muckefuck | Liberals of all parties, unite!

Liberals of all parties, unite!

princeofcairo is fond of saying "Never underestimate the anti-Semitism of the Left." He's seen the extremes meet on this topic far, far too many times.

mollpeartree is fond of saying, "Never underestimate the sexism of the Left." She's seen way too many instances in her time.

I think I've seen enough homophobia, classism, racism, and general inflexibility among soi-disant "liberals" to generalise this to "Never underestimate the intolerance of the Left" and be done with it.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Do you think there is less intolerance among conservatives?

In my experience, it's about the same, but we're not so damn smug about it all the time.

Ah, well, yes. The smugness IS annoying.

no one ever thought that by tacking the word 'compassionate' before 'liberal,' they would be making a badly perceived thing better, now did they?

"Compassionate liberal." Hmm.
Well, I don't think it's any worse than the global search-and-replace with "progressive."

talk about timing...

Wow, enough straw men in that article or what?

Don't like cannibalism, or bestiality, or mass murder? Then don't marry a person-eating, chicken-loving serial killer.

Not that I'm against any of his examples, I just like to point out where his logic is flawed. I'll go back to clutching my Bible and watching soft porn now.

glass houses, kids...makes for a pretty enough fire, at least.

I'm sorry? Have a look at what's going on in

sunsmogseahorse's LJ right now and tell me again how liberal intolerance is just a figment of my imagination.

If the Left wants to occupy its time building straw men and making themselves look like raving loons, I'm all for it.

there is little to nothing in the ideal liberal screed that explicitly promotes intolerance or hatred of your fellow man; for the good of all being a base mantra. That people can and do fall short of the ideal hardly denigrates the origional aspiration.

Conservatism, even the compassionate kind, is by definition 'hold tight to what you got, and don't let go.' Dividing, seperating, and parsing the Us vs the Them are par for the course for such an outlook, and manipulating such base intentions has been the stock in trade of Those Who Rule in this country for a good long time.

'Liberal intolerance' is a figment of your imagaintion, or more like, a straw man waved about when reasoned discource either fails or is dismissed outright. The inherent intolerence of people however (and the ease at which such intolerence can be manipulated and fanned along) is pervasive & enduring...

What I see in the sunsmog's lj is mainly a lot of folks really ticked off at what's being done to our country. compared to your average Freeper discussion, it seemed downright sopophoric...

Me, I'd love to be able to vote for nice moderate Republican canidates, but such hardly exist any more- since they were hunted down and extermianted by theier own party.

I don't follow your typology at all. Is Communism a conservative ideology? Because it doesn't get much more Us vs. Them than orthodox Marxism, now, does it?

Although there is general dissatisfaction percolating through those entries, that's not what I'm talking about. It's the smug assertion that, if you happen to be gay, there is one and only one correct party affiliation and, if you disagree, it's not because you have different values, priorities, or aims. Rather, this can only be explained as a psychopathology. Whether that view is officially enshrined in the DNC party platform is irrelevant if it is pervasive among the membership--and I keep seeing indications that it is.

I simply can't think of anything more inimical to true liberalism than the idea that the one and only acceptable way for a person to act is determined by their inherent charactertistics. This isn't even a conservative idea, it's reactionary.

but if you get to bundle Communism as a 'liberal' ideology, do I get to score points by counting fascism as conservative?

The whole Homos for Demos thing is at the base of it as practical as can be- it's simply much more bang for the buck. In case you forgot, Rove and co. deliberately went out of thier way to demonize gays during the last election cycle- their whole justification for ruling is fear: Boo! OK, so the current White House has hired more gays than Clinton did- there is apearance, and then there is actions- and results. As they say, The enemy of my enemy is my friend, and thats good enough for many.

I'll tll you what's surprising- s'like, why would any sentient being support the current incarnation of America's Republican Party is quite beyond me, unless they happen to be one of those getting to line up at the trough. What exactly can you expect to gain from having this bunch of cronies and criminals in power? Fiscal responsibility in the Federal budget? Reasoned foreign policy? A newfound appreciation for the civil liberties of it's citizenry? Cleaner air & water? OK, taxes are lower (way lower, if your rich)- s'a damned shame that such also came with an 8 trillian dollar bill. Now, if you want to talk about deluded fools...

Corporate welfare is every bit as egregious to my eye as social welfare, and far less useful to the country as whole, in the long run. I don't belive for a second that every gay card should be stamped 'Property of the DNC', and as I told you before, I'd dearly love to have the chance to vote for a nice middle of the road republican, at any level of government. but such opportunities, I fear, is going to be a very long time in coming. Better to stick with the Devil that you know, je?

Is it still surprising? Here's a thread idea I wish that I could do- post 'I am gay and I vote republican because...' If I promise to be really nice and not critique?

but if you get to bundle Communism as a 'liberal' ideology, do I get to score points by counting fascism as conservative?

Be my guest. My only intention was to counter your charge that only one chunk of the ideological spectrum has a monopoly on the Us vs. Them mentality. If you can't see how shot through with Marxist class-warfare rhetoric "liberal" screed is...well, then, I'm not sure you'll ever see what I'm getting at.

I didn't "forget" the Republican tactics in the last election, I just dispute that they were anywhere near as effective as many homosexual activists are saying they were. (BTW, what's with the link? I can't find "gay" anywhere on that page.) A lot of people leapt to conclusions based on the media's misreading of misleading poll data and ignored the revised interpretations of a week later.

The reason I identify as an Independent is that I've got way too many problems with both parties. Take corporate welfare. We're on the same page regarding the egregious damage it causes. But can you demonstrate to me that the Democrats benefit any less from it and have any more incentive to cut back on it than the Republicans? The reason Bush's No Lobbyist Left Behind bills have been sailing through Congress is that they give Democrats plenty of time at the trough as well. (The new transportation bill is a good example. It was signed in the heart of a state with a grand total of one Republican in elected statewide office.)

No middle-of-the-road Republicans? What do you call Schwarzenegger? The Illinois Republicans recently demonstrated what happens when you run a rabid social conservative out here--you get your ass handed to you in a 70%/27% landslide.

I'd say Us vs Them is much more human than political; but I would assert that conservative movments explicitly utilize it far more often. The nationalist movemnts that sweapt the world post cold war, as an example. I do not that I do have a personal blind spot for economic 'class warfare' -b ut then my faith on our overall socioeconomic system is not so great; I have a great suspicion that a few weeks a of living on minimum wage would change the tune of a number of your conservative friends...

The link was meant to highlight the scaremongering attitude of ShrubCo, not to really address their use of the gay marriage issue. Overall, I agree that the gay marriage thing wasn't a huge issue overall, but it was just enough of an incendiary, when applied in just the right places. Over and over, post election coverage pointed to the large evangelical vote that Shrub rode in on- that they would have voted for him anyways is without question, but in such numbers without prodding, is very doubtful.

Small things really do make the difference these days, ya know: if Tom Delay hadn't bought himself a pliant and Republican Texas Legislature, he'd not have gotten his special redistricting package passed, and there'd be 5 more Democratic seats in the House.

Schwarzenager, i call.. hurrr. He makes me itch, but not for being republican. In two crucial aspects, he fails my middle of the road test- the first being that he's still more of an actor than a politition. And the base hypocracy of demanding full open reform, while still showing a penchant for back room deals and special interest largess- in too many uncomfortable ways, he comes off being bought and owned nature of other famous republican figureheads like Reagan and Shrub. If his intial election hadn't been so politically based, i probably would have voted for him, but now... we'll see come next election.

Small quiblings- but he's still more actor than politition...

Not at all. But conservatives are stereotypically intolerant. Such behaviour is expected from them--if anything, I think we overestimate the intolerance of the Right. But the stereotype of the Left is the Rainbow Coalition, equally accepting of everyone and everybody. So it's too easy to forget just how much ugly prejudice lurks there until you're smacked in the face with it.

For me, the real divide is between the open-minded liberals with widely-varying opinions and the dogmatic extremists. No major school of thought or political party has a monopoly on one or the other. (Smaller parties natural collate more of the dogmatists.)

I'm extremist and dogmatic about how utterly annoying extremist dogma is to me.

I fight hard against my own classism, because I think that bigotry is so passe.

Do the words "Left" and "Right" (in this context) really mean anything anymore...?

Is everyone feeling a little oppressed this morning?

Oppressed? No--just appalled by small-mindedness.

aww c'mon... the left is muy tolerant of its pet minority groups... and only asks of them one simple thing: do as you're told.

Yay intolerance!

Jesus God, I hate it when you make statements like that!

Do you mean "left" or "liberals?" When I say "left" I mean anarchists, Green Party, anti-globalization protesters with giant dirty puppets, socialists, left-over communists, and religious left pacifists. (Sounds like my neighborhood!)

"Liberals" in USA (to me at least) is the "left" of the Democratic party (with maybe a few Republicans and independents), where there may be a whiff of anti-globalization, etc., but without giant puppets. (Senator Kennedy, for example).

"Liberals" in Euro-land (to me) mean "Classic Liberals" who like human rights with their capitalism. (Sounds like _The Economist_)

Comments?

I think the caution holds for both. In their original statements,

princeofcairo and

mollpeartree may well have been referring to "the Left" in your sense, since it's not these extremists' intolerance that's unexpected, it's the targets (though I suspect that PoC, being much further right, has a broader defintion of "the Left" than others). Some of Moll's experiences came while working on the GCJ, if that helps.

I'm not sure exactly how the people whose attitudes prompted me to write this identify themselves. A fair number seem to be on the West Coast, which increases the probability of fringeness.

This is almost a constant theme on Michelle Malkin's blog. The amount of email laced with racial and misogynistic hate that woman receives for holding conservative opinions is staggering (to me, at least).

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only