Brad Wardell's views about technology, politics, religion, world affairs, and all sorts of politically incorrect topics.
Not in theory but actual experiences
Published on August 5, 2007 By Draginol In Politics

Whether it be talking with friends, relatives, or just casual acquaintences, if the subject of politics comes up, I have noticed very specific behavior patterns between those who tend to be left of center politically versus those who are right of center. 

There are plenty of things that annoy me about political conservatives too but not as consistently as "regular" people who are politically left. The list below is not a list of annoyances of politicans or public figures but rather traits of left of center people I have met in real life that seems to come up over and over.

So here's my list of things that bother me about dealing with political leftists:

  1. Choose their positions based on emotion and passion rather than through research or investigation
  2. Rarely look up for themselves the underlying facts on a given issue but rather rely on "trusted" advisors or editorials
  3. Are very intolerant of views that do not match theirs. I don't think I've ever seen a conservative say "I don't want to hear anymore, let's talk about something else".  by contrast, over and over, liberals will (at best) ask you to change the subject because they don't want to hear other points of view or (at worst) try to bully you from giving an opposing point of view.
  4. Act as if their positions have some sort of moral high ground simply because their positions are based on "good intentions".
  5. Similar to #4 -- take the view that their position is the "civilized" or "moderate" point of view. And that other points of view are simply barbaric "Of course guns should be outlawed" or "You didn't vote for Kerry? You seem like such a smart guy."
  6. Have no knowledge of the tax system even as they loudly advocate higher taxes on "the rich". There's nothing quite like seeing a 3rd grade teacher espousing how the rich pay hardly anything in taxes even as they are talking to someone they know pays immense amounts of taxes (because I usually make sure to correct this falacy).  And I usually get "Then you need to get a better accountant" as if they have any concept of the tax structure.  Oh yes, I'll just use the magic loopholes that liberals are so certain exist and avoid taxes...
  7. Think that feeling strongly about something counts more than actually doing something.  My $1k contribution to the Cancer Society isn't as significant as someone who did a "Cancer walk" and got $315 in donations apparently.  And btw, it's nice to do a cancer walk, it's even nicer to donate money yourself. Walking, chanting, whatever may make you feel but but it does nothing. It's the people donating to the cause materially that are actually making a material difference.
  8. Think that witty sarcasm is a substitute for a coherent argument for their position.  How many times have you made a point only to have a left winger try to dismiss it with a one-line sarcasm "Of course we armed Osama, I guess we got what we paid for.."  That's a non sequitor and stupid to foot.  But knowing little irrelevant pseudo-factoids is not a substitute for knowledge on the actual issue.  It really comes to a head if Iraq comes up. Most anti-Iraq "war" advocates can't put together a coherent argument against it.
  9. Massively inconsistent, simple minded positions. There's nothing quite like having a friend in Southern California say "Wars never solved anything".  Really?  You plan to argue that southern California should go back to Mexico?  Because there was one war (US/Mexican) that most definitively and materially solved a particular question. Not to mention the Civil War and slavery, World War I, World War II, Korea, and Gulf War I.  Or some middle class person living in a house in Florida that they inherited from their father arguing for higher estate taxes (why wait? why not hand your house to the government right now?). Or my favorite "There's no excuse for anyone to go hungry in this country." as an argument for more welfare.  I agree there's no excuse, only a total dumbass could go hungry in this country. Welfare ain't gonna fix that. 
  10. Problems are always to be solved by someone else.  To left wingers, being compassionate seems to mean being intellectually concerned about people but not wanting to actually do anything.  My uncle, a conservative, drove down to Louisiana as part of his church group to repair people's houses.  Meanwhile, not a single liberal I know has volunteered for anything but they sure have argued for more government spending on Katrina relief -- which is easy for them, I end up paying for it.
  11. Believe in equality unless equality is inconvenient.  I try not to flaunt my material success but at the same time,  I am proud of what my family has achieved.  My wife and I started with nothing (and btw, yes you can live on minium wage -- I did).  But if I object to paying more in taxes, I am called greedy by some of my liberal friends.  If I ask if they want to compare how much they donated to charity last year (not taxes, charity) they always come back with the "well you have more to give" argument.  So what?  And I've even tried to do the "Okay, then as a percentage of our income comparison" I still get the "we don't have as much excess money to give as you do" argument.  And on taxes, even though I use the same roads, schools, police, etc. and pay literally over 50X more in taxes than most people and support progressive taxation, I still get implied arguments that I don't want to pay my fair share if I object to paying even more in taxes.
  12. Obsess on diversity of skin color instead of diversity of ideas.  What is it with the left and their obession with skin color? Yet, as I mentioned earlier, liberals are incredibly intolerant of other ideas. They want to live in an echo chamber. Most conservatives I know enjoy a good intelligent discussion.  Most liberals get angry and frustrated with people who dare to have different (or incorrect) opinions.  I have one friend named Chris who is liberal who is the exception to this (so if he's reading, kudos to him) who will intelligently and thoughtfully discuss issues without getting angry.  I can't think of any liberal friend or relative who doesn't get angry and frustrated if confronted with opinons that don't match theirs.

Like I said, these are observations on public speakers. These are observations on friends, family, acquaintences that I meet and talk to.  I am often almost made to feel like I should be ashamed for having conservative..uncivilized view points. If only I were as enlightened like them and used my heart more I would be ready to be welcomed into their civilized society.


Comments (Page 3)
4 Pages1 2 3 4 
on Aug 08, 2007
You are repeating a common myth and I need to call you on it. Stem cell research is not banned, only federal monies to fund it. If it is so important and offers such incredible breakthroughs, why aren't more private investors/donors stepping up to the plate?

Things that make you go hmmmm.....

Gid, The NIH is a powerhouse for university-based research. It has been seriously hampered by our President's policy. Laboratories depend on federal dollars to keep their doors open. Private research corporations use the results of early research findings derived from NIH as well as many other publicly funded sources, but they are still private and not above fears of assault on their bottom lines. In truth we will lose our ranking in the scientific world as other countries eclipse us. To me this is part and parcel of the assault on education and science in the United States by anti-intellectuals. I think we look like idiots to the rest of the world. Oh well.
on Aug 08, 2007

It has been seriously hampered by our President's policy.

I would expect you to at least respect his respect for life, even if it is in only this one instance.  For some, the belief is that life begins at conception, and while he cannot outlaw abortion, he is at least trying to stop the harvesting of fetuses for medical research - according to his beliefs.

If it was established that life begins at conception (a hypothetical), would you encourage harvesting the babies for medical research?

on Aug 08, 2007
Great generalization Draginol. (I could say the same thing about conservatives too, fact is not everyone is the same, which you imply)

I have a major problem with the intolerant views stuff (#3), most religious people are on the conservative side and I'll be damned if they aren't the most intolerant people I know
on Aug 08, 2007
Christians are intolerant of sin, and sinners are intolerant of Christians. Of course, a lot of people on both sides are just intolerant of everything.
on Aug 08, 2007
I thought Christians WERE sinners.
on Aug 09, 2007

Great generalization Draginol. (I could say the same thing about conservatives too, fact is not everyone is the same, which you imply)

I have a major problem with the intolerant views stuff (#3), most religious people are on the conservative side and I'll be damned if they aren't the most intolerant people I know

Yes. It's a generalization.  The world operates on generalizations.

Do you have any examples of actual, real-world intolerance? People getting beat up by Christians for having beliefs they disagree with?  Speak at a college campus for a conservative cause and then speak at a church for an anti-Christian cause and which would you feel more likely to get beaten up at?

on Aug 09, 2007

From my POV, intention is everything. There is no bad karma resulting from good intentions gone awry.But there is a ton of it, the other way around. The suggestion you makein the obverse that conservatives may not be comfortable with indefinables points to their most serious weakness. Indefinables are everywhere.

If you think intention is everything then I suspect you're left of center.

I would say that intention and results both matter.

As they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.  Mao had good intentions too.

on Aug 09, 2007
Speak at a college campus for a conservative cause


on Aug 10, 2007
Just a random insight from across the web....

Speak at a college campus for a conservative cause and then speak at a church for an anti-Christian cause and which would you feel more likely to get beaten up at?


Sadly, that's a horrible example. I've been involved in setting up a lot of college events with conservative and liberal speakers. Both bring out energetic, argumentative students in roughly equal numbers and in neither case is violence imminent. Don't believe it goes both ways? Cheik YouTu be for some videos of fundies haranguing Richard Dawkins whenever he talks at a US campus.

And on the flipside I've known quite a number of Church-related incidents of intolerance, many getting violent. Just an example, I briefly attended a Church filled with incredibly happy and friendly folk -- most Dutch immigrants. Not particularly fundie, basically slightly conservative Lutherans. Outwardly, some of the nicest people you'd ever meet. I found out though that the Church had recently gone through a lot of craziness over the issue of female pasteurs. The issue had become so heated that actual death threats were sent out anonymously to the elders of the church.

I'd be quite a lot more frightened at the Church. Growing up in a small town I knew a lot of highly intolerant, macho, aggressive Church-goers. Going to college I met a lot of furiously indignant but otherwise harmless liberal students (and just as many conservative students of the same nature).

Anyway, I'd say that most of your criticisms apply equally to conservatives. Example, I can't think of any media commentators that get more facts wrong or use more emotional arguments than Limbaugh or O'Reilly. Granted Michael Moore can be pretty bad too but he is in many ways a "new" sort of liberal rabble-rouser. He's often looked at as the Liberal answer to Limbaugh (i.e. liberals playing catch up).

on Aug 10, 2007

more facts wrong or use more emotional arguments than Limbaugh

That has been alleged, but never proven.  I have heard that, yet when you examine what he says (transcripts and audio are available on line) with what people say he says, you find that most every time he is called for an inaccuracy, it is the person paraphrasing what he is saying and getting it wrong.

Moore on the other hand does not try to get it right.  He just tries to prove his opinion through whatever means necessary. Believing that the ends justify the means.

on Aug 10, 2007
Sorry. Sometimes I get a mystyping stuck in my head and it won't go away. I've done that one a few times before. Yes, I meant "pastor" and the story is true despite my failings as a typist.

Limbaugh was doing his worst before the blogosphere exploded. Al lthe same, there are lots and lots of sites decrying his inaccuracies. They abound. I'm not sure a comparison to Moore matters -- I'm not trying to defend Moore in any way shape or form. I think he is usually an imbecile, even when I happen to agree with his claim. I actually know a lot of liberal people who agree with that -- that don't like Moore irregardless of whether they agree with his conclusions. I've known few conservatives who, for example, might agree with Limbaugh or O'Reilly yet would admit that their arguments were poor, appealed to emotion not logic, or were based on inaccurate facts.
on Aug 10, 2007
That IS crazy! What do they have against female milk sterilizers?


lol
on Aug 14, 2007

From a Washington Post headline: Have a Heart, Democrats

Subhead: Candidates have to learn to go for the voters' gut to win.

Body: Reason is slave to the passions, not the other way around.

on Aug 14, 2007
I thought Christians WERE sinners.
Now, now, Texai, don't get testy![heh,heh, or is tee hee?] You know perfectly well that come Armageddon there has to be the bad guys and the good guys the latter of whom are cleansed born-agains.
on Aug 14, 2007
"I thought Christians WERE sinners."

Yep. And while sinning, are often intolerant of Christians.
4 Pages1 2 3 4