Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Many of my white liberal friends and aquaintences seem to verbally and public support liberal democratic policies, but secretly harbor resentment toward many democratic policies.
Here are some examples?
1. Go out their way to support immigration verbally among friends and coworkers. Talk privately about how America is being so called "colonized" by immigrants (and their children). Resent immigrants and the welfare given to them.
2. Talk about how we need hardworking highly skilled talent. "we love them". Resent workplace competition and oppose the whole h1b visa scheme.
3. Appear to be dismiss and laugh at those white red neck racists. Resent affirmative action when they look around and there aren't many white people or that they couldn't get the job they wanted.
4. Talk about compassion for undocumented immigrants. Resent working class job competition. Resent the so called "drain" on our social services.
These are just some of too many examples.
It tends to be not rich whites or poor whites, but whites in the middle and slightly upper middle who have this kind of inconsistent behavior. Sort of like tea party at heart, too shy to show it.
Many "liberals" fall in to this category of hypocrisy: They think left, but they live right; they champion public education, but send their kids to private school, & cet.
Many "liberals" fall in to this category of hypocrisy: They think left, but they live right; they champion public education, but send their kids to private school, & cet.
But it's seems to me that they don't just act left. They vote in left policies that they later resent. So it's like doing things against your interest.
I think that it is in the nature of who we, as human beings, to hold contradictory opinions and views. Whether you consider yourself liberal or conservative there will be issues in which intellectually you may agree, but which viscerally, you disagree. The question is whether your intellect controls your emotions or your emotions your intellect.
But even beyond the intellect versus emotional responses, there are grey areas in all issues. For instance, liberals and conservatives can both agree that immigration is beneficial to the nation. But as you delve deeper into the issues fissures occur. But these fissures also occur not only among the liberal and conservative divide but also among liberals and conservatives themselves.
Is it possible to be for immigration but against illegal immigration? Absolutely. Can a liberal be for immigration but against uncontrolled legal immigration? yes. I don't see that position, pro-immigration but against uncontrolled immigration, as being antithetical to one's liberal philosophy.
Conservatives are not immune to these contradictions. It is who we are.
I think that it is in the nature of who we, as human beings, to hold contradictory opinions and views. Whether you consider yourself liberal or conservative there will be issues in which intellectually you may agree, but which viscerally, you disagree. The question is whether your intellect controls your emotions or your emotions your intellect.
But even beyond the intellect versus emotional responses, there are grey areas in all issues. For instance, liberals and conservatives can both agree that immigration is beneficial to the nation. But as you delve deeper into the issues fissures occur. But these fissures also occur not only among the liberal and conservative divide but also among liberals and conservatives themselves.
Is it possible to be for immigration but against illegal immigration? Absolutely. Can a liberal be for immigration but against uncontrolled legal immigration? yes. I don't see that position, pro-immigration but against uncontrolled immigration, as being antithetical to one's liberal philosophy.
Conservatives are not immune to these contradictions. It is who we are.
Many liberals are resentful to immigrants, and we aren't talking strictly uncontrolled immigration. Though, they don't get to that level of discretion because they refuse to analyze it for the fear of something.
Against illegal immigration? That puts you in the category of hate mongers who always look for scapegoats.
What about affirmative action? Shouldn't a liberal support it?
Many liberals are resentful to immigrants, and we aren't talking strictly uncontrolled immigration. Though, they don't get to that level of discretion because they refuse to analyze it for the fear of something.
Against illegal immigration? That puts you in the category of hate mongers who always look for scapegoats.
What about affirmative action? Shouldn't a liberal support it?
Political scientist sometimes use a line to see where you sit in the political spectrum. There is usually a dot in the centerline and how far you are from that will determine how liberal or conservative you are. There are degrees of liberalism like there are degrees of conservatism. Not everyone is going to agree.
Add to that that what was conservative twenty-five years ago is now considered liberal and political labels become more confusing. What do liberals think about affirmative action? It depends on the liberal you talk to.
Political scientist sometimes use a line to see where you sit in the political spectrum. There is usually a dot in the centerline and how far you are from that will determine how liberal or conservative you are. There are degrees of liberalism like there are degrees of conservatism. Not everyone is going to agree.
Add to that that what was conservative twenty-five years ago is now considered liberal and political labels become more confusing. What do liberals think about affirmative action? It depends on the liberal you talk to.
Mostly it doesn't depend on the liberal you talk to. Against affirmation action is distinctly un-liberal. It's going way over to the other side of the spectrum. No longer just the degrees of liberalism.
I believe that the disparity arises from the motivation of the two groups and from differences of interpretation of the names applied to them.
Conservatives or "the right" are usually "playing defense"; they seek to keep things the way they are. But a substantial percentage of "conservatives" believe that their cause is "empirically grounded" or "philosophically consistent"; That contention holds whether applied to the free-market advocacy of Milton Friedman, or if taken one step further by Ayn Rand's argument that political, economic and personal liberties are grounded in the same principle - hence unitary and inseparable.
A substantial portion of the conservative movement is, however, drawn to it by individual-issue concens -- often "fortified" by moralistic absolutes. These individuals have lost ground over the past fifty years as beliefs have become less-rooted in absolutes therefore, their loyalties are more likely to change over time due to the less-empirical reasoning behind their grounding. However, new single-issue "believers" often take their place.
Liberals or "the left". on the other hand, go on the offensive, they base their opposition to various forms of what they see as injustice on a morality which can change in response to human interaction. But they cannot pursue their agenda without harnessing the power to coerce, with which the state (government at any level} alone is vested. That agenda flies in the face of conservatives; after all, to conserve is to protect.
At the time of The Enlightenment, Voltaire -- often described as the first "classical liberal", expressed on many occasions, and in various wordings, "I disagree with what you say, but recognize your right to say it." Save for the protection of "artistic freedom" (particularly of offensive to conservative moralists) that idea seems to have disappeared from the liberal/"progressie" manifesto.
Thus the conservative movement might be described as "polarized" but somewhat more consistent; the liberal movement as "fragmented", but adaptable.
Last edited by 2nd trick op; 07-22-2014 at 07:10 PM..
I believe that the disparity arises from the motivation of the two groups and from differences of interpretation of the names applied to them.
Conservatives or "the right" are usually "playing defense"; they seek to keep things the way they are. But a substantial percentage of "conservatives" believe that their cause is "empirically grounded" or "philosophically consistent"; That contention holds whether applied to the free-market advocacy of Milton Friedman, or if taken one step further by Ayn Rand's argument that political, economic and personal liberties are grounded in the same principle - hence unitary and inseparable.
A substantial portion of the conservative movement is, however, drawn to it by individual-issue concens -- often "fortified" by moralistic absolutes. These individuals have lost ground over the past fifty years as beliefs have become less-rooted in absolutes therefore, their loyalties are more likely to change over time due to the less-empirical reasoning behind their grounding. However, new single-issue "believers" often take their place.
Liberals or "the left". on the other hand, go on the offensive, they base their opposition to various forms of what they see as injustice on a morality which can change in response to human interaction. But they cannot pursue their agenda without harnessing the power to coerce, with which the state (government at any level} alone is vested. That agenda flies in the face of conservatives; after all, to conserve is to protect.
Thus the conservative movement might be described as "polarized" but somewhat more consistent; the liberal movement as "fragmented", but adaptable.
It's much more simple than that. If one opposes something, then one should oppose it. The problem I described is that many liberals have doubts about something, but they keep supporting that something and in fact with overly strong enthusiasm.
When the tea party movement first started it was for three things.
1. Limited government
2. Lower taxes
3. Free markets
It was just a matter of time before every Moderator cut: inappropriate joined did it become the Birch Society and took up issues like immigration, abortion, war on drugs and gay bashing.
My county now has a "Liberty Alliance" former Moderator cut: inappropriate who are only for limited government, lower taxes and free markets, sans the other tangents.
Last edited by Oldhag1; 07-23-2014 at 04:26 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
