Liberal hatred

[A18]

Brilliant...

Since you guys hate tax cuts so much, how about raising them in YOUR states and you can provide all these 'great services' THERE.

And NO ONE CARES about the 'rising cost' of Health Care! California can cover it.

[Blue Rectangle]

For the last time: Bush LOWERED EVERYONE'S taxes. No one's paying more unless they've entered a new pay bracket.

State and local ones had to make up for it.  There was also a lack of services and a HUGE deficit.  Can you just admit Clinton was better here?

All tax increases in CO (state and local) must be approved by the voters in a ballot initiative.  Thus, taxes have remained stable and the budget has been balanced through spending cuts.  Also, having a Republican gov and both houses controlled by Reps helps.

[Giant Saguaro]

Are these people "evil?"  No, of course not.  They're simply voting over abstract conceps instead of actual economic consequences.  That's their decision.  But is it an informed decision?  No, of course not.  

I have a feeling that most conservatives would probably say the exact same thing about liberals.

Of course, but if that is not hypocrisy I do not know what is.  Conservatives accuse us of being more idealistic than realistic.  And yet, now, the Republican base is no longer the rich company owners of the east, but the blue collar worker of the south.  These men no longer vote with their economic interests in mind.  They vote republican in order to return to social image of the world that has been condemned to the ashheap of history by the rest of the west.
And yet, it is they who are the victims of the Republican party.  The southern farmer votes to end abortion.  Instead he becomes another victim of free trade.  The mill worker votes against the crazy artist who insults Jesus, he is the one laid off by Republican economic policies.
The world where the realists were the republicans and the idealists were the liberals died with Ronald Reagan.  Today, it is the Democrats who are interested in <i>real</i> economic results, and the Republicans interested in forcing their view for the social order upon the rest of the country.

Two hypocrisies, speaking of them, that I see then. (1) You more frequently see higher income brackets supporting Dem candidates (and look at all the zillionaires who donate zillions of dollars to Kerry, for example, when they could be out actually doing something with that money like helping the people they say the GOP is stepping on) and (2) In going along with that, who ran Congress and who was in the White House and of what party was he when the free trade agreement was signed in in 1993?

[Defarge]

Are these people "evil?"  No, of course not.  They're simply voting over abstract conceps instead of actual economic consequences.  That's their decision.  But is it an informed decision?  No, of course not.  

I have a feeling that most conservatives would probably say the exact same thing about liberals.

Of course, but if that is not hypocrisy I do not know what is.  Conservatives accuse us of being more idealistic than realistic.  And yet, now, the Republican base is no longer the rich company owners of the east, but the blue collar worker of the south.  These men no longer vote with their economic interests in mind.  They vote republican in order to return to social image of the world that has been condemned to the ashheap of history by the rest of the west.
And yet, it is they who are the victims of the Republican party.  The southern farmer votes to end abortion.  Instead he becomes another victim of free trade.  The mill worker votes against the crazy artist who insults Jesus, he is the one laid off by Republican economic policies.
The world where the realists were the republicans and the idealists were the liberals died with Ronald Reagan.  Today, it is the Democrats who are interested in <i>real</i> economic results, and the Republicans interested in forcing their view for the social order upon the rest of the country.

The fallacy in what you are saying is that you assume that conservative voters want something from the government economically, or expect the government to provide for them economically.

For most conservative voters (myself included), fear of what the government can do to us, or take away from us, outweighs any hope or expectation of what government can do for us.  Most conservative voters want government out of their lives more than they want government to provide them with things.

You are also wrong to criticize conservatives for trying to impose a social order, when liberals are doing the same thing.  Liberals are taking a more aggressive position in trying to change the long-existing social order to be more to their liking, with potentially dangerous conseqences.  Conservatives generally see more of a downside than an upside to changing the social order, if the consequences are going to be a breakdown in the family structure, which is strongly suggested from what we have seen so far, and wish to, at the very least, slow down social change.

That is a perfectly legitimate view, and if you honestly are more concerned with overturning Roe v. Wade than protecting American jobs from free trade, then that's fine.

For the last time: Bush LOWERED EVERYONE'S taxes. No one's paying more unless they've entered a new pay bracket.

Umm, no.  He may have "lowered" them, but not in an equal manner.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61178-2004Aug12_2.html

Hanson is basically right about why most liberals have such a disdain for George Bush.  He is a class traitor in their eyes and he rejected the eastern Ivy elite, the top of the liberal establishment, for the south and Christianity, the bottom of the liberal's social heirarchy.

I don't necessarily agree with the quote from the unnamed columnist.  My experience has been that one side condemns the other on account of both evil and stupidity.

Class traitor?  What are you talking about?  It's Bush who lowers the tax burden on the rich.  It is Bush whose top campaign donor was Ken Lay and the rest of his Enron friends.

Wtf are you talking about?  

[The Duke]

defarge,

The elite care less about taxes than they do about other things.  They value being the holders of societal achievement more than their money.

[Nation]

i'm a liberal, and I HATE FREEDOM

[Gabu]

i'm a liberal, and I HATE FREEDOM

This obviously proves that all liberals hate freedom.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

For the last time: Bush LOWERED EVERYONE'S taxes. No one's paying more unless they've entered a new pay bracket.

Stop spewing untruthful propaganda....Bush didn't lower taxes at all on those who pay payroll taxes but not income tax.  This is about one-quarter of American families, and it is he group that could actually use a tax cut the most.

Wrong.  They got a $300 tax rebate in 2001.

I thought those rebates were just advances on tax refunds that people were already due.  So if they weren't due a refund, they would just have to pay them back when April came along.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

defarge,

The elite care less about taxes than they do about other things.  They value being the holders of societal achievement more than their money.

what about me then? I'm not rich and elite and neither is my family.

First you Republicans complain about "class warfare" and liberals bashing the rich, now you say liberals think Bush is a class traitor. give me a break. All he does is benefit the rich and he is rich, he's just another one of the Bourgeoise, and he just benefits the Bourgeoise.

I'm going to have to laugh my ass of if you think I'm part of this so-called liberal elite. You're talking to someone who spent the first part of his life in a trailer park in the 8th poorest county in the US (located next to the single poorest) who had to be driven an hour to and back every time my family went to the doctor. And you think I consider wealthy Ivy League folks the top of the establishment? AHAHAAHAHAHA!

what about bandit too? the guy is rather similar to a stereotype of a "white trash" male.

and why does this so called liberal elite love inner cities and really hate suburbs as we've seen from this forum?

[The Duke]

BRTD,

To compare you to the average American liberal is a joke.  You are a smart guy, but you're in the extreme fringe.  Your political opponents are not just traditionalists and economic libertarians, but als o anyone who opposes an overthrow of the entire social and economic order in the West.  You clearly side with Democrats out of convenience, not affinity.  You are not in the elite, and in fact cannot be cateegorized within any major political sect in the US.

The elite do not have to be wealthy, either.  Most artists are not wealthy, but they represent a CULTURAL elite.  University professors are not poor, but also are not usually wealthy.  Journalists are cultural elites, but aren't usually wealthy.  Activists for groups like PETA or NARAL are not necessarily wealthy, but are in the cultural elite.

Do not confuse wealth with elite.  While Bush may be from a wealthy family, that is not what made them elites.  Lottery winners can be wealthy, so can dot com wiz kids.  What seperates families like the Bushes is their social values (the elder Bush, for example, was pro-choice when most of his party was not).  They believe that what makes you worhtwhile is what college you went to, what your last name is, what your politics are, and who you associate with.  Important sentence coming Elites, therefore, are not categorized as such for what they have, but what they value.

Do not mistake my comments to mean that Bush is a traitor to an economic class, that is a simplification of our world.  He is a traitor to a cultural elite, not necessarily an economic one.  Granted, most economic elites are in the cultural elite, but not all are necessarily.  By embracing Texas and Christianity and rejecting cocktail parties and the Ivy League schools he attended, George W. Bush has betrayed the cultural elite into which he was born and welcomed for a "lesser" America he found more appealing.  The shunning of the institutions and values of the left, he has enraged them far more than any economic betrayal ever could (In the Civil War II Thread we came to this conclusion: That a future Civil War could only be fought over social issues, because economic ones don't sufficviently inflame passions).

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I suppose despite your frst statement you could still consider me a "cultural elite". I go to a very liberal public university. I have a large vinyl collection of obscurish "sophisticated" indie bands. I have modern art paintings hanging on my apartment's walls. So disregarding my politics and replacing them with some more traditional liberal ones, I would basically be what you are supposedly talking about. However my background is still there. So have I become some sort of traitor then to the "lower cultural classes"?

You are basically defining the "cultural elite" as Ivy League Degree, Starbucks drinking types. However, such types are bound to be found in the suburbs, not the inner cities. Yet as my threads on the topic have proven, liberals and radicals alike both absolutely hate suburbs. During such threads, we were accused of being "bigoted" toward suburbia, and yet suburbia represents exactly what you are talking about.

They believe that what makes you worhtwhile is what college you went to, what your last name is, what your politics are, and who you associate with.

I found this an interesting comment. What about the protestors at the ANSWER rallies, and the ones rallying against the WTO? Does this fit them? The last two, yes, but what about the first two? Do anti-globalization radicals judge people based on their last names and what colleges they went to?

[Dr. Cynic]

Liberals don't hate Conservatives, we just disagree with them on a large scale.

[muon2]

JohnFord made an important and correct distinction when defining elites. Conventionally the word does refer to cultural, not economic elites. The interesting thing is that cultural elites do not always support themselves.

One of the best treatises on elite and their role in society, IMO, is William Henry's In Defense of Elitism. A link to the publisher's synopsis is at
http://www.randomhouse.com/catalog/display.pperl?isbn=0385479433&view=rg. The intersting feature of the essay is that the author - an award winning, left-leaning writer - takes a tone in favor of cultural elitism that run contrary to the usual leftist position. His work can be found in citations by conservatives such as Jonah Goldberg

The effect of political correctness in the cultural elite is the main fear for Henry. The implications may well have been foretold in the 1951 classic SF story the Marching Morons by C. M. Kornbluth. If you've never read this darkly humorous tale, you should. Then consider that it was written over 50 years ago.

[The Duke]

I suppose despite your frst statement you could still consider me a "cultural elite". I go to a very liberal public university. I have a large vinyl collection of obscurish "sophisticated" indie bands. I have modern art paintings hanging on my apartment's walls. So disregarding my politics and replacing them with some more traditional liberal ones, I would basically be what you are supposedly talking about. However my background is still there. So have I become some sort of traitor then to the "lower cultural classes"?

You are not a member of the cultural elite since you are not established yet.  If you were a professor, you would be, but being a college student does not make you an elite.  You do, however, demonstrate that the things liberals value are the same things valued by the cultural elite and you are well on your way there.

You are basically defining the "cultural elite" as Ivy League Degree, Starbucks drinking types. However, such types are bound to be found in the suburbs, not the inner cities. Yet as my threads on the topic have proven, liberals and radicals alike both absolutely hate suburbs. During such threads, we were accused of being "bigoted" toward suburbia, and yet suburbia represents exactly what you are talking about.

Wrong.  The Ivy Leaguers who fit the cultural elite are usually able to earn wealth, and do not live in the suburbs.  They live in places like The Hamptons, Beverly Hills, Fisher Island, and Central Park West.  The elite don't live in the suburbs, although many in the suburbs have embraced the value system of the elites.

The cultural elite can also be, say, an avant garde artist.  He lives in a loft in West Hollywood, not the suburbs.  It could be the owner of an indie record store who lives in a studio apartment in Manhattan.  They don't live in the suburbs either.

They believe that what makes you worhtwhile is what college you went to, what your last name is, what your politics are, and who you associate with.

I found this an interesting comment. What about the protestors at the ANSWER rallies, and the ones rallying against the WTO? Does this fit them? The last two, yes, but what about the first two? Do anti-globalization radicals judge people based on their last names and what colleges they went to?

If you weren't born with the right name or didn't go to the right college, you can still value the same things as the cultural elite.  Going to protest rallies is not something the elite themselves often do, actually, but they do claim to admire social radicals.  Thus, by being a social radical, you can earn your bona fides as a worshipper of the same elite institutions and ideas as are taught at Yale.  The things these people consider symbols of status are the same as those that the elite consider symbols of status, even if the protestors have been unable to attain those things.  They are not really the elite in most cases, but they share the same view of what the social heirarchy is.

It is Bush's rejection of this heritage that drives liberals nuts.  The things they value he was given on a silver platter.  He got into Yale and Harvard on his name, he was born in Connecticut to a patrician family, and he chose something else.  He went and rejected them all, opting instead to be an unrepentant Christian Texan instead of a liberal intellectual.  The fact that he saw more redeeming qualities from this lifestyle that liberals seem to look down on (Southern, religious) after having been handed the life of an elite ona  silver platter is what drives the left nuts.  He rejected their instiutions and social values.

[dazzleman]

It is Bush's rejection of this heritage that drives liberals nuts.  The things they value he was given on a silver platter.  He got into Yale and Harvard on his name, he was born in Connecticut to a patrician family, and he chose something else.  He went and rejected them all, opting instead to be an unrepentant Christian Texan instead of a liberal intellectual.  The fact that he saw more redeeming qualities from this lifestyle that liberals seem to look down on (Southern, religious) after having been handed the life of an elite ona  silver platter is what drives the left nuts.  He rejected their instiutions and social values.

I think you hit the nail right on the head with this one.

Liberals hate President Bush more than they hate the Islamic fascists who have attacked us and are planning even greater attacks.

Their hatred of the president is beyond all rationality and borders on being a mental sickness.  Clearly, the president is not perfect, and it would be perfectly understandable to prefer to have somebody else in the White House.  But the liberal hatred of the president is so bad, and so irrational, that it is really a psychiatric rather than political matter.

And I think you correctly explain the reason for it - liberals are so absolutely convinced of their own superiority, so deeply entrenched in their prejudices and bigotries, that they just can't abide anybody who would call any of it into question.

And Bush has done that by rejecting their eastern elitism and embracing a lifestyle that they absolutely disdain.  Those who prattle on endlessly about "tolerance" really have very little of it themselves.  My experience is that most conservatives are far more tolerant than liberals.  Liberals are so convinced of their superiority that they see no reason to practice the tolerance that they are always preaching to others.

[Michael Z]

Liberals hate President Bush more than they hate the Islamic fascists who have attacked us and are planning even greater attacks.

Their hatred of the president is beyond all rationality and borders on being a mental sickness.  Clearly, the president is not perfect, and it would be perfectly understandable to prefer to have somebody else in the White House.  But the liberal hatred of the president is so bad, and so irrational, that it is really a psychiatric rather than political matter.

And I think you correctly explain the reason for it - liberals are so absolutely convinced of their own superiority, so deeply entrenched in their prejudices and bigotries, that they just can't abide anybody who would call any of it into question.

And Bush has done that by rejecting their eastern elitism and embracing a lifestyle that they absolutely disdain.  Those who prattle on endlessly about "tolerance" really have very little of it themselves.  My experience is that most conservatives are far more tolerant than liberals.  Liberals are so convinced of their superiority that they see no reason to practice the tolerance that they are always preaching to others.

The only hate-filled superiority complex I can see here is coming from the post I am quoting right now. I have no idea what you're attempting to achieve by generalising and labelling all of those who don't share your political ideals as hate-filled and psychologically unstable, but it sure as hell won't build any bridges.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Liberals hate President Bush more than they hate the Islamic fascists who have attacked us and are planning even greater attacks.

Their hatred of the president is beyond all rationality and borders on being a mental sickness.  Clearly, the president is not perfect, and it would be perfectly understandable to prefer to have somebody else in the White House.  But the liberal hatred of the president is so bad, and so irrational, that it is really a psychiatric rather than political matter.

And I think you correctly explain the reason for it - liberals are so absolutely convinced of their own superiority, so deeply entrenched in their prejudices and bigotries, that they just can't abide anybody who would call any of it into question.

And Bush has done that by rejecting their eastern elitism and embracing a lifestyle that they absolutely disdain.  Those who prattle on endlessly about "tolerance" really have very little of it themselves.  My experience is that most conservatives are far more tolerant than liberals.  Liberals are so convinced of their superiority that they see no reason to practice the tolerance that they are always preaching to others.

The only hate-filled superiority complex I can see here is coming from the post I am quoting right now. I have no idea what you're attempting to achieve by generalising and labelling all of those who don't share your political ideals as hate-filled and psychologically unstable, but it sure as hell won't build any bridges.

not to mention we never said this about right's insane hatred of Clinton. I don't see the difference.

[dazzleman]

Liberals hate President Bush more than they hate the Islamic fascists who have attacked us and are planning even greater attacks.

Their hatred of the president is beyond all rationality and borders on being a mental sickness.  Clearly, the president is not perfect, and it would be perfectly understandable to prefer to have somebody else in the White House.  But the liberal hatred of the president is so bad, and so irrational, that it is really a psychiatric rather than political matter.

And I think you correctly explain the reason for it - liberals are so absolutely convinced of their own superiority, so deeply entrenched in their prejudices and bigotries, that they just can't abide anybody who would call any of it into question.

And Bush has done that by rejecting their eastern elitism and embracing a lifestyle that they absolutely disdain.  Those who prattle on endlessly about "tolerance" really have very little of it themselves.  My experience is that most conservatives are far more tolerant than liberals.  Liberals are so convinced of their superiority that they see no reason to practice the tolerance that they are always preaching to others.

The only hate-filled superiority complex I can see here is coming from the post I am quoting right now. I have no idea what you're attempting to achieve by generalising and labelling all of those who don't share your political ideals as hate-filled and psychologically unstable, but it sure as hell won't build any bridges.

There's no hate here; I'm only calling it as I see it.  I probably should have narrowed my definition and spoke of the far left rather than all liberals, since I did not mean to imply that all those who disagree with Bush's policies are irrational in their hatred of him.  But I do think there is a fair number of people whose hatred of the president is highly irrational, especially when you consider that they don't seem particularly bothered by the prospect of a biological attack by the Islamic fundamentalists.

Some of the right's hatred of Clinton was over the top, but conservatives largely supported him on national security issues, and it's hard to imagine Clinton's enemies hating him more than they hated Islamic fundamentalists who have attacked us.  That's the difference between the hard left who hate Bush and the conservatives who hated Clinton.

If you're not one of those people who irrationally hates Bush, as opposed to simply disagreeing with his policies, then you should not think I'm speaking of you.  But I think there is reason to be deeply concerned about the ugly and hateful attitudes of the far left, and I don't intend to not point out the facts as I see them in the vain hope of building bridges to highly irrational people who will not be happy until we destroy ourselves.

Getting away from the Bush issue, I do think that many liberals are blind to their own prejudices and bigotries, even as they loudly condemn other people for theirs'.  A certain level of prejudice and bigotry is a normal human failing, but it is irritating to be lectured by holier-than-thou liberals who are blind to their own failings.

[John Dibble]

You see, the problem is that the liberals who really HATE Bush are also the loudest and most obnoxious, so they get the most media attention. The ones who just dislike our current president get less attention. The obnoxious ones really are out of control right now, and it's the moderates do next to nothing to seperate themselves from them.

[dazzleman]

You see, the problem is that the liberals who really HATE Bush are also the loudest and most obnoxious, so they get the most media attention. The ones who just dislike our current president get less attention. The obnoxious ones really are out of control right now, and it's the moderates do next to nothing to seperate themselves from them.

I agree.  The numbers who really hate Bush are probably relatively small, but they have taken over the public face of the opposition.

The Democratic Party tried to suppress these people during the convention, but the scary fact is that they are an integral part of the Democratic party base.

Hate doesn't win elections in this country.  All the hatred that some conservatives had toward Clinton never drove him from office.  Many hated FDR, and that never drove him from office.

[Nation]

You see, the problem is that the liberals who really HATE Bush are also the loudest and most obnoxious, so they get the most media attention. The ones who just dislike our current president get less attention. The obnoxious ones really are out of control right now, and it's the moderates do next to nothing to seperate themselves from them.

I agree.  The numbers who really hate Bush are probably relatively small, but they have taken over the public face of the opposition.

The Democratic Party tried to suppress these people during the convention, but the scary fact is that they are an integral part of the Democratic party base.

Hate doesn't win elections in this country.  All the hatred that some conservatives had toward Clinton never drove him from office.  Many hated FDR, and that never drove him from office.

Clinton and FDR also had a bit more nationwide support than Bush does.

[The Duke]

You see, the problem is that the liberals who really HATE Bush are also the loudest and most obnoxious, so they get the most media attention. The ones who just dislike our current president get less attention. The obnoxious ones really are out of control right now, and it's the moderates do next to nothing to seperate themselves from them.

I agree.  The numbers who really hate Bush are probably relatively small, but they have taken over the public face of the opposition.

The Democratic Party tried to suppress these people during the convention, but the scary fact is that they are an integral part of the Democratic party base.

Hate doesn't win elections in this country.  All the hatred that some conservatives had toward Clinton never drove him from office.  Many hated FDR, and that never drove him from office.

Clinton and FDR also had a bit more nationwide support than Bush does.

FDR did, but did Clinton?

Clinton's approval rating at this stage of his re-election campaign was only two points higher than Bush's, and he only recieved 43% of the popular vote in 1992.  The level of support Clinton enjoyed is not as high as you make it seem.

[dazzleman]

You see, the problem is that the liberals who really HATE Bush are also the loudest and most obnoxious, so they get the most media attention. The ones who just dislike our current president get less attention. The obnoxious ones really are out of control right now, and it's the moderates do next to nothing to seperate themselves from them.

I agree.  The numbers who really hate Bush are probably relatively small, but they have taken over the public face of the opposition.

The Democratic Party tried to suppress these people during the convention, but the scary fact is that they are an integral part of the Democratic party base.

Hate doesn't win elections in this country.  All the hatred that some conservatives had toward Clinton never drove him from office.  Many hated FDR, and that never drove him from office.

Clinton and FDR also had a bit more nationwide support than Bush does.

True of FDR, but remember that Clinton never won a majority of the popular vote in either 1992 or 1996.  Clinton won approximately the same percentage of the popular vote in 1996 that Bush won in 2000, and significantly less in 1992.

[Dr. Cynic]

I don't think Bush can compare to FDR.

I think when Bush's Presidency goes into history, it will say "Bush was a kind-hearted, and physically driven man. But, he lacked the mental agility to be President, and had too much of a one track mind. His policies were based on a religous and moral stance. But, being religous and moral doesn't always balance the budget.

I thought I was fair, and looked at his Presidency as an honest critic. I never said he was dumb as a bag of rocks (Having mental agility is different than being able to manipulate beliefs on patriotisim.), nor did I once say I hated him. The only hatred I've read is for either Bill Clinton or John Kerry on this board.

[Gabu]

I do think that many liberals are blind to their own prejudices and bigotries, even as they loudly condemn other people for theirs'.  A certain level of prejudice and bigotry is a normal human failing, but it is irritating to be lectured by holier-than-thou liberals who are blind to their own failings.

I do think that many liberals conservatives are blind to their own prejudices and bigotries, even as they loudly condemn other people for theirs'.  A certain level of prejudice and bigotry is a normal human failing, but it is irritating to be lectured by holier-than-thou liberals conservatives who are blind to their own failings.

Perhaps not you, but they're certainly out there.