How to Oppose Liberal Intolerance

[007]

How to Oppose Liberal Intolerance ​

By Lawrence Auster
FrontPageMagazine.com | August 11, 2004

The double standard may well be the most characteristic feature of the leftist cultural order under which we now live. A particularly revealing instance of the double standard was the media's wall-to-wall obsession with the Abu Ghraib abuses, combined with its refusal to show the tape of the savage beheadings of innocent Americans by Islamist killers. While conservatives complain endlessly (one might even say boringly) about the double standard, however, they have signally failed to understand it. One explanation may be that today's leftists deceptively describe their politics as “liberal,” a fiction to which conservatives have all too willingly subscribed.

Conservatives have done this partly out of naïveté and partly out of a desire not to be polarizing, since their most basic need as conservatives is to affirm the harmony and cohesion of the existing order. Treating leftists as "liberals," they are constantly surprised and scandalized at the "liberals'" illiberal intolerance. They deceive themselves in regarding political correctness and the double standard as extraneous to liberalism, as a mistake or silly excess or regrettable hypocrisy, which, if pointed out to the "liberals," the "liberals" will renounce.

On confronting any given instance of the double standard, the typical conservative will say something like this: "What would happen if a Republican had said that racist thing, or improperly taken that top secret document, or groped that woman in the White House?" He then leaves the rhetorical question hanging in the air, as if the question alone were sufficient to condemn the double standard once and for all and prevent the "liberals" from using it again. He never seems to notice that his brilliant exposure of the double standard fails to stop his "liberal" adversaries for even a single beat.

Another form the double standard takes is some general rule from which only conservatives are excluded. To such unfairness, the typical conservative responds as follows: "You liberals say you believe in openness, tolerance, and diversity. Yet you want to exclude and silence conservatives. We conservatives believe in a true diversity of viewpoints that would include both liberals and conservatives."

All of which is true, of course. But unfortunately, that is as far as the typical conservative ever takes the argument. Apart from accusing the "liberals" of hypocrisy or bias and calling on them to return to true liberalism, conservatives never suspect that there may be something about "liberalism's" essential nature that has generated this double standard, and that will keep generating it as long as "liberalism" itself survives.

Let us therefore go beyond these futile complaints about the double standard and instead ask why the double standard is so characteristic of today's "liberalism." Once we answer that question, we may be in a position to combat the double standard effectively, instead of spending the rest of our lives complaining impotently about it.

Read the rest here, it's very, very good...

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=14579

 

[Stephanie]

Turning... The people are seeing just how far things have gone, and now it's time to right them. Just look at the last election. :usa:

 

[007]

Turning... The people are seeing just how far things have gone, and now it's time to right them. Just look at the last election. :usa:

Yeah... recent events would tend to support that as truth Stephanie. The tide is turning, and that's why the liberals are a seething, shrill, livid bunch with nothing much more than doom and gloom to preach. People are tired of listening to it.

 

[no1tovote4]

Yeah... recent events would tend to support that as truth Stephanie. The tide is turning, and that's why the liberals are a seething, shrill, livid bunch with nothing much more than doom and gloom to preach. People are tired of listening to it.

I just get tired of the way Liberals point out mistakes (hindsight is 20/20) but never can seem to find even one suggestion for a solution. It is easy to point to a perceived mistake, but to call it leadership to do is simple inanity and disingenuous.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

How to Oppose Liberal Intolerance ​

By Lawrence Auster
FrontPageMagazine.com | August 11, 2004

The double standard may well be the most characteristic feature of the leftist cultural order under which we now live. A particularly revealing instance of the double standard was the media's wall-to-wall obsession with the Abu Ghraib abuses, combined with its refusal to show the tape of the savage beheadings of innocent Americans by Islamist killers. While conservatives complain endlessly (one might even say boringly) about the double standard, however, they have signally failed to understand it. One explanation may be that today's leftists deceptively describe their politics as “liberal,” a fiction to which conservatives have all too willingly subscribed.

Conservatives have done this partly out of naïveté and partly out of a desire not to be polarizing, since their most basic need as conservatives is to affirm the harmony and cohesion of the existing order. Treating leftists as "liberals," they are constantly surprised and scandalized at the "liberals'" illiberal intolerance. They deceive themselves in regarding political correctness and the double standard as extraneous to liberalism, as a mistake or silly excess or regrettable hypocrisy, which, if pointed out to the "liberals," the "liberals" will renounce.

On confronting any given instance of the double standard, the typical conservative will say something like this: "What would happen if a Republican had said that racist thing, or improperly taken that top secret document, or groped that woman in the White House?" He then leaves the rhetorical question hanging in the air, as if the question alone were sufficient to condemn the double standard once and for all and prevent the "liberals" from using it again. He never seems to notice that his brilliant exposure of the double standard fails to stop his "liberal" adversaries for even a single beat.

Another form the double standard takes is some general rule from which only conservatives are excluded. To such unfairness, the typical conservative responds as follows: "You liberals say you believe in openness, tolerance, and diversity. Yet you want to exclude and silence conservatives. We conservatives believe in a true diversity of viewpoints that would include both liberals and conservatives."

All of which is true, of course. But unfortunately, that is as far as the typical conservative ever takes the argument. Apart from accusing the "liberals" of hypocrisy or bias and calling on them to return to true liberalism, conservatives never suspect that there may be something about "liberalism's" essential nature that has generated this double standard, and that will keep generating it as long as "liberalism" itself survives.

Let us therefore go beyond these futile complaints about the double standard and instead ask why the double standard is so characteristic of today's "liberalism." Once we answer that question, we may be in a position to combat the double standard effectively, instead of spending the rest of our lives complaining impotently about it.

Read the rest here, it's very, very good...

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=14579

Yes, it's time to recognize and call liberals what they really are: communists.

 

[007]

Yes, it's time to recognize and call liberals what they really are: communists.

If they had their way, unopposed by the right, that's exactly what America would be under... communism.

Just ask "hitlery clinton" and she'll tell you... "it takes a village", translated, "it takes communism".

 

[MissileMan]

There was some truth to the article, but I almost fell outta my chair when I read this little ditty: " We conservatives believe in a true diversity of viewpoints that would include both liberals and conservatives."
The author apparently hasn't spent anytime at USMB or he would know this is pure fantasy.

 

[nakedemperor]

There was some truth to the article, but I almost fell outta my chair when I read this little ditty: " We conservatives believe in a true diversity of viewpoints that would include both liberals and conservatives."
The author apparently hasn't spent anytime at USMB or he would know this is pure fantasy.

What are you talking about? There is a very well represented slice of liberalism here! Just look at the 'Liberals Hate America' thread, or the 'Why Liberals Hate Christians' thread, or the.. the..

Guh.

 

[Merlin1047]

There was some truth to the article, but I almost fell outta my chair when I read this little ditty: " We conservatives believe in a true diversity of viewpoints that would include both liberals and conservatives."
The author apparently hasn't spent anytime at USMB or he would know this is pure fantasy.

While you may have a bit of a point, from what I've seen and read, conservatives are far more tolerant of lib views than vice-versa.

Your mama voted for Nixon.

 

[MissileMan]

While you may have a bit of a point, from what I've seen and read, conservatives are far more tolerant of lib views than vice-versa.

Your mama voted for Nixon.

Actually, she did...and I would have too but was too young at the time. :funnyface

 

[007]

What are you talking about? There is a very well represented slice of liberalism here! Just look at the 'Liberals Hate America' thread, or the 'Why Liberals Hate Christians' thread, or the.. the..

Guh.

Nice... I see your post here is brimming with facts to dispute such posts...

... in true liberal fashion.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

There was some truth to the article, but I almost fell outta my chair when I read this little ditty: " We conservatives believe in a true diversity of viewpoints that would include both liberals and conservatives."
The author apparently hasn't spent anytime at USMB or he would know this is pure fantasy.

Go to any lib controlled messageboard. Conservatives are banned on principle. Go to democraticunderground. No conservative comment is allowed to stand.

Liberals must shut down the argument because they can't win it. Conservatives want open debate because they can win it, with facts, historical evidence, and logic.

 

[sagegirl]

At first glance I thought I might agree with some of this article, but it was so typically self serving. It in fact polarizes libs and conservatives into two clearly split categories. Nothing is that black and white, and both side are as guilty or as commendable as the article implies.
I generally feel that it is very difficult to claim allegiance to either side, except maybe in terms of process. How to go about achieving their agenda.
Is it not safe to assume that both sides want a peaceful and safe world, a clean and protected inviornment, education, opportunity, and prosperity, and a basic respect to allow personal choice and with it responsibilty???? These items dont have to be exclusive, like this article suggests, and will have a greater possibility of happening if "both sides" do a better job of respecting each other and tolerating what they dont like. Posts like the Hillary/Hitler thing dont contribute to a better world. In fact it negates your articles' premise and your actions speak louder than your words. I think the first step towards any understanding will be for somebody to tone down the rhetoric.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Is it not safe to assume that both sides want a peaceful and safe world, a clean and protected inviornment, education, opportunity, and prosperity, and a basic respect to allow personal choice and with it responsibilty????.

Those assumptions are not safe. Libs don't want prosperity. Prosperity is selfish, and America, inasmuch as it excels at prosperity, must be convinced of it's evil, and cease being prosperous. All the positive actions for the entire world we have taken in the past century are wiped away by the historically ignorant myopia which passes as the allegedly enlightened worldview known as liberalism.

Explain how you can only understand allegiance to one side of the political spectrum in terms of process. What does that mean?

 

[sagegirl]

Those assumptions are not safe. Libs don't want prosperity. Prosperity is selfish, and America, inasmuch as it excels at prosperity, must be convinced of it's evil, and cease being prosperous. All the positive actions for the entire world we have taken in the past century are wiped away by the historically ignorant myopia which passes as the allegedly enlightened worldview known as liberalism.

Explain how you can only understand allegiance to one side of the political spectrum in terms of process. What does that mean?

I just meant it as a very general attitude, or approach to living.
I dont declare it personally, only philosophically......I think that "cons" want to force the issue and "libs" prefer to use persuasion. Neither way is going to work, it will take a combination of both.
As to your first paragraph.....pure bs....where do get such crap? Prosperity in the terms comfort and well being are not admonished by libs. Even wealth and affluence are okay, libs, and maybe this is a stategic difference, want it for everybody, while cons seem to believe that there should be the haves and the have nots.

 

[MissileMan]

Go to any lib controlled messageboard. Conservatives are banned on principle. Go to democraticunderground. No conservative comment is allowed to stand.

I didn't say that liberals were open to conservative ideas, I said that based on what I've seen here, the implication that the opposite is true doesn't hold much water. There are quite a few here who act like this is republicanunderground.

Liberals must shut down the argument because they can't win it. Conservatives want open debate because they can win it, with facts, historical evidence, and logic.

Are you kidding??? You can't make any argument on this board that's outside the religious right point of view without getting replies like "typical Lib", "leftie", "amoral", etc. even if you're a conservative. There are quite a few on this board who summarily dismiss everything that some individuals post simply because the person who posted it is a liberal. Coincidently, these same individuals are typically the ones who couldn't carry an argument in a cargo ship.

 

[007]

I didn't say that liberals were open to conservative ideas, I said that based on what I've seen here, the implication that the opposite is true doesn't hold much water. There are quite a few here who act like this is republicanunderground.

The liberal representation we have here on this board is nothing to be proud of. If I was a liberal, and considered myself educated, open minded, and willing to discuss "anything" with "anybody", then I'd truely be shamed of the liberals that posts here. When an arguement starts slipping away from them in the face of truth and facts, the weapons of choice for conervatives, they turn into the most vile, caustic, shrill, insulting and putred members this board has. But do you see them BANNED just for their OPINION? NO! So your above statement isn't very accurate, and you know it.

Are you kidding??? You can't make any argument on this board that's outside the religious right point of view without getting replies like "typical Lib", "leftie", "amoral", etc. even if you're a conservative. There are quite a few on this board who summarily dismiss everything that some individuals post simply because the person who posted it is a liberal. Coincidently, these same individuals are typically the ones who couldn't carry an argument in a cargo ship.

The arguement has to have legitimate merit in order for one to put forth the effort to argue. Liberals tend to blow a lot of hot air and just argue for the sake of arguing. What the hell is the point in that?