Before I begin this column, please allow me to make clear that there are many people on the left who are open to discussion and to reexamining their views based on facts and analysis.
Many well meaning and thoughtful people, whose main interests generally lie outside of the field of politics and who are therefore less likely to analyze political issues beyond what they hear and see, are influenced by a media that plays up every Republican scandal while excusing every Democratic one. The media they rely on is one that never airs the reasons for Republican policies, yet spends all day spouting Democratic talking points, and they are influenced by it. Other, more thoughtful, liberals have relied on professors or supposedly learned authors who see the world only through the narrow prism of liberal thought, but whose arguments, on the surface, are persuasive nonetheless. Many such people are often open to other possibilities that may have never been correctly presented to them. This column is not directed at such liberals.
The purpose of this column is to understand those liberals who cannot be reasoned with, the ones who wholly dispense of facts and logic, even when they’ve previously demanded it, and who would most likely discount the fact that the sky is blue, were it a part of a conservative platform. Understanding the reason for this absurd, yet all too common behavior, is the only way to truly know how to effectively dialogue with them.
Conservatives have long been amazed by liberals who ask, indeed demand, of every conservative they meet to give reasons for each and every of their views, yet when faced with logical answers that astound them, either retort with some jibberish that bears no relevance to the issue being discussed, make some snide remark, or immediately seek to change the subject that they themselves so insistently started.
In these situations the conservative ends up somewhat taken aback. He or she wants to tell the liberal counterpart: “You demanded logic and I gave it to you. It’s clear that you have nothing to retort, yet you continue to be adamant not only that you’re right and that I’m wrong, but that I’m the closed-minded one, even though I’m the only one discussing facts.” Similarly, conservatives marvel at how the same liberals who seemingly decry bigotry will utter such sordid and untrue blanket statements about “the religious right.” Another baffling matter is how almost all liberals in this category start fuming whenever the word “Bush” is mentioned, yet can speak civilly and at length (if not intelligently) about Bin Laden. Their refusal to analyze scientific data while discussing “science” is also quite puzzling and we can go on and on.
Like many others, I’m tempted to say “Who cares?” and give up on speaking about these issues with those who refuse to discuss the very facts that they themselves had demanded moments earlier, yet who somehow have the boldness to say that you’re the one being obstinate . Yet we must not give up. To do so is to end all dialogue, give up hope of ever getting through to them on any issue, widen the already enormous divide and allow foolishness and absence of fact to promulgate.
The reason why so many (though again, not all) liberals act this way is remarkably simple. In fact, for all those who’ve become so baffled by their seemingly inexplicable conduct, you may wonder how it has escaped you all these years (probably because it’s so easy to get so frustrated by their conduct that noticing the reason behind it becomes a matter not worth considering). The answer is bigotry. They’re prejudiced. Am I being ridiculous? Is liberalism the new bigotry? No, and yes!
Think about it. What would cause a person to naturally and seamlessly find fault in everyone of a certain creed? What would cause someone to discount all facts and logic with a defensively offered snide remark? What would cause them to harp on every bad thing one member of the creed said or did and to ignore worse actions committed by the other side? What would cause someone to parrot the most illogical arguments of one side and to accept their talking points as gospel while reflexively seeking to attack even the most logically offered analysis of the other? Finally, what would cause someone to view everyone and everything belonging to one side as good and everything having to do with the other as bad? Deep seated bigotry, that’s what.
A bigot seeks any way to back up his or her illogical assertions and does so reflexively and with strong emotion. At times, their whole being may seem to be caught up in defending their illogical creed. The kind of liberalism that gives way to such a reaction is no different.
For example, when bigotry is directed against a certain race, say against red freckled green people (an example given so that only a few Berkeley professors will take offense), the bigot will adamantly point out everything bad that anyone of this race has ever done. By contrast, everyone else is good. When one of them causes trouble, or gets into it, the bigot will yell “see how bad these people are” with a weighty air of “I told you so.” Other members of the race or creed in question, who’ve done nothing, will be viewed as suspicious at best. “He can’t be as good as they say. His father was a red freckled green person, after all.” All non-emerald people, by contrast, are viewed as “nice,” “good” or in this case, at least less jaded. (Kind of reminds you of those liberals talking about “those terrible conservatives,” doesn’t it? “How good can he be? He is a Republican after all.” Indeed….)
This is also the reason that such liberals harp on everything bad that a Republican or a conservative has ever done, while making excuses for similar or worse acts committed by members of their creed. This is similar to racists pointing out the wrongdoings of a one member of the race or creed that’s the object of their scorn. It resembles a bigot who looks to find fault in someone they’d otherwise like or agree with but who is of the “wrong” race or creed. Wouldn’t anything that person says or does become the object of scorn? Wouldn’t all their deeds be seen as sinister, albeit for no apparent reason? Would the preposterousness of it all still not be enough to stop the bigot from making up the most fantastic scenarios as to why this seemingly good person who happens to be green is anything but good? Would anything stop other bigots from believing the fancy tales that would naturally be made up about our emerald colored friend?
Well, my conservative friends who’ve sparred too much with the wrong kind of liberal, is any of this sounding familiar?!
Here, in a nutshell, is the biased liberal mindset. Let us presuppose that Republicans and other conservatives are evil, much as any other bigot does against the race/creed of choice. When we meet a conservative who does not seem to fit the mold, it must be that we are being deceived. When we know this not to be the case, it must then be that he or she is naïve (the idea of someone who refuses to discuss facts calling the only person who does “naïve” is a stretch, but such stretches of logic are all too common among bigots).
Likewise, when a conservative proposes a position, it must be evil, or at best, naïve. If we cannot find fault in it, we will try until we uncover the “real truth,” just as bigots must somehow find fault in the object of their bigotry. And what if you are finally able to convince them with regard to a specific policy or candidate? They’ll chalk it up to the policy or candidate in question being the exception, just as a bigot generally makes individual exceptions to the race or creed that is the subject of his ire.
But what makes the bigotry of this group of liberals so entrenched? There are three parts to this answer. The first reason is that their whole existence has been a battle cry against what they considered “old” and for anything and everything they consider to be “new.” In this they differ from all liberals before the 1960s, who sought fairness and change, while having the intelligence not to blanketly turn their backs on thousands of years of collective wisdom. In fact, much of the “new” that post-1965 liberals are fighting for is nothing new at all, and is a revisit to the hedonistic tendencies of Ancient Rome and Greece. To be sure, other aspects of their struggle have been noble, but in all of those aspects they have not been alone. At present, they have long abandoned real issues of societal change, in which they could genuinely make a positive difference, and instead harp on a few counterproductive issues. Mostly, they busy themselves with opposing any conservative, as they seek new ways to malign and tarnish their opposition. A lot of what they oppose and brand as offensive are policies that they themselves supported and would still support were it a liberal who was proposing them. All in all, they bear no resemblance to their pre-1965 namesakes. Those liberals are in fact today’s conservatives.
The second reason for the level of entrenched bigotry we conservatives have come to face is the fact that liberalism espouses a feel good, do it now philosophy. This too is nothing new and is more of the same ancient, selfish hedonism. However, it’s appealing on face value and liberals will do anything to defend it. Sure, it leads only to the breakdown of society, out of control kids, divorce and single parent households, and let’s not forget outrageous school and workplace violence, but at the spur of the moment such hedonism seems attractive. And with their permissive lifestyle on the line, liberals will defend it with vigilance, even though giving it up will be more fulfilling for themselves and for society as a whole.
The third reason is simple. Modern liberalism has acquired a modus operandi whereby it supports a controversial issue in small, incremental measures, as it works toward a much more radical goal. They suspect conservatives of doing the same. They are also masters at twisting the motives of their opponents to appear sinister and come to believe same, while also expecting their opponents to react in similar fashion. This is why they can shout and curse at conservatives all day but take offense when a conservative so much as calls them to task for their actions. They’re afraid of more, because if it were them making these bland statements that point out an opponent’s fallacies, it wouldn’t end there and a more vicious attack would be coming (that and the fact that they’re bigots and feel entitled to say anything and everything against conservatives, while taking offense when a conservatives dares to give them back a hundredth of what they routinely dish out). Now, again, yes, there are conservatives who attack in similar fashion, but unlike those on the left, they are marginalized. And again, the above is not true of all liberals, but it is true of most who are entrenched.
So, in short, modern liberalism is the new prejudice of choice. When someone says “Who cares what they think? They’re just a… (pick your race or creed of choice)” they’re rightly derided. But no one balks when the same person says “Who cares what he/she thinks? He/she’s a Republican!” Bigot, thy name is liberal.
And herein lies the reason that we can throw logic and facts at them all day and generally get nowhere. This also answers why liberals, trained to be devoted wholeheartedly to whatever is “new” and to oppose all that is “old” will so readily switch positions on any given issue so long as the proponents of the new position are fellow liberals. Their allegiance to the “new” trumps all.
It is for this reason that radical liberals will believe in “science” without examining scientific fact. After all, the “scientist” of the past century was the one who taught them to abandon logic. First it was the “scientist” who came up with atheism, a belief that millions of species, each miraculously possessing a male and female type to ensure propagation and a world with all the right components for life, just happened to appear out of thin air. When faced with the fact that were all aspects of the world to have miraculously joined forces, leaving out just one component in a million, that being oxygen, life would have never taken root. And were a world, even one with oxygen, to have been created without food, life would have lasted a few days and then died out. The miraculous ability to adapt did not come from nowhere and the world wasn’t an accident any more than the pages of an encyclopedia set can be formed from a random ink spill (except that a randomly formed encyclopedia set would only take hundreds of thousands of simultaneous coincidences, while the creation of just this planet alone would take many billions, and of a much higher quality).
But the “scientist” justified hedonism. And while most liberal scientists have given up on atheism as being an illogical pipe dream, they are still in the business of justifying and encouraging a self-destructive, but momentarily feel-good hedonistic lifestyle by way of the narrow prism with which they view all fact. They do so largely by chalking up all derogatory behaviors to human nature, propagating evolution, a theory that has more holes in it than most theories allow and is challenged by numerous scientists, yet is accepted as liberal gospel. Those who question it are maligned for doing so, just as Galileo was maligned for his questioning of the state sanctioned “science” of his time. But the main point is that the “scientist,” meaning the liberal scientist, is viewed as supreme. He or she does not have to give proofs and those who dare to challenge the scientist’s assertions are heretics.
And now you know why so many liberals are closed to discussion on global warming, even after being shown that global temperatures have cooled steadily since 1998 and that while one ice cap is melting, three or four are solidifying. We are challenging the great “scientists,” in whom liberals have unwavering faith (until one of them becomes a conservative, that is).
By understanding that the root causes of the radical liberal’s predictable game playing while debating facts and their irresponsiveness to same are bigotry and a strong desire to hold onto their self-destructive hedonist lifestyle, we can know how to deal with these issue.
1) Don’t take it personally. Remember that their rantings are those of a bigot, and one who thinks that he or she has a lot on the line.
2) Don’t become frustrated. The radical liberal isn’t trying to discuss facts or to discover another viewpoint. They’re just trying to convince you of their “superior” ways because as long as you don’t subscribe to them, they’re reminded of the doubts they have in their own philosophy.
3) Keep the dialogue going. Just as racists can see the error of their ways over time, the radical liberal can become receptive to the truth, but it takes a while. In the meantime, you’ll reach those who are open to logic and to discussion.
4) When debating specific issues, challenge the reason for their refusal to accept facts with a simple statement.
If prior to debating them, say as follows: “I’d love to discuss this with you. But first, please understand and bear in mind that decisions on an issue as important as (the environment, the economy, tax policy, war and peace, educational proposals etc.) must be dealt with based on facts and logic, that only unbiased and thorough analysis of facts can lead us to a right decision and to a better society. With that in mind, I am willing to explore this issue.”
After they then renege on their commitment (as will happen 90% of the time), or if you’ve already delved head on into a debate and they keep playing the tricks that radical liberals so uniformly do play, simply state:
“This issue (the economy, etc.) is too important to decide other than based on facts. I’ve presented mine and you don’t seem to have much to counter. When you’re ready to commit to deciding these important issues based on facts and reasoning, I’ll be happy to reexamine this with you. Until then I just don’t see the point so we may as well agree to disagree.”
Sometimes this will work. Other times they’ll run off fuming mad (as bigots do when challenged and dumbfounded, yet still emotionally attached to their issue). But at least dialogue becomes possible and you leave them with something to think about. It’s the only way to eventually get through.
Feel free to forward this column to your radically liberal or unwavering friends. Some will be receptive. Most will be indignant and try to poke holes in it, while wholly ignoring the substance of the column. That too will prove the point, and hopefully give them something to think about.
Pursuant to Title 17 U.S.C. 107, other copyrighted work is provided for educational purposes, research, critical comment, or debate without profit or payment. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for your own purposes beyond the 'fair use' exception, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Views are those of authors and not necessarily those of Canada Free Press. Content is Copyright 1997-2017 the individual authors. Site Copyright 1997-2017 Canada Free Press.Com Privacy Statement