Since when did liberals become such intolerant bullies?

[bucs90]

Liberals used to be the live and let live types. They used to hate bullies. But no more. They've become bullies. Aggressive, quasi militant attitudes about eradicating any behvaior, symbol or speech they disagree with.

Why? They're shutting down businesses. Getting people kicked out of homes. Even threatening violence.

They've become outright bullies. They're openly mocking and belittling the South...all of it...all its people. Obviously they've never spent much time here...as our cities are nothing like they portray them...and are actually awesome and diverse thriving places.


I see the left on TV. On shows where all they do is mock and make fun. They produce NOTHING in society except that. They're experts at blogging and making smart ass comments. But nothing else. Spoiled brats. And bullies.


Eventually. ..bullies must be dealt with. Its illegal to punch a mouthy liberal in the face. And they know it. Its the only reason they're so bold. They know the very cops they demonize...will protect their sorry asses.

So...we must either deal with these bullies....or....well...we become Greece, Mexico or Africa in 25 years. I know my employer deals with them legally. He just fires them. Hire a liberal...eventually they all become insubordinate or whiny and he just fires their ass.

 

[Andylusion]

Liberals used to be the live and let live types. They used to hate bullies. But no more. They've become bullies. Aggressive, quasi militant attitudes about eradicating any behvaior, symbol or speech they disagree with.

Why? They're shutting down businesses. Getting people kicked out of homes. Even threatening violence.

They've become outright bullies. They're openly mocking and belittling the South...all of it...all its people. Obviously they've never spent much time here...as our cities are nothing like they portray them...and are actually awesome and diverse thriving places.


I see the left on TV. On shows where all they do is mock and make fun. They produce NOTHING in society except that. They're experts at blogging and making smart ass comments. But nothing else. Spoiled brats. And bullies.


Eventually. ..bullies must be dealt with.

In looking back through history, I am not aware of any time in which the left wasn't intolerant or bullies.

 

[TheOldSchool]

At least you guys have good BBQ

 

[bucs90]

Liberals used to be the live and let live types. They used to hate bullies. But no more. They've become bullies. Aggressive, quasi militant attitudes about eradicating any behvaior, symbol or speech they disagree with.

Why? They're shutting down businesses. Getting people kicked out of homes. Even threatening violence.

They've become outright bullies. They're openly mocking and belittling the South...all of it...all its people. Obviously they've never spent much time here...as our cities are nothing like they portray them...and are actually awesome and diverse thriving places.


I see the left on TV. On shows where all they do is mock and make fun. They produce NOTHING in society except that. They're experts at blogging and making smart ass comments. But nothing else. Spoiled brats. And bullies.


Eventually. ..bullies must be dealt with.

In looking back through history, I am not aware of any time in which the left wasn't intolerant or bullies.

True. Their inner communist is coming out of the closet now.

 

[DrDoomNGloom]

It has been a long time in the coming, it has accelerated in the black era ..................

The more rights faggots get and the more vindicated blacks become for perceived social injustices of the present and past the more emboldened they become!!

 

[DigitalDrifter]

They're progressives. They have progressively became more and more intolerant.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

At least you guys have good BBQ

That and the most diverse county in America, Fort Bend County.

 

[DrDoomNGloom]

Liberals used to be the live and let live types. They used to hate bullies. But no more. They've become bullies. Aggressive, quasi militant attitudes about eradicating any behvaior, symbol or speech they disagree with.

Why? They're shutting down businesses. Getting people kicked out of homes. Even threatening violence.

They've become outright bullies. They're openly mocking and belittling the South...all of it...all its people. Obviously they've never spent much time here...as our cities are nothing like they portray them...and are actually awesome and diverse thriving places.


I see the left on TV. On shows where all they do is mock and make fun. They produce NOTHING in society except that. They're experts at blogging and making smart ass comments. But nothing else. Spoiled brats. And bullies.


Eventually. ..bullies must be dealt with.

In looking back through history, I am not aware of any time in which the left wasn't intolerant or bullies.

The left through their tactics have BECOME the bully, I think is more to the point .....................

 

[Sunni Man]

The lefty liberals always start out with lofty ideals and egalitarian goals.

But history has shown they always end up morphing into totalitarian fanatics like Stalin's murderous Bolsheviks or Mao's rabid Red Guard. .......

 

[MaryL]

During the French revolution, Robespierre even lost his head. Liberalism will feel a major backlash. The Who sang this it : " Meet the new boss, same as the old boss".

 

[TheOldSchool]

At least you guys have good BBQ

That and the most diverse county in America, Fort Bend County.

You want a cookie?

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

At least you guys have good BBQ

That and the most diverse county in America, Fort Bend County.

You want a cookie?

Nah...just made some thanks.

 

[Bonzi]

Liberals used to be the live and let live types. They used to hate bullies. But no more. They've become bullies. Aggressive, quasi militant attitudes about eradicating any behvaior, symbol or speech they disagree with.

Why? They're shutting down businesses. Getting people kicked out of homes. Even threatening violence.

They've become outright bullies. They're openly mocking and belittling the South...all of it...all its people. Obviously they've never spent much time here...as our cities are nothing like they portray them...and are actually awesome and diverse thriving places.


I see the left on TV. On shows where all they do is mock and make fun. They produce NOTHING in society except that. They're experts at blogging and making smart ass comments. But nothing else. Spoiled brats. And bullies.


Eventually. ..bullies must be dealt with. Its illegal to punch a mouthy liberal in the face. And they know it. Its the only reason they're so bold. They know the very cops they demonize...will protect their sorry asses.

So...we must either deal with these bullies....or....well...we become Greece, Mexico or Africa in 25 years. I know my employer deals with them legally. He just fires them. Hire a liberal...eventually they all become insubordinate or whiny and he just fires their ass.

... since they have come to dominate the political scene. Now that they are empowered and have the public and the media behind them, they are flexing their muscles and they are the new "school bullies".

You know how people that suddenly become rich act like *a* holes because they have never "been there" before... just like that.

 

[JFish123]

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[TheOldSchool]

At least you guys have good BBQ

That and the most diverse county in America, Fort Bend County.

You want a cookie?

Nah...just made some thanks.

Nice

 

[DrDoomNGloom]

Why have some liberals/progressives become so intolerant of their opponents?
Before 1980 or so, liberals (who now often call themselves progressives) were capable of working with conservatives on lots of issues, and rarely demonized their opponents. They had a much stronger claim to being pragmatic than they have now. Now, it has come to the point where some liberals often cannot speak about the opposition without contempt and slander. Yes, intolerance and contempt go both ways. But some liberals are supposed to be nicer and more tolerant, aren't they? Why have some of them become so mean, nasty, and often unfair?
Comments18+
69 Answers
Ian McCullough, Politics isn't sport... although I ha... (more)
140 upvotes by Manu Bhat, Brandon Robinson, Quora User, Abhiram Chivukula, (more)
TL;DR

• Liberals/Progressives these days are usually defined as having specific views around Equality (society). That is NOT the same thing as Tolerance.
• "Liberal" and "progressive" are actually different terms that mean different things. Political media uses these terms along with "Conservative" as if they were the names of sports teams – but that is not what those particular words are actually about.
• The historical idealization in this question is incorrect. American Politics have been polarized and ugly since the drafting of the Articles of Confederation in 1776 and certainly since the drafting of the Constitution in 1787. When we talk about hostility in politics, we must never forget that we fought a Civil War with one another, endured the Great Depression, and weathered the 1960s amongst other things. What we're dealing with now is that it is much more visible on a day to day basis due to mass communications technology.
• Be Nice, Be Respectful is an important and valuable Quora policy. In American elections, however, that policy doesn't generally attract mass media attention, draw donations, and galvanize voters to secure victory. That's as true for "the right" as it is for "the left." At the end of the day, you have to win in politics.

Issue #1: "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
There are a lot of labels that we toss around in political conversations. Those labels have mostly become badges that we assign to people – greatly inspired by media personalities – so that we can know who is on "my side" and attack people on "the other side." As part of that process, labels have become stripped of their meaning.

In discussing politics, I try to think along multiple axes of consideration. Here are the terms I now use, how I think they pair off, and what I personally think they mean in the context of 21st century America. (Dear folks with a formal background in Political Science: yes, I know that I'm combining some things that are often addressed separately.) The following sets are intended to be offered without prejudice or judgement, although I did choose left & right positions based on common parliamentary seating associated with the ideas.

• Progressive <-> Conservative. This axis is all about the attitude a person has towards change. Another way to think about it is "Future focus <-> Past focus." The more that you think that things ought to change into an as-yet-unrealized state, the more interested you are in progress. The more that you think that things ought to stay as they are (or have been within generational memory), the more interested you are in conserving a status quo.
• Liberal <-> Conformist. The term "Liberalism" in the United States is different than Liberalism elsewhere. It is much more about social freedom & social/political equality than it is about political or economic freedom. American Liberalism is often presumptively associated with certain economic positions that advocate using the mechanisms of tax policy and government-run programs to achieve the aims of social equality, and while that is often the case, it is not necessarily so. On the other end of the spectrum: sticking within the social and cultural context – which transcends issues of government alone – there are philosophical positions that advocate for greater cultural conformity. There are those who believe that English should be the official national language, that the notion of marriage should be strictly defined, and/or that everyone should abide by certain religious beliefs and practices. Relativist <-> Absolutist is another way that this particular axis might be framed.
• Socialist <-> Libertarian. There's a variety of labels I could use around this axis (Collectivist <-> Individualist? Centralization <-> Subsidiarity?), but I prefer these two words since they seem to be coming up most frequently these days. There's also an implicit tie to Urban <-> Rural considerations. Here's the key question: to what extent does a person see it as (a) better for all citizens to compulsorily pay into a common treasury and then use political mechanisms to make decisions on how to spend that money OR (b) better for citizens to retain economic autonomy and have individual decisions and market activity determine resource allocation? For all of the many questions facing us as a nation, the "role of government" debate is arguably the most defining.

We could get even more granular and define even more specific axes of consideration, but these seem to be the biggies (and once you get beyond three, things generally get unruly to think about). If it were relatively easy to visualize four dimensions, I would probably also include [Interventionist <-> Isolationist] for an angle on foreign relations.

American Liberalism is largely about personal social freedom and social & economic equality. (Economic freedom is a different matter.) While that usually involves tolerance for differences, it does not involve a tolerance for those who would press for social conformity – which, as I offer above, is an opposing philosophical position.

See also:

• What labels do you use to describe yourself in political conversations?
• To foster political discussions that are less polarized, what is the best three-axis political spectrum model?

Issue #2: Who Ever Said Anything About Being Nice?
The question makes some assumptions about "Progressives" being nice and tolerant. Perhaps the most notable person to wear the mantle of "progressive" in American History was Theodore Roosevelt. He was anything but meek, and did not have a reputation for niceness or tolerance. The original progressive movement was a drive to change the institutions of government in response to the rapidly rising wealth and strength of industrial capitalism during the Gilded Age. As for the assumptions about "Liberals" being nice and tolerant of their opponents, all I have to say in response to that is "Lyndon B. Johnson."

The United States of America has been on the brink of absolute failure as an experiment in representative democracy pretty much since its inception. The systemically-defined checks & balances between the three Federal Branches and in the relationships between the Federal Government and the assorted State Governments have been driven since 1787 by people who HATED each other. These days, I think that it's hilarious when people deify "The Founders" as some sage group of collaborative wise men in wigs and tri-cornered hats. Madison, Adams, Washington, Jefferson and the like couldn't agree on what the Constitutional Framers intended, and they were the ones who wrote the thing. They fought viciously over the language of this mutual contract they had written and what it meant. Fast forward a couple of decades and you should've heard the things that they were saying about Andrew Jackson. He's the reason that the Democratic Party has a donkey for a mascot – and it wasn't intended as a compliment.


Rather than review the entire history of American political contentiousness, let's focus in on more recent history and the sense that we have lost some sort of civility and collegiality in our political life. That seems most pertinent to the question. There is a certain nostalgia that many Americans retain for a highly idealized version of the 1950s. There is a certain cultural nostalgia, economic nostalgia (thank you World War II for obliterating the industrial capability of most of the rest of the world), and political nostalgia.

The question asserts that "Before 1980 or so, liberals (who now often call themselves progressives) were capable of working with conservatives on lots of issues, and rarely demonized their opponents." What this actually implies is that the Democratic Party – the major party which many self-identified liberals and progressives have coalesced within – was more like that. That may be so...and the reason that would be so is because they could afford to be. Prior to 1948 – when Democrat Harry S. Truman ordered the integration of the Armed Forces – the Republican Party was loathed in the South as "The Party of Lincoln." The realignment of the The American South from Democrat to Republican in Presidential Elections officially shifted in 1964 with Johnson vs. Goldwater. HOWEVER, from 1955 to 1995 the Democrats had a near-unbreakable lock on the control of Congress. The party/geography realignment in Congress didn't happen until the Newt Gingrich-led "Republican Revolution" in the 1994 Midterm Elections.

The Democrats had the bargaining power since they had solid control of the legislative agenda. We all put a lot of political attention on the Presidency and the Executive Branch, since they're the ones that do things – but many seem to lose sight of the fact that it is Congress that determines what things will be done.

The question mentions 1980, so a note is warranted there. Congressional control began to slip in 1980 when the Republicans narrowly won the Senate (until 1986) behind Ronald Reagan's landslide over Jimmy Carter. They retained the House under the speakership of Tip O'Neill, but that was the beginning of the end of decades of dominance.

See also:

• How can the increase in polarization in Congress over the last few decades be explained?

Issue #3: Whoever gets the most votes wins the election. Period.
We need to tie together Issue #1 and Issue #2 a bit more. We have dimensions & degrees of ideologies, and then we have political parties. It's really important to understand that political parties are ultimately private organizations; they are not built into the legal framework of our government. Even Congressional committees and roles are defined by caucus participation – not party affiliation (although the two are effectively synonymous these days). There are several dozen political parties in the United States, and six parties that have enough ballot presence to win a presidential election. There are only two, though, that are generally discussed – the Republican Party and the Democratic Party.

Under the voting system we have now at the Federal level, people want their positions represented by parties are usually better off advancing their causes through the stronger parties. In parliamentary systems, the elected parties control seats and coalitions are formed after the election to create a government. In our plurality voting system, the coalitions are formed and pretty well locked-in before the election happens. (Read up on Duverger's law for more on that.) My perception from the bleachers is that the heart of the Republican Coalition is the U.S. Chamber of Commerce & Club for Growth and that the heart of the Democratic Coalition is the AFL-CIO (which includes amongst others the UAW and Hollywood & New York film, television & theater unions), the AFSCME, the SEIU, the NEA & AFT, and so on. It's the never ending tug-of-war between the forces of Capital (which tend to be more economically libertarian) and the forces of Labor (which tend to be more economically socialist).

Although there's lots of money on both sides, the free-market business interests have more. The Unions, however, have lots of bodies who they can mobilize to show up on election day to cast votes. The Large Business groups need to be able to match or exceed all those bodies; they therefore ally themselves with another interest who can marshall lots of people to turn out on Election Day: socially conservative Evangelical Christians. (There are, in fact, quite a few progressive Evangelicals too – but they're not the ones that we're talking about here.) Since the enemy of my enemy is my friend, the Unions reach out to other "enemies" of large businesses like Environmental advocates. Following the same logic, the Business alliance with Social Conservatives (who would strongly prefer what they perceive as a "traditional order" to society) brings Social Equality (society) groups like Women's Rights and LGBTQ Rights advocates into an alliance with the Labor Unions' interests for mutually beneficial fundraising and policy-setting efforts.

That brings us down to two coalitions organized into two parties since at the end of the day the person with the most votes (not the majority of votes – that's different) wins the election. And that's all that matters.

If members of a coalition don't perceive that a given candidate (or the party as whole) is fighting aggressively for their particular cause, then the coalition starts to fray and people stop showing up to vote for you. Maybe the other major party wins their vote with an appeal to something else that's important to them, maybe they vote for a smaller party, or maybe they don't show up to vote at all. In this day and age, that fight is ALWAYS ON. 24 hour cable channels, blogs, social media – constituents, other coalition members, and opponents are constantly watching and angling for anything that can be used to persuade people to vote against (or even simply not vote for) a given politician. Candidates have to somehow thread the needle of lobbing invective-filled apocalyptic attacks at their opponents while appearing themselves to "take the high road." A pointed attack of your opponents or visceral defense of something that your coalition contends is a "right"can lead to a surge in donations; softness & silence leads to empty coffers and a failed campaign.

We – the general public – want those whom we vote for to be champions, not chumps. That's true for progressives, liberals, conservatives, or whatever label you wish to apply. We definitely all have that in common.
Why have some liberals progressives become so intolerant of their opponents - Quora

 

[Pogo]

Since when did liberals become such intolerant bullies?

Dunno --- since when did "conservatives" become addicted to blanket strawman bullshit?

 

[LoneLaugher]

Liberals used to be the live and let live types. They used to hate bullies. But no more. They've become bullies. Aggressive, quasi militant attitudes about eradicating any behvaior, symbol or speech they disagree with.

Why? They're shutting down businesses. Getting people kicked out of homes. Even threatening violence.

They've become outright bullies. They're openly mocking and belittling the South...all of it...all its people. Obviously they've never spent much time here...as our cities are nothing like they portray them...and are actually awesome and diverse thriving places.


I see the left on TV. On shows where all they do is mock and make fun. They produce NOTHING in society except that. They're experts at blogging and making smart ass comments. But nothing else. Spoiled brats. And bullies.


Eventually. ..bullies must be dealt with. Its illegal to punch a mouthy liberal in the face. And they know it. Its the only reason they're so bold. They know the very cops they demonize...will protect their sorry asses.

So...we must either deal with these bullies....or....well...we become Greece, Mexico or Africa in 25 years. I know my employer deals with them legally. He just fires them. Hire a liberal...eventually they all become insubordinate or whiny and he just fires their ass.

There is probably another reason why you don't punch liberals in the mouth, sissy boy.

 

[Mac1958]

Liberals used to be the live and let live types. They used to hate bullies. But no more. They've become bullies. Aggressive, quasi militant attitudes about eradicating any behvaior, symbol or speech they disagree with.

This is relatively recent behavior.

They've become the people they used to hate, and I'm not sure they even realize it.

Even some lefties are admitting it now, which is a very good sign.

.

 

[Pogo]

Liberal <-> Conformist. The term "Liberalism" in the United States is different than Liberalism elsewhere. It is much more about social freedom & social/political equality than it is about political or economic freedom. American Liberalism is often presumptively associated with certain economic positions that advocate using the mechanisms of tax policy and government-run programs to achieve the aims of social equality, and while that is often the case, it is not necessarily so.

^^ Bullshit.

Liberalism is legislatively passivist, not activist. The dynamic being described above is leftism.

My go-to simple example is still: to declare "all men are created equal" is Liberalism; to then try to make it happen actively through Affirmative Action -- is leftism.