You might be a liberal if…
Back in March I posted the following statistic:
In the 2004 election, network exit polls showed that "21 percent of the voters who cast ballots called themselves liberal, 34 percent said they were conservative, and 45 percent called themselves moderate." But when you ask these "moderates" where they stand on the issues, you find that their values are consistent with the liberal worldview and they vote their values.
Simply put, apparently a lot of liberals don't know they're liberals. So, I thought it might be helpful if I provided some characteristics which (generically) define the field of modern liberalism, politically and philosophically. *Many of these are derivative of other "maxims" in the list, but in the interest of being a bit more comprehensive, I thought I'd include those as well.
- If you ascribe to the divine spark mentality (that man is basically good), you might be a liberal.
- If you believe there's no absolute foundation for morality, you might be a liberal.
- If you believe in the "support troops not war doctrine," you might be a liberal.
- If you believe, with regard to the Constitution, that time clouds intent, you might be a liberal.
- If you believe that everyone has a right to free thought, free speech, and the freedom to exchange ideas except when they disagree with you, you might be a liberal.
- If you believe that people have no right to impose/legislate morality unless it's you who does the imposing/legislating, you might be a liberal.
- If you believe in the "separation of church and state" doctrine, you might be a liberal.
- If you believe that it's okay to treat people any way you want, but then when they return the favor you're being treated unfairly, you might be a liberal.
- If you believe every woman should have the right to murder her unborn child, you might be a liberal.
- If you believe that the reason you have less money is because someone else has more, you might be a liberal.
- If you believe the fact that your neighbor has more than you entitles you to a portion of their stuff, you might be a liberal.
- If you believe that people shouldn't be held accountable except when they have the "wrong" philosophy, you might be a liberal.
- If the only absolutes you believe in are "there are no absolutes" and "the double standard," you might be a liberal.
- If "choice" is your highest value except when it speaks of racism, the environment, free speech, free markets and the rule of law, you might be a liberal.
- If you believe that there's nothing wrong with you making moral judgments, but when others do it, they're being intolerant and judgmental, you might be a liberal.
- If you believe that winning is more important than how you play the game, you might be a liberal.
- If you believe that ideology is what makes one right, irrespective of content, you might be a liberal.
- If you believe that name calling and mudslinging is a valid substitute for rational argument, you might be a liberal.
- If you believe that it's wrong for conservatives to claim they're right about something, but perfectly valid to claim your views are right, you might be a liberal.
- If you believe the United States and Israel are the only obstacles to peace in the Middle East, you might be a liberal.
Gee those were some highly original digs. Funny things to say to try to put people down and make yourself feel good.
I do find it ironic that most of these that you say are signs that you’re liberal, can be equally said about conservatives, about dog catchers, about grocery store workers, about farmers, about CEO’s of industry…in other words they are traits that most humans share.
I think whatever need you fill within yourself by calling people names is something that you should look into.
To take issue with your point that “a lot of liberals don’t know they’re liberals”…If you’re very far to the right, then those that are in the middle and moderate seem liberal to you because your view comes from such a far right place. Your perception is altered.
I know that you want to pigeonhole people into neat little cubby holes which fit into the worldview that you have created for yourself. However, people are complex and hold many diverse views–some you may consider conservative, some you may consider liberal, and some you may consider moderate.
Labels are signs of intellectual laziness.
Thanks for your comment, homey. I respectfully offer this observation.
I’m glad to see you really do agree with me on this point: that it’s okay to categorize…You say you don’t like labels, or calling people names, yet you have no trouble finding an “appropriate” one for me. I guess that means we’re both in the same “intellectually lazy” and condescending boat here. Though, in light of your comments I’m not sure how you could make that judgment since you believe these things are relative to your position on the ideological scale.
But I hardly think that using labels which only give an approximation of a person’s worldview or philosophy is the equivalent of name calling. Categorizing a philosophy is not tantamount to insulting someone if the label you’re applying corresponds to their worldview. Fundamentally, you can’t even disagree with someone without labeling them as “wrong.” The label-less world you live in doesn’t exist, because as evidenced by your post, it’s impossible to think, act, or open one’s mouth without making some kind of judgment.
So you see, in practice, there’s really no difference between you and I. We both make judgments; consequently, we both use labels, descriptors, etc.
Peace
Oh, and Brad, thanks for fixing the problem with the archived posts. YOU ROCK!!!
“You say you don’t like labels, or calling people names, yet you have no trouble finding an “appropriate” one for me. “
I don’t see where I did that. Maybe this?…I was using “you” and “you’re” in the generic sense of the word. Sorry if it wasn’t clear.
Here’s my point about labels. It’s one thing to say “that grass is green.” Yes you’ve “labeled” the grass. Or “that steel and plastic thing with an internal combustion engine and 4 rubber tires is a car.” Yes, again you’ve “labeled” something as a car.
Where I think it’s intellectually lazy, unhelpful, and even dangerous sometimes is labeling someone or some idea.
For instance, (assuming) a person’s got an idea in their head of what it means to be “liberal”, they’ve created a picture in their head and in their thoughts of what it means to be “liberal”. They may think it’s bad, wrong, immoral, stupid, or whatever. They will take all the emotional baggage, negative ideas, negative feelings, negative thoughts all together and that will become associated with anyone that they label as a liberal.
So in effect they’ve taken all the negative thoughts and feelings (or could be positive or whatever) that they’ve ever had with anything/one they’ve labeled “liberal” and they pile it onto that person whether they deserve it or not. That person then becomes a caricature of all the associated negative ideas and feelings.
That’s why I say it’s lazy. Because the brain takes a short cut. Instead of seeing the person as a unique individual with unique and varied ideas and experiences, they are now only an object–a “liberal” in the other person’s eyes. That makes them easy to dismiss because they’ve really ceased to be an individual human any more.
To put it another way, it’s called prejudice.
blacks are welfare cheats,
liberals are devil-worshiping baby-killers,
Mexicans are lazy,
conservatives are uptight (expletive),
CEO’s are thieving bastards,
etc. etc.
The human brain wants to do that naturally. That’s what it tries to do–see patterns and then label is so it doesn’t have to “think” about it anymore. That’s why optical illusions work–the brain tries to see what it thinks it *should* be perceiving instead of what it *is* perceiving. It works the same way when you label someone as one thing or another. You’ve pre-judged and determined what they are instead and seeing what they really are.
Those are my observations. Your mileage may vary.
“If the only absolutes you believe in are “there are no abolutes”…
Brad, you must be a liberal!
You’re right, Brad; my mileage does vary. You knew that already…lol! Using labels can be the easy way out. They can be dangerous when used to dehumanize others, I agree. But that certainly isn’t the case here, any more than say, your labeling of people who use labels. You write that for them to do so is a sign of intellectual laziness; they are being prematurely judgmental, etc.
Every time you argue that those who hold this point of view are wrong, “dangerous,” “intellectually lazy,” “a unique individual,” or whatever. You have to make a judgment. Labels are simply the containers/categories we use to put those judgments in. That’s why it’s impossible to disagree without tacitly proving my point. Every time you raise an objection your acceding to the fact that there’s a line in the sand and those you judge as wrong for holding certain views are on the other side of it. They are, by default, in a box or category.
We note the characteristics of the person, group, or (fill in the blank) we are observing. We then see whether or not the characteristics match the criteria concerning the object or subject in question. Next we make a judgment based on how well those characteristics match the criteria (in this case, we’re talking about a philosophy). Finally, to the extent that the group matches the criteria, we apply a label, category, etc. That’s what you’re doing in your post. You’re giving a very definite shape to what a labeler looks like and anyone who matches those criteria fits into your little box marked “prematurely judgmental” and therefore, “wrong.”
Obviously, I don’t have any objections to that. What is troubling is when folks employ the very thing they condemn, but then refuse to admit it. That’s why I’m always pushing for that admission.
Have a good one!