Narrow-minded liberals: a true story (Ron Paul, Congress, generation, regular)

[austinsmom]

Originally Posted by MamaBee

Abortion is an extremely touchy subject...much more emotional than a topic like...taxation. People who were on the far-right in your class were obviously offended that you feel it's OK to kill babies.

That may be your opinion on it but I find it highly hypocritical when supposed Christians shun people who don't agree totally with their thinking. And yes, I am a Christian but I am also pro-choice. Not Obama pro-choice but I think it should be an option. And from the tone of your post, you are no better than those in her class.

[camping!]

My brother is a professor at a state college.....he said that he has had to keep the fact that he is a repbulican under wraps because he would fear a professional backlash. Literally, he feared not getting tenure.
However, it seems that the liberals who have a negative knee jerk reaction to conservatives tend to be aging baby boomers in academia. Luckily, most other people of all political persuasions tend to recognize that there really is no 'evil' party.

[MamaShay87]

No one is going to win this discussion. You will always have people on both sides that are extremists that will see only what is in their line of vision. Myself being a liberal I can say that I try not to come down on people who are conservative. Everyone has their own right to what they feel. Your advisor was wrong to talk to you like that, especially being an advisor. Trust when I say that not all liberals are like this. There are extremes on both sides of the fence, just try not to look them in the eye!

[Magnulus]

Your in college and you are so sure John McCain is OK... on what basis do you decide that? Your acquaintance is 50 years old and has done alot more living than you. Perhaps there's a reason he's not a fan of John McCain? The way I see it, John McCain is nothing more than George Bush Sr. all over again, a "kinder, gentler" authoritarian fascist that promises to make the agenda easier to swallow after 8 years of pillaging by Reagan, and now, George H.W. Bush. We've seen this all before but maybe you were too young to remember.

In real life it is a good thing to be careful about political discussions. Asking somebody how they are going to vote I believe is not acceptable in general discourse. There are better ways to feel out a persons politics than being blunt.

[denverian]

Originally Posted by vegaspilgrim

I'm not really that "big" into politics, and I normally stay away from this forum all together. But something happened to me recently that I want to get off my chest. I'm a college student and I'm an active member of a club at my school. This club is non-political... at least supposedly. I've known the club advisor, who's in his late '50s (let's call him Doug-- not his real name) for several years, and at least until last week, I've always respected him. He knows me pretty well too, although I have rarely, if ever, discussed politics with him. He's made it pretty clear in the past that he is a major hardcore liberal and a huge supporter of the Democratic Party and certain liberal causes. I consider myself a moderate, "libertarian"-leaning conservative. Up until last week, though, our political differences really hasn't gotten in the way of anything. Truth is, I can get along with just about everybody-- liberals, conservatives, left and right, as long as they stay out of my face. I was raised to never talk about politics and religion in public... and generally, I keep to that.

Last week after the normal club meeting was over, group of us "regulars" were sitting around a table, just talking, and then all of a sudden the conversation turns to the up and coming presidential election. This is normally the point where I just leave, but this time I stayed, keeping quiet and listening to what these people have to say. Doug, the advisor, goes around the table round-robbin asking each person "which candidate do you endorse"? This one girl says, "Hilary Clinton," and goes into a long speech about why she's so great. Another girls agrees with her, "Hilary." Another one says, "I actually voted for Obama in the primaries, ha ha, but I'm changing my vote to Hillary." This one guy comes in and says, "Clinton." Doug says he's for "John Edwards," and goes into a long rant about how the Democratic party's going to lose because they didn't vote for Edwards, but then implies that he would probably vote for Hillary. Then he asks me. I say, "I'm for McCain."

The whole table cringes in shock. Doug asks me, accusingly, "Why?" I say that John McCain clearly has the best leadership abilities of all the candidates, the most consistent voting record as a moderate, fiscally conservative, non-fundamentalist Republican (what being a Republican meant from the time the party was established all the way until a few decades ago), the best military experience of any (would-be) president since Eisenhower, and to top it off, he's a senator from Arizona... our state! I personally think McCain should have been chosen 8 years ago (I am not a Bush supporter at all). But better late than never. Point is though, I'm not writing this to convince you about my political views-- it's what happens next.

What happens next is the whole 4 years of history of interactions between me and Doug seems to get tossed out in an instant. I recently told him that my goal is to become a public accountant. I'm graduating with my bachelor's next month (in an unrelated major) and then I'm going straight into a master's in accounting degree at a prestigious school. Knowing this, he says, "Vegaspilgrim (not my name, obviously)... you're going to become a wealthy accountant some day..." I smile, thinking this is a compliment. (I'd like to think I'll become successful some day, but there's no guarrantee of anything). But in any case-- NOT! Next, he says, "You're going to become a wealthy accountant... and advocate welfare for the wealthy." Wait a second here... pretty much the only thing I've ever said to Doug regarding politics in the four years I've known him is just a minute ago when I said I plan on voting for John McCain... and now, all of a sudden, based on that one statement, he extrapolates an entire political ideology and puts words in my mouth, which may or may not even be true. He must think he's a genius, coming up with cute, stupid phrases like "welfare for the wealthy."

Then I respond, startled, saying, "Wealthy people give their own private contributions to charity. That's what charity is all about... people donating their own money for a cause they believe in, not the government taking people's money to run a "nanny state."" Then he responds with this whole tirade about, "Well, that's what Reagan said in the 1980s, and he dismantled all kinds of welfare programs without ever giving a dime to charity himself." I don't really know that much about Reagan (or even care, personally, I was still in diapers when he was president), so I don't know how to respond. He goes into some rant about how I'm going to be personally responsible for the plight of poor people (all because I want to vote for John McCain, I guess). I say, look here, politics is all about choosing the lesser of the evils; there is no ideal candidate. He contradicts this, saying that it IS about idealism. Whatever. Then I tell him, as I'm leaving, "The world doesn't run on socialism." He responds by saying something about how free universal health care is a human right and that the non-wealthy can't afford it. (For the record, I believe something MUST be done about the escalating costs of health care, but I don't think that socialized medicine is the right way to solve the problem).

So basically, what he's saying is, because I'm going into a career path that actually makes money (he works for the club... a non-profit organization-- so I sense some resentment there), and I want to vote for John McCain, that I am a greedy, selfish, bad person. I think Doug, the advisor's statement is absolutely pathetic, and uncalled for. Debate politics all day long and try to convince me that John Edwards is god, but stay out of my face, please. The instant someone starts ACCUSING me personally of being immoral, based on a voting preference in one election that hasn't even happened yet, I think it shows that person is extremely narrow minded, and quite stupid, frankly. For him, politics is his whole life; his entire family is extremely politically involved (all Democrats). After Doug showed his true colors last week, I'm not even sure if I can respect him again. I also think the sheep-like nature of the club I'm in is also pathetic; it's like you have to think exactly as they do or you're an outcast... even though the club is not supposed to be about politics.

What do you guys think about my story? Ever encountered someone like this? I want to hear your opinions, both left and right.

Go see "Stop Loss" and then see if you can stomach McCain. He's going to continue Bush's chosen war through his presidency, if elected.

The man wasn't being narrow-minded. He was stating his opinion, which many of us on the left agree with. The Republican Party is into welfare for big business, not the poor. They're also not fiscally responsible anymore.

[tablemtn]

Some people have "Pavlovian" reactions to certain cue words. Sounds like he is such a person.

There's really not much to be done about that, since, would it be better to have Pavlovian reactors suppress their opinions and secretly hate you without saying anything? Probably not.

[Rocket Power]

I've come across people like that, only it was from the other side.

[saganista]

Neither of the reported stories has any ring of truth to it in my ear. You can't know someone well for several years and not be aware of his or her political leanings. Except in an overtly faith-based Christian classroom, it's extremely unlikely that everyone else would be a hard-line abortion opponent. Either way, anecdotes are not data and inferences beyond Gee, that's interesting... are unwarranted...

[Bagz]

Originally Posted by vegaspilgrim

...and advocate welfare for the RICH...
I'm going to be personally responsible for the plight of poor people...
free universal health care is a human right and that the non-wealthy can't afford it...
I am a greedy, selfish, bad person. ....
starts ACCUSING me personally of being immoral, based on a voting preference in one election that hasn't even happened yet...
What do you guys think about my story? Ever encountered someone like this? I want to hear your opinions, both left and right.

Democrats are for the poor, Republicans are for the Rich.
Bush has ruined our country.
Greedy people are destroying our Environment.
Global Warming is caused by man.
There is no justification for the high salaries of athletes, entertainers, CEO's etc.
There is no justification for the low salaries of teachers, fireman, police, etc.
People who are for abortion are baby killers.

I am beginning to recognize a pattern here.

Both Conservatives and Liberals often treat one line sound bites as proven facts. They get away with it because they often associate exclusively with themselves. Then when they get into a debate, they use these "facts" as premises for their arguments. The problem is that the premises are at the very least debatable (whether you think they are true or untrue, they are debatable.) Then when they run into someone (even a young person developing his/her opinion) who recognizes that the premises are debatable, they are ostracized - and the cycle continues.

This is the logic they are using. "Republicans are for the rich. You are thinking about voting for a republican therefore you are against the poor. As further proof - you will be rich someday."

Then a bunch of posters came on and said "yea" and included other sound bites with similar arguments. The war is bad and republicans are war mongers...Every time with a debatable premise.

Lets look at a single issue. Republicans are for the RICH. If you believe that as fact, then you must then rationalize why anyone would vote for a Republican. But if you start from a premise that we can all agree on - like we should do what we can to help the poor. Republicans might argue for the tough love approach where we give them the education and opportunity needed, but any direct handouts might actually enable perpetual poverty. Democrats might disagree and feel that direct handouts will get them on their feet sooner. The point is that it is possible for 2 people to have the same goal and believe in a different means to obtain it. Believing the debatable conclusions as the basis for argument does more harm than good.

Republicans are just as guilty - especially Limbaugh. He claims that the Democrats are perpetuating poverty through entitlements to keep a larger voting base. There are people who follow Limbaugh and will not associate with Democrats. What you end up with is a polarized country spouting off one line statements as facts then going a step further and coming up with ludicrous arguments based on those "facts"

My advice is to associate with people on both sides of the spectrum as long as they are willing to make reasonable arguments and you can then decide which premises and conclusions you believe are true.

[DC at the Ridge]

I may be way off base here, but I gathered you have a long-standing relationship with this advisor. If you feel like the relationship was a valued one, I think you should go talk to him. It's an opportunity for the both of you to try to see from the other's perspective. He needs to be reminded that personal attacks are inappropriate for someone in his position, and that you are the same person that you were before you stated your political position. You would gain by being able to continue this relationship, and maybe even extending it by educating this man that your politics do not define you, that people are more than Clinton, McCain or Obama supporters, and that other people who feel similarly to you can have thoughtfully taken this position based on what you want your government to be like.

DC