[Off Topic & Political To Boot] Why the Left Hates Conservatives

At the center of of every variation of the Leftist Worldview is a commitment to the Progress of Man, and the perfectibility if his moral nature.  Leftists intellectuals in particular see themselves as the Point of the Spear of man’s progress. Although they won’t admit this outside the Hallowed Chambers where only Leftists are allowed to venture, they consider themselves to be the standard of moral progress.  They are in their own minds the embodiment of the materialist Messiah continually reborn to lead the world into greater and greater Light.  Opposition to their leadership thus becomes much more than simple disagreement.  It becomes a form of idolatry against the god of the age.  Like it gods, the god of the age is jealous of his realm and fearful of who might take it from him.

carl

That leftists would demonize individuals and groups on a personal level means that they know they have lost the battle of ideas. Argumentum Ad Hominem is a common logical fallacy because it is so easy to use and steers the discussion or debate away from the facts or ideas and tends to distract the audience.

Was this not a conspiracy to unlawful influence the outcome of an election?

Obviously, they succeeded.

I bet you, if the shoe was on the other foot, you would be hearing of investigations, charges, and be seeing protests and denunciations of all sorts.

I thought the Amendment relating to the Freedom of the Press was to enable the press objectively and fairly inform and report.

Fr. Kingsley Jon-Ubabuco
Arlington, TX

Make that “...unlawfully influence…”

By the way, how many of these 400ers were Christians and Jews?
I thought one of the 10 Commandments says something about bearing false witness.

Knowingly and delibrately making untruthful statements against/about someone is a sin. Delibrately making a false charge against someone, calling him/her a racist is a sin. Period.

Fr. Kingsley+

Writing about current political rhetoric and strategy, Michael Gerson offers a helpful perspective.  “One of the most significant divisions in American public life,” he writes, “is not between the Democrats and the Republicans; it is between the Ugly Party and the Grown-Up Party.”

Read it all.

I offer brief thoughts on how all of this plays out on both the Left and the Right in “The Church of the Ugly Party.”

The left doesn’t want to be under God’s authority.  They don’t want to live within the boundaries God set for mankind when He designed the universe.  The left wants to do whatever they want to do with zero accountability.

The right, generally, is more likely to be Christian and to try to follow God’s laws.  This just reminds the left of this same feeling, so then their hatred turns on the right.

Remember, this is a battle in the spiritual realm.  It’s ALWAYS about God and satan and the core.

[6] B. Hunter

The right, generally, is more likely to be Christian and to try to follow God’s laws.

Be careful, here.  It is true that the Right has a worldview that more easily overlaps with Christian thought in some areas, but it is absolutely not true that Conservative equals Christian.  It is also not true that the unregenerate right trys to “follow God’s laws.”  As it is written:

Those who live according to the sinful nature have their minds set on what that nature desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires. The mind of sinful man is death, but the mind controlled by the Spirit is life and peace; the sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so.  Those controlled by the sinful nature cannot please God. Romans 8:5-6

A politically liberal Christian is not an oxymoron.  There are those of a more liberal political persuasion who post on SFIF (not the Canadians, of course) who would not receive my support in an election.  Even so, they would also not generate in me a mortal fear for the future of the Republic if they should win.  Christians can reasonably disagree on many matters of public policy safe in the knowledge that the common faith limits the reach of all.  In fact, given that we are all of us limited finite creatures, and we all of us have blind spots and biases, it is a good thing that we disagree.  Not for nothing does iron sharpen iron.

So be thankful for the Irenaeus’s of the world - especially when the constitute the loyal opposition.

carl
Oh, and btw.  The crack about the Canadians was a joke

A good topic but I didn’t feel that Dennis Prager’s alternative explanations rang true with me.

When I run into examples of this hate on the Left I’m still shocked by it. That’s naive, really, I’ve seen it often enough that I should have assimilated the fact that it is to be expected.

It’s specially ironic/odd because what does the Left always call the Right? Haters.

Their displays of hate may not be so significant in their origins (which might include sincere disagreement), but in their outworkings. Secularists are fond of saying that they can be moral without God. But such morality is not grounded in anything, and is more apt to be swayed and distorted by personal emotion, impulses, rationalizations, etc. There are no absolute principles that can act as a restraint on their wicked impulses. So what we see here may be a sign of the slow deterioration of the moral sense that these people inherited from the previous generation. We may be witnessing something like a deaf person’s speech slowly deteriorating, since there is nothing to correct it in his mind. Eventually, like Peter Singer, they will fall into complete irrationality, lurching around randomly like chickens with their heads cut off. Secularism is a lobotomy that removes the super ego.

The problem is that this hatred does not decrease when the Left is in power.

This is true but when the left is in power the conservatives make a smaller target.

This should not be surprising.  Liberals are son convinced that they are right, that they cannot comprehend that anyone could honstly disagree with them. Since they can’t be wrong, there must be somethiong wrong withthose who don’t accept their position.  So instead of engaging the argument they need to identify what’s wrong with their opponent.  Their responses then are predictable:
1. Mental deficiency (Poor thing, I know this is hard for you. You don’t have the ability to understand the nuances of this truth.  Don’t worry, we’ll take care of you.)
2. Ignorance: (People would agree with us if they just understood our position. We’ll educate them.[Or send them to re-education camps])
3. Mental Illness:  (Your irrational oppostion to our position obviously demonstrates that you are suffering from some mental disorder.  We’ll treat you until you are well.)
4. Self interest:  (You know perfectly well that we’re right.  You only oppose us because the truth threatens your power, your wealth, your control, etc.  [Pick a straw man: fat cat, WASP, snob, running dog of capitalism, etc.] )
5. You’re oppositon is based on hate: (You know we’re right, but you oppose it because you hate______ {fill in the blank: African Americans, Hispanics, women, gays, the poor, etc.)

Liberal responses to those who oppose them, will sooner or later incorporate one or more of these points.

“Liberals” think conservatives are cruel, because the left is driven by emotional issues, not reason.  They think conservatives hate the poor because we don’t agree with unlimited government largess, hate women because we want them to be responsible and loving re their babies, hate the unemployed because we don’t think they should get dependent on government money, hate homosexuals because we don’t recognize same sex marriage, hate .... on and on.  The concept of “tough love,” of requiring responsibility for actions, of affirming boundaries of acceptable behavior, of affirming absolute good/bad dichotomies in behavior, is “mean spirited!”

One of the pleasures of being a traditional political conservative in modern times is that we never speak in charged terms or sweeping generalities, whereas our counterparts (morally impaired lowlifes that they are) always do.

I guess to avoid imposed ambiguity, I should have phrase that “. . . whereas our counterparts on the left . . . .” etc.

I am a liberal Christian. Some would call me Left but I think those would be John Birchers.
I don’t know what Left means. When I was in college in the ‘70’s Left meant Communist.
I’ve listened to Mr. Prager for years. I heard his radio show where he discussed this topic.
Mr. Prager stated that he had to show his ID to buy a pretzel in an airport so people should have to show their ID to vote.
I have no problem with having to show ID to vote.
But Mr. Prager probably had to show his ID to buy a pretzel because

he used a credit card to buy it. This is now commonplace.
I sent Mr. Prager an e-mail about this. He hasn’t responded.
So much for his Judeo-Christian values.

I wonder how much permissive child raising is responsible for our current situation.  The idea of a Father God who says “No!!” from time to time and sets absolute boundaries would go against the grain.  Small famililes make a difference too.  An only child doesn’t have to share with siblings, or endure the bullying of older siblings and whining of younger ones.  One would think that would produce a generation of people who think they should have everything they want.  Add to that a guilt complex for having so much and you get people devoted to causes they haven’t really investigated in a rational way.  What my mother used to call “bleeding heart liberals.”

Beware the one who doubts some variation of Total Depravity (heh, the only part of the TULIP I can appreciate). I believe that this is the real unstated a priori of most “liberals” and/or progressives. Conservatives are usually suspicious of the promise of human behavior, particularly such behavior in authority. They are worried about unintended consequences of even the most well meaning of prescriptions. If one is not naturally suspicious of creeping selfishness, one can be tempted by the rationale that unintended consequences are just glitches that can be adjusted later.

Exhibits are the tax code and campaign finance laws. Both are ridiculously hard to keep up with and sport fix upon fix upon fix. Often fix v fix.

Ann R #12 and #16.
You state that liberals are driven by emotion. This is right out of the Prager playbook. We are not.
You state that this may be the problem of “permissive” child rearing. Again, right out of the Prager playbook.
I am much more permissive than my parents were with my child. Has nothing to do with being liberal. Although I was raised in a union, blue collar, ethnic, Kennedy-loving, non-hating Democratic household. My mother voted for Nixon. A real ticker-spliter.
And Nixon was not a Goldwater conservative as his legacy shows.
Mr. Prager tries to be a bit over the top by using the word hate.

[17] nEpiscompoup

Total Depravity (heh, the only part of the TULIP I can appreciate).

This is a very common position, but it always strikes me as ironic.  An acceptance of Total Depravity logically necessitates acceptance of the other four points.  I have never seen an objection to the Doctrines of Grace that wasn’t ultimately sourced in a rejection of Total Depravity.  No matter how much a synergist says he accepts it, he will still have to subvert it in order to create the necessary conditions for synergism.

carl

Hey LA Anglican—I distinguish between “liberals” and “liberal activists” which is how I define “the Left.”

Liberals are a dime a dozen—I work with them, play with them and am friends with them.  I don’t see them as any more consumed by hatred than the average conservative.

But liberal activists—the ones involved in the political realm to make over the country in line with their notion of utopia?  Oh yeh—consumed with rage.

Same with TEC liberal activists.  Garden variety liberals sitting next to you in your pew?  Nah—I may disagree with them but they’re just liberals. 

But in order to get the same level of *rage and hatred* on the conservative side, you’d have to go all the way over to the Kluxers and Westfield Church/Phelps folks.

In this way—and in this particular time in America—I see a huge disparity in the level and breadth of rage on the liberal activist side.  It riddles the vast majority of liberal activists, in my opinion.

To put this in more statistical terms, if I look at the breadth of conservative *activists*, I’d put the one’s who are overcome with rage on the fringe of the pole—maybe 5% if that much.  But when I look at the breadth of liberal *activists* I’d put the one’s who are overcome with spitting hissing frothing rage into the 50% range of the pole.  That’s pretty radical and honestly I don’t understand why that is.

#6 - I wasn’t equating the right with being “of God”.  You are correct in saying the worldview more easily overlaps.  The point was and is that the Left (not do-gooder liberals, the radical kind) are running from God, and the right reminds them of this and that is why they have such hate for them.

It seems to me it all boils down to diametrically opposed world views. The Left generally believes in the so-called nanny state and “if it feels good, do it” (meaning it must be okay) and the Right generally believes in limited government and more adherence to our Constitution as written. Funny how the Bible and the Constitution are interpreted by both sides - the Left wants to rewrite both and the Right wants to live by both as written. It seems to me that there will never be a way to get around this dilemma when both sides genuinely believe they are right. Of course, being a conservative, it is impossible for me to fathom the Left’s view of most anything!

I would second Ann R in #12 & #16.  I also second the comparison with TEC.  IMO liberals are driven by emotion not reason.  That is not out of Prager’s playbook, aside from being the authorof this article I really don’t know who Prager is.  This has been part of my playbook for a very long time.  Of course these are generalizations and there will always be exceptions on all sides.  But all told, I think Ann’s assessment is spot on.

Carl: If I thought you were correct about necessity, I wouldn’t have objected to the other four. Logically consistent, yes. Not exclusively logically consistent. I find scripture to be murky on the subject with a case to be made either way with respect to the contingencies of Free Will and FW itself.

Nevertheless, I appreciate the notice from you. Thanks.

Conservatives, because they tend to be intelligent, well-read, and reflective, are averse to exaggeration, stereotypical thinking and arbitrary, derogatory, hyperbolic groupings of other people and positions.  Their rhetoric is precise and well considered.  They eschew the polemic in favor of case-by-case analysis of complex policy issues.

Wow, NoVA Scout, I wouldn’t have figured you as one who could discern the difference in ‘conservatives’ (like me) and the ‘right’.....

#20 Sarah,

If “liberal activists” are leftists then I’m a leftist. I’m an active member of my local and county Democratic party. And in a few years I may run for Congress. But I don’t hate conservatives.
I think Mr. Prager is going back to the day of class warfare between true Leftists (Communists, Socialists) and anti-Communists of both parties. There was true hate there because world domination was at stake. 

But left v. right nowadays is an American intramural affair. I know plenty of so-called Leftists using your definition. We live in a county that is overwhelmingly Republican. There is no hate.
I don’t think there’s anything wrong with wanting less taxes, less government, etc. I’m a small businessman
who makes a good living in an overwhelmingly Republican line of work, gets reamed on taxes and lives in a predominantly white neighborhood with excellent schools.
I am a capitalist, and the vast majority of Democrats are capitalists, not socialists as some Conservatives like to state.
It seems to be a matter of degree. Of course, there are those in my party as yours that are rabid. I don’t really think they are Democrats.
When I was in college, I was a Communist. Now, most liberals say they were too but that’s a load of bull. I went to a huge university in the south, studied history and poly sci during Vietnam in a well-known poly-sci department with a few very well-known people who have come out of there and these were not Reds in any way, shape or form. These people only knew Marxist-Leninist policy from a survey book. In fact, one such person ran the Daily Texan, then became a Republican and worked for GB 2. He’s a highly successful operative. Another helped put Bill Clinton in the White House. Another well-known commentator.
These people were not Leftists.
I was a Leftist. I know what a Leftist believes. Extreme Democrats are not Leftists no matter what you want to label them.
And no matter what Dennis Prager wants to label them.
He knows better.
BTW, Mr. Prager always mentions that he went to Columbia for grad school that he never finished.
He went to Brooklyn College as an undergrad. Brooklyn College was known back in the day as “The Little Red Schoolhouse” because it was awash in Communist professors and Jewish undergrads who fancied themselves as 60’s revolutionaries. I know. I grew up in Brooklyn.
So this all colors Mr. Prager’s thinking. He just jumped sides. Maybe he has a bit of hate in him too.