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 5)
6 PagesFirst 3 4 5 6 
on Jan 03, 2005
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.


Yes, and who wants such trivialities as those pesky little historical facts and figures to burst their bubble of contented fantasy, right? Not liberals, that's for sure.
It's not that we "can't think outside the box" that urks you, it's that we often have a greater command of history than you do, and in turn use it to point out your wrong-headedness.You don't like this. It dents your pride and perhaps makes some of you feel inferior (if that's possible).

I've seen this trend on lots of discussion sites; so many liberals have just enough knowledge of history to justify the way they think things ought to be, and no more. If they cite some historical event to make their point, often someone with more knowledge of history comes along and points out the flaws in their reasoning, or refutes their point with a greater knowledge of the event in question.
The liberal will often just stop replying, almost as if they're angry that we had the gall to set them straight. It's like they just throw up their hands and walk away, shaking their head at our stupidity, despite the fact that we knew something that they didn't.
Gee, sorry for paying attention in history class, man.

I know that I, myself, harp a lot on Vietnam, and even I'm getting tired of it. This is mainly because the libs want to throw stones at Bush for getting us into Iraq under false pretences, while stoicly ignoring the fact that Johnson, a Democrat, of course, made some questionable moves to get us into that war.
And when I say stoicly, I mean it......when I point this out, many times they've just plowed on past that fact, steadfastly ignoring it or giving it just a token word or two.
That's liberlism for you; "if I don't know it happened the way it really happened, then it happened the way I want it to have happened."

There's a word for that: "Delusional".

on Jan 03, 2005
Double post deleted.
on Jan 03, 2005



Reply #55 By: zergimmi - 1/3/2005 9:41:00 AM
drmiler, we all call a liberal a liberal, it has the same defination the world over, variations may occur on what you percieve as liberals. I would also like to add that in todays age of communication, for you to make the comment that others would not understand what you are talking about is pure bullshit.


BS huh? Do you have to live with our liberals? No you don't. We on the other hand do. And NOT everything that happens here makes it to the news. So *please* don't tell me it's BS!
No matter how you prettify it your libs and ours are 2 different animals.
on Jan 03, 2005

Reply #61 By: Rightwinger - 1/3/2005 4:18:03 PM I know that I, myself, harp a lot on Vietnam, and even I'm getting tired of it. This is mainly because the libs want to throw stones at Bush for getting us into Iraq under false pretences, while stoicly ignoring the fact that Johnson, a Democrat, of course, made some questionable moves to get us into that war.


Doc.....You need to drop part of this because it's wrong! Johnson's not the one who got us in it. D. Eisenhower did and he's was a Republican. Although LBJ did escalate it.
on Jan 03, 2005
This was by me.

Yes, Eisenhower sent observers to SE Asia in the 50s to look over the French situation and to perhaps assist the South Vietnamese, but no more. They were "advisers" that weren't supposed to have any hostile contact with the enemy. Not sure I believe that, but.....
This wasn't good enough for Johnson. Johnson got us "into" the war itself, with combat troops, by pretending that an attack by a single North Vietnamese gunboat on an American destroyer constituted an act of war.
As I said earlier, even when the USS Panay was attacked by the Japanese air force on the Yangtze River in China in the 30s, we did nothing. WW2 for us could have started then, but it didn't.
Johnson used the same kind of underhanded moves and political pressure to worm us into Vietnam that the Left accuses Bush of using in Iraq.
on Jan 03, 2005
My Gosh Calor, after reading your essay I'm more convinced than ever of the naiveté about the world by liberals. Consider this,

The UN is the world’s organization. The advanced countries (read developed), basically sit in the background when it comes to running the bureaucracies of the UN. Low and behold what has happened to this great body of humanity. Cuba and Libya are put in charge of monitoring human rights for the UN. You blow off the Oil for Food scandal as if it were petty larceny. The UN sits back and watches Africa destroy itself through AIDS and civil wars and demands the rest of the world work through it to solve these terrible problems. Is it cynical to think that the UN is corrupt and put its own self-interests ahead of poor and tortured countries in the world?

The war on terror is a WORLD WAR – Iraq and Afghanistan are BATTLES OF THE WAR ON TERROR. Just as Vietnam, Granada, Korea, Afghanistan and Nicaragua were BATTLES OF THE COLD WAR. But then liberals didn’t get that war either. We defeated the Soviet Union by using our superior economy and our freedom as weapons. We took a stand and did not allow the spread of communism. That is what was doable. It was not doable to bomb the hell out of them or invade.

As for being in a hurry to invade Iraq – Hello – we waited 12 years. During that time the United States flew and maintained the NO FLY ZONE. It cost us around 5 BILLION a year. This is when the corrupt Oil for food program was going on. This is when Saddam was working towards repealing the sanctions on his country by bribing everyone under the sun. Is it cynical to think that he would have eventually been successful?

As for Liberals being traitors – some of you are! Were there any Republican congressmen or conservative actors showing up in Iraq and Europe to denounce America and its foreign policy? NO, but there was S**t load of Liberals with their faces on TV in the Arab world providing aid and comfort to the enemy. The liberals let those events slide just as the Islamic “moderates” say little or nothing when bombs and suicide attacks take place against America.

Liberals love more government. Since JFK no liberal president has suggested or passed across the board tax cuts. Bill Clinton said that he would give us some of our money back but he was not sure that we would spend it right. Need I say more? The bottom line on how liberals view humans and society is this. Liberals believe they can change human nature. That is impossible. Successful laws and policies use human nature to change behavior.

But liberals don’t get that either. The Democratic Party is circling the drain. The only chance it has is if the Republican self destructs through arrogance and corruption.


on Jan 03, 2005
I'm still waiting for someone to point out which part of my article was "hateful".
on Jan 06, 2005
When did the Repbulican Convention have "hate speech".


The Dems/left considered Zell Miller's speech hateful, but if you read the words, it wasn't really. It was a strong condemnation of the attitudes of the left and of the Democratic Party, for sure, but it contained nothing hateful by my definition of the term.

Cheers,
Daiwa
on Jan 06, 2005
Your right, you do have the right to object. Just like we have the right to ignore your ojections. You seem to forget something. Foreign policy is in place because *we* want to deal with you. If it ever comes to the point where we no longer wish to deal with you or becomes more trouble than it's worth, then the policy goes by the wayside. And BTW how we arrive at a particular policy would *stiil* be none of your business. The only thing that would be your business is the effects such policy might have on your particular nation.


I don't think that because it is a foreign view that it should be discarded. I am sure you would want your views on government known to the people of France, for example. If its a valid point, its a valid point no matter the source. We have had at least 2 Secretaries of State that were not born in this country. Certainly we don't let foreign countries set our foreign policy, but we should at least listen to what they have to say. Can we really have good foreign relations with countries we tell we want them to be friends, but don't want their input? That is the ultimate in arrogance and could explain our low standing in the world these days. Aside from this Australian, we have several Canadians, some French, and others who contribute on this board.
on Jan 06, 2005
Actually, according to Champas, who is Australian, their liberal party is very conservative. So you are wrong.

Dr Guy I am also Australian, and you are not wrong or right, The Australian Liberal Party is usually labled as conservative, however their parties ideology is based on the Liberal Ideals, you seem to think one has to be a raging left wing Pinko to be Liberal, when this is not correct, as I said the LIBERAL party is made up of many people, some conservative, some sit in the centre and some are even of the left, Including past Prime Ministers. My point is and I will make it again, The left does not have a monopoly on being Liberal, as can be seen by many policies that have come from the Liberal Party of Australia, including many of the cahnges in Legislation on the rights of the Australia's first inhabitans. I did not seek to defend the Libs, my point is to point out that people from all sides of politics can be Liberal n their thinking, the biggest difference between the eft, centre and righ is the speed at which they try to effect change, with the left they are generally more inclined to make change quickly, or this has been my experience in Australia, this can cause problems, and has fro previous Labour Governments. I might add that I am from the moderate Left myself and am Liberal in my thinking, this does not mean I support change for the sake of change, nor do I support such as Rights for the like of Pedofiles, or other grubby types, or support being sofy on crime, this does not make me conservative, nor does it stop me from expressing Liberal views.
I would suggest that you have a look at the Liberal Parties Web site and read for yourself what they believe in and what the basis of the party being formed. This is probably a better source of fact than Champs. I would point out again that the Labour Party is supposed to be left, yet I would have to say they do not draw their constituency just from the left, nor are all factions of the left, in fact on of the strongest faction is the Labour Right of New South Wales, please try to read what I have said, then comment, as I am merely trying to point out the absurdity of both articles and many replies, which are saying DEMOCRATE - Liberald, Republican - Conservative. As I have already said was A Lincon a conservative, could he have freed the slaves if he was, no. I would say that most people are LIBERAL to some extent, if we use the literal, which is what I am refering to, as for Dems and Repubs, they are political parties, with many different people in both, and with this many different ideas and motivations, not as clear cut as both articles would suggest.
on Jan 06, 2005
I find that both articles are confusing the difference between the parties and thier respective policies and actins with Liberalism and Conservativeism, Left is no Liberal, but Supposedly Democrate is, and supposedly he opposite is correct for the Republicans. You are confusing political Tdeology with Attitudes of people, the articles would have been more accurate had they discussed the merits of the parties ideology or the difference between Con and Lib, they are not one in the same, so in closing I would say my argument is very simple, Being Liberal does not automatically make you left wing and vice versa with being Conservative, just look at the communist party in China or Russia, both are left wing parties in our world, neither could be considered even remotely Liberal.
on Jan 06, 2005
just look at the communist party in China or Russia, both are left wing parties in our world, neither could be considered even remotely Liberal.
----zergimmi

But the liberal Left parties (Democrat, Libertarian) in America often espouse socialist or even communist ideals; greater governmental control and regulation, higher taxes, socialized medicine, redistribution of wealth, even atheism, at some levels. Many of today's more prominent liberals recieved their indoctrination as young people in the 1960s, when Marxism, Leninism and Maoism were still very much in vogue, and were touted as the 'coming thing". Too many of them still hold to those beliefs.
Communism and socialism are liberalism taken to radical extremes, or perhaps liberalism is communism and socialism softened, whichever way you want to look at it.
on Jan 06, 2005
When did the Repbulican Convention have "hate speech". Wasn't it the Democratic Convention who had to tell it's attendees not to to turn it into a Bush hate fest?


There's revisionist history if I have ever seen it. The Democrats were criticized ahead of time by Republicans who said it would be filled with negative campaigning, which they did not. Then the Republicans turned around and had one of the most negative conventions in recent memory.

While if you read the text of the Zell Miller speech you would not find it hateful, it was the manner in which he delivered it that was. While describing how every Democrat in the last 50 years except Harry Truman lost their way, he did so with veins popping, fists shaking, pulpit pounding and maniacal screaming. He was so out of control he was spewing spittle.
on Jan 06, 2005
Whoman69----

You claimed, in a post I read before, not to be a liberal, only "a Democrat". Yet, every post you make on these boards leans heavily toward a very liberal bias.
Also, you seem annoyed to the point of frustration, and even anger, by nearly everything posted by every conservative, and your replies are often, shall we say, a little too venomous and pissy for their subject. In short, you're a smart-ass, even when you don't need to be.

I think you're a quite a bit more liberal than you assume yourself to be.
on Jan 06, 2005

Reply #72 By: whoman69 - 1/6/2005 10:32:02 AM
Your right, you do have the right to object. Just like we have the right to ignore your ojections. You seem to forget something. Foreign policy is in place because *we* want to deal with you. If it ever comes to the point where we no longer wish to deal with you or becomes more trouble than it's worth, then the policy goes by the wayside. And BTW how we arrive at a particular policy would *stiil* be none of your business. The only thing that would be your business is the effects such policy might have on your particular nation.


I don't think that because it is a foreign view that it should be discarded. I am sure you would want your views on government known to the people of France, for example


Actuallly no I would not.
6 PagesFirst 3 4 5 6