Why do so many Americans hate liberals?

[ablarc]

This board doesn?t deal much in politics, but with Election Day approaching, it might be time for a change.

On more political Wired New York, a new member from Britain posted a question that most Europeans must wonder about:

Why do so many Americans hate liberals?

I see it time and time again, on American news, the internet, articles, etc. Americans cannot stand 'the left'. I like to know why this is. Surely the US was founded on liberal ideals, otherwise they wouldn't have left the old world for the new one!? What's with all these hissy fits against liberals?

I thought I'd post here and pose the question as so many users here are American.

(For the record, I'm a liberal. I like being an open-minded individual, and I'd vote Obama as president if I was a yank! )

The long answer is erudite and exceeds my mental capacity.

The short answer --based on my personal observation living in a hotbed of the phenomenon you describe-- is: indoctrination, ignorance and conformity.

The folks I deal with daily get their opinions prefabricated from their preachers, who get them from their ordained leaders, James Dobson and Pat Robertson. Other right wing opinion-makers include Rush Limbaugh and talk radio in general, Fox News, Lou Dobbs, and the Republican Party. (Google/Wiki the names, RockstarJizzy.)

The basic ideas are Righteousness and Populism, which suggests that ignorance and bigotry are OK if approved by ordinary folks and spiritual leaders. And where ordinary folks are ignorant and culturally inclined to bigotry, populism finds fertile ground. And of course it?s seen by its proponents as informed and rational.

The electorate?s stupidity is cynically exploited by the ruling class, which is regularly able to persuade the deluded and powerless to vote for the Republican Party, from whose policies they derive no benefit whatsoever --though they are kept in the dark about this by their masters. This is done with a potent and cynical brew of flattery, lies and spin.

The flattery is that they ?-the anointed of the churchgoing Right-- are morally superior to their villainous adversaries on the left, an obviously depraved grab-bag of hot-button abortionists, homosexuals, freeloaders, criminals, drug users, intellectuals, ?elitists? and quiche-eaters; insider politicians with their lobbyist buddies, socialists, traitors, illegal immigrants and closet Muslims -?joined quite recently by investment bankers and now even a terrorist presidential candidate.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjxzmaXAg9E

Diversions all.

The true elitists ?folks like Rupert Murdoch, Mayflower aristocrats, Cheney, Karl Rove, Exxon-Mobil, Halliburton, miscellaneous billionaires, the Bush family and the McCain campaign-- are delighted by half the electorate?s compliant gullibility, which they exploit to the hilt to win elections, and which they're able to whip up into flights of rage and indignation.

When things go wrong: like Goebbels, they blame the left, confident of their target audience?s impressionability.

But more than this: incredibly and most potently of all, they BLAME THE GOVERNMENT-- obviously a socialist conspiracy, as all government is ?-and such is their constituency?s stupidity that spinmasters are able with only modest smoke and mirrors to get them to ignore the fact that they themselves --the ruling class-- ARE THE GOVERNMENT, and they were elected by their constituents, the churchgoing plain folk, the individualists, the anti-elitists!

The cynical manipulators are able to do this by tapping into an American belief so vast and mythic that even liberal members of this board subscribe to it: that ALL GOVERNMENT IS INHERENTLY BAD (and obviously a leftist conspiracy, since right-thinking folks all wish it would wither away).

Thus it is that every Republican administration is elected on the promise of shrinking government. Once elected, however, both Reagan and Bush grew the government to unprecedented size ?-secure in the knowledge that they could conceal even this from their deluded supporters.

Conformity works through peer pressure. Many Americans congratulate themselves on their individuality, while conforming rigidly to the opinions of their peers. The true individualists are the ones who don?t make a fetish of it --and of course, of these there are few.




Blame Goebbels; the ideas are mostly his.

(Though the deluded will tell you they're Jefferson's.)

 

[tobyjug]

My Soviet friends studying America used to comment extensively on the fetishism of individuality and its centrality in the American psyche. Their view can be summarized thusly: America was settled by persons who had wanderlust and were, therefore, social misfits in Europe. Their flight from Europe relieved that continent of the social tension that would otherwise have accompanied their presence. This social tension continued to be relieved in the eastern United States as persons migrated westward. The populating of the west meant the eventual loss of this social relief valve. American propensity for violence and social tension resulted from this loss of open space, much as dropping Mentos into a soda bottle and capping it results in an explosion. To fool Americans into a passive (and malleable) state, those holding the levers of power propagandize them into believing they are individualists by selling them big pick up trucks to haul their outdoorsmanlike bundles of prechopped wood, Land Rovers for the trek across the Stop and Shop asphalt Kalihari, and LL Bean for the urban woodsman. Individualism as a consumer lifestyle. A propaganda coup.

Or something like that.

During my years in Europe (over two and a half decades ago), liberals were reviled as weak and uncommitted. This may puzzle an American audience because, comparatively speaking, the American political spectrum is centrist and narrow. The Democrats are centrist left, the Republican centrist right. Five degrees of difference. Europe lacks this homogeneity. Conservatives are rightists. Laborites or socialists are real, let's take over this factory leftists. Communists are real let's liquidate the middle class ruffians. The Young Trots hate the Leninists. The Anarchists hate everybody. Liberal was an insult hurled by everyone at anyone who was uncommitted to some doctinaire version of utopia. That American political parties hurl insults at each other dmonstrates only the narcissism of slight differences.

America has no liberals. Only slightly left leaning centrists. "Liberalism" as an American concept has as much meaning as "individualism".

 

[ablarc]

^ LOL, no Tunnel Vision there, toby.

Good to get the Long View. (Or is it the Big Picture?)


All American news commentators should be required to be from somewhere else.

 

[ablarc]

To fool Americans into a passive (and malleable) state, those holding the levers of power propagandize them into believing they are individualists by selling them big pick up trucks ...

... thus making them sheep in wolves' clothing.

 

[Lurker]

The classical meaning of the word liberal has been generally lost in the US since the 1960s, where liberal is now misused as a synonym for leftist, and it has a far different meaning in Europe. With only two major political parties which really are center left and center right, it is difficult for Europeans, whom are used to fragmented parliamentary politics, to understand our system.

/because Ablarc might not realize the irony of both parties being the pot to call the kettle black.

The long answer is erudite and exceeds my mental capacity. (Humility is one of your finer points, as it should be for any true gentleman)

The short answer --based on my personal observation living in a hotbed of the phenomenon you describe-- is: indoctrination, ignorance and conformity. (Useful fools of any persuasion always follow that formula)

The folks I deal with daily get their opinions prefabricated from their preachers, who get them from their ordained leaders, Keith Olberman and Michael Moore. Other left wing opinion-makers include Bill Maher and most news outlets in general, CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC, and the Democratic Party.

The basic ideas are leftism and Populism, which suggests that the one way street of tolerance in multiculturalism and affirmative actions are OK if approved by ordinary folks and spiritual leaders. And where ordinary folks are ignorant and culturally inclined to bigotry, populism finds fertile ground. And of course it?s seen by its proponents as informed and rational.

The electorate?s stupidity is cynically exploited by the ruling class, which is regularly able to persuade the deluded and powerless to vote for the Democratic Party, from whose policies they derive no benefit whatsoever --though they are kept in the dark about this by their masters. This is done with a potent and cynical brew of flattery, lies and spin.
Why else have the state imposed ghettos and union dominated post industrial wastelands voted straight ticket Democrat for generations?

The flattery is that they ?-the anointed of the university going left-- are morally superior to their villainous adversaries on the left, an obviously depraved grab-bag of hot-button abortionists, homosexuals, freeloaders, criminals, drug users, intellectuals, ?elitists? and quiche-eaters; insider politicians with their lobbyist buddies, socialists, traitors, illegal immigrants and closet Muslims (if you don't understand who is and what CAIR really does, you really should)-?joined quite recently by investment bankers and now even a presidential candidate who has associated with unapologetic domestic terrorists.

Diversions all. If you lay down with the dogs, you get the fleas, unless you are some sort of self anointed Messiah figure.

The true elitists ?folks like Ted Turner, aristocrats, Ted Kennedy, David Axelrod, George Soros (he was a double agent and probably one of the most dangerous men alive), Hollywood, miscellaneous billionaires, the Clinton family and the Obama campaign-- are delighted by half the electorate?s compliant gullibility, which they exploit to the hilt to win elections, and which they're able to whip up into flights of rage and indignation.

When things go wrong: like Goebbels, they blame their opposition, confident of their target audience?s impressionability.

But more than this: incredibly and most potently of all, they BLAME THE MARKETS-- obviously a capitalist conspiracy, as all commerce is ?-and such is their constituency?s stupidity that spinmasters are able with only modest smoke and mirrors to get them to ignore the fact that they themselves --the ruling class-- ARE THE RICHEST INSIDER TRADING BASTARDS OUT THERE, and they were elected by their constituents, the churchgoing plain folk, the individualists, the anti-elitists!

The cynical manipulators are able to do this by tapping into an American belief so vast and mythic that even conservative members of this board subscribe to it: that ALL CAPITALISM IS INHERENTLY BAD (and obviously a conspiracy by robber barons, since right-thinking folks all wish it would wither away for a 'fairer' system).

Thus it is that every Republican administration is elected on the promise of shrinking government. Once elected, however, both Reagan and Bush grew the government to unprecedented size (Actually Reagan cut spending and shrank the size of government, Bush on the other hand has given LBJ a run for the money)

?-secure in the knowledge that they could conceal even this from their deluded supporters.
(No, this is why many Republicans hate his guts, thus why the 30% approval rating. Unless someone has a little D by their name, the overwhelming majority of the media isn't going to hide anything for them, not even national security secrets.)

Conformity works through peer pressure. Many Americans congratulate themselves on their individuality, while conforming rigidly to the opinions of their peers. The true individualists are the ones who don?t make a fetish of it --and of course, of these there are few. (Yes, they are called INDEPENDENTS!)

Blame Goebbels; the ideas are mostly his. (Ever heard of the Glavlit? or perhaps Mussolini, whom JFK stole his most famous quote from?)

(Though the deluded will tell you they're Jefferson's.) Since both the Republican and Democratic party claim Jefferson as their founder, when really its Jacksonian and Hamiltonian ideas respectively, meh.

 

[ablarc]

Actually Reagan cut spending and shrank the size of government

You're misinformed.

Number of Federal Employees, Departments, Budget and Deficit all grew under Reagan.

Google ?Federal Government size Ronald Reagan? to get the information you lack.

 

[Lurker]

Ablarc, look at per capita spending by the government for employees vs. the increase in population. The strict number of employees is a bad measure because of increases needed to serve a growing population. The per capita number of employees to the general population is a better metric. The only presidents since FDR to have the number go down were Reagan, Bush senior, and Clinton's first two years, when the peace dividend was massively shrinking the size of the armed forces.