Why Liberals do what they do.

I decided I would try to condense the liberal view into a single core belief and a single core attitude. The thinking here is, given any topic, the typical liberal view should follow naturally from these. I’m sure others have done something like this and done it with more thought and effort than I, but I’ll go ahead and give it a shot.

I’ll first start by presenting the “Core Belief” and the accompanying views that follow from it in a pseudo-math format because, well, I’m a geek. Then I’ll talk about the “Core Attitude”. Please note, that this is just a little exercise on my part. I don’t really mean to suggest that the motivations, beliefs and attitudes of real life individuals can be codified in the way that I’m doing here. So take it for what it’s worth.

Also, my use of the term “typical liberal” is meant in a broad sense in two ways. First, I’m not in any real position to differentiate between classical liberals, modern liberals, social liberals, progressives or whatever, so I won’t even try. You can take my meaning of “liberal” to be defined by the kinds of example I use to represent the “typical liberal” point of view. Second, I don’t mean “typical” in a condescending way (though, the way I present liberal views probably come across as condescending and somewhat cartoonish). I’m just acknowledging that any given person who considers themselves a liberal might not hold to all of the view points I ascribe to them. So take “typical liberal” to mean something like “theoretical person who holds all of the beliefs typically ascribed to liberals”.

And finally, even though I generally take a conservative view on most topics, don’t make the assumption that I disagree with all of the views I ascribe to the “typical liberal”. So here goes…

Core Belief: No person or group is inherently better than any other person or group, regardless of their actions or inactions.

I take this as the fundamental belief from which the typical liberal derives all (or most) of his views. Some examples:

View 1: People and/or groups should work towards maintaining an equality of wealth, power, influence, education, opportunities, etc...

Kind of the obvious one. The thinking is that since all people are equal, regardless of what they’ve done or not done in life, they should have the same benefits and privileges as everyone else. So we get the liberal tendency to favor things like government entitlement programs, affirmative action, and universal health care. Why prisoners are afforded benefits like cable TV and college educations. Basically, it accounts for their generally positive view of socialistic systems which seem (at least in their idealized forms) to exemplify this view.

View 2: People or groups that have more wealth, power, influence, opportunities, etc… than others should have those advantages removed or minimized.

I think of this as the “life is unfair so we should fix it” view. The wealthy and powerful live a life that goes counter to the Core Belief. Since no person is better than any other, no person should live a better life than any other person. With this we have the liberal obsession with class warfare and taxing the rich, their support of unions, the tendency to attack and demean white male Christians (who are viewed as unfairly privileged in our society) and the disdain they have for successful businesses and capitalism in general (which is viewed as an inherently unfair system).

This view also accounts for the liberal love of the United Nations. Rather than acting unilaterally in exercising its power and influence, they would prefer that the U.S. work through the U.N. – which amounts to the U.S. giving up some of its power.

View 3: People or groups might do things that appear to be “inappropriate”, “bad” or even “criminal”, but this is not due to any inherent flaw or failing on their part. Rather, it is the result of external factors or forces that they have no control over.

Since no person is better than anyone else, behavior that leads to negative consequences has to be viewed as the result of something outside of the person’s control. This accounts for their view that the poor are poor due to no fault of their own. This is the view exemplified by statements like “Most people are just a paycheck away from living on the street if bad luck finds them”. It also explains their tendency to act as apologists for criminals. “They aren’t bad people”, the liberal says, “society made them that way”. We also get gems like “Islamic extremists want to kill us because we made them that way” and “The Mexican crowd that booed Ms. USA didn’t do it because they were acting like jerks; they did it because of U.S. policy”.

It also explains why liberals are so quick to label character flaws as “diseases” or to suggest that certain socially unacceptable forms of behavior are genetic in origin. Both of these views excuse the individual since they represent forces beyond the individual’s control. So now, children aren’t undisciplined (a fault of both the parent and child) they have ADD. People are born as homosexuals instead of choosing their lifestyle. Overweight individuals have a genetic predisposition to gaining weight rather than choosing an unhealthy lifestyle. Same goes with alcoholics and those who abuse drugs.

View 4: Differences between people or groups should be downplayed or dismissed, particularly if the differences tend to place a privileged person or group in a positive light or an underprivileged person or group in a negative light.

This follows from the Core Belief since differences can and often are used to suggest that one person or group might, in some way, be better than another. From this we have the idea that primary schools should discourage competitive sports and place less emphasis on grades since each emphasizes the differences between students – winners and loser, those who do well in class and those who don’t. It’s this view that got Larry Summers fired as President of Harvard for merely suggesting that there might be non-social (i.e. innate) factors that account for the dominance of men (a privileged group) over women (an underprivileged group) in science and engineering. It’s also why the authors of The Bell Curve where dismissed by many as racists for suggesting that there are differences in average IQ between different racial groups.

Those who make the mistake of pointing out differences between groups are often labeled as sexists, racists, homophobes, etc… The habit of labeling people with these kinds of terms doesn’t usually stem from an objective consideration of a person’s words or actions, but from the Core Belief. “If you have the audacity to point out a difference between your group and mine – a difference which might make my group look bad - you’re undermining the idea that nobody is better than anyone else and that makes you a (racist, sexist, etc…)”. The liberal then might attempt to justify the accusation after the fact, but this is an after thought and of secondary importance.

~View 4: Differences between people or groups should be pointed out or emphasized, particularly if the differences tend to place a privileged person or group in a negative light or an underprivileged person or group in a positive light.

This is just the flip side to View 4. Again, the idea is ultimately tied to the Core Belief. By propping up underprivileged people or groups or breaking down privileged ones, an attempt is made to show that, despite appearances, no person or group is better than any other.

Consequently, it’s OK to point out (over and over and over again) that Nancy Pelosi is the first female Speaker of the House or that Barack Obama could, potentially, be the first African-American president (never mind that he’s only partly black). It also explains why the race, nationality or religion of criminal suspects tends to be mentioned in news stories in cases where the suspect is white or affluent or, as a specific example, if the person is someone of standing in the Christian community, but is sometimes ignored when the suspect is part of an underprivileged group. (Note: yes, I am assuming major media outlets are dominated by liberals and that liberalism affects how they present the news).

Notice that View 4 and ~View 4 seem to contradict one another (the tilde notation - which is used to represent “not” – is just my gimmick for pointing this out). However, in light of the Core Belief, there is no real contradiction. The problem, I think, is in the liberal tendency to not acknowledge the real motivation behind the double standards they use. Statements from liberals like “Skin color and sexual orientation don’t matter” are noble but actually confuse the issue. A more accurate (and consistent) statement should be “Skin color and sexual orientation don’t matter, unless they make a minority class look good or a privileged class look bad.”

View 5: Judgments about people or groups should be downplayed or dismissed, particularly if the judgments tend to place a privileged person or group in a positive light or an underprivileged person or group in a negative light.

This view explains why liberals tend to be moral relativists. If the liberal can’t dismiss what is generally accepted as bad behavior (View 3) or can’t minimize some perceived difference (View 4), he dismisses the criticism of the behavior. “Sure they might stone women to death for adultery in their society, but who are we to judge them?”

It also explains why liberals are typically hostile towards religions like Christianity. Judgments about “right” and “wrong” are anathema to liberals. The suggestion that some people are judged to be better than others and that this decision comes from a supreme being is the antithesis of the Core Belief. It also, I think, explains why liberals tend to favor unconventional, nonjudgmental “religions” of the “I’m OK, you’re OK, we are all one thing and everyone and everything is God” variety.

~View 5: Judgments about people or groups should be made, particularly if the judgments tend to place a privileged person or group in a negative light or an underprivileged person or group in a positive light.

As with ~View 4, this is the flip side to View 5 and also accounts for the double standard used by liberals in deciding what is acceptable and what is not. Again, it’s an attempt to lift up the underprivileged and knock down the privileged in accordance with the Core Belief. From this, you get the fact that liberal speakers are welcome by liberals on university campuses but conservative speakers are shunned since they are judged to be too controversial. Similarly, “The Vagina Monologues” is somehow seen as important to women’s causes, but the satirical “Penis Monologues” earns two students probation at Roger Williams University. (Note: yes, I am assuming that the administrations, faculties and student bodies of most colleges and universities are dominated by liberals).

I think this view also accounts for the general “blame America first” attitude that many liberals seem to display. It isn’t so much about hating America as it is about hating the fact that the United States is the most powerful (and, so, most privileged) nation on the planet. Consequently, they tend to judge America’s actions harshly while ignoring the inhumane policies of other nations. Again, the double standard makes sense in light of the Core Belief. It isn’t so much the act as it is the status (privileged or not) of the group performing the act. To praise the U.S. (a privileged group) would amount to suggesting that the U.S. is, in some sense, better than other countries. This violates the Core Belief. It also explains why so many liberals tend to reject or have contempt for shows of patriotism.

Core Belief – Extreme Form: No living organism or group of living organisms is better than any other living organism or group of living organisms.

View 6: Other life forms have as much, if not more, right to this planet than we do.

This accounts for the form of environmentalism that liberals typically subscribe to – that animals should be treated just like humans (and so shouldn’t be hunted or used by humans) and that industry should never ever interfere or disrupt any habitat in any way. Taken to its extreme (in combination with View 2) humans are viewed as the privileged group and so should be brought down a peg or two. This justifies (for some extreme liberals) the destruction of homes, vehicles and machinery that are seen as encroaching on nature.

Comment on Views: There is some overlap between these views. For example, the distinction between View 2, ~View 4 and ~View 5 is kind of fuzzy. Also, despite the way I presented them, I don’t mean to really suggest that these views are like corollaries, independently derived from the Core Belief. On top of that, the view point adopted by a typical liberal regarding any give topic might end up being some mix of these views or (I contend, for the purposes of this exercise) some other view which is consistent with the Core Belief.

As an example, liberals like to point out that Americans are often ignorant of and show little interest in other cultures. This, presumably, is a failing on our part. This attitude could be seen as an attempt to prop up the importance of other cultures (~View 5) while, at the same time, taking a dig at the U.S. (View 2 and/or ~View 5 again).

As a second example, liberals have no problem portraying Catholicism as oppressive, but aren’t much interested in criticizing the draconian practices of some other religions. An apparent inconsistency - but not to the liberal. Not only can we not judge other cultures (View 5) since they might live under repressive conditions (View 3) as a result of American interference in their part of the world (~View 5) but we should condemn Catholics for being judgmental (~View 5 again).

As a final example, liberals seem oddly silent when it comes to criticizing certain forms or rap or hip-hop which clearly objectify women, place an emphasis on materialism and glorify criminal behavior. The reason? Rappers are just expressing views developed as a result of growing up under harsh conditions (View 3) and by the way, who are we to judge them (View 5)?

And now on to the second ingredient…

Core Attitude: It’s a sign of intelligence to question and/or reject established beliefs, ideas, views, morals and attitudes.

I included this “attitude” because the Core Believe alone (and the views derived from it) didn’t seem to fully account for, well, the attitude that I’ve come to associate with liberals. First I should clarify what I mean by the “Core Attitude”. The kind of questioning and rejection I’m talking about is not the kind that’s an integral part of research and scholarly study. I’m talking about the kind of knee-jerk reaction that most teenagers seem to display. A rejection of what is established simply for the sake of rejecting it.

Not being a psychologist, I can only offer an uneducated view on this, but it seems to me that this attitude is tied into a desire to come across as intelligent (or maybe to convince one’s self of this). To question what most (the masses) blindly accept suggests that you are above them. That you can look at a situation or topic from a standpoint that is broader and less limited that the dumb sheep that make up most of our society. I think this attitude accounts for the “elitist” attitude that is often ascribed to liberals.

Of course, the problem with this attitude is that it doesn’t really take too much intelligence to simply reject some idea or opinion. You actually have to offer an alternative with some substance and be able to defend it. That’s the tricky part and the part that does require some intelligence. There are many liberals, of course, who are able to do this. But from my experience, most can’t or don’t bother. This might, in part, be the result of the “group think” mentality found at today’s liberally dominated universities. If everything you read and everyone you talk to agrees with your point of view, there’s no real need to learn to defend it against opposing views.

As a side note, I think it’s this Core Attitude which attracts so many liberals to academia (specifically, the liberal arts). I’ve heard it suggested many times (by liberals, of course) that liberals are typically smarter than conservatives because there are more liberals working as professors than conservatives. Aside from the obvious flaw in this argument (you can use the same argument to suggest that most liberals are college students since most college students are liberals), it tends to ignore what motivates a person to work at a university. I think the Core Attitude accounts for that (to some degree) since professors who do research are encouraged to question established ideas and put forth novel ones in the hope that it might lead to some insight and further research.

But as I mentioned above, most liberals don’t really offer original alternatives. Criticisms about the current state of liberal universities aside, I don’t think this is really a liberal failing – it’s more a human failing. Something along the lines of “biting off more than you can chew”. The typical liberals is all for bucking the establishment, but then tends to just parrot liberal talking points that have been around for ages, since coming up with something truly original is, well, difficult. On top of that (now getting back to the university thing) they are generally incapable to defend their points of view against valid criticisms. Not only is all of this ironic (given the motivation behind the Core Attitude), but it’s also the liberal’s greatest weakness. To a liberal, it’s the act of rejection that signifies intelligence (or independence of thought or whatever). Offering an alternative that can be defended is of secondary importance. This is why liberals will typically accuse conservatives of being hostile to opposing views (a sign of the conservative’s lack of intelligence), but are then unable to effectively defend the views they have offered. “I’m not necessarily defending the view I put out there”, the liberal says, “I just wanted to put it out there to get you guys to think outside of your little box”.

I think this Core Attitude accounts for a number of typical liberal stances:

• The rejection of traditional forms of dress and conduct.
• Rejection of established religions.
• Rejection of tradition forms of art.
• Rejection of the traditional definition of marriage.
• Rejection of established teaching styles.
• Rejection of the traditional definitions of right and wrong.

And just to cap it off with a specific example that crops up these days

• Rejection of the generally held belief that the attacks of 9/11 were the result of external terrorist actions, not anticipated by the American government.

I think the last one is an example of the more general attitude among many liberals that conspiracy theories should be taken seriously – no mater how unsubstantiated they are.

An alternate form of the Core Attitude might go something like this.

Core Attitude (Conservative Formulation): It’s a sign of intelligence to question and/or reject everything that Conservatives believe.

Again, the attitude is driven be a desire to come across as intelligent. A typical liberal stereotype portrays conservatives as mindless sheep who can’t think for themselves. By rejecting their views and beliefs, you demonstrate just how smart you are.

Holes in All This: Despite the number of liberal views this formulation seems to account for, there are a couple of prominent views it doesn’t.

• The liberal obsession with strict gun control laws. This might be the result of the Conservative Formulation of the Core Attitude. Gun culture is seen as a predominantly conservative one and so, it’s rejected outright. This might be supported by the fact that liberals like to stereotype gun owners as a bunch of uneducated rednecks, and so the intelligence by rejection attitude comes up. Or maybe it’s related to the Core Belief in that, a person with a gun is in a position of power over someone who doesn’t. Not really happy either explanation.
• The liberal support of abortion. Again, maybe just a rejection of something conservative, but that doesn’t seem correct. And if anything, it seems to almost go against the Core Belief (particularly the Extreme Form). It might be related to View 5, with the actions of women (an underprivileged group) being viewed as beyond judgment. Again, not happy with either explanation.

What about Personal Freedom? The one thing to notice is that I haven’t mentioned what many consider to be the core belief of liberalism – the establishment and protection of personal freedoms. I did this is on purpose. The idea of establishing and protecting personal freedoms is something that most people agree with, regardless of political affiliation. In other words, the idea is too general (and for me, too vague). Also, taking this as a core belief results in what appear to be contradictions. Consider the two examples above – gun control and abortion. On the one hand, liberals want to place restrictions on the right to own firearms but at the same time they want to expand (or maintain) the rights of women to have abortions. The same problem holds for the conservative view of these topics. As noted, the Core Belief and Core Attitude I’ve adopted don’t seem to account for these either, but at least no obvious contradiction results.

Final Note: Taken together, the Core Belief and the Core Attitude portray the liberal as idealistic and rebellious – traits that that I associate with adolescence. In fact, it was the recognition of this adolescent attitude (and the fact that most teens and college students consider themselves to be liberal) that motivated me to think about all of this. The stereotypical liberal attitude of “I want the government to be there to help with food, shelter and free money if I mess up, but I want it to stay out of my personal business” seems to mimic the view held by teenagers toward their parents. I’m not really sure what this says about liberals, but I thought I’d throw it out there.

OK, Really the Final Note: After writing this, I decided I should probably search around a little bit to see how others define the term “liberal”. Since I’m being lazy, I did a quick Google search and here’s a couple of relevant items:

“What it means to be a Liberal”, Geoffrey R. Stone (Chicago Tribune Website)

“What Makes a Liberal”, Ezra Klein (Ezra Klein’ Blog)

The Klein piece is a response to Stone. The thing that’s interesting (to me, at least) is that much of what I’ve written is consistent with the views expressed by these two self described liberals (although I tend to be much more critical).