The Top Three Reasons Why Liberals

Hate Conservatives

CONSERVATIVES SEE LIBERALS AS MISGUIDED; LIBERALS SEE

CONSERVATIVES AS EVIL.ORIGINAL SOURCE UNKNOWN
BY CHRISTOPHER COOK-SEPTEMBER 21, 2014

Are you a conservative, a libertarian, or a Republican? Have you

ever been verbally assaulted by someone on the political left with
a ferocity you didnt quite understand? Have you seen it happen
to friends and colleagues, or watched in horror as the media
establishment does it to a public figure?

Of course you have. At some point or other, nearly everyone on

the political right has witnessed or been the victim of an attack
designed not to elucidate facts, but rather to paint him or her as
a villain.
My attention was recently drawn to a typical such calumny from a
Facebook exchange:
Republicans hate anything that isnt white, wealthy, and christian
at least in appearance. They hate the poor, women, and
minorities. They hate science and dont believe that the global
warming we clearly are experiencing is man made. They hate any
government programs that help the poor and minorities, and the
(sic) particularly despise immigrants, particularly the illegal kind.
They love programs that line the pockets of oil companies, mining
companies, and are willing to export jobs with wild abandon.
They hate public education, and they despise public schools and
the public school teachers and public university professors. And
since the (sic) do not respect the market place of ideas, they hate
tenure (that gives teachers academic freedom) because it
prevents them from firing teachers who are Democrats and who
might infect some student with their liberal ideas. They want
insurance companies to make a maximum of profit, and are
perfectly willing for the health insurance companies to kill people
by refusing service to anyone that might cost them a buck more
than the median expense. They dont care about clean food
because it might cost the food corporation a little money, and
they dont care about clean water because cleaning up the waste
will cost their precious corporate persons a little money.
This is not a recitation of facts; it is a series of smears. It is the
construction of a giant cartoonish super-villain, made of straw and
woven together with calumny. The giant straw villain is then
publicly burned, in a narcissistic orgy of self-adulation. Of course,
the torches of the best people burn the brightest.

Another way of looking at it is this: It is the modern-day version of

a witch trial. The charges are utterly farcical and cartoonish. I
saw her dancing with demons in the pale moonlight. She looked
at me and I sneezed, and the next day, I had a terrible cold. She
turned me into a newt. But they are stated with great conviction
and repeated incessantly, and they establish the unassailable
collective will of which the accused has run afoul. The witch is
made into the auslander, and the good people of the community
show how good they are by shouting their accusations the
loudest.

Either way, whether the wicker man or the witch, the effigy goes
up in flames and the community is purgedfor the momentof
its evil. Moral annulment now achieved, the villagers walk away
feeling good about themselves. Feeling superior.

Facts are also unimportant in this perverse passion play. Like the
slavering, semi-psychotic Facebook rant above, most such
assaults arent a series of accusations backed up by facts, they
are a series of character assassinations, most of which
are contradicted by the facts.

The most salient example today is the charge that people of the
right (conservatives, Republicans, libertarians, tea partiers)
oppose Obama out of pure racismsimply because he is black.
Though this charge is easily refutedby common sense,
widespread evidence, and actual studiesit is repeated
incessantly by the media, the lefts foot-soldiers . . . even the
president himself.
When actual studies are done (as opposed to just restating what
the leftist imagines to be so as if it were actual fact), we learn that
real racism is distributed fairly evenly among the population
without regard to political affiliation. In 2008, a survey was done
that showed similar numbers of Republicans (5.7) and Democrats
(6.8) would not vote for a black presidential candidate. Such a
question gives us one of the clearest possible tests of raw racism.
A loaded question like, Do you feel blacks receive too much
welfare? might confuse attitudes about race with attitudes about
government welfare programs. But this gives us apples to
apples: All things being equal, would you refuse to vote for
someone solely because of race?

In the 2008 survey, Democrats were slightly (1.1%) more likely to

show racist thinking than Republicans, though this is well within
the margin of error. A similar study on senatorial candidates was
far more damning to Democrats. Bottom line: there is little
evidence that Republicans oppose Obama or any candidate on
the basis of race to any greater degree than Democrats.

But this should be obvious based on other facts and indicators as

well. Take Mia Love. If you are on the political left, you may not
have heard of her, but she is a rising star on the right. She quotes
Bastiat, she believes in core principles such as subsidiarityshe is
dynamic, successful, and hits all the right notes.
She is a black woman, and I have not met or heard of a single
conservative, Republican, or tea partier who wouldnt be
delighted to support her. (Deep down, many of the left know this,
which is why they have been so vicious to her.) I have worked
alongside or come in contact with hundreds of activists and
partisans on the political right over the last 15 years, and I cannot
think of a single one who would not exult at a Mia Love victory. If
she were elected president, I myself would do the happy dance on
top of the tallest mountain in my area every November!

The reason is obvious: we agree ideologically. Race is

unimportant. Barack Obama is, it can be fairly argued, further to
the political left than any previous president. And people on the
right oppose him so virulently for that very reasonnot because
of his race, but because of the huge ideological gulf that lies
between. Imagine that.

The other painfully incessant canard is the notion that people on

the right hate the poor. In fact, the evidence shows the
opposite. Conservatives are more charitable than liberals by fairly
significant margins, even when you adjust for a variety of factors.
Rich, middle-class, and poor conservatives are all
more charitable than their liberal counterparts. Its not that
conservatives are wealthier overall, eitherliberal households are
6% wealthier on average. (I bet you never heard that little fact on
MSNBC.) It is also not that conservatives are more religious:
new data indicate that secular conservatives give more
than secular liberals. These conservatives are voluntarily helping
the poor with their own money, in greater numbers than their
liberal counterparts in every cohort. Conservatism is a greater
predictor of charity.

Leftists (they hardly deserve the term liberal), by contrast, are

more charitable with other peoples money. Leftist A votes for
Politician B to take money (by force) from Taxpayer C to give it to
Recipient D. A and D give more support and power to B, who
continues to take more and more from C, in a perverse and ever-
increasing form of economic bondage. Then, A, B, and D get
together and say that C hates the poor. Lather, rinse, repeat.
But we are getting dragged into the weeds here. We could go on
and on refuting fact after fact, but the facts are unimportant. The
leftist is creating a narrative. As a marketing guru will tell
you, Facts tell, but stories sell. Its a lesson the leftist has learned
well.

Even more disturbing, in recent years, this method of

argumentation has increasingly become the first tool pulled out
of the toolbox. No longer does the leftist feel as compelled to
make real arguments. All he needs to do now is shout Racist! or
War on Women! and his job is done. He walks away feeling
smugly satisfied of his own politically correct superiority, and the
untrained observer is left addled at best, and possibly even
swayed by the narrative.

So why they are so vicious? Why do people who self-describe as

compassionate direct such vitriolic hate and assaults at their
ideological opponents? How they can justify painting you as such
a monster?
Simple: To them, you are a monster. You must be.
REASON #1: UTOPIANISM
YOURE IN THEIR WAY
Strip everything away, and the fundamental trait of all leftists is
this: They believe that through the state, they can build paradise
on earth. They believe that with enough tinkering, coercion, and
rule by experts, they can eliminate all hard choices and
competing goods, perfect human nature, and bring all good things
to all people.

To someone of the political rightdefined by our belief in human

freedom, private solutions, and individual sovereigntythis is just
the modern re-telling of the age-old story: that some men should
rule over other men. Ancient despotism, monarchy, fascism,
totalitarianism, modern progressivismtheyre all just different
flavors, and different degrees of application, of the same basic
philosophy. But the person on the left does not see it that way. He
wants perfection. He believes it is possible. And by gum, hes
going to get it.

This utopian thinking quickly leads to an unavoidable conclusion,

echoed from the French Revolution to Lenin and Stalin to Mao to
the Progressives of the modern era: On ne fait pas domelet sans
casser des oeufs. (You cant make an omelet without breaking
some eggs.) To the utopian statist, process costs are entirely
acceptable. They are building paradise, after all.

Thats why you see so much more toleration by the lefts rank and
file of corruption and bad behavior by their leaders. Whats a little
lying here, a little corruption there? They are building paradise.
Whats a little cheating in the face of all they intend to
accomplish?

That is also why you see such a prevalence of cult-of-personality

adulation for strong leaders. Strong leaders resolve contradictions
and sweep away the opposition. Strong leaders have the will
to get the job done. Strong leaders get the trains running on
time. Next stop, paradise.

But most importantly . . . these utopiansboth the leaders and

the rank and fileare so convinced of the nobility of their
intentions that they believe that anyone who stands in their way
must, by definition, have evil intentions. After all, who but a
monster would stand in the way of paradise? And what
consideration do monsters deserve? Why none at all, of course
theyre monsters.
That is why they do not simply disagree with you. That is why
they calumniate you and attribute the worst motives to you. That
is why they hate you.
REASON #2: FANTASYLAND VS. REALITY
THE WORLD IS IN THEIR WAY
The world refuses to conform to their utopian vision. The world
isnt the neat and tidy place they want it to be. They still hold
onto the childlike belief that there can be goods with no tradeoffs,
and this world of endless tradeoffs proves them wrong every day,
mocking their childishness in the process. That makes them very
angry.

Someone once said, Conservatives believe what they see;

liberals see what they believe. Leftists hate you for the fact that
you see the world as it is, rather than as it should be. You accept
the facts of reality as they truly are, and you try to make the best
of it. They believe that they can make reality conform to their
vision of it. (That this effort always requires massive application of
force against other human beings doesnt bother them. Its just
another process cost.)

Your acceptance of reality as it is is pedestrian and troglodytic.

Their vision of how reality should be makes them noble and
romantic. They hate you for not living in the same fantasy land
that they do. They hate you for recognizing that life is filled with
tradeoffs. They dont see the tradeoffs, so when you point them
out, its as if you are the one that is making the tradeoff exist. La-
La-La . . . I cant hear you! Stop making bad things happen.

Your acceptance of reality makes them so angry, in fact, that they

have convinced themselves that you must be suffering from some
sort of psychological malady. Over the last century, dozens of self-
reinforcing junk-science books and studies have been published
labeling conservatism (once called classical liberalism) as a
mental disorder. Like the mental patient permanently lost in a
psychotic world of his own creation . . . hes normal, its the rest
of you who are nuts.
REASON #3: PREENING NARCISSISM
THEY ARE BEAUTIFUL, SO YOU MUST BE UGLY
The ideas of the political left produce failure at best and misery,
oppression, and democide at worst. In spite of this, I had long
clung to the belief that at least people on the political left mean
well.
But do they? Or do they simply want to feel as though they mean
well?
Author Robert Bidinotto asks (and answers) the same question:
Have decades upon decades of liberal policy failures deterred
liberals from being liberals?
Have the trillions of dollars blown on welfare-state programs since
the New Deal and the War on Poverty made a damned bit of
difference in curing poverty? And has that failure convinced
progressives that there is something fundamentally wrong in
their worldview and approach? Have the horrendous historical
consequences of appeasement policies stopped todays
politicians from appeasing international thugs and terrorists? No?
Then why does anyone assume that liberals gauge the value of
their worldview by the standard of its PRACTICAL
CONSEQUENCES?
Practical consequences are ALWAYS trumped by the advancement
and protection of ones core Narrative: the fairy tale that gives
ones life meaning, coherence, and moral justification. [ . . . ]
Doing that makes them feel good about themselves. And they
would far rather feel good about themselves than actually achieve
any of their stated practical objectives. Its not about the
objectives at all. Its about THEM.
John Hawkins is just as unequivocal:
3) Liberals emphasize feeling superior, not superior
results. Liberalism is all about appearances, not outcomes. What
matters to liberals is how a program makes them FEEL about
themselves, not whether it works or not. Thus a program
like Headstart, which sounds good because its designed to help
children read, makes liberals feel good about themselves, even
though the program doesnt work and wastes billions. A ban
on DDT makes liberals feel good about themselves because
theyre protecting the environment even though millions of
people have died as a result. For liberals, its not what a program
does in the real world; its about whether they feel better about
themselves for supporting it.
If this is true, then for many, utopianism isnt about what they
think they can achieve, its about their own self-image.

So is it true?

The persistence of this vision in the face of centuries of evidence

would seem to indicate that it may be. We know that maximizing
human freedom is more moral and produces better resultsthe
last two centuries have made that clear. And on the flip side, we
know that maximizing government at the expense of the
individual produces a parade of horribles. And yet, again and
again, we are told that it simply wasnt done correctly before, or
by the right people.

Mirror, mirror, on the wall, whos the fairest of them all?

Why you are, my dearyou are so compassionate and fair and
noble in every way.

The leftist looks at herself in the mirror and sees that she is one of
those right people, because that is how she wants to see
herself.

And if she is so beautiful and noble and fair . . . then how ugly you
must be for standing in her way.
The leftistthe utopian, the statistsees himself as on noble
quest. He is the embodiment of everything good, simply because
that is how he sees himself. How he wants to see himself. In order
to maintain this self-image, he must make you the embodiment of
everything horrible. He must make you ugly.

To statists, you are just another process cost. Their willingness to

accept process costs on the road to their utopia is limited only by
national context. In the United States, an exceptional nation
where we still have some rule of law, they will certainly
calumniate you, and they may decide to harm your finances,
career, or reputation. In less exceptional countries where there is
less rule of law, the harm is often to peoples freedom or even
their very lives, as more than 100 million poor souls discovered in
the 20th century.

The typical leftist in America, ignorant of his own philosophical

pedigree, will protest this characterization. Do not let their
protestations sway you. The degree to which they will treat you
the monster standing in the way of their utopiaas a disposable
process cost is limited only by the degree of power they have. For
your own safety, do not let them get more.
You are in the way of the utopia they are trying to create. You are
in the way of the power they need to do it.

You. Are. In. Their. Way.

The conservative thinks of political policies as intended to

preserve order, justice, and freedom. The ideologue, on the
contrary, thinks of politics as a revolutionary instrument for
transforming society and even transforming human nature. In his
march toward Utopia, the liberal ideologue is merciless.
 Russell Kirk

Posted by Thavam