Big Sky Cairn

Steve over at Rabid Sanity has a great post up about Democrats. Undoubtedly, this sort of post really rankles Democrats/progressives/liberals who object to any sort of classification (unless it’s about Republicans/conservatives, of course).

Steve quotes extensively from an article that attempts to make sweeping claims about liberal in general. In my personal experience, many of the claims he makes ring true. Liberals claim to be for the little guy, but wealth redistribution is really just a way to force someone else to take care of the little guy. They are often motivated by jealousy disguised as perceptions of social injustice. They preach diversity while trying to force everyone to live exactly like they do (and hatefully attacking those whose ideals vary).

In any case, a few years back I realized that the assumption I’d long had - that poor people were Democrats because they wanted government services - was actually backwards. I suddenly understood:

People are not Democrats because they are unsuccessful. People are unsuccessful because they are Democrats.

It’s the mindset of modern liberals that runs contrary to just about any book about the habits of successful people. The idea that someone else must be responsible for your well-being. That wealth and ambition are bad and should be taxed or curbed. That social mobility is impossible and failure is always externalized. These are the mentalities that inevitably lead to failure which is why it’s not surprising that so many unsuccessful people are also Democrats.

Of course there are always exceptions. Warren Buffet, for example, is so loaded that he can afford a higher tax rate without a significant change in his lifestyle. But you know what I find ironic? The limousine liberals always advocate broadly sweeping policies - tax hikes and social programs - but they never voluntarily send more money than they owe to the IRS. They don’t use their surplus funds to provide people with the things they think Government should provide. Instead, they advocate Big Government policies be imposed on everyone else.

Overall, however, the impression has long been that Democrats were the best advocates for the poor.  The assumption was always that the poor benefit most from social programs, so the Party that advocates more social programs is advocating for the poor.  Now this notion is being dramatically undermined by the current inaction on high energy prices (which hurt the poor most) at the behest of the tree-hugger lobby.  But beyond that, the policies of the left have created a perpetual poverty class dependent upon the government for survival and unable to fend for themselves.

Now who’s looking out for the little guy?

I would tell you this is a ridiculous post, Wiley, but you know it. I would tell you that you’ve built several strawmen, but you know it. I would tell you that you’re putting words in the mouths of millions of people you haven’t met, but you know it.

Next time you want to argue against a political philosophy, use some quotes. If I was just having arguments with my perceptions of your viewpoints all of the time instead of actually arguing with you, I wouldn’t be learning a damned thing.

I had the same type of philosophy towards Conservatives when I graduated high school. I thought I was smarter than all of you, and I had a perception of your viewpoints as being simplistic and unrealistic.

But then guess what happened… I got out into the real world. I worked with several Conservatives, and we talked politics A LOT. One of the guys I worked with was a hardcore Creationist, and believed that the world was only a few thousand years old. Another one had also been a cop in L.A. and was one of the most racist people I’ve ever met. But you know what? They were both incredibly intelligent and (yes) decent people, and every night I argued with them I walked out of it with a little bit more respect for their points of view.

I would never try to characterize their points of view in a post like this. It’s amazing to me that in your first paragraph, you characterize Liberals as extremely prone to characterizing conservatives… as if it’s some justification for the rest of your post. Tit for tat, I suppose, but you didn’t show us the tat and you don’t care to.

So, I would advise you, Wiley, to get out into the real world once in a while. You might learn something.

I read it more as an indictment of the liberal platform than individual liberals. Cody probably could have done a better job articulating that.

“They are often motivated by jealousy disguised as perceptions of social injustice…”

platform?

While I don’t suggest that my post reflects all Democrats, I know plenty that fit the mold I laid out to a T. A supermajority even.

While I wouldn’t characterize individuals in your party the way you have with Democrats, Wiley, I think I can say something about you based on experience.

You are ridiculously unthoughtful. You’re not Andy Hammond dumb, mind you, but you refuse to think about your views even when pressed. That’s not a characterization, that’s a conclusion based on evidence.

You need to get out more.

And by the way, did you get a Democrat drunk enough one night to admit that he held his beliefs because of secret jealousy? That’s not a conclusion based on experience… that’s pigeon-holing millions of people because they don’t agree with you, and creating a fantasy-land of politics that doesn’t require to think substantively about any of the issues at hand.

[…] Liberals hold certain beliefs for very specific reasons.  Here’s the part from Wiley’s post that initially got me riled up: Steve quotes extensively from an article that attempts to make […]

You nailed it.

As to why Democratic politicians aren’t doing more to lower gas prices, it’s good ol’ self interest: Environmentalists contribute to political campaigns to a much greater degree than the poor and they are ecstatic about higher fossil fuel prices.