Those Mean-Spirited Liberals

American Thinker | Christopher Chantrill | Jun 30, 2008

Every now and again our learned scholars in the liberal university come up with a study, financed by taxpayers’ money, that concludes what every liberal already knows. Conservatives are rigid and not very intelligent. In fact, as one study by two Berkeley professors claimed, the the “whiny, insecure kid in nursery school” probably grew up to be a conservative.

Of course two can play at that game, and so conservative Peter Schweizer took a look at the University of Chicago’s General Social Survey and a few other generally available opinion surveys and came to the opposite conclusion in his book Makers and Takers. He found that conservatives are the good guys and liberals are the whiners.

Maybe he got different results because the General Social Survey covers the whole United States while the Berkeley professors only studied a single school in Berkeley, California.

Either way, Schweizer’s findings make sense.

Liberals are more materialistic than conservatives, he finds. Of course they are. Believing in equality, differences in material things are very important to them. Not surprisingly, when they discover material differences in society, liberals are offended. There is a word for this feeling of offence: Envy. And so it is that liberals are more envious than conservatives.

Liberals celebrate anger. No, we are not just talking about Bush Derangement Syndrome. “Since the sixties, modern liberals have embraced anger as a sign of genuine commitment to the cause,” writes Schweizer and their political rage leaks into their personal lives. The General Social Survey shows that liberals are more angry than conservatives and “three times more likely (17 percent to 6 percent) to have actually done something to get back at someone who had hurt or offended them in the past month.”

Liberals are stingy with their money. Again, this is hardly surprising. Liberal political philosophy says: People Have Needs, and the government should provide. Thus liberals, when they actually spend money on anyone other than themselves, give money to the activist organizations that advocate for bigger government. Conservatives, on the other hand, give money to organizations that actually help people. Schweizer shows us that the headline liberals of recent memory-the Clintons, Gores, Kerrys, and Obamas-don’t give much. But headline conservatives like Bush, Cheney, and Limbaugh do give, and give generously.

But then they would. Conservatives believe that people should help people, and governments should stick to the stuff that governments do best, defending society against enemies, foreign and domestic.

. . . more


7 thoughts on “Those Mean-Spirited Liberals”

  1. The author of this article claims that liberals are angry, stingy and materialistic. Ha-ha, “what else is new?” (I guess that in computer jargon, instead of ha-ha one should write LOL) It has been written elsewhere that liberalism is a mental disorder. A liberal’s mind works much in the same way that a computer that has been programmed to recognize that 2X3=5 would work. Using a computer that has been programmed with faulty information is a waste of time and certainly counterproductive. thus, discussing the issues with a liberal and presenting points of view backed up with facts is a waste of time. Liberals generally ignore facts when they form their opinions and generally just try to smear people who disagree with them. This is their way of justifying their opinions. Liberals are the “useful idiots” which are referred to as being the helpers of those who want to destroy nations and impose totalitarian regimes. After a totalitarian regime is established, liberals are amongst those who are exterminated. The liberal, in a totalitarian regime, becomes the “useful idiot” who has outlived his usefulness.

  2. Anton, do you see the irony in saying of liberals that they “smear people who disagree with them,” while at the same time you call liberals angry, stingy, materialistic, ignoring facts, mentally disordered, and useful idiots — all accusations not backed up by any facts?

  3. Anton, the syndrome you describe is not limited to liberals. It is a sickness of ideology no matter what the ideology is. It applies to people of faith who do substitue legalism for genuine communion with God. The reason it seems that liberals suffer from the disease to a greater extent than others is that the liberal agenda is nothing but ideology–an artificial construction that systematically denies reality at every turn. It is unfortunate that many who claim to be conservative are no different.

    We live in an ideological age in which increasingly humanity, intelligence and thought are being replaced by erstatz subustitues. It is something against which we all must guard. Ideology is founded in and controlled by the passions and always blinds us to the truth.

  4. There is a very easy way to back up the statement that liberals are stingy, materialistic, people who ignore facts. Just observe some liberals with the way they behave themselves. Yes, and they ignore facts in forming their political opinions. Just think about how someone who has a table at a bazaar behaves himself. That bazaar vendor tries to sell you a bill of goods, no matter how damaging to the buyer it may be. Look at the regimes that liberals have helped to put into power. Amongst these regimes you have Robert Mugabe’s “Zimbabwe”, Nelson Mandela’s “South Africa”, (with the disastrous standard of living that nation endures now), the Soviet Union with the sheer terror that was unleashed upon its citizens. and others. Sure these nations previously had all sorts of “human rights ” issues, but the liberals facilitated the type of regime changes that brought about sheer hell to most people in these nations. These are hard cold facts! I doubt that this web site would allow criticism of certain conservatives. This really is not an Eastern Orthodox website, despite what it calls itself.
    I’ve been around for quite a few years. I’ve seen the nation change. At one time, this was a nation of self-determination. People figured out how to solve the problems that were facing them. As we’ve moved to the left, I see less and less of that.

  5. Anton, this comment from you is absolutely NOT true: “I doubt that this web site would allow criticism of certain conservatives.” There are many stories posted that criticize those that claim conservative and moral values and act against them. We’re not about embracing a political ideology, but a moral and ethical one. It just so happens that many Republicans happen to also hold those views while a vast majority of Democrats do not. I personally posted many editorials and commentaries that critically looked at President Bush and many of the GOP who have forsaken their values and embraced leftist and radical environmentalist views.

  6. Yes, conservatives can be criticized here, but the criticism is very selective. I guess a conservative could get in trouble here if he wanted to raise taxes, wanted to fight global warming, or wasn’t tough enough on immigration.

    But while the failings of liberals are cataloged and examined in great detail, the failings of conservatives pass by largely unnoticed.

    I remember in the run-up to the Iraq war folks here were all excited about it, and there were articles posted about military virtues, and so on. People who opposed the war were described as “leftist” appeasers, etc. Then, when the occupation turned into a disaster — there was silence. No criticism of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Rice, or anyone else. When literally billions of dollars went missing in Iraq, there was silence here. When unqualified people were put in charge of administering Iraq, sometimes kids barely out of college, selected only because of their ideology, there was silence. When no-bid contracts were handed out to Cheney’s former business friends, there was silence.

    All of the subsequent scandals in the Bush administration have passed by largely without mention. Various sex scandals passed by without mention, even ones involving Republican politicians. Ted Haggard, head of one of the largest religious organizations in the country, hooked up with with a gay prostitute and bought crystal meth, but that was never the subject of an article here.

    If all of that wasn’t worth mentioning here, what was? Well, there was Al Gore, or “AlGore” as he is called here. There were several articles about his big house, and he was denounced as a hypocrite, over and over again. When he started an investment business dealing with global warming issues, he was denounced as having a “conflict of interest.” The criticism of “AlGore” was relentless.

    Now maybe Al Gore should be criticized. But why are his sins examined in great detail, whereas the sins of Republicans and conservatives are rarely mentioned? If it’s all about ethics and morals, what about the ethics and morals of conservatives? I think it’s a fair question to ask.

  7. Jim, of course you know this, but if you refer to my post #3 you have your basic answer. Ideology blinds us to the truth. Politics tends to be ideologically motivated, thus the the ignor-ance of transgressions by ‘your guy’. It is the problem any time principals are applied. The more specific one becomes as to policy and procedure, the more ideological one tends to become.

    I have no doubt that the Republicans are just as corrupt and immoral as the Democrats. Politics always pushes people toward immorality and corruption because it is about power. Christians should be able to wield power in a better way than others, but in fact we seldom do. The tempations overwhelm even the best of people, especially when there is no functional method of getting people out of power. The ideological foundation acts as a built-in protection (it is the fault of the vast right or left wing conspiracy or ……. fill in the blank). Given the fact that all ideologs pander to our passions (if not outright tryannizing us) the oligarcy of power is maintained.

    Most folks don’t want freedom, including me. We’d rather be enslaved to something or someone. Fighting for our freedom is what the Christian life is supposed to be all about, joining in Christ’s victory over the world. Yet He commands us to be “in the world, but not of it” The question of how one does that is the question of the nature of each person’s own particular vocation and struggles.

    For my own-self there is not a single poltician I want to vote for, not one. The only difference between the ‘conservative’ political ideology and the ‘liberal’ one is in the smell of the miasmic garbage they spew. However, as a Christian there are simply some things I have to stand on. I will make mistakes.

    I still think the decision to go to war in Iraq was not a bad one. It was not pursued with skill or clarity or, in some cases, with honesty. Not surprising. It is the unfortunate, however that the opposition to the war during the run up was so horribly flawed, offering nothing but opposing ideology rather than genuine reasons. In the end the power oligarchy prevailed while giving the appearance of opposition.

    John McCain appears to me to be a vicious man; Obama a man who would give away even the appearnce of freedom we have now, so too would the vicious man just not quite as quickly. They are both practiced liars. Both are so far from the type of leader I hope for it is astounding. Unfortunately, the outcome of elections often comes down to which lies appeal to the most people. My vote for President in Kansas probably means nothing as the Kansas electoral votes are quite likely McCain’s whether I vote or not. I have to decide whether or not to stand silent and endure the outcome or lend me voice to a likely corrupt, probably viscious man who’s leadership I do not trust as opposed to a man whose philosophy I abhor and will certainly act in ways that are deeply antithetical to my moral and spiritual understanding.

    It is the dilemma of living in a fallen world when our choice of various types of not-God or anti-God consumes our minds and our souls and distracts us from what we should be focusing on. In the end, I have to learn to trust the fact that my freedom does not depend on any politician but on my love of God and my willingness to sacrifice for truth. Ideology gives us the false hope that there is salvation in this world. Through ideology we build our own little feudal fiefdoms and defend them to the death, dividing ourselves from other people in ways that are not necessary and uniting ourselves to others in ways that are unhealthy.

Comments are closed.