Liberal guilt.

[milefile]

What is it? I think it is a matter of convenience for those who don't want their comfortable life tainted with anything unpleasant. They don't want to acknowledge the fact that success, including their own, has been at the expense of someone elses. They see the world as a pie within which there are a finite number of pieces to be doled out to an infinite collective. They've got their's and someone else didn't. They perceive the fundemental injustice in this perverse perspective, but recoil at the slightest unpleasant sensation. After all, they earned their right to be ignorant. They don't want to have to step over winos on the street to their consumer electronics store. Panhandlers outside the Starbucks ruins the self gratifying experience of spending a lot of money on mediocre coffee, a portion of which goes to a charity that will socialize another third world country.

Liberal guilt, loosely translated, means "Not in my back yard." It means "Do whatever you have to do to get it out of my face because it makes me feel bad." It means rolling ones eyes and saying "Will somebody do something about this?!" because it spoils the experience of being a well dressed parasite. It means "I will give the government money so long as they neatly tuck away all the poverty, crime, illegitimacy, and decay of my society, of which I am a part." The underside makes us all look bad. Right? It's our fault. Right?

Wrong. Sixty plus years of liberal government has indoctrinated generations into believing that problems in society can be eliminated with free lunch. It has made people think that they can expect to become rich one day, and if it doesn't happen somebody has ripped them off. It has encouraged people to sit and wait for prosperity to fall in their lap. It has spoiled them. It is no different than giving a child whatever it takes to shut them up. Then the realization of the problem occurrs and the guilt starts. Sweep it under the rug. Give the black guy the job because he's black. Give the welfare mom more money for more kids. It's only natural. Feed bums. Their lives are worth as much as mine. Pay for abortions. We all make mistakes. Crime? Hire more cops. We'll pay for it all. As long as I can afford my 52' HD projection TV and SUV the world is a great place to be. My next door nieghbor's house looks exactly the same as mine. What else could there possibly be? When the disaster that my decadent patronage has created begins to seep in under the door, throw more money at it. "We're sorry. Feel better?" The monster is sated for the time being and I can langish in my "average middle-class" structure a little longer, comfortable with what is mine.

Liberal guilt is a matter of convenience for those who can't even be bothered to vote. It is a symptom of a lazy, socialist society where there is no such thing as right and wrong, only complacency and envy. It is America under the two party system. It has cultivated and maintained a class of garbage who are the object of angst and guilt. It does not have the resourcefulness to solve it, only conceal it. If you feel bad you must care. If you feel good, it must all be okay

That is one aspect of liberal guilt, in my opinion.

 

[Duke]

Liberal guilt... a topic worthy of volumes. For the most part you've nailed it pretty well, milefile.

Some of it is even more mean-spirited than that, though. It could be said that conservatives/Republicans also want to sweep the poor under the rug as well. What truly underlies "liberal guilt" is hatred of ability for its own sake. The unease and, well, guilt over seeing anyone be better than anyone else.

It happens academically in public schools, where kids of all achievement levels are lumped into the same classroom and receive the same instruction, despite the fact that some studies show that this actually hurts achievement at both ends of the spectrum.

It's part of what drives all the "isms" mentioned in the other thread. It's institutional apologists who are always looking for ways to lower the standards so that nobody has to feel badly about not meeting them. It's the childish belief that someone can make it all better, with the corollary tantrum when it isn't made all better.

Sometimes it isn't all better. Some people are better than others. Some people get lucky and some people work for it. Get over it and play the hand you're dealt, to the best of your ability. If you happened to be dealt a good hand, good for you. No need to feel guilt over it unless you feel you've wasted it.

It's all in what you make of your situation, not the end result itself. I'm rambling, I know... I'll try and add something more coherent later.

 

[SaleenASL]

Originally posted by neon_duke
...Sometimes it isn't all better. Some people are better than others. Some people get lucky and some people work for it. Get over it and play the hand you're dealt, to the best of your ability. If you happened to be dealt a good hand, good for you. No need to feel guilt over it unless you feel you've wasted it.

It's all in what you make of your situation, not the end result itself. I'm rambling, I know... I'll try and add something more coherent later.

I agree. I think this thread relates to the thread on Entitlement (started by Neon_Duke himself).

Part of the Liberal Guilt has to do with their perception that unequal results are unfair. They believe everyone deserves or is entitled to a certain standard of living. Since everyone is born into different circumstances and exhibit different amounts of effort, unequal results (or quality of living) are a logical result.

Offering handouts and supporting entitlement only serves to perpetuate a lower standard of living. People become dependant on the state and will never be able to raise their standard of living.

That being said, I support welfare, but it needs to become a lot more temporary.

 

[Danoff]

They don't want to acknowledge the fact that success, including their own, has been at the expense of someone elses.

This is wrong.

One person's success does not require that someone else have failed. The world of employment and money is not a zero sum game. There is a such thing as everyone benefiting from one person's success. I'll give you an example. Michael Dell.

He created a company and jobs where there were none. He might have hurt IBM's sales a little when he started, but the result was way more jobs in existance than there were before. The result was that more people had computers than before, and an entire industry took off.

The idea that success comes with the price of another's failure is actually the classic liberal mistake. Yes, it results in liberal guilt, but it is not something that they should simply deal with because it's not founded.

 

[Danoff]

socialist society where there is no such thing as right and wrong, only complacency and envy

Sounds like universal principles coming out.

 

[Danoff]

When the disaster that my decadent patronage has created begins to seep in under the door, throw more money at it.

See, I would argue that there is no disaster created by consumption. The disaster is created by individuals who then become the victims of themselves.

 

[Danoff]

Part of the way that I justify my belief that I am more correct in my view of how the American economy should work than the liberals are in their ideal is because I profess to understand the liberal notion. I could argue it for them. Almost none of them could not argue capitalism to me correctly.

 

[Danoff]

That being said I have to agree with most of what milefile and duke said here. Well put guys.

 

[milefile]

Originally posted by danoff
Sounds like universal principles coming out.

You'd think. But no. There's the little matter of time to take into consideration.

 

[Danoff]

how does time affect right and wrong? People's ideas of what is right and wrong change over time, but that doesn't mean they are correct at all times. Do you believe, milefile, that right and wrong exist independant of time and that human beings have never quite grasped it, or do you believe that there is no truth and that right and wrong fluctuate with time?

 

[milefile]

Originally posted by danoff
See, I would argue that there is no disaster created by consumption. The disaster is created by individuals who then become the victims of themselves.

Consumption in and of itself is not harmful. But there is more to it than that. The use of consumption, it's purpose can be harmful. The production and consumption process of American capitalism is a basic condition. Even if we went full-blown socialist it would still be in place. But like food, it can become a problem for certain individuals.

 

[milefile]

Originally posted by danoff
This is wrong.

You are right. It is wrong. I knew it yesterday. But last night a sentence that I hope seems sufficiently sarcastic came to mind.

Spoken by guilty liberal: "The current system is obviously wrong, my success is proof."

Hope that makes sense.

 

[Danoff]

Consumption in and of itself is not harmful. But there is more to it than that. The use of consumption, it's purpose can be harmful. The production and consumption process of American capitalism is a basic condition. Even if we went full-blown socialist it would still be in place. But like food, it can become a problem for certain individuals.

I need some clarification, maybe some examples here. I'm not seeing what you're saying. ( <-that's a funny saying)

What use of consumption are you talking about that is harmful?
How can production and consumption become a problem for certain individuals?

 

[Der Alta]

The Bill of NO Rights

The following was quoted by State Representative Mitchell Kaye from Cobb County, GA. Originally written and copyrighted by an active Libertarian from Mississippi, Lewis Napper.

We, the sensible people of the United States, in an attempt to help everyone get along, restore some semblance of justice, avoid any more riots, keep our nation safe, promote positive behavior and secure the blessings of debt-free liberty to ourselves and our great-great-great grandchildren, hereby try one more time to ordain and establish some common sense guidelines for the terminally whiny, guilt-ridden, delusional and other liberal, bed wetters. We hold these truths to be self-evident: that a whole lot of people were confused by the Bill of Rights and are so dim that they require a Bill of No Rights.

ARTICLE I:
You do not have the right to a new car, big screen TV or any other form of wealth. More power to you if you can legally acquire them, but no one is guaranteeing anything.

ARTICLE II:
You do not have the right to never be offended. This country is based on freedom, and that means freedom for everyone - not just you! You may leave the room, turn the channel, express a different opinion, etc., but the world is full of idiots, and probably always will be.

ARTICLE III:
You do not have the right to be free from harm. If you stick a screwdriver in your eye, learn to be more careful, do not expect the tool manufacturer to make you and all your relatives independently wealthy.

ARTICLE IV:
You do not have the right to free food and housing. Americans are the most charitable people to be found, and will gladly help anyone in need, but we are quickly growing weary of subsidizing generation after generation of professional couch potatoes who achieve nothing more than the creation of another generation of professional couch potatoes.

ARTICLE V:
You do not have the right to free health care. That would be nice, but from the looks of public housing, we're just not interested in public health care.

ARTICLE VI:
You do not have the right to physically harm other people. If you kidnap, rape, intentionally maim or kill someone, don't be surprised if the rest of us want to see you fry in the electric chair.

ARTICLE VII:
You do not have the right to the possessions of others. If you rob, cheat or coerce away the goods or services of other citizens, don't be surprised if the rest of us get together and lock you away in a place where you still won't have the right to a big-screen color TV or a life of leisure.

ARTICLE VIII:
You do not have the right to demand that our children risk their lives in foreign wars to soothe your aching conscience. We hate oppressive governments and won't lift a finger to stop you from going to fight if you'd like. However, we do not enjoy parenting the entire world and do not want to spend so much of our time battling each and every little tyrant with a military uniform and a funny hat.

ARTICLE IX:
You do not have the right to a job. All of us sure want all of you to have one, and will gladly help you along in hard times, but we expect you to take advantage of the opportunities of education and vocational training laid before you to make yourself useful.

ARTICLE X:
You do not have the right to happiness. Being an American means that you have the right to pursue happiness - which by the way, is a lot easier if you are unencumbered by an overabundance of idiotic laws created by those of you who were confused by the Bill of Rights.

-------------------------------------
I have reffered back to this many, many times in recent times. It certainly gives you a bit to think about.

Napper wrote this as a bit of a steamed essay to a few friends in 1993 after listening to a speach by Hillary Rodham-Clinton. Seems it became the "e-mail heard roundthe world".

AO

 

[Danoff]

That is, for the most part, beautiful.

I do not like article VIII, it mischaracterizes the war with Iraq. Even if it does so for no other reason than that president bush mischaracterized it because he thought incorrectly that it would be easier to sell to the american people if he spun it differently.

 

[milefile]

Originally posted by danoff
how does time affect right and wrong? People's ideas of what is right and wrong change over time, but that doesn't mean they are correct at all times. Do you believe, milefile, that right and wrong exist independant of time and that human beings have never quite grasped it, or do you believe that there is no truth and that right and wrong fluctuate with time?

Give me a while to respond to this.

 

[milefile]

Originally posted by danoff
I need some clarification, maybe some examples here. I'm not seeing what you're saying. ( <-that's a funny saying)

What use of consumption are you talking about that is harmful?
How can production and consumption become a problem for certain individuals?

Maybe it's a matter of personal preference. It's not worth exploring at length (at least not in this thread), nor was it a major factor in my argument. But things like conspicuous consumption bother me. When people cling to consumerism in an almost religious way, and are unable to seperate themselves from the TV shows they watch and the things they buy, I see a sad problem.

 

[Duke]

I do too, and I'm disgusted by it. However I think that tends to be more of a "drug of choice" problem for those people, rather than an inherent danger of Capitalism/consumerism.

Not that you were maintining that it is an inherent problem.

 

[Danoff]

as usual duke figured out what I was going to say

 

[milefile]

Originally posted by danoff
how does time affect right and wrong? People's ideas of what is right and wrong change over time, but that doesn't mean they are correct at all times. Do you believe, milefile, that right and wrong exist independant of time and that human beings have never quite grasped it, or do you believe that there is no truth and that right and wrong fluctuate with time?

We've had this argument before.

My background is in philosophy. Since our last go-'round with this subject I decided to research your perspective independently. I did this via Libertarian websites. It only reinforced what I already suspected: that we fundementally agree.

My philosophy background is 20th century, continental philosophy. Interestingly, 20th century philosophy started, or was inspired, in the 19th century with a German philosopher everybody thinks they know, but don't at all. Further he is associated unjustly with very bad things. For these reasons I refrain from dropping his name; his thought(s) deserve to be separated from the various popular distortions imposed upon the man without justification.

So when I went to this website I felt a certain reconciliation upon reading that students of Friederich Nietzsche tend to be attracted to Libertarianism. This makes perfect sense.

Now, all of my posts about necessity and force and morality are informed and conditioned by this background. After all the flak I took, I'm sticking to my guns and still contend that there is no static definition of truth or the individual, and that it is a thing we choose. There are better and worse ways to do that, and the thing that could be called universal in it is so incredibly vague so as to not have much usefulness in the political realm... until it has been articulated through thought and decided upon by individuals. I don't see this as any different as what you and neon duke say. It seems, however, that you take it a step too far, a step into the Christian realm, and call it permanent and universal, which I can't, in good conscience, swallow if I can't buy the eternal truth of God and Christianity; it looks like two versions of the same thing to me. Not even the universe is universal because even it will come to an end as every thing does. I can't believe any human idea or principle can suprass that. Maybe this is too philosophical to be useful. But at any rate, to me, it makes the values we share even more urgent and valuable because they were not handed down from on-high, they are not imposed upon us by some unknown force, they are chosen by us.

If we're going to argue about this more then lets make a new thread.

 

[Duke]

[cough] Emmanuel Kant! [cough]

 

[Danoff]

Well I'm not going to claim that any universal principles were handed down from on high, but I agree that it isn't the topic of this thread. we're supposed to be bashing liberals here.