatives were closing their eyes if there weren't laws against discrimination, but there are, so how are they ignoring discrimination in the workplace?
Also, evolution and creationism aren't mutually exclusive.
on Jan 01, 2005
Thanks for this responsive article. I read the other one, hoping for an honest and heart felt exploration and instead found your basic liberal bashing agenda. This article, while being fairly "anti-conservative" is much more thoughtful, and much less hateful.


And you don't think you find this anti-conservative article more thoughtful and less hateful because you're a liberal?
on Jan 01, 2005
Well done, messy. Especially:
Conservatives are cynical about the world and liberals are cynical about the US.

And the liberal notion that we are forcing our culture down the world's collective throat is hogwash - any country could ban McDonald's if they wanted to, for example. Problem is, the Ubisoft's of the world don't want us to retaliate so they allow US businesses to operate. And if the locals didn't eat at McDonald's they'd close up & go home. The notion that they have no other options is silly. There is no basis for their resentment other than their own choices, not ours. Business will follow their euros or (insert other currency here) wherever they spend them.

Happy New Year,
Daiwa
on Jan 01, 2005
I didn't say any such thing. I didn't say it was a perfect article. I just appreciated the response, and regardless of what "side" I'm on I do think this article was less hateful. And I must say, I'm finding it quite interesting all the hateful, nonsensical bashing that's going on, here at JU and beyond. Everyone is antagonistic, sarcastic, angry, even mean. What good is that doing your side, or anyone? Is anyone here capable of having a dialogue instead of a rant/attack fest? Why is everybody so damned threatened by anyone who disagrees with their way of thinking? Bloggers want to be the new voice of America and the world, the mouth of the people. At this juncture, I must say, I'm not so impressed with what most of the people have to say.
on Jan 01, 2005

Misconceptions about Liberals

By: Calor
Posted: Saturday, January 01, 2005 on Sanity from the Left
Message Board: Democrat
Iraq. Saddam didn't have WMDs. He wasn't any kind of imminent threat. Was it really necessary to invade? Saddam was a cruel and terrible man. There are lots of cruel and terrible men.


You obviously don't get this one. WMD's are only one of the reasons we went. It's well known that Saddam had ties to Al Qaeda.
Which by the way was proven by the 9/11 comitee Ties to 9/11? No. But the ties to Al Qaeda made him just as dangerous.

And BTW McDonald's is in Greece because they ASKED for it. NOT because we shoved it down their throat.
on Jan 01, 2005

Reply #5 By: Sarah Stoeckl - 1/1/2005 6:04:25 PM
I didn't say any such thing. I didn't say it was a perfect article. I just appreciated the response, and regardless of what "side" I'm on I do think this article was less hateful. And I must say, I'm finding it quite interesting all the hateful, nonsensical bashing that's going on, here at JU and beyond. Everyone is antagonistic, sarcastic, angry, even mean. What good is that doing your side, or anyone? Is anyone here capable of having a dialogue instead of a rant/attack fest? Why is everybody so damned threatened by anyone who disagrees with their way of thinking? Bloggers want to be the new voice of America and the world, the mouth of the people. At this juncture, I must say, I'm not so impressed with what most of the people have to say.


You are not required to be impressed. As to all the bashing? I think people are getting tired of all the venom being spewed against the US. So when something is percieved as being "america's bad" they are very quick to take offense.
on Jan 01, 2005

After all, NAMBLA is more liberal than those against NAMBLA, and since Martin Luther King, Jr. was a liberal, he would support NAMBLA.


after all, vlad the impaler is more conservative (since he was a monarch) than those against vlad the impaler and since condileeza rice is a conservative, she would support vlad the impaler.

 

on Jan 01, 2005
And the liberal notion that we are forcing our culture down the world's collective throat is hogwash - any country could ban McDonald's if they wanted to, for example. Problem is, the Ubisoft's of the world don't want us to retaliate so they allow US businesses to operate. And if the locals didn't eat at McDonald's they'd close up & go home. The notion that they have no other options is silly. There is no basis for their resentment other than their own choices, not ours. Business will follow their euros or (insert other currency here) wherever they spend them.


Exactly! Sure, the world could do away with international trade, but I'm sure nobody would enjoy that, even those who don't like having a McDonald's in their countries.

I just appreciated the response, and regardless of what "side" I'm on I do think this article was less hateful


So, you don't think that your opinion of these two articles is influenced by your own political beliefs in any way?

Why is everybody so damned threatened by anyone who disagrees with their way of thinking?


Nobody sounds threatened. What sounds hateful might just be disagreement. For example, you find this article less hateful and I find the other article less hateful, and I'm positive our political beliefs influenced our opinions.
on Jan 01, 2005
after all, vlad the impaler is more conservative (since he was a monarch) than those against vlad the impaler and since condileeza rice is a conservative, she would support vlad the impaler.


Exactly! What was considered liberal and conservative before is not what's considered liberal and conservative today, so using a historic man as an example of the modern archetype is ludicrous!
on Jan 01, 2005

x

No, the difference is that liberals are just not nearly as money-conscious as conservatives. We make life choices that don't lead to material wealth. Just because we tend to choose careers that involve enriching our culture, teacher our children, and protecting the defenseless doesn't make us less valuable or have less of a say in society.

No problem there, just dont raise my taxes to pay for your life. For a donation of money to be valid, it has to be willingly given, not extorted.

Conservatives seem to be quick to throw up their hands and say "Well that's the way life is" and then proceed on the false assumption that you can't do anything to change the world. Liberals aren't naive, we just think that we should at least try to make the world a better place as our first resort rather than as a luxury item.

Not true, but a good issue to debate.

Liberals are "traitors". No, the difference is that we are less likely to make artificial distinctions between someone who was geographically born in the United States and someone who was born in another country. We are all human beings. That does mean we are usually less nationalistic but that doesn't mean we're traitors either. We don't judge people based on their race, sex, or nationality. As one famous liberal said, we should judge others by the content of their character.

Actually, not true.  This is not a liberal or conservative issue as you seem to side with Bush, but many liberals, having worked hard to get here, are as anti illegal immigration as Jerry Falwell.  Politics does make strange bedfellows!

War on Terror.  Yes, we "get it". But conservatives don't seem to want to understand or care why countries don't like us.  Go to Greece, visit the parthenon, and what do you see across the street? A McDonalds. Can you see how some people might feel like American culture is being shoved down their throats? Combine that with an almost giddy attitude about using military force around the world.

This may be yoru best quote but is totally off base.  Mikey D does not force anyone down their throat!  They are a BUSINESS, and as such they go where they are WANTED.  If Greece does not want our greasy burgers, they dont have to patronize the place!  This really is a stupid point, but it is your article!

As for the second point there, no, no one wants to see soldiers die, but those who realize our freedom is only bought with constant vigilance, know it is the price we pay.  We do not get Giddy.  We honor those who sacrafice for us and our children.

on Jan 01, 2005
Iraq. Saddam didn't have WMDs. He wasn't any kind of imminent threat. Was it really necessary to invade? Saddam was a cruel and terrible man. There are lots of cruel and terrible men. 

In 1946, the United States had a monopoly on the atomic bomb and was quite well aware of what a monster Stalin was. Would today's Neocon hawks have insisted that we nuke the USSR for the sake of
"regime change"? Some problems time takes care of on their own.

We went into Afghanistan and disrupted Al Qaeda. If we had stayed focused on that, we would have been safer today. Saddam could have been kept in a box on an almost indefinite basis. The Oil for food scandal and other leaks in the sanctions were not significant in the bigger scheme of things. We always had the option to go in later if we needed to - with a lot more international support. What we liberals wanted to know was why the rush? Why not finish Afghanistan first and then deal with Saddam at our leisure?

Again you mistake liberals for conservatives.  It was after all Roosevelt and Truman back then.  By the time Eisenhower became president, it was too late.

But by your logic, should we have just kept hitler in a box?  Same man, different time.  And he was gleefully killing millions.  Just as Saddam was (latest estimate 4 million).  Now before you answer this, think about what else you have said.

You only care for people that you know?  Or all people?

on Jan 01, 2005

Civil Rights.  Conservatives seem to prefer to turn a blind eye and assume we're all on an equal footing. That's not true at all. Conservatives say they deal with the world as it is - except on the issue of race where they seem to want to pretend we live in racial harmony.  Affirmative action programs aren't perfect. No solution is perfect. But conservatives response to Affirmative action is to close their eyes and wish away the fact that minorities have it a lot tougher in this country than whites.

WOW!  I like you!  But you are wrong.  Stick to what Liberals beleive because you are wrong on what conservatives beleive.

Just to set the record straight, Conservatives beleive that all men are created equal.  And as such all should be given equal opportunity.  And that means slamming those who would deny that opportunity.

We do not beleive that any race is inferior, and thus they must be helped by their white overseers to oevercome.  We dont want to be the new 'massas', but unfortunately, Liberals have set themselves up as the new minority massas.

Dont beleive me?  State you opinion on Clarence Thomas, Colin Powel, Condeleesa Rice, and JC Watts.  And then back it up with reasonable discourse of why they are any different than other races.  Do not regurgitate the hatred of the left who call them all sorts of negative names because they are not liberal.

Give us facts.  Disagree with their policy.  Dont descent into the nastiness of some other liberals and just call them Aunt jemimas or Uncle Toms.

Now who is the party of race baiting?

on Jan 01, 2005

I didn't say any such thing. I didn't say it was a perfect article. I just appreciated the response, and regardless of what "side" I'm on I do think this article was less hateful.

I do have to agree with you there!  It was a very good article!  I would say maybe 20% wrong, but the rest was very informative!

on Jan 01, 2005

after all, vlad the impaler is more conservative (since he was a monarch) than those against vlad the impaler and since condileeza rice is a conservative, she would support vlad the impaler.

Classic Misconception!  Vlad was a Liberal!  He believed in taxing the rich, and providing for the poor!  After all, he did not suck corpses!

many Monarchs are liberal.  Faulty logic there!

6 Pages1 2 3  Last