Despite What They Think, Liberals Less Tolerant than Conservatives
Last July Ann Coulter wrote a piece for Human Events about liberals’ fascination with Sarah Palin. In it, she includes a mock conversation between a liberal and …a normal person. After I stopped laughing – which took awhile — I realized how brilliant it was to define the culture war this way. That’s exactly who it’s between: liberals — and normal people.
I have several liberal friends – hey, I’m open-minded — who would of course take offense to this statement. That’s what liberals do best: take offense. But the reality is that it just isn’t natural, or “normal,” to think like a modern liberal. That’s why only 20% of Americans today are liberal. Your average Joe (or Joanne) just isn’t comfortable making the leap to liberalism because he knows instinctively that something’s wrong with it.
Despite America’s clear preference for right-of-center thinking, there are many closet conservatives in America. One friend of mine — a normal person – who lives in Massachusetts, my old stomping grounds, writes in an email, “I have learned not to express my opinions anywhere except in my home…..EVER.”
The reason people like my friend feel they can’t speak up without censure despite the fact that they represent the majority of Americans is because the liberal elite has shoved the idea of tolerance down their throats. It’s politically correct — aka, mandatory — to be tolerant. Unfortunately, people are confused. They’ve bought into the notion that tolerance means never saying anything that might offend someone. This is not what being tolerant means. The actual definition of tolerance is “interest in and concern for ideas, opinions, practices, etc., foreign to one’s own.” This is not the same thing as acceptance of another person’s beliefs.
Despite what they think, liberals are not more tolerant than conservatives. All their supposed concern over people’s fragile psyches is a facade. If you believe people should stymie their thoughts and feelings because they might offend someone, then you can’t think very highly of people at all. As Reb Bradley writes in Born Liberal, Raised Right,“ at the root of political correctness is the assumption that some people are emotionally and socially weak. Liberals expect the strong to be sensitive to the emotional vulnerabilities of the weak, lest they suffer hurt feelings beyond their repair.”
What condescending rubbish. Conservatives are very tolerant as a whole. They are much more willing to listen without judgment; and when the person finishes talking, the conservative will either politely agree or disagree. The only people who don’t see this are close-minded lefties who’ve made up their mind that being conservative is bad. These folks rarely have any conservative friends by which to make a fair assessment. They live in a liberal bubble — just like Obama, who wrote in Dreams from My Father, “The right wing has done a good job of building these organizations of accountability, but it’s always easier to organize around intolerance and narrow-mindedness.”
Nice, huh? Why don’t you drink some more of that kool-aid, Mr. President.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
As a Canadian and a Newfoundlander I am always amused by Americans : they are either right-wing, gun slinging Conservatives or tree-hugging Liberals. Is there anyone in that country who could be called a Moderate. Why do you people delight in slinging invective at one another. If you'd only engage in dialogue, respecting the other person's opinion and feelings, maybe then the Rush Limbaughs and the Rev. Sharptons would learn to make peace with eachother. You have a beautiful democracy , America, but you are not very tolerant, left OR right!
More vocal individuals tend to be on one extreme or the other--and those vocal individuals tend to drown out more deliberate, thoughtful individuals. And even as I read my last two sentences I have to laugh at myself. Because in them I can see both the strengths and the weaknesses of my country: in the US we possess a wonderful energy and a singular sense of being; one possessing an independent agency;the individual.
But all virtues come at a price. We can possess such a singular sense of self that we often isolate ourselves and posses such an overwhelming drive that it's hard to put on the breaks and say "enough!" Sometimes this drive possesses *us*.
Each country has their own set of traits acting as double-edged blades --And the United States is no different in this respect.
It is unfortunate that the popular view of America is defined by the actions of the extreme right and left.
Most of the US population is composed of centrists and moderates, but you don't get much news out of someone advocating for a middle of the road approach to government regulation of banking and markets... or someone advocating an environmental policy that both preserves sensitive environments and allows for the use of natural resources.
I disagree. The most idiotic people are in what people call the "center" or "moderate" portions of our electorate. Honestly, A socialist knows full well what he wants and why he wants it. A conservative also is very clear on why freedom trumps living like a freaking ant in a collective. The real morons are the ones in the middle who vote with their stomachs. They vote for whoever offers them the easiest, most pleasant path. Even now, these cattle only hate Obama because he frightens them and desires to punish the achievers who pay their salaries.
No, the smartest, most awake people are trying to herd these "moderate" cows into what they each believe is the right chute. The only difference is that the left chute has been tried many times, and has failed every time, and the right chute has made The U.S.A. the best country in the world.
Moderation in the area of freedom is surrender.
Being sure does not mean that one is correct. The rabid socialist(communist?) who seeks government domination over every aspect of the market is just as flawed in their thinking as the conservative who is somehow convinced that government regulation is the same as being forced to be an "ant in a collective". It takes a mixed approach to create a functioning society , and that can never be reached by adhering to absolute political philosophies... Left or Right.
Your bit about President Obama is rather disingenuous, as no where has he expressed an intent to "punish" those who achieve.
As to what has made this country 'great'. It is not one political ideology, but rather a mixture of different methods based on the political/economic/cultural environment at the time. Further if we look back most of the greatest events in our countries history were caused by the actions of those seen as liberals . Even the very foundation of our country was undertaken by those who were liberal in relation to their time... Not to mention the abolition of slavery, the New Deal, the civil rights movement... all of which were liberal actions for their time.
I never said that being sure equated to being right. I said that the stupidest place to be was in the undecided, moderate portion of the population.
The difference between the Republican and the Socialist is so stark that only a moron could imagine himself to be in the middle of those two.
Republican and Socialism are not akin to round vs. flat earth. Neither are factually incorrect. It is the extreme ends of both that are ungrounded in reality.
Indeed the two are not strictly comparable. Socialism is largely an economic philosophy while "Republicanism" is more of an umbrella of economic and social philosophies. A more accurate bit would be to put Capitalism in opposition to Socialism (and a more accurate way would be to have a continuum with Capitalism at one end and Communism at the other, with Socialism on the Communist side of the center).
The difference between the economic policies of the Capitalist and the Socialist philosophies are not baby - eating vs. non-baby eating... But rather represent two different approaches at economics. History has shown that neither holds the perfect answer, and that a blended approach between the two brings the most optimal results over the longest period of time. The middle ground between the two is the most logical and ethical position.
Republicans are people who believe that governments must be according to the rule of law , that democracy , left unchecked, will lead to the loss of freedoms, socialism, and eventually oligarchy.
By making the constitution the governer of the governers, the founding fathers managed to slow the slide by hundreds of years.
Socialists, being idiots, believe in democracy and that the government should be empowered to "make things even"
My point is that people, like yourself, who believe there is middle ground between those two ideas, aren't smart enough to be voting , and their ignorance is pulling us all into the tyranny that all other democracies have resulted in.
You aren't able to understand what I just said. I only say it because of those who might be reading. Of the three, I still say that the "moderate" is much more ignorant and stupid than the republican or the socialist.
Ahh, my mistake! I assumed that we were using the common definition of Republican (right wing political party in the USA) and Socialist ( an economic philosophy ). Instead you were using your personal definition of those terms.
Republicanism, in the political party sense, is not the only philosophy that believes in the rule of law . Indeed the two bits you put forward are philosophically opposed. One can believe in the rule of law and see a place for government regulation of private markets ( it is actually rather necessary that one believes in the rule of law if one intends to use government to regulate private industries).
You also chose to define Socialists as idiots, painting a wide economic philosophy with a very narrow brush. Though I would agree that those 'deep end' socialists are rather foolish, I have found that the same can be said for 'deep end' republicans .
What makes you say that moderates are not voting ? That is the one population most coveted during the election cycle. Those on the extremes are not likely to deviate from the side they identify with, leaving those in the middle to provide the needed majority for a politician to get elected.
But they shouldn't. My point is, and has been, that socialists may be idiots, but moderates are even more stupid. A person that can be "swung" 2 days before an election is too dumb to be involved in any kind of debate.
I'll try to make this more simple for you. There's a choice to be made between being an ant, or being an individual. The ant receives the benefit of the collective at the expense of his own free will. The individual desires to have the least amount of government necessary to prevent one man from violating the God-given rights of another.
When you have two vastly different ideas such as that, there's no middle ground, for one man believes he may have what is yours, and that the government should take it from you and share it with him, and you believe you ought to be allowed to keep the fruits of your labor , and disburse them as YOU see fit.
There's no middle ground. You're either stealling from me or you aren't.