Here's my problem with liberals.
It doesn't matter what politics or social problem you talk about, the liberal minded only ever have the same 2 solutions: more education, or more regulation.
The education one is pretty arrogant, it starts from the assumption that anyone who has come to a different conclusion than you is simply ignorant, because your conclusion is the correct one. As though if they were just given more information they would agree with you. It fails to acknowledge that people who do things we disagree with or don't understand may have good reasons, and have spent time learning, have life experience, or deep complex thoughtful analysis.
The more regulation point is connected to another problem with liberal ideologies; liberals never look at the systems as the problem. The ideology is myopic and unimaginative. The institutions that make up our society are treated as a given, as unquestionable, and their solutions are always from within the current structures and nothing from outside of conventional thinking is ever considered as a realistic option. Thus if the answer isn't more education it is certainly more regulation. If you have police violence and corruption, it's not policing that's the problem, we need more rules for them and better training. If the problem is climate change, more education on reusable, recycling, Green tech, and more regulations to control pollution. Obesity, again more education on whole foods and exercise, and more regulation on how companies market or package. And so on.
Now before everyone goes assuming I am some alt right Trumpian or something (I'm sure the majority of you made that assumption right from the first 5 words in), I am not at all right wing. I'm not a centrist either. Far from it. These criticisms are not originating from a right wing view point. There are politics outside the party system, my politics lie outside of the left or right, although I agree with a number of aspects associated with the left's analysis.
And before people flip out, maybe take a second to consider and ask yourself if you can see any truth in my assertions?
I used to argue with people like you, but now I just don't give a shit. Live in your own world.
You clearly do give a shit, or wouldn't have taken the time to comment saying how much you don't give a shit
Agreed.. Iām getting the feeling ā¦ when some run out of friends ..they argue with strangers
Problem is, one could just as easy replace 'liberal' with conservative. Conservatives in this country constantly decry liberal policies (like regulations) but, when they are inpower theirs are even worse and right now they are amazingly evident. tRump, his lackeys and Christian followers have made a mockery of everything they one promoted. Morals, deficit, regulations and on and on.
I don't disagree at all. I may have huge criticisms of the liberals but the far right is far worse. Good thing there's options outside of those
@PolyComrade And I agree. Both sides have serious issues. Both sides let emotions govern many of their ideas.
@JackPedigo the only contention I have with what you say is I don't think there's only two sides
@PolyComrade Yes, there are probably as many sides as people.
@JackPedigo I just get bummed out when I hear politics described as a simplistic binary spectrum. I find it so limiting
@PolyComrade But seems to have become so at this time in this country.
Some small amounts of truth may be present, but they are overwhelmed by naive GOP-like bias.
You write reasonably well, so you may not be the usual GOP idiot, you're still in the grip of their brainwashing propaganda. Do you watch a lot of Fox? You probably come from a GOP environment, and are still there. The claim that your demonizing isn't from a right wing view simply isn't credible. The GOP is all about the same hate you show. You think Liberal ideology is myopic and unimaginative? That's pure projection.
I'm about as far from GOP as one can get friend. I developed my politics by reading autjors such as Kropotkin, and Emma Goldman, as well as having a bookshelf stuffed with books by folks like bell hooks, Kate Bronstein, Vine Deloria Jr, and Julia Serano.
There is criticisms of liberals that come from the far right, or so called centrists, but there's also criticisms of liberals that come from those to the left of them, or even the post left, or other groups who see both the right and left as two parts of the same engine. Don't make the mistake of assuming that all who are critical of liberals are to the right
From what Iāve read ..weāve someone incapable of accepting impurities, but instead of going after the worst offenders (like many on the left), the focus of his derision are those closest to him.. Apparently, itās safer to attack good than evil. But as folks demand such a delusional āpurityā from our best - evil smiles ..on itās way to the bank ~
Oh, I dunno, white supremacists are obviously dumber than stumps....maybe getting their DNA done & finding out they are partially black would EDUCATE them? Ya think?
And in the meantime, laws that limit their Very hurtful speech & actions are obviously necessary!
Some are definitely dumb as a rock yes, but there are also those within these movements that are highly intelligent and well educated. That's the scary part. It's too easy to just dismiss all racists as morons. And what happens when they are the ones writing the laws or sitting on the supreme court? The smartest of them aren't running around in white hoods with swastika tattoos, they are in board rooms and university faculties
@PolyComrade VOTE!
@AnneWimsey voting is one way to fight them, I'm not convinced it's the most effective way but it's a way. Hopefully those who believe in voting see it as a start, not and ends in and of itself
Why do you ascribe such negativity to liberals in particular for advocating education? The educational system in the US is horrible.. The average citizens of the US become less intelligent when conservatives reduce funding to public schools... The US used to lead the world in science and mathematics, not so much now... Only the wealthy recieve a good education these days... I have no idea where you get the idea that getting an education is arrogant at all... Seems like it's a personal issue you have and not an objective analysis...
Why do you ascribe such negativity to liberals in particular for advocating education?
Because he's stereotyping.
@1of5 it's was a rhetorical question
@Cutiebeauty true, but some of us <coughconservativeswithmyopiacough> need things spelled out for us
I didn't say getting an education was arrogant, I said assuming anyone who holds a different opinion than you needs more education is arrogant.
There are a lot of highly educated, highly intelligent people who hold positions I or you might find despicable. They don't argue these positions from ignorance, but rather from having a different moral compass, different values, and often from deeply ideological places.
A great example would be transphobic radical feminists; often these are women with PhDs who have been involved in activism for decades, yet spew hate speech against transgender women. And many even dedicate large amounts of their time and energy to removing trans women's access to healthcare and other services like shelter for abuse survivors. Cathy Brenan is a great example, or Susan Griffin, or Mary Daly, or Lierre Keith. This vile hate isn't coming from an uneducated yob, but rather from a deeply ideological place rooted in a complex analysis of gender that's implicitly transphobic.
Another great example would be some of the academics that support the continued occupation and genocide of Palestinians by the Israeli government. Certainly there are those whose support for this violence is just doing what their told, holding a position that fits the party line of their respective identity, or centered in a weird religious interpretation that requires the Jews to return to the homeland for the end times to come; but there's also many secular scholars who side with the Israeli government against the Palestinians regardless of how much evidence there is that they are committing atrocities.
Or you can look at some of the racist arguments against indigenous peoples having self determination. Here in Canada there's a well known academic who's basically the guy in the background of the Canadian conservative movement, professor Tom Flannigan. He wrote a best selling book called First Nations Second Thoughts that's essentially a series of deeply racist arguments against indigenous peoples and for their continued colonization. Published by a university press and taught in many university courses to thus day. The guy is disturbingly brilliant, yet his ideology is frightening. More frightening is his influence on the people who make policy.
My point is that while education can be good and can help solve certain problems, it's not always the answer. Nor is more rules. Especially when some of the worst are those writing the rules.
Education only addresses the problem of ignorance, not values, greed, or ideology.
And further, often these issues are systemic, so giving some extra training or adding some new regulations won't fix the problem if the very foundation of the institution is racist, classist, or sexist.
@PolyComrade OK, I see your point now... When speaking about education, you didn't address the issue of ideology or race etc... Thanks
My problem with your statement arises from your definition of āliberalā, and from that stems your misuse of the word, Firstly to narrow all those who identify as āliberalsā down to only having two solutions to every problem is patently ridiculous. The meaning of the word is important because it has become a term bandied about in a pejorative manner, when in fact it is a noble and egalitarian doctrine. The word when used as an adjective..itās original use, means a willingness to to respect or accept behaviour or opinions differing from oneās own; being open to new ideas. Liberalism..the noun, is a political and moral philosophy based on liberty, consent of the governed, and equality before the law. I am proud to say that I espouse all these ideals, even if itās difficult to maintain this ideal due to the extreme polarisation of our politics in the present febrile atmosphere. We need real leaders who can bring both right and left together and not try to divide and conquer...as is happening on both sides of the Atlantic. Veering from one polar opposite to the other, and pitting one half of the country against another is illiberal and is causing unrest and will ultimately end in violence, taken to its logical conclusion. What we need is a coalition of the willing...the middle way, in other words we need the reasoned voices more than ever before, we need the Liberals to stand up and be counted.
My definition of Liberal is in large a person that never questions the institutions themselves, never considers options outside the system, and takes the system as a given, but rather only ever seeks reform within those institutions as the only type of legitimate change. And one who believes history is a largely linear progress towards more equitable and just society.
Of course I'm not convinced history is so linear or that progress is always good. And I'm concerned that often the problems of inequality, marginalization, and other forms of violence are built into the very foundations of the institutions and structures that the liberals only ever want to reform and refuse to question or seek alternatives to.
It's true, as you said that my definition of Liberal is negative and sided against liberals. It's equally true th at your definition is decidedly only positive and uncritical. So then both be propaganda? Lol. If you define something only by the virtues they claim to be based on, of course it sounds good, especially to anyone who wants to associate with those values. But it's not a complete story
@PolyComrade The difference between my definition and yours is that mine is the correct dictionary definition...whilst yours is an invention of your own biased mindset. It appears that many others agree with me.
@Marionville that's a way of seeing it, sure. It's a way very favorable to your position. There's many ways to describe things, one being true doesn't always necessitate the other to be untrue. My definition is a critical one, yours is explicitly uncritical
@PolyComrade My definition is how I personally view liberalism, and try to uphold its ideals. I occupy the centre ground in politics and believe only by reaching out to both sides...left and right, to form consensus can we govern fairly, Politics should be the art of the possible, and can only be achieved by compromise with those who hold opposing views. This is lost in the current deadlocks in the US and the UK present, and the resulting polarisation is tearing both countries apart. I have been studying politics for a very long time, and have lived through an age where many systems have been tried and failed...and few have been really successful in the long run, and believe that having liberal ideals and Social Democratic policies are proven to be the most successful. I take issue with your depiction of my ideas being uncritical, they are based entirely on my lifetime of practical experience.
@Marionville there are more than 2 sides. Hell there's more than one position within each of those sides. But you kinda proved my point about liberals only seeing reform within existing institutions as the only legitimate option by your reply. There are politics outside of democrats/liberals and republicans/conservatives.
@PolyComrade Go ahead and invent a new system...if itās better than the Scandinavian model Iāll buy into it. I suggest you stop making such sweeping statements about āallā liberals as seeing things the way you think they do. You may believe in your own your opinion on liberals and how they always behave, but you must give others the right to hold dissenting views. Unless you have made a long study of the practices and policymaking history of Liberalism, your views are just drawn from your own narrow observations. You can believe what you like, we are all entitled to that, but if you put your ideas out into a forum such as this one, donāt expect everyone to agree with them, especially when your basic premise doesnāt seem sound.
@Marionville i don't expect everyone to agree. Im not looking for an echo chamber.
I'd rather have interesting discussion with people who don't share my views but can still debate respectfully than just having people who agree with me tell me how right i am.
And of course while there will be those who disagree perhaps there will be others who maybe see in my argument something they haven't articulated yet or heard said. Or those who might not agree fully but can see where I'm coming from, even if it's not now but at a later time where the patterns I described show up, and do to this discussion they are more able to see them.
Or maybe someone who disagrees with me will argue something that makes me rethink some of my own positions, even if it's not the ones they are trying to change my mind about.
And your point is what? No solutions just do nothing?
No, I think there are many solutions, sometimes education might even be a valid one, just not every time to every problem. Sometimes the solutions involve structural change, or maybe building alternative structures all together. In most cases I feel the problems are caused or exacerbated by unnecessary hierarchy and centralization of power, so often I see solutions involving decentralization, or finding ways to empower people to make decisions for themselves over the issues they face. And often I see a need for multi tier solutions since one solution will only work for a portion of people. Like harm reduction strategies for drug users, combined with sobriety groups that advocate for abstinence from substance use and addiction councilling; each of those solutions address a portion of the problem but not all of it. Decriminalization, housing and other mental health treatment is also part of that solution.
There are other answer, other options, if only we look for them. But first we need to quit choosing to only ever look in the same direction and surround ourselves in echo chambers
"my politics lie outside of the left or right, "
What are you, just floating around above everyone else? That explains a lot.
There's a lot of people who's politics don't fit into those boxes.
Since you asked, even though i don't expect you to agree with me (or even want you to necessarily...
I'm anti statist, thus choosing which group of elite billionaires should run the state isn't in line with my ideas of a just society.
I'm a collectivist as well so centralization of power and wealth and private property don't fit well with the world I seek.
I'm anticolonial so this creates an issue with those who value borders on maps to separate which nation holds power over one portion of stolen land from the powers of another portion is a problem for me.
And I'm critical of technology, or at least endless adoption of it and endless industrialism at the continued expense of the ecosystems that makes up the infrastructure of life, whereas all these governments just argue about where the balance between the needs of business and the environment lay.
I could go on, but I think this should be more than enough to articulate that my politics don't fit either the left or right as both left and right are systems of governance based in a centralized state and power to influence how capital is spent or produced in an economy centered in private property.
@PolyComrade I love kumbaya and Utopia too.
I do believe racist misogynistic people are ignorant. So the choice is to educate them or regulate the effects of their idiocy. Homophobic, then yes regulations that stop discrimination are necessary. Pharmaceutical company jacks up prices for a medication that people will die if they don't have then yes we need to make laws preventing that.