Understanding the Liberal Mindset

[Trausti]

Ooh, almost caught me there with those two completely separate statements that you conflated into a single position.

LOL. To you, anyone who is not a far-left progressive is "right wing." So most people are "right wing." I'm surprised any air gets into your hermetically-sealed bubble.

 

[arthwollipot]

LOL. To you, anyone who is not a far-left progressive is "right wing." So most people are "right wing." I'm surprised any air gets into your hermetically-sealed bubble.

This is true if you're exclusively talking about America, where the Overton window has shifted so far to the Right that everyone left of Genghis Khan is now a "far-left progressive". Here in the rest of the world, we can see that America's far-right shift is an anomaly; one which defies rational explanation. Even those other countries that have also shifted right in the last twenty years haven't done so with the suddenness and thoroughness of America.

 

[arthwollipot]

Apropos of nothing:

 

[jeremyp]

As I keep saying (and people keep ignoring) BOTH ENDS OF THE POLITICAL SPECTRUM ARE PANTS!!

I reject the idea that all of politics can be compressed into one dimension. In fact, I would argue that this model of political positions is corrosive to the political process.

 

[steenkh]

Apropos of nothing:

View attachment 72089

It is interesting how "No one should be rich" is considered so much worse than "No one should be poor", though both are considered defining the extreme left.

 

[Mojo]

It is interesting how "No one should be rich" is considered so much worse than "No one should be poor"

Or at least, no one worth mentioning.

 

[theprestige]

It is interesting how "No one should be rich" is considered so much worse than "No one should be poor", though both are considered defining the extreme left.

It's because "no one should be poor" is a good idea that we should support, and "no one should be rich" is a bad idea that we should dismiss. It is the nature of bad things that we consider them to be much worse than god things. Maybe that relationship between good and bad in our value system is interesting to you, but I confess that most of the time I just take it for granted.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

I have no problem with people being rich once no one is poor anymore.
Letting some people have 2nd, third and tenth helpings before others had enough to survive is just plain immoral and inhumane

 

[steenkh]

It's because "no one should be poor" is a good idea that we should support, and "no one should be rich" is a bad idea that we should dismiss.

And yet, this good idea doesn't win anything better than a nodding approval from those not on the left.

 

[theprestige]

And yet, this good idea doesn't win anything better than a nodding approval from those not on the left.

I mean, it's a pretty expansive and vague platitude, at that level. Nodding approval is the right amount of approval for good ideas at that level.

Also I think a bit of caution is warranted. In my experience, people who tend to be passionate about "nobody should be poor" are equally passionate about "nobody should be rich". So I tend to reserve more than nodding approval until I see where we're going with it.

In this case we're going pretty much straight to "nobody should be rich". If you think that's a bad idea, consider calling it out next time, instead of letting it slide in the name of "nobody should be poor".

 

[steenkh]

I mean, it's a pretty expansive and vague platitude, at that level. Nodding approval is the right amount of approval for good ideas at that level.

Have you seen any suggestions from the right to fight poverty that goes beyond the level of expansive and vague platitudes?

In this case we're going pretty much straight to "nobody should be rich". If you think that's a bad idea, consider calling it out next time, instead of letting it slide in the name of "nobody should be poor".

This is all in your imagination. As I have said many times before, the problem with the rich is their undue influence, which is mostly used to keep the poor poor, and the rich in power.

Historically, the cases where the rich and powerful have actually done something for the poor, has been when a social revolution has threatened the rich. My best example is the beginning of social security that was instituted by Bismarck in Prussia in the 1880's.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Liberal Progressives (Lib-Progs) consider themselves as the bastions of Social Justice. They claim to believe in each individual's right to an autonomous, self-directed life, free from restrictions. They claim to believe in freedom of speech, arguing that is it an important part of challenging existing ideas and finding truth. Lib-Progs have an absoluteness about their mindset. They are utterly convinced they are always the good guys, that they are the final arbiter of right and wrong, and that anyone who doesn't think the way they do are the bad guys. They are also utterly convinced that they, and only they, know what's best for society. They operate on the basis of the "victim v oppressor framework" which views social dynamics via a sort of "binary" consisting of the powerful groups (the oppressors) versus the marginalized groups (the victims). In the Lib-Prog world, everyone but them is either one or the other - everyone is either a victim or an oppressor, and the Lib-Progs are here equalize everyone and make everything alright. They are fantasists, the ultimate expression of idealism. These are indeed lofty ideals, but sadly, the reality of the Liberal Progressive mindset is somewhat different from their stated ideals.

Their claim to believe in each individual's rights falls flat when it comes to any right that doesn't comport their mindset.
Their claim to believe in free speech only applies to speech they like. Speech they don't like must be restricted, and its speaker punished.

There is nothing that demonstrates how the Lib-Prog mindset works (and exposes its deep flaws) better than their relationship with Israel and the Palestinian Arabs in Gaza and the West Bank. British Commentator Melanie Phillips currently writes on social issues for The Times and The Jerusalem Post from a socially conservative perspective.

(Lib-Progs will dutifully obey their echo-chambers and dismiss her as a far-right racist without ever reading anything she has written or hearing anything she has to say)

There is a transcript below the link for those who are allergic to YouTube videos.

TRANSCRIPT​

The Western liberal mind conceives of itself as being good because it's Liberal. The Western liberal tells him or herself "I'm a good person because I'm Liberal - I'm Liberal because I'm a good person" which means that I believe in things like the Brotherhood of Man,

Edited by jimbob: 

snipped for rule 4

Liberals in New Zealand or Moas? I'm not clear on who he's talking about.

 

[Mojo]

In my experience, people who tend to be passionate about "nobody should be poor" are equally passionate about "nobody should be rich".

Not really.

In fact, a lot of right-wingers seem bitterly resentful of anyone with money who doesn't share their ideology.

 

[theprestige]

Have you seen any suggestions from the right to fight poverty that goes beyond the level of expansive and vague platitudes?

Sure. Here's a couple three four several from me. They're both all specific to my city/county. Hopefully I'm far enough on the right for you.

1. Make it much easier for housing developers to build for-profit housing. Provide limited tax incentives to build small, simple homes at the lower end of the affordability scale.
2. Stop outsourcing social services to opaque and shady non-profits. Set up one or more city agencies to do this work. Rationalize the budgets, and get rid of redundant spending. Open the books for public review and oversight.
3. Focus homeless relief programs on developing a functional streets->shelters->rehab->self-sufficiency pipeline. With branches for institutionalization where necessary (whether hospital or prison, as appropriate).
4. If you find you have money left over, invest heavily in public transit and road maintenance.
5. If you find you still have money left over, subsidize trade schooling for anyone who wants it. Create a pipeline from trade schools to public works projects and city maintenance jobs.
6. Use one-time windfalls for one-time projects, not to launch new programs that need ongoing funding.
7. Stop chasing pro sportsball teams. If they want a stadium in Portland, let them build it themselves.
8. Reconcile with the Portland police bureau. Prioritize traffic enforcement, community policing, and public transit safety.
9. Spend a lot less money on schools and administrators and consultants, and spend a lot more money on teachers and education.
10. Repeal the ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ Arts Tax.

Portland used to be seen as a cheap, safe city to live in. That attracted a lot of people, and a lot of jobs. Now, whether it is or not, Portland is no longer seen that way. Businesses are closing. Jobs are leaving. Taxpayers are moving away.

The social safety net costs money to maintain. No matter how you finagle it, a lot of people have to work very hard, day in and day out, for most of their lives, to keep it funded and functional. I believe the best way to alleviate poverty is not to find someone else's "surplus" wealth and redistribute it in the form of subsistence stipends to poor people. That doesn't make them not poor. It just makes them wards of the state. I believe the best way to alleviate poverty is to create more opportunities for people earn money and save money, at all levels of society. I think the policies I've outlined would go a long way towards reducing poverty in Portland, and increasing productivity.

 

[steenkh]

Sure. Here's a couple three four several from me. They're both all specific to my city/county. Hopefully I'm far enough on the right for you.

1. Make it much easier for housing developers to build for-profit housing. Provide limited tax incentives to build small, simple homes at the lower end of the affordability scale.
2. Stop outsourcing social services to opaque and shady non-profits. Set up one or more city agencies to do this work. Rationalize the budgets, and get rid of redundant spending. Open the books for public review and oversight.
3. Focus homeless relief programs on developing a functional streets->shelters->rehab->self-sufficiency pipeline. With branches for institutionalization where necessary (whether hospital or prison, as appropriate).
4. If you find you have money left over, invest heavily in public transit and road maintenance.
5. If you find you still have money left over, subsidize trade schooling for anyone who wants it. Create a pipeline from trade schools to public works projects and city maintenance jobs.
6. Use one-time windfalls for one-time projects, not to launch new programs that need ongoing funding.
7. Stop chasing pro sportsball teams. If they want a stadium in Portland, let them build it themselves.
8. Reconcile with the Portland police bureau. Prioritize traffic enforcement, community policing, and public transit safety.
9. Spend a lot less money on schools and administrators and consultants, and spend a lot more money on teachers and education.
10. Repeal the ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ Arts Tax.

Portland used to be seen as a cheap, safe city to live in. That attracted a lot of people, and a lot of jobs. Now, whether it is or not, Portland is no longer seen that way. Businesses are closing. Jobs are leaving. Taxpayers are moving away.

The social safety net costs money to maintain. No matter how you finagle it, a lot of people have to work very hard, day in and day out, for most of their lives, to keep it funded and functional. I believe the best way to alleviate poverty is not to find someone else's "surplus" wealth and redistribute it in the form of subsistence stipends to poor people. That doesn't make them not poor. It just makes them wards of the state. I believe the best way to alleviate poverty is to create more opportunities for people earn money and save money, at all levels of society. I think the policies I've outlined would go a long way towards reducing poverty in Portland, and increasing productivity.

Thank you. Yes, you are sufficiently to the right for me to make the point. A pity that no right-leaning party will ever turn it into reality. Though they might pay lip service to the plan.

 

[theprestige]

Thank you. Yes, you are sufficiently to the right for me to make the point. A pity that no right-leaning party will ever turn it into reality. Though they might pay lip service to the plan.

I put sincere thought and effort into my proposals, and you repaid me by finding a scapegoat and dismissing me as quickly as you could.

Meanwhile, the left-leaning city and county governments are doing pretty much the opposite of what I'm proposing, and it's not working.

The local government also finds itself in the tragicomic position of constantly being out of money for things like pothole repair and bus routes, but also constantly finding millions of dollars in earmarked funds, sitting idle. And still our taxes keep going up. And people keep voting for it.

The problem of poverty in Portland isn't due to your right-wing boogeyman failing to implement my proposals. It's due to real, physical, left wing voters and politicians implementing their own proposals and making poverty worse. And then you come crying that the solution is to raise more taxes, because "nobody should be poor". Nothing about your position makes sense.

 

[steenkh]

I put sincere thought and effort into my proposals, and you repaid me by finding a scapegoat and dismissing me as quickly as you could.

Your sincere thoughts and efforts are appreciated, and though I could criticise some of them, I preferred not to do so, because this thread is not about how the right wing mind works.

ETA: (this post was sent prematurely. I'll continue in the next post.)

 

[steenkh]

Continuing reply to @theprestige: I can't comment on specific details about Portland that I know next to nothing about, but I can say that in Denmark we are paying much more in taxes than you do in the U.S., and we have a society that works a lot better than the U.S, one. There are lots of problems with our system too, but the main point is that higher or lower taxes is not a solution in itself, but how those taxes are used.

In Denmark, for instance, a sizeable portion of the taxes are used for universal health care, making it unnecessary for citizens to have private schemes. This system is also not perfect, but again, better than anything the U.S. can offer - at least for the poor. Schools and higher education is also free. Benefits are low, but at least until recently were possible to live for, however for many years mainly right wing governments have lowered them in an attempt to hurt brown people, at the cost that the most vulnerable of white people also suffer. Here again we see how right wingers want to keep poor poor, and keep rich rich.

Last week we got our first left leaning government for decades, and it remains to be seen if the policy will change in any way.

 

[theprestige]

Continuing reply to @theprestige: I can't comment on specific details about Portland that I know next to nothing about, but I can say that in Denmark we are paying much more in taxes than you do in the U.S., and we have a society that works a lot better than the U.S, one. There are lots of problems with our system too, but the main point is that higher or lower taxes is not a solution in itself, but how those taxes are used.

In Denmark, for instance, a sizeable portion of the taxes are used for universal health care, making it unnecessary for citizens to have private schemes.

The US already spends more per capita on health care than any other nation, including Denmark. Raising more taxes won't make US healthcare quality as good as Denmark's. Rather, if we reformed the system to be more effective, we might actually be able to spend less, for better results.

 

[steenkh]

The US already spends more per capita on health care than any other nation, including Denmark.

I am sure you do. That is one of the points: by having a working public health that is free for all, we spend less per capita than many other countries.

But think about why the U.S. can't make health care effective in order to get more health out of less money: is it the left wing or the right wing that is against?

ETA: I am of course not thinking of your personal position.