7 Dec

Selfish Psychology: Revealing the Lie of Liberals’ Apparent Moral High Ground [Reader Post]

                                       

How To Get A Classic Physiquetitle=”liberal-logic-liberal-hypocrisy-politics-1334703649″ width=”300″ height=”207″ class=”aligncenter size-medium wp-image-86839″ />

The left consistently takes the moral high ground, and the right is left grasping at air. In order to prevent this happening, conservatives need to be secure in the values they stand for, but they also need to understand the twisted psychology behind the left’s celebration of victimhood.

Romney has been roundly beaten up over his now infamous 47% comment regarding the culture of entitlement that afflicts our country. He was then beaten up again for his comments about the Obama administration in effect bribing sections of the voting community with ‘extraordinary gifts’. Never mind that both comments were patently true – both left and right wing queued up to condemn Romney’s apparent moral failings – such, sadly, is the level of debate in our country.

However it would be a mistake to confuse the left wing censure with that of the right. Grindrich, Jindal and Walker’s comments were simply those of pragmatic politicians positioning themselves so that they didn’t disaffect the 47%, and those sections of the community that were in fact the recipient of extraordinary gifts.

The outrage from the left is another matter. What is concerning is that the left – those “elite, smart people” that Rick Santorum identified (he would be better served if he labeled them ‘intellectual’), actually believe their rhetoric – which is that a huge proportion of the population needs the State to look after them.

These patrons of the culture of entitlement become shrill with anger if it is pointed out that there is even such a thing as a culture of entitlement, not to mention that trying to support over 100 million people on welfare is a recipe for ruin. Equally unacceptable to them is the notion that sections of the population are cynically fleecing the system of all the welfare they can get – this doesn’t fit with their image of the helpless victim.

The irrational and aggressive reaction of these elite liberal to what are obvious truths is evidence of what in psychological parlance it is called a psychosis. It is apparent, that for deep psychological reasons liberal intellectuals need to feel that they are looking after people, and they resist with a vengeance any truth that shows the real motivation for their position.

This psychology of the liberal mind has been discussed occasionally, but it needs to be raised again and again until it is well understood, because without a thorough understanding, it is difficult to defeat the apparent moral high ground the liberal takes. Indeed dissent, as Romney demonstrated, is a politically perilous position. David Cameron, the somewhat conservative British Prime Minister, was alluding to this difficulty, when he said of their out of control welfare system: “There are few more entrenched problems than our out-of-control welfare system, and few more daunting challenges than reforming it”.

Despite the need to understand the psychology of the liberal, there is precious little work being done on it – most critics tend to simply argue the deficiencies of their policies without attempting to understand what motivates them.

A case in point is Michael Savage’s popular Liberalism is a Mental Disorder (2005). Despite the title it turned out to be more of an investigation into the logical fallacies of the liberal agenda, rather than a look into what was driving them. He did not venture far into insights into the liberal mindset, beyond observations such as liberalism was a ‘naïve worldview’, and while ‘often well intentioned’ came with disastrous consequences.

The following year the psychiatrist Lyle H. Rossiter, Jr M.D. published The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness. This was an attempt to understand what it was that drove the liberal. Like Savage, Rossiter identifies what amounts to the liberal’s all consuming celebration of victimhood. He says, “What the liberal mind is passionate about is a world filled with pity, sorrow, neediness, misfortune, poverty, suspicion, mistrust, anger, exploitation, discrimination, victimization, alienation and injustice.”

Where Rossiter breaks new ground is that he connects this obsession with deep childhood fears. He describes it is an extension of their need to control others, which is: “rooted in fears of separation, abandonment loss or abuse – the residual effects of early attachment gone wrong.”

Finally, the biologist Jeremy Griffith goes further again in his explanation about the human condition drawing a connection between an increasingly dysfunctional society, the subsequent emotional damage (or fears) inflicted on new generations, and why celebrating victimhood then becomes such an irresistible attraction.

Griffith uses the term ‘pseudo idealists’ to describe those drawn to causes not to genuinely do good, but so they can feel good. Griffith says this feeling is irresistible to those who are emotionally damaged because it allows them a way to escape their psychological pain without having to face it. Griffith explains, “For those who had become overly corrupted, excessively angry and destructive, the adoption of a born-again, pseudo- idealistic strategy was a responsible reaction. The problem was, however, that unable to explain and thus confront and admit their extremely corrupted and alienated state, they were using the born-again-to-‘idealism’ lifestyle to delude themselves that what they
were doing was actually right, that is was ideal. They deluded themselves that they held the ‘moral high ground’ when the opposite was true.”

As a result of the increasing levels of dysfunctionality this temptation to adopt pseudo-idealism is becoming a tidal wave. Again, Griffith points out, “With the levels of upset in the world becoming extreme, relief-hunting became a huge industry, to the extent that we became, as sociologist Frank Furedi recognized, ‘a society that celebrates victimhood rather than heroism’.”

The psychology of liberalism is tangled – it presents a compassionate, selfless front, but is actually completely selfish. It is critical to understand this in order to withstand its advance. However even armed with this understanding, attempts to withstand it will be swamped if the levels of those needing the relief of pseudo idealism just keep rising. In the Art of War, Sun Tzu says if you know your enemies and know yourself, you can win a hundred battles without a single loss. Unless we resolve the root cause of it, what Griffith refers to as the human condition, a hundred battles may not be enough.

Follow Damon on Twitter

This entry was posted in Barack Obama, Conservatism, Deception and Lies, Economy, Liberal Idiots, Politics. Bookmark the permalink. Friday, December 7th, 2012 at 6:00 am
| 1,464 views

36 Responses to Selfish Psychology: Revealing the Lie of Liberals’ Apparent Moral High Ground [Reader Post]

  1. mathman says: 1

    Damon: you make the issue too difficult.
    Liberals are not thinkers. Liberals are feelers. There is no thought, there is just emotion.
    Liberals do not do history, or data, or facts. They respond only to sentiment: pure, raw, unabashed sentiment.
    Challenge a liberal to support his/her program with documented prior history, and you will be denounced as an -ist, whether racist, classist, or other. But your data will not be provided.
    There is no liberal mindset, because there is no liberal mind. There is a liberal heart, and a corresponding liberal herd instinct.
    Fact: any government powerful enough to entitle anyone to anything is also powerful enough to take away all that you own. Response: “it’s wrong for people to be poor.”
    Fact: the secret to acquiring wealth is to manage your own affairs. Response: “you are racist.”
    Fact: liberals do not do facts, they do opinions. And opinions are not subject to challenge. If you challenge the opinion of a liberal, you are hateful, spiteful, or vicious. All opinions are equally valid, except yours (if you are not liberal).
    [sadly] Fact: liberalism is dysfunctional. It has never worked in the past, does not work now, and never will work. Enough was known about liberalism in 1787 that the authors of the Constitution did their best to stave it off for as long as possible. With popular election of members of the Senate, and the failure of the Supreme Court to overturn Roosevelt’s grand redesign, the Constitution is rapidly fading from sight. We are going the way of the Weimar Republic.

    ReplyReply
  2. Hard Right says: 2

    I’ve said it many times.
    Liberals are narcissists. That extreme need to feel good about themselves drives everything they do.
    It’s also the source of all the rage we see them direct at those who merely disagree with them. It is also the source of their pathological denial of reality which allows them to try the same thing over and over.
    It is that narcisissm that allows them to be so relentless. They ARE mentally ill.

    ReplyReply
  3. Liberal1 (Objectivity) says: 3

    This article is a typical tirade against intellectualism—describing in the right-wing phraseology of the 1960’s conservative Lee Atwater, referring to liberals as elitists. But what is an elitist? Is anyone with a college education an elitist? Santorum, who the article quotes, has a college education—yet he criticizes the liberal goal that every one should have an education as snobbish. In Europe, they put great importance of education—by offering higher education to everyone who wants it, and are capable of it, free of charge. In America, we relegate the value of education to the level of a Fourth World country’s perspective—and the results of world-wide competitive testing show it.

    Or maybe a elitist is a derogatory term used to describe arrogant people who think they know more than others? Well, I hate to break it to you, but some people do know more that others—and that fact is a result of education.

    And as for his attempt to ‘psychologize’ liberal—based on certain writers. Although these writers may have impressive credentials, you can find equally impressive writers on the left ‘psychologizing’ conservatives. The ability to recognize this fact, is also a result, in part, of education.

    ReplyReply
  4. Liberal1 (Objectivity) says: 4

    @mathman: I rest my case.

    ReplyReply
  5. Liberal1 (Objectivity) says: 5

    @Hard Right: A good example of the amateur psychology that runs rampant through ultra-conservative thought.

    ReplyReply
  6. Hard Right says: 6

    Ummmmm, lib#2, where did he attack education? Your response is rather incoherrent and appears to be a canned answer to some other post.
    As for education, it hardly means one is intelliegnt.

    EDIT: My posts seems to have hit rather close to home. One also doesn’t need to be an “expert” to point out the obvious like I have.

    I recommend Dr. Sanity for insights into the left.

    http://drsanity.blogspot.com/

    http://drsanity.blogspot.com/2004/08/psychiatry-101-defense-mechanisms.html

    http://drsanity.blogspot.com/2009/05/narcissism-pathological-lying-and.html

    http://drsanity.blogspot.com/2004/09/lesson-in-narcississtic-rage.html

    http://drsanity.blogspot.com/2012/06/denial-denial-and-still-more-denial.html

    ReplyReply
  7. Tom says: 7

    Despite the need to understand the psychology of the liberal, there is precious little work being done on it

    Perhaps that’s because it’s not a scientifically viable pursuit. It would help if you defined a Liberal before prescribing research on the topic, although this hasn’t stopped you from explaining at length what’s psychologically wrong with Liberals without the benefit of that very research you regret hasn’t happened. If all Liberals suffer from this identifiable “psychosis“, are you suggesting there’s a genetic component, and that being Liberal itself is a genetic trait that can be isolated and studied? How does one explain people who change their minds and go from liberal to conservative, or vice versa? Where does a Libertarian fall into this? Or a moderate, for that matter? You throw out these monolithic labels for what basically comes down to opinions that can be held for a wide variety of reasons. People inherit their political beliefs from their parents, or develop them due to their socio-economic circumstances, or because they happened to read The Foutainhead in college, or countless other reasons. Here you are lamenting the “intellectualism” of the Liberal mindset like it’s a disease, all the while applying your own brand of pseudo-intellectualism to diagnose it.

    ReplyReply
  8. Hard Right says: 8

    Here you are lamenting the “intellectualism” of the Liberal mindset like it’s a disease, all the while applying your own brand of pseudo-intellectualism to diagnose it.

    Again, where is anyone “lamenting the intellectualism” of liberals in the OP? (Pseudo intellectualism is what liberals practice).
    Sounds like the hit dogs yelp the loudest and are trying to derail the thread.
    BTW, lib2 and tom have just proven what was said about narcisissm and liberals.

    ReplyReply
  9. Kevin says: 9

    @Liberal1 (Objectivity): No.

    elitism
    1. The belief that certain persons or members of certain classes or groups deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority, as in intellect, social status, or financial resources.
    2. a. The sense of entitlement enjoyed by such a group or class. b. Control, rule, or domination by such a group or class.

    ReplyReply
  10. Pingback: If All You See… » Pirate's Cove

  11. Pingback: Anonymous

  12. johngalt says: 10

    I would interchange ‘liberal’, and ‘liberalism’, with liberal/progressive and liberal/progressivism. If you wish to criticize a particular political ideology, it’s best to define the terms more exactly, as many people could read what the author wrote, applying the classical definition of liberal to it, and wonder just what the writer is trying to say. Especially since the classical liberal is in no way representative of what is generally considered the ‘modern day liberal’. Just a thought.

    ReplyReply
  13. Nan G says: 11

    @mathman:
    I agree with Damon and respectfully disagree with you, mathman.
    The voting Liberals certainly are the feelings’ people.
    BUT the rhetoric-creating Liberals are quite clever.
    THEY define the debate …..over and over.
    I think the first time I noticed the Republicans fight back successfully was against that automatic immunity the Left granted to ”Mother” Cindy Sheeham and her triple-amputee pal, Max Cleland.
    WHY on earth should individuals have immunity from the fallacies in their own logic just because they are ”victims?
    Yes, the Right won that battle.
    But, over time, the Right has lost the war.

    The rhetoric from the Left is still fallacy-filled.
    But the Leftist-compliant media use repetition and appeal to emotion to convince those who lean Left to ignore logic, reason, even their own BEST interests!
    Look at the results.
    Those darkest blue places will be seeing their taxes rise the most!
    SEE:
    http://www.forbes.com/sites/joelkotkin/2012/12/04/the-blue-state-suicide-pact/

    Feeling instead of thinking leads to votes for the Left.
    But thinking very carefully about how to draw them up is how those feelings are twisted into votes.

    ReplyReply
  14. Wm T Sherman says: 12

    Popular progressive beliefs plainly at odds with empirical, observable reality:

    1. Increasing taxes on the wealthy will generate enough revenue to significantly reduce the current budget deficits.

    2. Budget deficits don’t matter anyway. The national debt can become arbitrarily large without consequence.

    3. Hiring people to dig a hole and fill it in again creates a stronger economy. So does breaking a window, since economic activity will be generated repairing the window.

    4. A 5% increase in tax rate equals a 5% increase in tax revenue. It is impossible to decrease tax revenue by increasing tax rate. It is impossible to increase tax revenue by decreasing tax rate. And anyway, it’s not about revenue, it’s about fairness.

    5. If you give people free stuff for generations and ask for nothing in return, you will create a healthy society and the beneficiaries of the free stuff will be grateful for what you’ve given them.

    6. Structuring welfare payments so as to make an employed and married father a net economic cost to poor families is fine. Children growing up without fathers is fine.

    7. Keeping law abiding citizens from owning or carrying firearms will decrease the crime rate. Conversely, changing the law to make it easier to own and carry firearms will increase the crime rate.

    8. Intensive regulatory micromanagement of small businesses by the government will have no effect on the availability of jobs.

    9. The purpose of businesses is to provide jobs.

    10. People are basically good and things can run on the honor system.

    11. Appeasement and unilateral disarmament promote peace.

    12. There is no fundamental problem with Marxism, it’s just that it’s never been properly implemented. Next time will be different.

    13. The wealthy became that way by taking wealth away from others. In order for one person to get richer, other people must get correspondingly poorer.

    14. Conservatives are skeptical of all the above because they are stingy, paranoid, ignorant, misogynist, and racist. It is simply not possible that they looked at the same set of facts as a progressive and honestly drew a different but valid conclusion.

    ReplyReply
  15. Sasha says: 13

    @Liberal1 (Objectivity):

    It has been my experience that liberals tend to celebrate the value of ‘Education’, whereas conservatives tend to celebrate the value of “learning”.

    Your response somehow trying to equate government spending with how much something is valued by a society reveals a lot about where you’re coming from, not much of it good.

    ReplyReply
  16. Judith Fredricks says: 14

    I ran into this very liberal mindset when I, mistakenly, mentioned that I was very concerned about our Country with an Obama running it. This was before the election. The woman I spoke with, most of the time, seemed in control of her thoughts and attitude. I was shocked when she proceeded to excoriate me, what I read, watched or to whom I’d listened. She started yelling, hurling insult after insult. My reaction was to inform her that I have no further wish to speak with her so do not call or write ever! Wow, she’s an inside the beltway liberal so, I suppose, I should have expected some reaction from her but nothing like the hate and venom she flung. Live and learn and I know she was further angered by my withdrawal of friendship. I think she is not the least contrite so I feel she has hurt herself much more than she intended.

    ReplyReply
  17. Wm T Sherman says: 15

    @Judith Fredricks:

    I’ve encountered the same thing. The person undergoes a transformation. They recite slogans, which is to say, other people’s words. There is a peculiar barking singsong cadence to it. It’s as though a post-hypnotic suggestion suddenly kicked in.

    ReplyReply
  18. Hard Right says: 16

    Liberalism is not based in rational thought nor is what motivates it.
    This is why you can get otherwise intelligent people who are incapable of seeing how harmful, hypocritical, even fascist it is.

    ReplyReply
  19. Lynn says: 17

    Liberalism is immaturity, cloaked with the pretense of moral and intellectual superiority. Very few liberals do anything for the poor personally. They may run a half marathon or two to raise money for breast cancer research, but even then the donation is other people’s money.
    Liberals hatred of the rich is a displacement of their own guilt for contributing nothing at all to society beyond voting for Democrats to punish the evil rich while the libs scout out the newest restaurant and keep their own money.
    Emotionally liberals are incapable of dealing with the reality that socialism creates more poverty and is tantamount to slavery. Such reality ruins their nice tidy little fantasy.

    ReplyReply
  20. W. C. Taqiyya says: 18

    I will take the corner occupied by mathman. Not that I reject the valid points made in the ambitious and very well presented argument in this post. I mostly agree with it. I just think getting too deep in the weeds with psychological analysis leads us astray. It tends to lead us astray because you shouldn’t try to lump any political group into a personality type. People are far too complicated for that, motivated by far too many variables and each one perceives reality from innumerable different perspectives. Plus, self interest motivates everyone and everyone is self interested. That dog barks in all directions.

    Most commonly, we encounter the sort of liberal (modern day self described progressive?) who reacts and responds and believes just as mathman describes. Leaving aside the unlimited variations, the salient point for me is that the liberal world view doesn’t work. It looks at the world, sees problems and says, let the government fix it. It sees the government like a baby sees it’s mother’s breast. Bliss. So, let me add childlike to our long list of descriptors. If anyone should disagree, they are automatically the enemy, getting in the way of that breast and working to deprive them of Utopia. Generally, liberals will first, last and always blame others to explain any failure of their favored policies. My personal favorite, on those rare occasions when you can get to this point in the logical sequence, (after he agrees that socialism and communism fail as a matter of historical record) is how they respond to the question, why do you think it will work now? They say, we will use the right people. Those other guys didn’t use the right people. Simple, childlike and very revealing. Zero understanding of human nature. I don’t think many of them even believe there is such a thing. When I ask them who the right people are, they hesitate. Some of them venture to say that it’s people who understand things as well as they do. Sometimes, they just stammer and get mad. They think it’s them and people JUST like them. But, they are not all stupid enough to admit it. When asked where they will find such people in sufficient numbers, they have nothing. And nothing is where I leave you. The liberal’s understanding of his political vision is childlike, Utopian and sterile. That it can never function at anything close to the way it’s advertised is not a question, it is certain. Infants cannot change their own diapers, and yet they dream.

    ReplyReply
  21. Tom says: 19

    @W. C. Taqiyya:

    Interesting post. I would say that it’s true liberals generally believe the role of government should be larger than conservatives, although I don’t see it quite as simplistically as your amusing Utopian breast analogy. It basically comes down to your observation regarding self-motivation and how it’s applied. Everyone believes some degree of government is essential; where you draw the line between what government should do and what government should leave alone is the question. Interestingly, and I admit anecdotally, it seems that conservatives define that line more fluidly than liberals because they define it in terms of personal self-interest (what directly affects me?), whereas liberals tend to define it more in terms of self-interest reflected through societies’ interest as a whole (what’s best for everyone?). Take for example, entitlements. A conservative might be against entitlements up until that point where they start seeing the benefits directly, and then many of them change their minds. This observation is backed by polling data where you see the majority of the elderly support entitlements that benefit the elderly. So are we to believe that a large percentage of conservatives morph into liberals right when they reach retirement age? Of course not. They simply self-identify as conservatives who now support entitlements, whereas twenty years earlier they were conservatives who did not. You see this phenomena in social issues as well, with the classic example being Dick Cheney, who was against gay rights until he had a gay daughter, then became pro-gay rights. He’s simply reacting to what’s the best choice for him personally. The issue didn’t change, his self interest in relation to it did. Because liberals take a broader view on how they define their self-interests, they are more likely to support a government program that doesn’t directly benefit them, which is the simple reason why more liberals support these programs overall. This is also why conservatives derisively refer to liberals as “bleeding hearts”, because they see liberals supporting something that benefits someone other than themselves, and that to a conservative goes against the principle of self-interest. This view directly contradicts the rampant conservative fallacy (the 47% fallacy) that liberals support these programs merely because they selfishly feel they will benefit direct from them. A conservative is much more likely to support something for that reason.

    ReplyReply
  22. Nan G says: 20

    @W. C. Taqiyya:
    I see your point.
    I made a distinction between those who are the mass of lefty voters vs those few who come up with the rhetorical talking points du jour.

    It is insane what Obama has done to NASA, for example.
    But how do you reason with the voters who put Obama in when they don’t even understand the relationship between their iPhone’s ability to get them to a sushi joint and incredibly complex technology, much of which is out in space.

    ReplyReply
  23. Hank says: 21

    Good article. Rick Santorum, god bless him, was the only political candidate I saw in the GOP primaries to recognize this truth and the dire consequences. Im wondering though, what is Griffith’s solution to this problem that you speak of? How are we to stop people becoming more and more “overly corrupted, excessively angry and destructive”, and therefore needing to find more and more “pseudo idealistic” relief? The liberal way of thinking certainly has the ascendancy as the moment

    ReplyReply
  24. Brother Bob says: 22

    @Damon: Great post. I’ve been kicking around an idea for a post along these lines for a while now. I agree with Mathman #1’s critique, and I still think you made some good points here. More, please!

    ReplyReply
  25. W. C. Taqiyya says: 23

    @Tom:
    Tom, the scope of my earlier post was limited. However, you raise some good points so I’m not going to beat around the bush. It’s not really 47% and a whole bunch of self described conservatives are flying under a false flag. To some extent. Is Cheney a liberal with his dreams of spreading American enlightenment around the world with no regard to the expansion of government and no regard to the costs? Yes, I’m afraid so. He’s a warmonger kind of liberal like Obama and Hillary and McCain. But, he sure as hell isn’t a conservative. Conservatives believe in limited government, in fiscal restraint, in local government over central government, in personal liberty, personal responsibility and personal property. They believe in respecting tradition, in slow change and in minding their business. They believe charity begins at home and they believe foreign entanglements are to be avoided. They believe in the rule of law. And they believe these things because they know free men work the best, every time, at everything that needs to be done. They know this because they are the ones who do the work. That’s only my short, off the cuff, list and other conservatives might add or subtract. With almost everybody subsidized in some manner by our huge government, it ain’t easy. Conservatives are those lonely voices you can’t hear very well, crying in the wilderness. Sob.

    As mathman said:
    “[sadly] Fact: liberalism is dysfunctional. It has never worked in the past, does not work now, and never will work. Enough was known about liberalism in 1787 that the authors of the Constitution did their best to stave it off for as long as possible. With popular election of members of the Senate, and the failure of the Supreme Court to overturn Roosevelt’s grand redesign, the Constitution is rapidly fading from sight. We are going the way of the Weimar Republic.”

    The structure has been damaged, it has been unbalanced for a long time and it has probably spun out of control. Some people confuse republicans with conservatives, but they aren’t the same. We have a structure that lets everybody vote themselves goodies. Unlimited in their power, politicians make it law. Fraud, mob rule, zero accountability. This was probably going to be inevitable, I don’t know. What I do know is that self interested people with no lawful restraint and no thought of consequence are, under my earlier description, liberal progressives. That breast feeds those looking for total security and safety in the TSA and feeds the aspirations of those who wish everyone had everything they need for free and it feeds intolerance and divisiveness all around. It feeds without discrimination and without restraint or compunction. It’s a breast, it doesn’t think. And when the liberal world view takes over, not much thinking gets done. We don’t need to think, we have the breast. Bliss.

    I hope this doesn’t sound as corny to you guys as it does to me. If it does, can I get a government grant to fix it? doh

    ReplyReply
  26. Tom says: 24

    @W. C. Taqiyya:

    I hope this doesn’t sound as corny to you guys as it does to me. If it does, can I get a government grant to fix it? doh

    Corny? Not at all. In fact, that was one of the finest descriptions and defenses of conservatism I’ve read in some time. As you point out, the whole “right” “left” dichotomy is somewhat bogus to being with, if we’re merely pulling for a team that doesn’t really define what we believe in anyway. But let me point out that just as you’ve articulated a certain corruption as its commonly defined on the Right, the corruption of the lowest common denominator wanting to suckle the government’s teat, many a liberal has pointed out the reality that that particular teat is rather small and wizened compared to the heavy teat being suckled by the true power brokers in today’s America, an America that runs on money. Was it paid for in empty 40 ounce bottle returns by your worst nightmare, the zombie denizens who make up the liberal entitlement class? I will leave you in suspense as to who I think has the money, and who is in bed with the money, and who pulls the strings of power. Hint: it’s not the “Spare change?” guy.

    ReplyReply
  27. W. C. Taqiyya says: 25

    @Tom:

    I figured out how to use the reply button. Gold star for me. About the size of that teat Tom. Yes, as I’ve commented elsewhere, the bankers and the uber wealthy who own and control those banks suck the most benefit from big government largess as a group. TARP didn’t happen by mistake. That’s why limited government is so desirable. A limited government wouldn’t be able to bail out corrupt bankers and it wouldn’t bypass the bankruptcy courts or prosecution for fraud and theft. Corzine should be doing a life term right now for stealing other people’s money, but he isn’t. It’s that rule of law thing. Whatever your personal opinion about rich people, they can fend for themselves without getting bailed out by the government. But the point isn’t really the dollar amounts, the point is there are no limits. Naturally, the loudest and most powerful groups will get the most loot. Getting back to your observation that liberals seem to care about other people more than conservatives. It only seems that way because people who want to mold the world into what they see as Utopia think that broadly applied policies get them there. Maybe it’s democracy and capitalism, maybe it’s universal abortion, college educations and health care. The thing is, those broadly applied policies only work to mold and shape society if everyone is forced to comply. And coerced populations never shape society into anything good. It’s been tried many times. People just don’t mold into ideal citizens. So, while calling for universal this and that might seem nice, those policies don’t operate on nice feelings, they operate on force. Gifts from the government might come wrapped in pretty ribbons and be called nice things, but the effect is dependence and you have no choice. Once hooked on dependency and once your choices are gone, kiss your liberty goodbye. Another way to say this is that the individual’s freedom must be the focus. The bill of rights placed handcuffs on the power of the majority and it did so because those guys knew that the best results come from individuals working without yokes. Yokes work well with oxen, but people are not oxen. People work and play best with others when they can choose to stay or go, say yes or say no.

    ReplyReply
  28. Kevin says: 26

    @Tom:

    Social Security can be seen in large part as returning money that was previously taken by the government. Conservative seniors wanting their money back is not a sign that they’ve changed their position on entitlements to charity or that SS is suddenly a good and effective program, rather it’s a clear sign that entitlements engender dependence on the government.

    Even your example of Cheney is somewhat misleading since he does not believe gay marriage should be legislated by the federal government or decided by the courts; he leaves it to the states. Such a distinction is essential to conservatives.

    Liberals, on the other hand, seem to believe that their ends justify their means of abusing the courts, federalism, and the Executive. Coupled with the hubris that they know “what’s best for everyone”, a mentality of tyranny takes shape.

    It’s not surprising that people vote in their own self-interest, what is surprising is that you think that is largely limited to Republicans and that Democrats are more for “what’s best for everyone”. Not only do Democrats play the same games of politics and crony capitalism as Republicans do, it’s apparently not even a corruption of Democratic principles to do so.

    Make no mistake: the ultimate political currency in a democracy is not money but votes. Do you really believe that forgiving college loan interest, Obamacare, the DREAM “Act” Executive Order, loosening constraints on welfare, etc. are simply “what’s best for everyone” and only coincidentally results in votes from those it directly helps? Have Americans truly become so naive about politics?

    Conservatives refer to liberals as “bleeding hearts” because they are foolish and destructive in how they apply their compassion, not because liberals are more altruistic. The very use of government force is antithetical to altruism. Voting to take from Peter to give to Paul is not at all selfless of you, nor is it “what’s best for everyone”.

    I’m curious what the Democrats here think of Vote 4 Stuff. Is it serious or is it a parody of the Democratic psyche? Surely the first part was meant to be humorous, but it also seems to betray an infantile conception of government that persists in the remainder.

    ReplyReply
  29. aoiekld says: 27

    Bruce Cameron? Who the hell is he then?

    ReplyReply
  30. Greg says: 28

    And now for something completely different:

    An article concerning the revealing Citigroup Plutonomy Memos, and a site where you can download them in their entirety, should you have trouble believing what has been said about them.

    You’re free to draw your own conclusions.

    ReplyReply
  31. FAITH7 says: 29

    Sadly, the Social Security Program [aka [The] American System of Old Age Survivors and Disability “Insurance”] paid for by “working U.S.Citizens”… had it been left in it’s intended “Trust Fund” instead of being “used and abused” by our Government as a “slush fund”, it very well would have been worth trillions after 70 years…. AND the debates of today over “Funding it” would be a non-issue….and the politicians of today would not ‘have to scare’ people [ including ALL Seniors of Retirement age regardless of their Political affiliation].

    Tom @ #19 asays: ” They simply self-identify as conservatives who now support entitlements, whereas twenty years earlier they were conservatives who did not.”

    Tom’s assertion is way off the mark….and very ignorant as well… These kinds of “assumptions” by liberals [of Tom’s ilk] are dead wrong…Liberals need to review some history before spewing…

    Republicans and Conservatives continually express a need and a desire to salvage and preserve this program….all the while the liberals, in an effort to demonize the Republicans, claim the republicans want to “Take it away” from the very people who have paid into it all their lives who by rights SHOULD be able to reap what they sow [in their retirement years]…

    Fact is, it has been pilfered for years by the very same people who Accuse the Republicans / Conservatives of wanting to take it away…..here, think – the “other” entitlement crowd…

    …Why is that?…. And who exactly felt the need to pilfer the SS Trust Fund and “take other peoples money”? I will give you one guess and I bet you are correct…

    ReplyReply
  32. Greg says: 30

    How could Social Security program revenue have actually been taken out of circulation and set aside in a trust fund? What form do people think such funds should have ideally taken?

    ReplyReply
  33. W. C. Taqiyya
    I read you A few times you came,
    and you have me speechless,
    I see the exact point and well described in words so clear,
    which no one can question,
    you have the definition of CONSERVATIVES, that I found from the beginning of my acquaintance with FLOPPING ACES, that so tolerant, super intelligent, and well educated in very many field of needed knowledge, all this to be able to run this SUPER AMERICA WHO DESERVE IT,
    IF ONLY ONE PART OF IT IS MENTIONED, AND THAT IS THE MOST NOBLE PART NAMING THE MILITARY, THE TREASURE OF THIS NATION, I feel are needing the right command to do what they are sent to achieve which is eluding them at this time by THOSE LIBERALS UNABLE TO THINK OF CONSEQUENCES OF ANY COMMANDS THEY GIVE THEM, WHICH FAIL THE ONES WHO ARE ON THE STAGE, LOOSING THEIR LIVES AS FAST AS THEIR LIMBS, BECAUSE OF THOSE FAILED COMMANDS,
    WHAT A SAD VISION TO NOTICE,
    APART OF ONE PEOPLE ABDICATING THEIR PRIDE IN EXCHANGE OF SMALL GIFTS GIVEN TO THEM,
    TO BUY THEIR SILENCE AND KEEP THEM WAITING FOR WHAT IS PROMISES BUT NEVER WILL COME FROM THAT PARTY OF LIBERALS, EVEN AFTER THEY VOTED FOR THEM AGAIN FOOLISHLY.

    ReplyReply
  34. Aqua says: 32

    @Tom:
    @W. C. Taqiyya:
    Great discussion. Need to send you two in to do the fiscal cliff discussions.

    ReplyReply
  35. Wm T Sherman says: 33

    @Greg:

    What a strange question. The government can bank dollars like an individual or a company.

    What do you think the Highway Trust Fund is?

    It’s academic anyway. The Social Security Trust Fund, a few trillion dollars intended as a bulwark against the Boomer Generation retirement surge, was (1) never large enough to solve the full demographic conundrum created by FDR at the program’s inception and (2) cleaned out for general Federal spending a long time ago. The dollars were replaced with special Treasury bills, essentially IOUs. The special T-bills actually exist as paper documents – they are warehoused in Washington DC.

    ReplyReply
  36. SPURWING+PLOVER says: 34

    Liberals think their on the moral high ground just becuase they often appear on some liberal morning news show(Today,GMA,CBS MORNING NEWS,CBS SUNDAY MORNING) and get interviews from TIME,PEOPLE, or the NYTs and other leftists propeganda programs, it just proves liberals dont realy think for themselves they just look for the news camaras and the soap boxes

    ReplyReply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>