Why are Liberals so hated?

Denerick

Less than 20% of Americans are willing to call themselves a 'liberal'. People who self identify as conservatives are almost double that. Whats more, using the term 'liberal' as a pejorative word has been a successful tactic of far right rabble since the 80s at least. Talented politicians like Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and others consistently back away from the categorisation. Republicans like Mitt Romney (A two faced swine) and Sarah Palin (a moron) scream their conservative credentials from the rooftops. Why is this?

Liberals have consistently fought on behalf of the more noble causes in American politics - civil rights, opposition to the Vietnam war, racial integration, freedom of speech, freedom of conscience etc. These are all advances that Americans of both left and right cherish and hold as their own. In every case, bible thumping right wingers stood in the way of progress and liberty. It is these same people who want to take a leaf out of leviticus and teach schoolchildren fairy tales and have legislation banning homosexuality.

I understand liberal in the American context is the same as social democrat in a European context, just to clear that up.

Rented Mule

The term 'liberal' has been poisoned by the extreme right over the past two decades. The term is used when anyone doesn't agree with their point of view. These people are generally blamed for all of the ills in the world at this point.

The problem is that the majority of voters are most likely 'centrist' with Fiscal and Social leanings that could be left and right of centre. When the mouth pieces start piping, they make sure to label all with one broad stroke.

metrovelvet

Denerick wrote: »

Less than 20% of Americans are willing to call themselves a 'liberal'. People who self identify as conservatives are almost double that. Whats more, using the term 'liberal' as a pejorative word has been a successful tactic of far right rabble since the 80s at least. Talented politicians like Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and others consistently back away from the categorisation. Republicans like Mitt Romney (A two faced swine) and Sarah Palin (a moron) scream their conservative credentials from the rooftops. Why is this?

Liberals have consistently fought on behalf of the more noble causes in American politics - civil rights, opposition to the Vietnam war, racial integration, freedom of speech, freedom of conscience etc. These are all advances that Americans of both left and right cherish and hold as their own. In every case, bible thumping right wingers stood in the way of progress and liberty. It is these same people who want to take a leaf out of leviticus and teach schoolchildren fairy tales and have legislation banning homosexuality.

I understand liberal in the American context is the same as social democrat in a European context, just to clear that up.

Liberals didnt oppose the Vietnam war until college kids started getting drafted. When it was the working classes and the blacks they didnt give a ****.

They support racial integration while they spend 30,000 a year sending their kids to private white schools.

Thats why people hate them.

They dont realise those Reagan tax cuts are the reasons they are driving BMWs.

Denerick

metrovelvet wrote: »

Liberals didnt oppose the Vietnam war until college kids started getting drafted. When it was the working classes and the blacks they didnt give a ****.

Rubbish.

They support racial integration while they spend 30,000 a year sending their kids to private white schools.

And conservatives don't? All Liberals grow up in upper middle class neighbourhoods, yes? What an horrific form of inverse elitism you have developed.

Thats why people hate them.

What a pathetic line of reasoning.

They dont realise those Reagan tax cuts are the reasons they are driving BMWs.

Relevance called and it didn't leave a message.

metrovelvet

Its not rubbish it's true.

Let me add - they all move to Brooklyn to be fashionably in with the outer boroughs only to drive up the price or property so the minorties and working classes now have NO WHERE to live in NYC.

NYC... Ive never seen so many SUVs in my life. Who would have thought in a city full of liberals.

What a horrific form of ignorant smugness you have formed.

You asked a question. People answer it and then you are rude. Typical liberal. Another reason to hate them.

Overheal

Another word I hear used in a slanderous tone far too often is Progressive.

As opposed to a Regressive?

metrovelvet

Overheal wrote: »

Another word I hear used in a slanderous tone far too often is Progressive.

As opposed to a Regressive?

Or static.

Overheal

metrovelvet wrote: »

Its not rubbish it's true.

Let me add - they all move to Brooklyn to be fashionably in with the outer boroughs only to drive up the price or property so the minorties and working classes now have NO WHERE to live in NYC.

NYC... Ive never seen so many SUVs in my life. Who would have thought in a city full of liberals.

What a horrific form of ignorant smugness you have formed.

You asked a question. People answer it and then you are rude. Typical liberal. Another reason to hate them.

Im not sure whats the worst thing about this post: the fact that they've used the tired "Typical Label" card, or the fact that they've just ignorantly labeled the entire Metropolitan of NYC and complained about ignorant smugness in the the same thought.

Denerick

metrovelvet wrote: »

Its not rubbish it's true.

Let me add - they all move to Brooklyn to be fashionably in with the outer boroughs only to drive up the price or property so the minorties and working classes now have NO WHERE to live in NYC.

NYC... Ive never seen so many SUVs in my life. Who would have thought in a city full of liberals.

You make Liberals sound like something out of the apocolypse. Ridiculous.

What a horrific form of ignorant smugness you have formed.

I have a low stupidity threshold. I assume I would have one were I a conservative too. William Buckley had a low idiocy threshold too, I doubt he could stand the modern American right wing. Ditto with Barry Goldwater. There is a reason why the tea party rabble are a laughing stock in the sane corners of this world.

You asked a question. People answer it and then you are rude. Typical liberal. Another reason to hate them.

I asked a question and you vomited up a load of Fox news and world net daily talking points.

Anonymous1987

Fox news seem to play a major role, they often freely admit that Liberals are morally superior to them and seem to regard moral inferiority as a badge of honour.

Overheal

Anonymous1987 wrote: »

Fox news seem to play a major role, they often freely admit that Liberals are morally superior to them and seem to regard moral inferiority as a badge of honour.

They take the Battlestar Galactica approach; that being that higher morals in theory make us more vulnerable to those with lesser morals, or no morals at all. That to stay on a level playing field, we need to be as immoral as our enemy. Who is our enemy? THE TERRORISTS. But when you turn on Sean Hannity's radio program and he brings some Muslim experts on to talk about the Koran and how disgusting and immoral Islam is and how we're morally superior, suddenly it's ok to have double standards. Of course, you have to remember that people like Hannity don't already have the highest standard of morals to begin with: so the double standard is par for the course. /rant

metrovelvet

Denerick wrote: »

You make Liberals sound like something out of the apocolypse. Ridiculous.



I have a low stupidity threshold. I assume I would have one were I a conservative too. William Buckley had a low idiocy threshold too, I doubt he could stand the modern American right wing. Ditto with Barry Goldwater. There is a reason why the tea party rabble are a laughing stock in the sane corners of this world.



I asked a question and you vomited up a load of Fox news and world net daily talking points.

I don't get cable. I don't watch Fox news. Clearly you do. So your stupidity threshold isn't that low.

I haven't been home in a year and a half. I don't even know what the tea party is.

But I did live in NYC. You should see what they have done to Brooklyn with their Starbucks double lattes and their SUVs.

metrovelvet

Overheal wrote: »

Im not sure whats the worst thing about this post: the fact that they've used the tired "Typical Label" card, or the fact that they've just ignorantly labeled the entire Metropolitan of NYC and complained about ignorant smugness in the the same thought.

I havent ignorantly labelled NYC. I am a native of the city. I know the city pretty damned well tootsie.

Anonymous1987

Overheal wrote: »

Another word I hear used in a slanderous tone far too often is Progressive.

Progressivism does not seem to resonate with individuals as a political identity as much as liberal or conservative. Most people are unsure if it accurately describes their views or so Gallup polling suggests.

26% of liberals and 7% of conservatives claim to be progressive and many Progressives identify as liberal (45%) with a sizeable portion of progressives also claiming to be conservative (22%). I would have thought that conservative and progressive views would be mutually exclusive though.

Anonymous1987

metrovelvet wrote: »

But I did live in NYC. You should see what they have done to Brooklyn with their Starbucks double lattes and their SUVs.

You know the gentrification occurring in Brooklyn is probably yuppies working on Wall Street who will likely vote economically conservative and socially liberal, not quite liberals but not quite conservatives either.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Exile 1798

metrovelvet wrote: »

Its not rubbish it's true.

Let me add - they all move to Brooklyn to be fashionably in with the outer boroughs only to drive up the price or property so the minorties and working classes now have NO WHERE to live in NYC.

NYC... Ive never seen so many SUVs in my life. Who would have thought in a city full of liberals.

What a horrific form of ignorant smugness you have formed.

You asked a question. People answer it and then you are rude. Typical liberal. Another reason to hate them.

And here we can see what motivates many Republicans in the US.

Nothing about facts or reason or actual policies, just a sort of cultural and personal resentment.

What you're referring to, metro, is the process of gentrification. It’s a phenomenon that occurs in cities across the world. The people you curiously identify as "Liberals" are working professionals, students and bohemians both moneyed and not.

In your small mind "Liberal" simply means "people I hate" It's actually got nothing to do with politics. Politics only comes into it in the sense that the Republican Party has skilfully been able to manipulate your petty mentality and have created in you a life long partisan, who will forever rage against their opponents and ever support them, no matter the object or circumstance.

Manic Moran

Denerick wrote: »

Liberals have consistently fought on behalf of the more noble causes in American politics - civil rights, opposition to the Vietnam war, racial integration, freedom of speech, freedom of conscience etc. These are all advances that Americans of both left and right cherish and hold as their own.

There's a distinction to be made between the differences between Libs and Cons for their moral values, and their belief in the roles of government. A 'real' conservative is all for the rights of the individual which affects nobody else (as long as gay marriage isn't involved). A 'real' liberal is all for the rights of the individual which affects nobody else (as long as firearms aren't involved).

The real distinction between them is in how much effect the government should have on someone's lives, be it in terms of services, taxation, or whatnot. Given the frontiersman origin of the US, I can see why culturally there is a reluctance to associate with the more left-wing positions common in Europe.

NTM

metrovelvet

Manic Moran wrote: »

There's a distinction to be made between the differences between Libs and Cons for their moral values, and their belief in the roles of government. A 'real' conservative is all for the rights of the individual which affects nobody else (as long as gay marriage isn't involved). A 'real' liberal is all for the rights of the individual which affects nobody else (as long as firearms aren't involved).

The real distinction between them is in how much effect the government should have on someone's lives, be it in terms of services, taxation, or whatnot. Given the frontiersman origin of the US, I can see why culturally there is a reluctance to associate with the more left-wing positions common in Europe.

NTM

It's also because we dont have a historic tradition of kinship that Europeans do. That's why socialism would never work in the US.

I honestly couldnt give a crap about gay marriage. They are such a tiny part of the population I cant see what the big deal is. Maybe there shouldnt be state marriage at all? What the hell is the state doing legislating over sex and love anyway?

Lockstep

metrovelvet wrote: »

Maybe there shouldnt be state marriage at all? What the hell is the state doing legislating over sex and love anyway?

I agree with you here.

I'm not sure why the state needs to be involved with an institution like marriage. Surely it should be up to religious/secular groups, rather than the government?

chainsaws

It's all brush strokes and pigeon holeing.

There are liberals who are pro-Iraq war, pro-Afghanistan war, who want gays in the military, support the right to bear arms, are pro-abortion, anti-racist, pro-feminist, are in favor of free speech, are business owners and are anti-death penalty and also go to church every Sunday.

fontanalis

chainsaws wrote: »

It's all brush strokes and pigeon holeing.

There are liberals who are pro-Iraq war, pro-Afghanistan war, who want gays in the military, support the right to bear arms, are pro-abortion, anti-racist, pro-feminist, are in favor of free speech, are business owners and are anti-death penalty and also go to church every Sunday.

I'm with you there man.




Sorry, couldn't resist.

Denerick

Though I am not a fan of Family Guy, I did enjoy that vignette of the founding fathers scribbling the 2nd amendment - 'How could anyone possibly be confused about this? Everyone has the right to bear's arms'.

Eliot Rosewater

kickoutthejams wrote: »

I'm not sure why the state needs to be involved with an institution like marriage. Surely it should be up to religious/secular groups, rather than the government?

I believe Ron Paul opposes gay marriage on that basis, that he really wants the government to stop defining marriage altogether and let it be defined according to individual preferences.

I don't agree with his opposition though. While ideally marriage would be separate from government, in the realistic interim legislating for gay marriage is better than the status quo, in my opinion.

chainsaws wrote: »

It's all brush strokes and pigeon holeing.

I agree. The US has a population of over three hundred million people. Neatly categorising every one of them into either "liberal", "moderate" or "conservative" simply doesn't work.

ValJester

I would also argue it's because of the failure of the Carter adminstration, which has left Americans somewhat questioning as to whether or not a Liberal government would have their best interests at heart.The fact of the matter is most of the US populace would see a large national deficit as a disaster, meaning they oppose public spending hikes for that reason.

Fo Real

metrovelvet wrote: »

Let me add - they all move to Brooklyn to be fashionably in with the outer boroughs only to drive up the price or property so the minorties and working classes now have NO WHERE to live in NYC.
.

I wonder is the outward migration of the blacks related to the drastic decrease in crime in NYC...?

me_right_one

metrovelvet wrote: »

It's also because we dont have a historic tradition of kinship that Europeans do. That's why socialism would never work in the US.

Good point. Could you explain that a bit more? How does Europe have kinship, seeing as they're always fighting over something, and how does the US not have kinship, seeing as its the worlds melting pot of races, cultures, traditions etc.?

metrovelvet

me_right_one wrote: »

Good point. Could you explain that a bit more? How does Europe have kinship, seeing as they're always fighting over something, and how does the US not have kinship, seeing as its the worlds melting pot of races, cultures, traditions etc.?

The US is more like a tossed salad.

The US is individualistic and big on self reliance. Europeans because they have been cultural monoliths have a sense of brotherhood, kindship and kingship too. Americans dont have that. Americans are pilgrims who's identities are always in flux and in question. We are a young country still figuring out our social codes and protocols.

Europeans have a sense that we are responsible for each other. And that comes from the sense of kinship. You will notice in European countries with high immigrant intakes, this sense of socialism gets threatened because no Dutchman paying 70 percent in taxes wants to see it go to people with whom he has nothing in common.

I so wonder how well socialism can work with multi culturalism.