Posted by
Weisshaupt on Thursday, December 20, 2007 2:23:13 PM
I find liberals fall into two camps. The first camp encompasses most liberals, who are well meaning, caring people, who are unfortunately, for one reason or another, unable to deal with the complexities of reality and are therefore poorly suited to making real-world decisions. The Second, much smaller, camp is comprised of a group of power hungry, unscrupulous people who shamelessly use the failings of the first camp in order to gain political control. Most Democrats in office fall into this second category. However, before discussing how the second camp influences the 1st camp, it is important to understand the characteristics of the 1st camp.
As before stated, the first camp is comprised almost entirely of compassionate, loving people who strongly desire to “do the right thing.” The “Right thing” is, of course, defined both by individual moral values and the individual’s ability to accurately perceive and react to real-world conditions. It is in this latter category that I find the abilities of Liberals lacking. Specifically, it would seem 1st camp liberals have difficulty placing a situation in an accurate context, suffer greatly from confirmation bias and ignorance, and have almost no concept of process or trade-offs. These frailties may perhaps be the reason that these people seem to prefer 3rd party decision making in deference to making decisions themselves.
Context: As Compared to what?
1st camp Liberals appear to have a difficult time understanding the context in which a situation or decision is taking place. Often this difficulty leads them to substitute a different, usually simpler, context in place of the actual one, and then proceed to reason and understand the situation from there. This is fundamentally the notion behind Dr. Lakoff’s “framing” that was so popular after the 2004 election. It is an attempt to substitute a specially chosen context in place of the context of the real situation. Often the context chosen lacks the salient characteristics present in the real world situation that would be important in coming to a conclusion about the situation in question. For instance, one well known “Frame” from Dr. Lakoff’s book, Don’t think of an Elephant, is a comparison between paying taxes to the government and paying dues to a health club. There are some obvious similarities to both situations as communal Property is paid for, maintained and used by all. This is held forth as being “fair.” However if government programs such as Welfare are taken into account and the analogy were continued, the health club in question would charge dues based on a person’s income, and then literally pay others, who have no obligations or incentives to keep the club nice or obey the club rules, to come and use the club. Most rational people would find this “unfair”, particularly if they were in the group that was being charged a huge sum to use the club. Simply put, the analogy is false, but most 1st camp liberals will not be able to identify the areas where the analogy breaks down.
This difficulty in accurately considering context is demonstrated repeatedly and in a myriad of different ways. For instance, some liberals seem to be unable to discuss the relative truth of a generalization about a group, because they interpret those statements as if they were made about individuals in the group. They fail to understand the implicit context of a generalization; that it is true in some circumstances (i.e. when talking about a group) and not true in others (i.e. when talking about an individual). This same phenomenon occurs when Liberals assert “Killing is wrong” as an absolute, and with a complete disregard for context. They thus feel it is absurd for a conservative to support the death penalty while opposing abortion. The context which is key to a conservative’s understanding, namely the illegal act committed by the convicted criminal, or the innocence of a fetus, is completely missed by the liberal. In a similar vein, Liberals don’t understand why killing one person is murder and killing 1000’s is foreign policy. First let us consider the term “murder”. Murder is an act defined to be good or bad, by a particular society’s ideas of right and wrong, which are often based on the CONTEXT of that act. In the context of the United States, killing any human is illegal (unless it’s a human fetus). Contrastingly, in the context of a nation adhering to Islamic law, it is not murder to kill an infidel. In fact, killing an infidel is a moral duty. Murder is an act that is defined WITHIN the context of a society, whereas large scale killing of people belonging to another society occurs in a conflict BETWEEN societies, where both are fighting largely to establish which society’s context and definition of right and wrong will be applied. All of these distinctions are completely lost on a 1st camp liberal, who over-simplifies the situation to “killing is wrong”.
Ironically, 1st camp liberals are likely to accuse others of "black and white" thinking, projecting their cronic tendency to simplify a context onto others who disagree with them.
Fact-finding: Do you have any hard evidence of that?
To make matters worse, 1st camp Liberals seldom, if ever, do any fact checking. It is as if the plausibility or popularity of an idea were sufficient to make the idea true. For instance, proponents of Global Warming, many of them calling themselves scientists, claim there is a consensus on the danger CO2 presents to the planet, and therefore the debate is over, the matter settled and the facts “known”. Science doesn’t operate on a consensus, much less a consensus of “experts.” During the renaissance, the “experts” were called priests, and they held a consensus opinion Copernicus was wrong. They “proved” this by trying to silence him, as he was a threat to their credibility, authority, and power. This had, of course, no affect on reality, as the earth still stubbornly continued to orbit the sun. In a similar way, dissenters of Global Warming theory were barred from participating in the recent global summit, with their objections and data ignored as the summit talked about offering carbon credits as the Catholic Church used to offer indulgences.
Given that liberals seem to believe Plausibility is proof of accuracy, it should be no surprise that evidence that bolsters what they already “know” is considered true, and conflicting evidence is deemed false. In psychological circles this is known as confirmation bias. Likewise, given the credence given to popularity, it should be no surprise that 1st camp liberals seek the company of other liberals almost exclusively, since those who state contrary opinions are perceived as inveterate liars. Some 1st camp liberals even proudly proclaim they don’t read the “biased trash” published by those with opposing views.
Confirmation bias,however, is only part of the problem. 1st Camp liberals are also largely disinterested in knowing ANYTHING about the position they have taken. If asked what the margin of error on various “global” temperature measurements was, a liberal would most likely give you a blank stare. If you asked what greenhouse gas contributed 70-90% of the so-called “greenhouse” effect, chances are they couldn’t tell you. And if asked by what process CO2 and the aforementioned gas were supposed to create run-away global warming, a sound epithet would be cast. Liberals believe VERY strongly that anthropomorphic global warming is happening, not because they have been convinced by evidence, but because they believe it is plausible, popular and gives them an important and flattering role to play. In other words, 1st Camp liberals would rather be happy than right.
But why stop at ignorance on Global Warming? Most liberals in the 1st camp have never tried to determine if the Minimum Wage causes lost jobs (as suggested by Economics 101) , if Tax Receipts go up after a tax cut (also as suggested by economics 101), if Affirmative action is in fact helping those in the targeted race advance, If Public Education is in fact resulting in an educated populace, If Welfare is in fact reducing the number of people living in poverty, If men really earn more than women, if poor people really stay poor, if the rich really stay rich. If they do ask such things at all, the fallacy of Com Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc is the primary basis of reasoning. Liberals simply let confirmation bias eradicate any factors that might be used to explain the real-world effects they observe.. Hence factors such as the type of jobs, years of experience, location, age, years of schooling etc are cast out as irrelevant when considering the difference in pay a man gets vs. a woman. Discrimination is ASSUMED to be the primary and relevant factor for any disparity, as that leaves the liberal with a vital an important role to play in making the world a “better place.” Meanwhile, anyone interested in controlling for those factors would find as far back as 1988 that nearly 70% of the so-called wage gap between Men and women is accounted for by those factors, without even looking into the effects of Marriage on income and attitude.
Processes: At what Cost?
It should come as no surprise, that hampered as liberals are by confirmation bias and difficulties in understanding context, that they should have a difficult time in evaluating the real world costs of any “solution” they may propose. In fact, 1st Camp Liberals often act as if stating the a goal were sufficient to make that goal achievable. Thus Liberals believe that Welfare will “solve” poverty, non-aggression will “solve” war, Education will “solve” illiteracy, and if they don’t it is because the conservatives keep interfering. It is as if all that prevents the world from being a perfect place was that not enough people have decided to “make it so.”
In truth, it is reality that is interfering and preventing the world from being perfect. Reality imposes very real constraints on the human race. Congress could pass a law stating that Gravity be half earth normal over Cape Kennedy and still gravity would be unaffected. Likewise, human nature is unaffected by the laws that humans live under. Each new law presents a new incentive or disincentive to human nature, and human nature reacts as it will. Human behavior cannot be dictated, it can only be steered through a process of incentives and disincentives. Often 1st camp Liberals seem oblivious to this fairly simple and obvious fact; that a law, or other communally enforced standards of behavior, only produce a trade-off. One can break the law or standard at the risk of incurring a penalty, which that person may or may not deem to be “worth it.” The response to that act sets up a feedback effect. A Law that is not enforced soon becomes widely broken. Likewise, when traditional standards of behavior are broken with no censure or penalty, breaking the old standard quickly becomes the new standard. CONSEQUENCES or A Lack of CONSEQUENCES produce a FEEDBACK effect.
Hence, they expect the minimum wage to raise the incomes of the “poor” but that those increases will have no effect in the decisions made by those paying the wage. Liberals expect open-space laws to provide them with a higher-quality of life, but then wonder that many can’t afford to live in those areas as housing prices rise. They expect Affirmative action to result in a rising standards of living for Black Americans, and wonder at the building race tension, self segregation and the lack of achievement under the hard racism of low expectations. The list goes on an on.. 1st Camp liberals simply can’t conceive of the Costs that might be incurred from a given action, or that some actions may have unintended consequences. Liberals seem to assume that any action acts in isolation and always results in what is expected, and consequently they spend little, if any, time weighing the trade-offs inherent in the decision. As a consequence, a 1st camp liberal will often interpret opposition to their programs as opposition to the goals, rather than opposition to the processes used to obtain them. Thus they usually attribute evil motives to their opposition and believe people who oppose affirmative action are "racist", people who oppose minimum wage don't "care about the poor" and people who oppose "open space" don't "care about the planet."
This, unfortunately, makes rational discussions about the incentives and disincentives a given Law or regulation sets up are nearly impossible with the typical 1st Camp Liberal. You can’t ask them how they will measure the effectiveness of a program, nor discuss to what degree it is working or not working. They simply don’t understand these ideas. If they find it plausible that the desired goal or benefit will be achieved, they believe it will be, and will believe anyone who doesn't agree to have an unsavory motive for opposing them.
Even in the rare cases where Liberals can provide data supporting their beliefs, they are usually at a loss when asked to discuss by what process that data was collected and under what incentives. Hence they believe people paid by corporate interests will bias their data, but ignore the fact that many scientists are paid by government grant. The periodic nature of grants makes a scientist's income less secure and provides an incentive to find a "problem" that the government can help "fix"by renewing and/or increasing the grant. However, to a Liberal it is always obvious to them that only one side has the incentive and moral decandency to lie.
The Cost of Knowledge: Who is to decide?
The most important process in a society is the process by which decisions are made. The laws that are passed and the traditions that are held and respected determine what incentives and disincentives the society and individuals will live under. What should be obvious, is that the people with the knowledge of a given situation, its intricacies and details, are the ones who will be able to make the best decisions. Thomas Jefferson expressed this thought when he wrote
“the way to have good and safe government, is not to trust it all to one, but to divide it among the many, distributing to every one exactly the functions he is competent to. Let the national government be entrusted with the defense of the nation, and its foreign and federal relations; the State governments with the civil rights, laws, police, and administration of what concerns the State generally; the counties with the local concerns of the counties, and each ward direct the interests within itself. It is by dividing and subdividing these republics from the great national one down through all its subordinations, until it ends in the administration of every man's farm by himself; by placing under every one what his own eye may superintend, that all will be done for the best. What has destroyed liberty and the rights of man in every government which has ever existed under the sun? The generalizing and concentrating all cares and power into one body, no matter whether of the autocrats of Russia or France, or of the aristocrats of a Venetian senate.” -Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Joseph C. Cabell, Monticello, Feb 2, 1816
The Founding Fathers of America valued personal decision making and personal responsibility: what they called freedom. The people of the United States erected a government to be the servant of the people, and not a tyrannical force to dictate to them how to live. To this end they wrote a Constitution that grants certain powers and retains others for the States and for the people. The Typical 1st camp liberal supports the Government (often the Federal) making a many decisions by policy that most people are Competent to make for themselves. I can only surmise this is because Liberals somehow sense their own ignorance, and inability to understand context or process and therefore do not feel competent to make such decisions. To a 1st camp Liberal, Freedom means being able to avoid the consequences of one’s own decisions, or even to avoid making the decison in the first place.
1st Camp Liberals want the government to dictate to everyone how much each person will “save” for retirement, how much each person should “give” to charity, what risks they can take (smoking, having Health Insurance) , what Wage they will offer, how much they will pay for school, where their child will attend and what they will learn. The list goes on and on, with the only exception being the decision to kill an unborn child. Of course, the LIMITED government that the Founding Fathers put in place, grants the Federal Government the power to do none of these things.
Thus 1st Camp liberals claim the Constitution must “evolve” from servant into master. These liberals claim the Federal Government has a right to modify itself, to grant itself new powers, without the process called an amendment, without ratification of the people. They claim this because they have no understanding of process, and could care less about how something is decided and by whom. All a 1st camp liberal cares about is the result, even if they must sacrifice Constitutional government to get it.
Thomas Paine said in The Rights of Man, “A government on the principles on which constitutional governments arising out of society are established, cannot have the right of altering itself. If it had, it would be arbitrary. It might make itself what it pleased; and wherever such a right is set up, it shews there is no constitution”
The Founding Fathers clearly understood that ANY government with the powers Liberals claim for the Federal is NOT a Constitutional one.....
The 2nd Camp: Old School Despots
It should be easy to see that a group of well meaning people, ignorant and unable to deal with the complex nature of real world problems, but with a desire to do good, would elect those who seemed competent to effect their desires. Those in the 2nd Camp are all too happy to do so. 2nd camp liberals suffer from none of ailments of the 1st camp. They know exactly what they do. They understand context and how to manipulate it. They understand that the confirmation bias and disinterest in truth of the 1st camp will cover their lies. They understand that the processes that are putting in place will not achieve the stated goals, but use that fact to create more problems they can “solve” for the 1st camp. The 2nd Camp understands that constitutional government cannot survive under a “living” constitution, and that bothers them little, as arbitrary power is what they seek. They merely wish to set up a system in which they can continue in power by manipulating the 1st camp and use tax-payer funds to bribe others into voting for them.
It should be obvious that manipulation of the 1st camp is fairly easy. Those in the 2nd camp need only start a belief in and repeat the false contexts that lead 1st Camp liberals to support them. Dr. Lakoff’s book, Don’t think of an Elephant is proof enough of that. These contexts often present a flattering picture or a noble role for the listener in the 1st camp, as an enlightened or compassionate hero, who does good by supporting the person in the 2nd camp. Given the disire to be happy rather than right, these beliefs are readily siezed upon by the 1st camp.
To prevent the truth from being repeated, the 2nd Camp does everything it can to create a culture in which counter-views are squelched. They seek Judges and courts who will deliberately misinterpret law for their cause, leading to the restriction of Religious freedom and expression for Christians, even when acting as private individuals and with private means. They seek the courts granting of a legal venue of political and ideological indoctrination in public schools, paid for by the taxpayer and then oppose school choice because that would allow people to escape their indoctrination system. They support speech codes in our higher institutions of learning, and persecute “wrong-thinking” people under Hate-Speech regulations, Hate-Crime Laws, and DOE Diversity laws. They oppose any regulations that would require conservatives to teach alongside liberals in higher education. Thus they are free to turn out Lawyers with no knowledge of constuctionalist law, and turn out journalists who feel their primary job is "making a difference" rather than accurately reporting events.
Once in office, Liberals in the 2nd camp liberals use counter-productive government programs to exacerbate and perpetuate their lies, mis-representations and false contexts. They cause problems so they can “fix” them. They raise the minimum wage and then point to the problem of rising unemployment as justification for taking money from working people. They hamper police and courts with rules and rgualtions that prevent them from effectively patrolling and prosecuting criminals, and then point to rising violence and crime as proof of the unfair class system. They stop developers from building and then use the lack of affordable housing as a justification for more government intervention. They offer affirmative action as a method of creating the hard racism of low-expectations, and then use the plight of blacks as an excuse for yet more government intrusion. They know raising taxes slows the economy and do so to cause jobs to be lost...
2nd Camp liberals do everything in their power to create and perpetuate problems, so they can convince or pay 1st camp liberals to elect them. Every 2nd camp Liberal "solution" uses government force to take from the responsible and give to the irresponsilbe so that they may avoid the consequeces of their decisons and actions. They do this to create dependence upon the government, and weaken those who are still independent. Knowing people vote their pocketbook, they buy votes with taxpayer money. They want people dependant upon the government as children are dependant upon their parents. Why? Because your dependants can’t afford to vote against you. The only reason Hilary Clinton wants to offer "Universal Health Care" is to buy the votes of the majority who will not be paying, while allowing them to escape the costs of their own decisions. Thus they are free to engage in smoking, drug use, dangerous sports, or any other voluntary acts that might affect thier long-term health - after all, they won't be paying for thier care. 2nd Camp Liberals are the same type of despot that has ruled mankind for centuries. That they would wish to bring America to her Knees and kill the ideas of Individual Liberty and Freedom is not surprising. What is surprising is that they seem to have found so many willing to help them in the 1st camp.
I don’t vote for Liberals because I am an American. I believe in Constitutional Government, Personal Responsibility, and Personal Liberty, and The Right of Conscience; Just like the Founding Fathers Did. Liberals in both camps are directly opposed to all of these ideas.